-Because the Facts Have a Liberal Bias! (and I'm too fat to fit on a soapbox).
What do you suggest? It's easy to complain. It's harder to come up with real solutions.
There were some obvious choices here. Up the minimum assets threshold to a higher number, but include all assets. Then, use the money you would save to address the needs of the truly needy and county employees (I am neither needy nor a county employee by the way).Also, if the tax cut is needed, it should start at 65, not 70, other wise those who truly need the help will be forced to move anyway or retire later.Another idea, set up a low interest fund that provides cash to seniors in exchange for some of the equity in their homes. Also set up rental assistance for those seniors too poor to afford their own property.
This tax cut does indeed help the wealthiest of the county. These folks have owned their homes for decades, which means that they've made a pretty penny on the increase in market of their home.I'm happy to see that at least some additional qualifications are being considered, such as the net asset (excluding house....) and a lower income limit. But really, what about those who couldn't afford to buy into the county and make a fortune on real estate?
Excellent points, numbers.girl.
Post a Comment