Comment
Rate
Tax relief for some can increase the burden for others
Staff Editorial
When Lumpkin County voters go to the polls Nov. 4 they will have the opportunity to lower taxes for seniors 65 years and older and those who are permanently disabled for county, city and school tax purposes. While the three referendums proposed by Rep. Amos Amerson seem like a good idea, the devil, as they say, is in the details.
Senior citizens on fixed incomes and those who are disabled desperately need tax relief. No doubt about it. But these referendums, if passed, will lower taxes not only for those over 65 who desperately need relief, but also for those who are able to live comfortably on the Social Security they draw in addition to pensions from high-income jobs and dividends from investments and savings they have been able to make throughout their lifetimes. That tax burden will shift to young, working families still struggling to make mortgage and car payments, pay for insurance, save for their children's college educations and their own retirement-and pay their taxes.
While those of us who live here think our taxes are high, in comparison to places like Miami and other major cities, that's not the case. Our county's lower tax rate is one reason Lumpkin County has been cited as a great place to retire by several national publications in the last few years, and the advertising has worked. More and more retirees who have adequate retirement income to purchase $200,000 homes and pay the taxes the county imposes are moving here. If these referendums pass Lumpkin County will become an even more attractive choice for seniors with high incomes, leaving a smaller number of taxpayers to foot the bill for county services and schools for everyone.
While these people may not have children in school, they still demand services paid for by ad valorem taxes-fire and police protection, good roads, library services and recreational activities. Should someone else under 65 and not as well off have to pay their share of the taxes it takes to provide these services? That hardly seems fair, especially when those left to pay are struggling, for the most part, to make ends meet.
Amerson could have avoided this by putting an income cap on who would be eligible for the increased homestead exemption. When asked, he says that there is a limit-only the first $300,000 on a home and five contiguous acres is exempted. While that figure may not include all parcels belonging to those over 65 in the county, chances are it would include the majority, leaving the rest of us to shoulder the burden.
If these referendums are defeated in the upcoming election, Rep. Amerson has two more years to re-craft the the legislation to benefit those who need tax relief-those on fixed incomes-and not place an undue burden on those who do not deserve to have their taxes increased.
Senior citizens on fixed incomes and those who are disabled desperately need tax relief. No doubt about it. But these referendums, if passed, will lower taxes not only for those over 65 who desperately need relief, but also for those who are able to live comfortably on the Social Security they draw in addition to pensions from high-income jobs and dividends from investments and savings they have been able to make throughout their lifetimes. That tax burden will shift to young, working families still struggling to make mortgage and car payments, pay for insurance, save for their children's college educations and their own retirement-and pay their taxes.
While those of us who live here think our taxes are high, in comparison to places like Miami and other major cities, that's not the case. Our county's lower tax rate is one reason Lumpkin County has been cited as a great place to retire by several national publications in the last few years, and the advertising has worked. More and more retirees who have adequate retirement income to purchase $200,000 homes and pay the taxes the county imposes are moving here. If these referendums pass Lumpkin County will become an even more attractive choice for seniors with high incomes, leaving a smaller number of taxpayers to foot the bill for county services and schools for everyone.
While these people may not have children in school, they still demand services paid for by ad valorem taxes-fire and police protection, good roads, library services and recreational activities. Should someone else under 65 and not as well off have to pay their share of the taxes it takes to provide these services? That hardly seems fair, especially when those left to pay are struggling, for the most part, to make ends meet.
Amerson could have avoided this by putting an income cap on who would be eligible for the increased homestead exemption. When asked, he says that there is a limit-only the first $300,000 on a home and five contiguous acres is exempted. While that figure may not include all parcels belonging to those over 65 in the county, chances are it would include the majority, leaving the rest of us to shoulder the burden.
If these referendums are defeated in the upcoming election, Rep. Amerson has two more years to re-craft the the legislation to benefit those who need tax relief-those on fixed incomes-and not place an undue burden on those who do not deserve to have their taxes increased.
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thedahloneganugget.com.
concerned wrote on Oct 8, 2008 2:31 PM:
" " That tax burden will shift to young, working families still struggling to make mortgage and car payments, pay for insurance, save for their children's college educations and their own retirement-and pay their taxes."
Well I for one agree with this passage. I am one of those young couples who struggles to make ends meet and worries about how my husband and I are going to raise a child on our income with all the access bills(ins, car payments, etc..). The one thing we would love to own (our own home), we cant afford and we even have pretty good paying jobs. I understand these people are older and they need there money each month to buy their groceries and medicine but guess what...so do we.
I feel they should tax less on the people who live in the middle class section of this economy. Just my opinion... "
Well I for one agree with this passage. I am one of those young couples who struggles to make ends meet and worries about how my husband and I are going to raise a child on our income with all the access bills(ins, car payments, etc..). The one thing we would love to own (our own home), we cant afford and we even have pretty good paying jobs. I understand these people are older and they need there money each month to buy their groceries and medicine but guess what...so do we.
I feel they should tax less on the people who live in the middle class section of this economy. Just my opinion... "
Lumpkin Watch wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:43 AM:
" Emily Lewy, who is part of Amerson's staff, and is running for Chairman of the Board of Commissioners is voting FOR this legislation to pass. She wants to lead this county by putting our schools 1 million dollars in debt. By the way, her household will qualify for the tax exemption along with Amos Amerson's household. Funny how things work in your favor when you introduce bills like this. VOTE NO!!!! "
Tom wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:08 PM:
" I agree with other posters, this bill may not be the best answer.
However there are many seniors in this county that are poor, even though they may have a large amount of property,
what some people seem to forget is some of the older family's in the area were farmers, so how do we make the difference between the over 65 that have moved here with large pensions and retirement incomes and those that have been here for years that live ONLY on S.S. and have land that has been in the family for decades? those people need the tax breaks. "
However there are many seniors in this county that are poor, even though they may have a large amount of property,
what some people seem to forget is some of the older family's in the area were farmers, so how do we make the difference between the over 65 that have moved here with large pensions and retirement incomes and those that have been here for years that live ONLY on S.S. and have land that has been in the family for decades? those people need the tax breaks. "
bob wrote on Oct 9, 2008 4:54 PM:
" All those rich people moving into Achasta, Monteluce, Shepards Cove and all those new subdivisions will be exempted from all taxes to the county, school, and city governments. these are the people who can most afford to pay taxes.
Why not put on limit on these exemptions based on income or something.
Amos should be ashamed of his self serving legislation. Sounds like the fox guarding the hen house.
I am told he draws a handsome retirement from the military, North Ga. college, and now the State of Georgia's General Assembly.
That is 3 seperate paychecks and he complains about paying taxes on his little old house in dowtown Dahlonega. I bet his taxes aren't more than $600 per year.
Somebody needs to stop this from passing,
Emily Lewy and John Raber both support this too because they will both benefit from the savings. Raber talks out of both sides of his mouth on every thing.
I believe Steve Gooch tried to warn us and it cost him the election this year when he ran against Amos.
Let 's get the word out on this quickly. "
Why not put on limit on these exemptions based on income or something.
Amos should be ashamed of his self serving legislation. Sounds like the fox guarding the hen house.
I am told he draws a handsome retirement from the military, North Ga. college, and now the State of Georgia's General Assembly.
That is 3 seperate paychecks and he complains about paying taxes on his little old house in dowtown Dahlonega. I bet his taxes aren't more than $600 per year.
Somebody needs to stop this from passing,
Emily Lewy and John Raber both support this too because they will both benefit from the savings. Raber talks out of both sides of his mouth on every thing.
I believe Steve Gooch tried to warn us and it cost him the election this year when he ran against Amos.
Let 's get the word out on this quickly. "
Lynn wrote on Oct 10, 2008 8:23 AM:
" In reply to "Tom" - and for everyone's information - the referendums are limited to a house and five adjoining acres. Everything else is subject to being taxed, so it makes little difference to old timers with lots of land but limited income. All but five acres of their property would still be taxed.
You are right. There needs to be an income requirement! "
You are right. There needs to be an income requirement! "
Miller wrote on Oct 10, 2008 5:37 PM:
" Any elected official who supports this referendum will lose my vote, my wifes vote and hopefully every other citizens vote in this county who has enough sense to realize that this truly is "Self Serving Legislation". Amos, do us a favor and just go away next election like you should have done this year! "
Hmmm.... wrote on Oct 12, 2008 6:33 AM:
" So ... let me get this straight. It's not the folks 65 and older who have been in Lumpkin County and have land that's been in their family for years and years - the ones who are having to sell off bits and pieces of their land every year just to pay the taxes - who are going to benefit from this "tax relief." It's the folks who have a home and 5 acres or less that is worth $300,000 that will get the benefit, even if their retirement income is $100,000 a year? Hmmmm ... sounds like a "no" vote to me! "
rdhood wrote on Oct 13, 2008 11:17 AM:
" I'm all for tax relief if that relief. BUT, this amendment has problems.
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to means-test everyone over 65 every year. Therefore, any amendment of this type cannot differentiate between the rich elderly and the poor elderly. Lumpkin county is well represented by both groups.
That tax burden will be shifted to others who may not be able to afford it any more than those who are relieved of it.
To fail to tax our rich elderly puts a disproportionate tax burden on our children and grandchildren. Do we rob our schools to provide a comfortable retirement to golf communities?
The American family has been under assault for the last 40 years. It now takes two parents working to make ends meet. Are we now going to make them work even harder by taking significant and affluent tax payers off the tax roles?
Frankly, I don't know how to provide tax relief for the elderly poor who need it without negatively affecting others who need it just as badly. "
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to means-test everyone over 65 every year. Therefore, any amendment of this type cannot differentiate between the rich elderly and the poor elderly. Lumpkin county is well represented by both groups.
That tax burden will be shifted to others who may not be able to afford it any more than those who are relieved of it.
To fail to tax our rich elderly puts a disproportionate tax burden on our children and grandchildren. Do we rob our schools to provide a comfortable retirement to golf communities?
The American family has been under assault for the last 40 years. It now takes two parents working to make ends meet. Are we now going to make them work even harder by taking significant and affluent tax payers off the tax roles?
Frankly, I don't know how to provide tax relief for the elderly poor who need it without negatively affecting others who need it just as badly. "
Gertrude wrote on Oct 14, 2008 4:15 PM:
" VOTE NO..... This is not the way to help those that really need it. The way it is worded it benefits the retirees that are moving into Dahlonega (ones with money that don't need the tax break.) and not the long time seniors that were raised here. This says something about Amos and who he represents. Its the ones with money and not the local folks. VOTE NO.......... "
Daisey wrote on Oct 14, 2008 4:17 PM:
" JUST VOTE NO!!!!!!!!! Most seniors qualify for some tax breaks now based on ages. Please let all seniors that you know that they need to go to the tax assessors office and see if there is something else they qualify for. VOTE NO BECAUSE THIS IS NOT WHAT IS NEEDED! "
steve wrote on Oct 16, 2008 9:44 PM:
" I agree with BOB. Why does it have to be all or nothing? You can protect some of our older residents by requiring them to be homesteaded for 5 years before they get a break. That would protect the long time residents. Also you could give it to people who have assessed values under say $200K. The age of 65 needs to be looked at as well, 65 is not that old anymore. Why not raise it to 70. "
What do you think of this?
Posting guidelines--Everyone knows that The Nugget readers are the friendliest people in the world. However, the introduction of the "Comments" option can sometimes lead to online exchanges that can best be described as "less than friendly."
The Nugget will not edit what someone writes for the Web, but we will deny a comment from being posted if it isn't appropriate.
Profanity, of course, will not be allowed. Personal attacks will not be allowed either.
For example, if Mr. Fill-in-the-Blank says something you don't agree with, don't tell the world that Mr. Fill-in-the-Blank is a no good dirty scoundrel who cuts off people in traffic and has owed you $20 since 1997. The Nugget asks you to please just stick to the issues at hand. That way we'll keep the debate lively, without getting personal. And remember, above all else, keep it civil and directed at the topic that's being discussed. We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
For example, if Mr. Fill-in-the-Blank says something you don't agree with, don't tell the world that Mr. Fill-in-the-Blank is a no good dirty scoundrel who cuts off people in traffic and has owed you $20 since 1997. The Nugget asks you to please just stick to the issues at hand. That way we'll keep the debate lively, without getting personal. And remember, above all else, keep it civil and directed at the topic that's being discussed. We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
Miller wrote on Oct 8, 2008 1:04 PM: