I’ve always been sort of wary of the term “fixed income.” It’s used, of course, most often with seniors - they’re on a ”fixed income,” and therefore in peril. And that can certainly be true, though it’s also true that just because you’re on a ”fixed income” doesn’t mean you shop for dinner in the dog food aisle. One can have a “fixed income” of $100,000 per year.
And even if your “fixed income” is a paltry $40,000, well - a lot of people make that, or less than that. I’m not certain that having a “fixed income” at that level necessarily makes one destitute, or in danger of becoming destitute; or if it does, shouldn’t that be applied across the board? Doesn’t it hold for young people, as well as old?
Which brings us, then, to this little political snit-fit going on here in Pennsylvania, involving a property tax relief bill that was bad when written by Democrats, but became worse once Republican state Rep. John Perzel got his greasy mitts on it.
It involved slot machines (of course); the initial Act 71 of 2004 was to direct 34 percent of gross gaming revenues to broad-based property tax relief. That was to have amounted to about $600 million this year, netting each homeowner or farm owner $100 to $200, depending on where they lived. Fine.
But Democrats, as is their wont, decided they could do ”better.” And so it was that Democratic state Rep. David Levdansky decided that if some property tax relief was good, more would be better - which in theory is true, or would be, if we weren’t imposing regressive taxes on others to attain it.
Specifically, Levdansky proposed increasing the state sales tax and personal income tax to increase the amount each homeowner would get in $500 to $1,000. He called it “tax shifting,” saying some taxes had to rise to generate the money needed to make even greater cuts in property taxes.
Problem is, ”tax shifting” is destined to penalize those who can afford it least - those who don’t own their own homes and who, perhaps concurrently, have a lower income.
But then last week, Perzel did it one worse:
Then last week Mr. Perzel changed the bill in a major way. The House overwhelmingly approved his amendment that would direct all $600 million of state tax relief to senior citizens age 65 and older who don’t make more than $40,000 a year. That passed 159 to 36, with many Democrats voting for it. It would have eliminated property taxes for most seniors, many of whom are on limited incomes, Republicans said.
I realize seniors are an important political constituency here in Pennsylvania. But basically this amounts to: If you’re old, you get a tax cut.
If you’re young, and under the same fiscal constraints - well, that’s just too bad, isn’t it?
Perhaps this is simple political gamesmanship - and as Dave Pigeon documents this morning, the games have begun. But Perzel, in announcing his plan last week, declared that “Passage of this amendment keeps a long-overdue promise to our senior citizens and sends a strong message that Democrats and Republicans can set aside partisan differences to help those most in need.”
Look, seniors making $40,000 a year certainly might be in need, though if in fact their homes are paid off - and most homeowners biggest monthly expense is indeed the house payment - they might not be quite so destitute as we like to think.
But let’s say they are. What is the difference between a senior at $40,000 per year, and someone in his or her 30s - perhaps with kids? Why one over the other?
Yet perhaps an even better question is: Why can we not distribute first the amount of money generated by slots before we go coming up with “tax shifting” schemes of dubious equity to generate even more money?
How about one thing at a time?
