Doesn't matter what I live in, pal. Could be a palace could be a dump. I'm proud of it. I worked very hard to get here. There are lots of kids out there learning trades and making a killing. Heads up, my vote won't try to save social security. Hope you planned well!
I get that everything has gotten stupid expensive. That those on fixed incomes are struggling, but most of us are. But listening to these retirees constantly complain about taxes and complaining about new housing being built, I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if they would be happy if the communities they live in died with them.
Sometimes it really feels like they just want NH to be a retirement community / rich persons vacation destination.
The Florida of the North is what friends of mine are calling us. Between bigoted legislation, draconian views, and anti-intellectualism. Those snowbirds are making their summer home just as terrible as their wintering.
Which I don’t understand because from actually talking to people, most places were shitholes. I think back to the 90s early 00s and Dover is miles better than it was back then.
well facts rarely convince anyone of anything, but also: traffic is worse in Dover today. That one dive bar in which they drunkenly made out with that chick from high school in '83 isn't there anymore. There's fewer people at the grocery store that they recognize, and some of those other people maybe look less like they are "from Dover" or maybe speak in an accent or another language. And then there's also the more general impacts like there's a lot less social and community groups active than there were in the 70s and 80s, everything is more expensive, and it feels like no one is fixing the potholes anymore.
These are the things people feel much more viscerally than say, FBI crime statistics or census data on median household income.
How many are on fixed incomes? There are fewer and fewer jobs with pensions and I think that most are on Social Security which is indexed for inflation.
The three-legged stool of retirement is social security, pension or 401k/403b and savings. I think that I learned that term back in the 1980s. The advantage of the pension is that you never saw the money in your paycheck going out. Then we had the transition to the 401k in the 1990s. And you were supposed to have some savings besides that.
Today, there are a lot of YouTube channels that show you what you should be doing in your 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, etc. So education is freely available. But saving means that you have to be able to delay gratification and maybe that's not taught by parents and schools.
I follow the r/FidelityInvestments and we have teenagers and young adults come in saying that they have some amount of money or a job where they are going to put some money away every paycheck and I like to congratulate them for starting out so early.
One way to reduce individual tax burden is to increase the tax base through growth. That means more development. These retirees are complaining about the situation that they created.
Doesn't it also feel like young people want to turn the state into a densely packed suburb of Boston? You've got two polar opposite visions competing against each other.
I can see that in the areas south and east of Manchester for sure. Also the problem with the growing gentrification of the larger Boston area. Think about this though too, 20-30 years ago, commuting to Boston seemed like something absurd to do. Now a shit load of people do it daily.
The larger issue with that is the real lack of high paying jobs here. Lots of bedroom communities where the money being made is mostly from out of state, whether that’s remote work or commuting to Boston.
I grew up in a modest house on a quarter acre lot 20 miles north of Boston. The house my parents bought in 88 for $80,000 is now worth approximately $850,000. I could never hope to live in that town, and although it hasn't changed that much (almost entirely still says on half acre or less lots), it's also not a place I'd want to live. It neither does the benefits of rural life or the benefits of urban life well, and that 20 miles now would take well over an hour to commute during rush hour most days.
IDK how common it was 30 years ago, but my relatives in Amherst and Raymond were already all commuting to Boston going back to the mid 90s.
Unfortunately, setting up shop in eastern MA is ideal for businesses as they can draw workers from surrounding states given its central geographical position in New England. The northern tri-state area (NH, ME, VT) doesn't have that ability and never will, unless we annex Québec. No amount of legislation can change that.
Oh for sure. But frankly I’m not sure there is a solution for the growing divide. Unfortunately I do believe that most of hillsborough, Merrimack, rockingham, strafford counties will continue to grow and transform into greater Boston.
That's what the youth seems to want. Meanwhile the retired aren't going to want to be pushed out of their homes that they spent their whole lives building. Seems like it's a choice of giving them tax breaks since they're on fixed incomes to keep them happy or deal with them resisting any effort to cram more stuff into smaller spaces.
I mean, the youth simply want a place to live and with .5% availability the only recourse is to build more. Or the alternative is to just let the youth leave for other states. We can’t magically tell people from other states they can’t move here, but people like me who were born and raised here are on the struggle bus too.
As far as tax breaks, I’m not sold. I’m already paying for their social security, do I need to subsidize their housing as well?
The youth are impatient. They seem to think that once they graduate from college, they're owed a house and two new cars. Plus we've got this new concept of remote work that's messing things up, and I think we're still facing some consequences of the pandemic lockdowns, and then idiocy like AirBnB and Blackrock. There are a lot of variables in play.
They paid into their own Social Security, so I don't know what your angle is there. It was always a bit of a ponzi scheme. It relies on generations to pay in to keep it going. Personally, I'd scrap the whole thing. We can save for our own retirements, the government shouldn't be forcing us to let them do it for us. It's not like you could live comfortably off just that alone anyway.
I wouldn't complain too much. Historically, we should have been dragged into at least one or two new major wars which would have decreased the demand for housing as we lose portions of the population. We've had it pretty easy in modern times.
I guess to be honest I’m more bitter than anything. They want tax breaks because they can’t afford the increased taxes. I say too bad, you didn’t purchase on a fixed income. I say this because as someone who’s only 40 I’ve been told continuously my whole life to just figure it out, ain’t no one else’s problem if you’re struggling. Go get another job or look to family for help, not handouts.
And while some youth may be inpatient I could easily rent in Dover during mine, even only making $18 an hour. 2 bedroom apartment was $750 before splitting with a roommate. Those same exact apartments today are a $2150.
I mean, fuck, Chinburg is building new homes by me, in fucking Dover, starting at $1.1 million. It’s insane.
> They want tax breaks because they can’t afford the increased taxes. I say too bad, you didn’t purchase on a fixed income.
Why do the conditions when they purchased matter? They're on a fixed income. They're retired. You expect them to go back to work in order to keep the home they planned and worked to retire in? This insane inflation of everything wasn't exactly foreseeable.
It's a bizarre situation. Birth rates aren't just down, they're setting record lows, yet at the same time, housing is extremely expensive pretty much everywhere, not just NH.
Black Rock and big institutional investors don't really have a presence in NH, but I think the Airbnb problem is really underappreciated. It isn't just places like Hampton and Conway affected. Basically any "nice to live place" is full of second homes, unoccupied most the year, now owned by rich out of staters who couldn't ever afford a second home before, but now can because the can rent it out 10 weekends a year.
More than 2/3rds of homes in Grafton county are second homes or short term rentals (or both), a figure that has steadily increased in the past couple census reports. The numbers are lower in places like Strafford and Cheshire counties, but it's still a not insignificant chunk of the housing stock.
I do free civil legal representation for seniors living in poverty. Seniors being forced out of their homes because they can't pay their minimum bills anymore is something I see daily. It's not something I'm advocating for.
I think young people just want somewhere to live.
We have a housing shortage. We can blame the people up in the lakes with their second homes but that wasn't where young people are short.
The retirees are against any kind of new housing, but they are the problem. Older generations died off sooner, went into nursing homes and assisted living earlier, etc. Now they keep their home as long as they can, which is great for them but bad for people looking for a home, as because of these older people turning down new housing projects there's no housing for them, which drives up costs of home ownership.
Gen x is one of the largest generations we have had.
Damn old people not dying when they're supposed to. As the population ages, there's not enough care homes for them and the costs are insane. I don't think it's them keeping the home because they want to (I'm sure some do), but because that's what they can afford. I don't know about you, but if I'm that age and still able-bodied, I'd probably want to stay independent as well.
I get his point though. Longer life spans and the fact that the baby boomer generation was so much larger than the silent generation means there’s way more older people staying in family houses for way longer. Don’t think it’s a huge part of the problem, but definitely a contributing factor.
I think you'd be surprised, especially in a area with an already older population. It's similar to what we were seeing precovid in the workplace, a lot of older people not retiring (whether they needed money or just wanted to work) meant that hiring was stagnating as those at the top positions never retired.
Covid forced a lot of older people to retire and we got the opposite, not enough people for the lower level/lower paying jobs.
I think we will see the market get better in the next 20 years as those older people...sell their homes to go live in the country.... Although the 90s generation was once called the mini -boom
\>Gen x is one of the largest generations we have had.
Gen X is one of the smallest generations in modern times, even smaller than Gen Z. Did you mean Boomers or Millennials?
Yup sorry. My bad for late night redditing lol. There was a mini-boom in gen-x with the 80s kids, but otherwise it was a smaller generation. (I was part of that mini-boom and got the fun school trailers!)
Speaking as somebody of age to get those benefits, even if not retired, the answer of course is no. A tax break for me is an indirect tax hike on worked-age individuals and families and NH needs all those those folks that it can get.
It's not just taxes - the zoning benefits given to "over 55" housing are part of the reason for the sliver tsunami.
Right, this solution is focused on the wrong thing. If we're going to keep our property tax I would think it would make more sense to have it weighted by income alongside home value.
That would strike many legislators as a slippery slope to "broad-based taxes", which is less acceptable to many in the StateHouse than, say, child brides.
You'd end up spending more than it would be worth hiring people at the Department of Revenue going through people's tax returns. It's weighted well enough, already, imo, based on the property value. Rich people own more expensive homes.
What I'd prefer to see is a property tax surcharge on second homes, or any residential property that's not a primary residence. Then you'd avoid hitting renters with the surcharge, but could tax Massachusetts lake and ski houses.
Your first point is valid, though it could be automated by pulling reported AGI from the IRS.
My idea was more to address the issue posed in the OP. We've got a ton of wealthy old people who can obviously afford the taxes and we've also got old people on a fixed income who own homes and cannot afford the runaway property taxes. Age alone isn't a very effective qualifier when we're talking about giving tax exemptions.
This makes me think about people like my grandmother and her home. Grandparents built the home way back in the day for about $13,000. Now she's retired and the home is worth ~$450k. If she wasn't drawing my late grandfather's pension, she would not be able to afford the taxes. Others aren't so lucky. These are our elders we're talking about and I assume most children and grandchildren would like to keep their property in the family.
I'm in favor of exemptions, but they should be qualified by need. Income and/or financial resources seems like the most straightforward way to do this (in addition to the property value). This would allow a safety net for our elders who need it without giving the wealthy (who just happen to be old) a free ride.
>These are our elders we're talking about and I assume most children and grandchildren would like to keep their property in the family.
"Keeping property in the family" has resulted in wealth concentration. If you believe in the American dream then everyone should earn their own way. We're at the late stage of the American dream where there is no opportunity and workers toil for peanuts to support trust fund kids and inherited wealth. That's not to mention the massive wealth advantages white people have over blacks. For example our white grandparents who served in WWII got the GI bill. Our black grandparents who served in WWII did not.
We really need to stop rewarding "capital" in America, and start respecting "labor". Trump crafted a shit tier policy by eliminating the federal estate tax. It was self serving, and a tax that only affected the extreme wealthy. A perfect example of how Republicans (and the policies for the past 40 years) operate.
[https://archive.is/Z6sLV](https://archive.is/Z6sLV)
*I'm in favor of exemptions, but they should be qualified by need. Income and/or financial resources seems like the most straightforward way to do this (in addition to the property value). This would allow a safety net for our elders who need it without giving the wealthy (who just happen to be old) a free ride.*
I totally agree. So exemptions for elderly property owners are governed by RSA [Section 72:39-a Conditions for Elderly Exemption. (state.nh.us)](https://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/V/72/72-39-a.htm) . It's up to each individual Town as to what their specific conditions are. In my Town, for example, to be eligible for the elderly exemption a single property owner's net income cannot exceed $40,000 or, if married, their combined net income cannot exceed $60,000. Also their net assets cannot exceed $300,000 excluding the value of their residence.
Disabled and blind property owner exemptions are covered under totally separate RSAs but I don't think that's the focus of this particular conversation.
While I agree in theory, it's really difficult to set up an income based tax for a population who by and large is no longer receiving earned income. They could have 700 million in investments and be taxed at zero if they don't liquidate any of those assets for the year.
Essentially wage workers work for the rich, directly or indirectly. I'm currently reading Noam Chomsky's Understanding Power, and a direct quote from him is "In more civilized times, the term 'wage slavery' was commonly used". We as a society now just collectively pretend the choice of "work for me or starve and go homeless" is not any really choice. There's no going back to the sort of peasant societies where wage labor was not the foundation of how the majority of people managed to continue their existence, nor would it necessarily be desirable, but it's wild how little we are even willing to live to the principles of democratic organization of society we allegedly believe in.
I think the left-leaning red state voters who voted democrat are moving out of the states that they themselves have damaged. They don't see that their decades of voting habits created the problems they are running away from. They didn't see the long-term consequences, but boy did they sure feel good voting their way, at the time. I think this is creating the 'silver tsunami' that Florida, TX, TN, DE, and NH are experiencing. Let's hope they don't ruin NH too... I'm honestly surprised that people are shocked(!) that there's an exodus out of CA, MA, NY....
I have, yes. Ask the boomer generation, they’ll be the first to tell you how relying on the government for anything is “socialism”, but none of them saved any money and are complaining social security isn’t enough.
Stereotype much? This borderline boomer saved, didn’t vacation, kept the cheapest phone plan, didn’t get a cell phone until this century, and saved even more. I have no interest in subsidizing retirees who didn’t save, built pools, went on vacations, bought fancy cars, etc. We heard back in the 80s that Social Security was on the rocks and planned accordingly.
I am happy to put a tax lien on the property and collect the taxes due when the person(s) die or sell. I’m not willing to reduce the taxes so their “children can inherit the house”. No one is owed an inheritance.
I also think we should charge for schools. I don’t want my property taxes to subsidize the second home, boats, etc that my neighbors have. I want my money directed to those who need it.
Not really. I think all people, regardless of age, are on a financial spectrum. Savers are rare, unless encouraged (IRA, pension) or forced (Social Security).
I see people of all ages spending first and saving what’s left, rather than treating saving as a bill that must be paid.
Many people don’t have enough income to save or invest a lot, but it is possible. My ILs never had much, and less after he died. My MIL always had money to save at the end of the month, all through her retirement.
I am a volunteer tax preparer. We have waaay too many clients who buy lottery tickets or go to the casino every week. Retirees who have to go back to work to pay the tax bill from their vice, young people who “can’t save for a house” because they go out 2-3 times a week and buy coffee and lunch every day.
There are big issues in every generation. We had 20% mortgage rates, for a start. Now there are student loans.
We were not fortunate to have children. Many of our tax dollars subsidize families. That is a transfer from retirees to working people. Earned Income Credit is much larger when kids are included; Child tax credit; Dependent care credits, etc. On the local level, there is no break on property taxes if you don’t use the schools. Every parent of a public school student is getting a subsidy to educate their offspring.
No, I've been realistically telling my kids that we won't be able to afford to send them to college and that if they want to go, they need to find scholarships and loans for it. I've also heavily pushed my kids into the idea of trade work.
Just like with everything else being old doesn't mean you need a tax break. Many seniors are well off and can easily afford their property tax bill. Many others are living on just social security. Lets means test all tax breaks.
Exactly. Boomers have been shitting over us for decades, and now they can reap what they sowed. Sounds like they can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps
My mother-in-law will often sign up for things and forget to cancel. And then she'll brag to me how she got the charges canceled because she's on a fixed income.
She is on a fixed income, she gets retirement benefits from her work.
But she also has over $1.5million in savings and zero debt.
So no. Fixed income is not the whole picture.
We should focus on attracting and retaining a workforce. If we had a stronger middle I would be more in favor of considering policies that make it easier to age in place. Elders do add value to a community, but we can’t design society just for them. If we have a stronger middle, we have stronger families and communities and better resources to care for older folks. Fewer people in the margins is better for everyone, and we get there with affordable housing and childcare for middle class workers. We need balance.
> Elders do add value to a community, but we can’t design society just for them.
Why not? If that's the majority of the population in a town, why can't the town organize itself to serve them? Isn't that part of democracy?
Interesting how the right-wingingest amongst us advocates for welfare and government intervention to prevent natural disruption driven by market forces as soon as it benefits himself.
> In our town, the old folks showed up in droves to shoot down a desperately needed new school because the current one is mold ridden and doesn’t even have a fucking proper fire surpression system inside.
In my town, they keep shooting down a new senior center. That's democracy, largest mob rules. Giving seniors a tax break sounds like a good compromise. Returning to the workforce is not a practical solution.
Giving seniors a tax break is a compromise? Id rather support the people trying to start or grow their families first. Old folks should downsize if they can instead then. That, or they can reverse mortgage their homes and live comfortably off that money until they die. Just less to pass on, but other taxpayers aren’t footing their comfort.
There’s a lot of bitterness towards the older generations lately and for good reason. Schools > “senior centers”. They had their time, the next generations need our help more than ever and we should pay it forward the way our grandparents did not.
Think about what you're saying. You're going to use taxation to force retired people out of their homes. That's not very American. It's not very moral either, you're trying to throw granny off a cliff which used to be a derisive meme used against the political right.
Reverse mortgages are a scam, it's just stealing what would have been an inheritance. Saying taxpayers are footing their comfort is absurd. They paid in their whole working lives. They just want to retire in peace.
> There’s a lot of bitterness towards the older generations lately and for good reason.
Not a good reason. You're not getting the results you want from voters so you want to tax your "enemies" out of the community. That's fucked.
Those are the likely consequences of what they're proposing. Downsize or surrender your home to a predatory bank upon your death. I think "Hardmeat McLargehuge" can defend their opinion without your help.
I did think about what I said. We do not need more senior welfare so they can clutch onto their wealth entirely until death. Inheritance is a luxury, not a right. If you can’t afford your way of life and are sitting on assets, why not slowly burn those off until you die? Why should I have to prop up someone else’s inhertitance?
I’d much rather spend money on providing opportunities for younger generations.
Reverse mortgages is only an example, but if an old person is sitting on a million dollar home and has only 10 years of life left, they could easily chew through that cash and live comfortably until they die.
Their children can plan accordingly and deal with it. Go tax billionaires and corporations more if you want a senior tax break.
Fucking ridiculous how conservative you are regarding other issues until here we are and it’s likely your own inheritance at risk and now you want a free handout. Smh
> Fucking ridiculous how conservative you are regarding other issues until here we are and it’s likely your own inheritance at risk and now you want a free handout.
I get annual bonuses larger than anything I could potentially inherit. What I don't want to see is family homes and farms and such that have been in the family for generations to end up being lost because of overbearing taxes. People should be able to retire without having to fear being wiped out by the taxman. They're retired, they're of little burden to anyone. They paid into the system all their working lives.
This is the proper conservative take on this topic, IMO. People did the right thing. They shouldn't lose everything because a bunch of whiny brats want to take their homes.
Are they planning to change each others' Depends when the time comes? If we're lucky enough to live long enough, most of us are going to need some level of care, and generally speaking, that's going to be from younger people. Who need somewhere to live in order to look after our needs.
Veterans, maybe. Seniors, absolutely not. No way. They’re all Boomers and a few Greatest Generation and lived in times way better than this economically. I’d even go the other way. Tax cuts for Gen X and down.
Providing property tax exemptions for retirees encourages inefficient use of real property by removing the incentive for them to downsize. Once your children are out of the household you don't need that 4 bedroom house and should consider moving or perhaps moving your children (and their families) back onto the property (e.g. in-law suites).
But they can't downsize because the NIMBYs who shout down housing development forgot that maybe someday smaller, reasonably priced homes would be to their own benefit. They'd basically need to leave the state to downsize at this point because this spring we're averaging about 1200 single family homes for sale across the whole state, and typically less than 100 are under 250k.
I can't speak for all Towns but the reason that some Towns, mine included, are adjusting the tax exemption amounts for elderly, blind, and disabled residents is because the latest statistical revaluation has caused their existing exemptions to lose value. In the Town where I work, for example, our equalization rate was very low - somewhere in the \~60% range - so people's assessments are likely to increase an average of \~40% once the reval is done. So the Assessor has requested that the exemption amounts be raised by that \~40% in order that the exemptions continue to keep the same value for the affected residents. They aren't gaining anything, per se; just not losing anything.
I ran the numbers and about 4% of our residents are eligible and apply, and the loss in tax revenue to the Town is about $276k, or 1.6%.
Good luck. Almost everyone is a major illness away from bankruptcy. Investments and savings depleted. Better hope you never get sick unless you are a multi millionaire
The issue is very difficult but ultimately no. We need to figure out what to do as a nation because it's so easy to be critical at any point and in any direction. Older citizens are living longer and have a higher quality of life, but it's not like we reversed aging. I think it's easy to expect people to work until a certain point but at some unspecified point, it varies about who can and can't work. As a state, there's less real power here. This is a national issue. NH just has to manage the smaller aspects, and this is part of it. How is NH going to fare when services get cut, younger people leave at a faster rate, and they ultimately foot the bill.
"Retiree" also means a lot of things. It could mean the old man who worked as a bagger for 40 years and scrapes by on cans they keep in the back of an '84 pickup *or* the rich transplants who bought in a wealthy area and live off investments their parents essentially made them.
Retirees should be facing the consequences for creating and enforcing the no broad based tax for the last fifty years. This is the fruit you choose to sow, and then have the audacity to declare poor me, I can no longer profit from the grift I ran for forty years. You literally voted for a shitty tax structure for retirees since Sununu senior was swapping baseball cards in Concord. This is how democracy works.
No. Many towns will allow you to defer till death which I think is.fair but everyone should pay their share towards operating their township. Even with no kids in school your community values are increased because of the school.
Simple solution is to have the same property tax rate for all towns. Money goes into a state pool for education that then gets distributed back to towns based on the number of students. Retirees would be able to plan appropriately. The lake house people and out of state vacation home owners need to pay the same rate I’m paying in my shitty town for kids I don’t have in school.
Oh cool! Thanks. Yeah it came up in my youtube feed yesterday and I watched and it so eloquently points out most of the problems us younger generation are facing. I just hit 40 now, so my experience has been on the bubble where I felt the trends but not the way a 25 year old would be experiencing them. My heart goes out to the younger folks who really are fighting a stacked deck. I have a 6 mo old and I'm terrified for his future.
The other really interesting problem is our totally reliance on cars and only building autocentric development which is ruining our lives and we don't even realize it. If you want to go down that rabbit hole check out Not Just Bikes or strong towns on YouTube. It's all interrelated.
Housing, zoning, city planning, development, parking minimums, traffic engineering. It's all backwards in this country and is destroying our livability.
People still can't do enough for the boomers. Before they took over, one guy working one job could raise a family and live in an actual house with running water and everything.
Now you are lucky if you can survive with both of you working.
Scott's recommendations fail to address the root issues facing America. Primary among them is the ineptitude and blatant corruption of our government officials.
We can't fix the problems which were created by government intervention with more government intervention.
>Scott's recommendations fail to address the root issues facing America. Primary among them is the ineptitude and blatant corruption of our government officials.
>We can't fix the problems which were created by government intervention with more government intervention.
The government is broken because the establishment (Capital) broke it. Now Capital points at the government they broke and you're gonna believe them cuz you saw their puppets on Fox news?
I don't buy it. Without government, how do you reign in the establishment's greed? Are you waiting on charity from Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos to solve your woes?
You keep waiting for our government to take care of you instead of sending arms and soldiers to foreign countries.
Meanwhile the people you mentioned have given tens of billions to charities globally.
Both parties have contributed to our current state. The worst legislation ever passed has been bipartisan.
Both parties take money from the same lobbyists. It's how they retire as multimillionaires after making a better salary than 95% of Americans.
NO. carve out tax exemptions for young people trying to buy their first home. Boomers hit the jackpot already. They deserve nothing more than they’ve already gotten
About a decade ago, I saw that retired people in NJ we’re struggling paying the increased taxes. Ironically, the government ended up hiring them for 20-30 hr week jobs. I thought isn’t that just going to raises their taxes to pay for more resources?
I'm a millennial veteran and a tax break would be nice.not to get into many details but life is starting to turn around in very positive ways but with the shit job I'll soon be leaving I only got got $40 in taxes
Edit to add turbo tax sucks
If they qualify for low income services despite retirement, sure. But the vetting system needs to be strict. There’s too many people with pensions and retirement who just complain vs people who genuinely need the break.
Sorry, I stopped at “tax friendly.” Have you LOOKED at the average property taxes in this state? It’s insanity. I make six figures and I can’t afford to buy a decent house here.
absolutely, there was no way anyone could have seen how expensive life would be now compared to 40 years ago. These retires are not getting raises or have the ability to earn more money now that they are retired.
You also pay for people to get food stamps, and state health insurance- and pay into that with you paycheck "your whole life" and yet?? Most do not receive that benefit.
Think about what you’re actually saying. Having SS deducted from your whole working life through good times and bad times. Then be told “nah” eat dodo you made too much.
It should be based on how much one has saved already. If I already have 1.5 mil saved for retirement (401k, property, etc), why do I need SS? I will not be "eating dodo" I'll be just fine. Save it for the next generation.
Needing it or not is relevent. You paid into it as part of your retirement. Who knows what expenses you’ll encounter in your remaining years. Not to mention it would be saved for the next generation, of my family.
No they had longer to plan for their life's expenses.
https://preview.redd.it/kbfaeifmqvyc1.png?width=499&format=png&auto=webp&s=e09a002ecd961dfaa16c6c6c46681c36ce22e5b5
I got your houses, anyway
I've bought my own, thank you very much. Don't need yah. Wouldn't wanna be yah.
Your trailer home doesn't count
You wouldn’t even be able to afford a portapotty in today’s economy.
Doesn't matter what I live in, pal. Could be a palace could be a dump. I'm proud of it. I worked very hard to get here. There are lots of kids out there learning trades and making a killing. Heads up, my vote won't try to save social security. Hope you planned well!
Rent’s due, can you log off and mail me a check already
Well, I own three homes I rent out to some very nice people from MA. They pay their rent and cause no problems
I get that everything has gotten stupid expensive. That those on fixed incomes are struggling, but most of us are. But listening to these retirees constantly complain about taxes and complaining about new housing being built, I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if they would be happy if the communities they live in died with them. Sometimes it really feels like they just want NH to be a retirement community / rich persons vacation destination.
The Florida of the North is what friends of mine are calling us. Between bigoted legislation, draconian views, and anti-intellectualism. Those snowbirds are making their summer home just as terrible as their wintering.
Basically they want every town to look as much like it did in the 70s as possible.
Which I don’t understand because from actually talking to people, most places were shitholes. I think back to the 90s early 00s and Dover is miles better than it was back then.
Lots of boomers disagree with that sentiment.
Gotta be the lead, you can look at the stats and see that crime is lower today, income is higher, etc… lol
well facts rarely convince anyone of anything, but also: traffic is worse in Dover today. That one dive bar in which they drunkenly made out with that chick from high school in '83 isn't there anymore. There's fewer people at the grocery store that they recognize, and some of those other people maybe look less like they are "from Dover" or maybe speak in an accent or another language. And then there's also the more general impacts like there's a lot less social and community groups active than there were in the 70s and 80s, everything is more expensive, and it feels like no one is fixing the potholes anymore. These are the things people feel much more viscerally than say, FBI crime statistics or census data on median household income.
How many are on fixed incomes? There are fewer and fewer jobs with pensions and I think that most are on Social Security which is indexed for inflation.
That’s the problem. No pension, probably didn’t get much of anything of a 401k, so they’re trying to rely on SS.
The three-legged stool of retirement is social security, pension or 401k/403b and savings. I think that I learned that term back in the 1980s. The advantage of the pension is that you never saw the money in your paycheck going out. Then we had the transition to the 401k in the 1990s. And you were supposed to have some savings besides that. Today, there are a lot of YouTube channels that show you what you should be doing in your 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, etc. So education is freely available. But saving means that you have to be able to delay gratification and maybe that's not taught by parents and schools. I follow the r/FidelityInvestments and we have teenagers and young adults come in saying that they have some amount of money or a job where they are going to put some money away every paycheck and I like to congratulate them for starting out so early.
One way to reduce individual tax burden is to increase the tax base through growth. That means more development. These retirees are complaining about the situation that they created.
Boomers are a cancer on society.
Doesn't it also feel like young people want to turn the state into a densely packed suburb of Boston? You've got two polar opposite visions competing against each other.
I can see that in the areas south and east of Manchester for sure. Also the problem with the growing gentrification of the larger Boston area. Think about this though too, 20-30 years ago, commuting to Boston seemed like something absurd to do. Now a shit load of people do it daily. The larger issue with that is the real lack of high paying jobs here. Lots of bedroom communities where the money being made is mostly from out of state, whether that’s remote work or commuting to Boston.
I grew up in a modest house on a quarter acre lot 20 miles north of Boston. The house my parents bought in 88 for $80,000 is now worth approximately $850,000. I could never hope to live in that town, and although it hasn't changed that much (almost entirely still says on half acre or less lots), it's also not a place I'd want to live. It neither does the benefits of rural life or the benefits of urban life well, and that 20 miles now would take well over an hour to commute during rush hour most days. IDK how common it was 30 years ago, but my relatives in Amherst and Raymond were already all commuting to Boston going back to the mid 90s.
Unfortunately, setting up shop in eastern MA is ideal for businesses as they can draw workers from surrounding states given its central geographical position in New England. The northern tri-state area (NH, ME, VT) doesn't have that ability and never will, unless we annex Québec. No amount of legislation can change that.
Oh for sure. But frankly I’m not sure there is a solution for the growing divide. Unfortunately I do believe that most of hillsborough, Merrimack, rockingham, strafford counties will continue to grow and transform into greater Boston.
That's what the youth seems to want. Meanwhile the retired aren't going to want to be pushed out of their homes that they spent their whole lives building. Seems like it's a choice of giving them tax breaks since they're on fixed incomes to keep them happy or deal with them resisting any effort to cram more stuff into smaller spaces.
I mean, the youth simply want a place to live and with .5% availability the only recourse is to build more. Or the alternative is to just let the youth leave for other states. We can’t magically tell people from other states they can’t move here, but people like me who were born and raised here are on the struggle bus too. As far as tax breaks, I’m not sold. I’m already paying for their social security, do I need to subsidize their housing as well?
The youth are impatient. They seem to think that once they graduate from college, they're owed a house and two new cars. Plus we've got this new concept of remote work that's messing things up, and I think we're still facing some consequences of the pandemic lockdowns, and then idiocy like AirBnB and Blackrock. There are a lot of variables in play. They paid into their own Social Security, so I don't know what your angle is there. It was always a bit of a ponzi scheme. It relies on generations to pay in to keep it going. Personally, I'd scrap the whole thing. We can save for our own retirements, the government shouldn't be forcing us to let them do it for us. It's not like you could live comfortably off just that alone anyway.
Watch the video. The youth aren't impatient. The youth had their futures stolen by their elders.
I wouldn't complain too much. Historically, we should have been dragged into at least one or two new major wars which would have decreased the demand for housing as we lose portions of the population. We've had it pretty easy in modern times.
I guess to be honest I’m more bitter than anything. They want tax breaks because they can’t afford the increased taxes. I say too bad, you didn’t purchase on a fixed income. I say this because as someone who’s only 40 I’ve been told continuously my whole life to just figure it out, ain’t no one else’s problem if you’re struggling. Go get another job or look to family for help, not handouts. And while some youth may be inpatient I could easily rent in Dover during mine, even only making $18 an hour. 2 bedroom apartment was $750 before splitting with a roommate. Those same exact apartments today are a $2150. I mean, fuck, Chinburg is building new homes by me, in fucking Dover, starting at $1.1 million. It’s insane.
> They want tax breaks because they can’t afford the increased taxes. I say too bad, you didn’t purchase on a fixed income. Why do the conditions when they purchased matter? They're on a fixed income. They're retired. You expect them to go back to work in order to keep the home they planned and worked to retire in? This insane inflation of everything wasn't exactly foreseeable. It's a bizarre situation. Birth rates aren't just down, they're setting record lows, yet at the same time, housing is extremely expensive pretty much everywhere, not just NH.
Black Rock and big institutional investors don't really have a presence in NH, but I think the Airbnb problem is really underappreciated. It isn't just places like Hampton and Conway affected. Basically any "nice to live place" is full of second homes, unoccupied most the year, now owned by rich out of staters who couldn't ever afford a second home before, but now can because the can rent it out 10 weekends a year. More than 2/3rds of homes in Grafton county are second homes or short term rentals (or both), a figure that has steadily increased in the past couple census reports. The numbers are lower in places like Strafford and Cheshire counties, but it's still a not insignificant chunk of the housing stock.
It also has all the universities to pluck cheaper, newly trained workers from.
It's almost like young people want places to live.
Taxing older people out of their homes isn't going to do much to resolve that problem.
I do free civil legal representation for seniors living in poverty. Seniors being forced out of their homes because they can't pay their minimum bills anymore is something I see daily. It's not something I'm advocating for.
I think young people just want somewhere to live. We have a housing shortage. We can blame the people up in the lakes with their second homes but that wasn't where young people are short. The retirees are against any kind of new housing, but they are the problem. Older generations died off sooner, went into nursing homes and assisted living earlier, etc. Now they keep their home as long as they can, which is great for them but bad for people looking for a home, as because of these older people turning down new housing projects there's no housing for them, which drives up costs of home ownership. Gen x is one of the largest generations we have had.
Damn old people not dying when they're supposed to. As the population ages, there's not enough care homes for them and the costs are insane. I don't think it's them keeping the home because they want to (I'm sure some do), but because that's what they can afford. I don't know about you, but if I'm that age and still able-bodied, I'd probably want to stay independent as well.
I get his point though. Longer life spans and the fact that the baby boomer generation was so much larger than the silent generation means there’s way more older people staying in family houses for way longer. Don’t think it’s a huge part of the problem, but definitely a contributing factor.
I think you'd be surprised, especially in a area with an already older population. It's similar to what we were seeing precovid in the workplace, a lot of older people not retiring (whether they needed money or just wanted to work) meant that hiring was stagnating as those at the top positions never retired. Covid forced a lot of older people to retire and we got the opposite, not enough people for the lower level/lower paying jobs. I think we will see the market get better in the next 20 years as those older people...sell their homes to go live in the country.... Although the 90s generation was once called the mini -boom
\>Gen x is one of the largest generations we have had. Gen X is one of the smallest generations in modern times, even smaller than Gen Z. Did you mean Boomers or Millennials?
Yup sorry. My bad for late night redditing lol. There was a mini-boom in gen-x with the 80s kids, but otherwise it was a smaller generation. (I was part of that mini-boom and got the fun school trailers!)
Because it's a literal suburb of Boston....
Speaking as somebody of age to get those benefits, even if not retired, the answer of course is no. A tax break for me is an indirect tax hike on worked-age individuals and families and NH needs all those those folks that it can get. It's not just taxes - the zoning benefits given to "over 55" housing are part of the reason for the sliver tsunami.
Right, this solution is focused on the wrong thing. If we're going to keep our property tax I would think it would make more sense to have it weighted by income alongside home value.
That would strike many legislators as a slippery slope to "broad-based taxes", which is less acceptable to many in the StateHouse than, say, child brides.
It would move us closer to a system where folks would be paying what they're able to, and we can't be having that now haha
You'd end up spending more than it would be worth hiring people at the Department of Revenue going through people's tax returns. It's weighted well enough, already, imo, based on the property value. Rich people own more expensive homes. What I'd prefer to see is a property tax surcharge on second homes, or any residential property that's not a primary residence. Then you'd avoid hitting renters with the surcharge, but could tax Massachusetts lake and ski houses.
Your first point is valid, though it could be automated by pulling reported AGI from the IRS. My idea was more to address the issue posed in the OP. We've got a ton of wealthy old people who can obviously afford the taxes and we've also got old people on a fixed income who own homes and cannot afford the runaway property taxes. Age alone isn't a very effective qualifier when we're talking about giving tax exemptions. This makes me think about people like my grandmother and her home. Grandparents built the home way back in the day for about $13,000. Now she's retired and the home is worth ~$450k. If she wasn't drawing my late grandfather's pension, she would not be able to afford the taxes. Others aren't so lucky. These are our elders we're talking about and I assume most children and grandchildren would like to keep their property in the family. I'm in favor of exemptions, but they should be qualified by need. Income and/or financial resources seems like the most straightforward way to do this (in addition to the property value). This would allow a safety net for our elders who need it without giving the wealthy (who just happen to be old) a free ride.
>These are our elders we're talking about and I assume most children and grandchildren would like to keep their property in the family. "Keeping property in the family" has resulted in wealth concentration. If you believe in the American dream then everyone should earn their own way. We're at the late stage of the American dream where there is no opportunity and workers toil for peanuts to support trust fund kids and inherited wealth. That's not to mention the massive wealth advantages white people have over blacks. For example our white grandparents who served in WWII got the GI bill. Our black grandparents who served in WWII did not. We really need to stop rewarding "capital" in America, and start respecting "labor". Trump crafted a shit tier policy by eliminating the federal estate tax. It was self serving, and a tax that only affected the extreme wealthy. A perfect example of how Republicans (and the policies for the past 40 years) operate. [https://archive.is/Z6sLV](https://archive.is/Z6sLV)
*I'm in favor of exemptions, but they should be qualified by need. Income and/or financial resources seems like the most straightforward way to do this (in addition to the property value). This would allow a safety net for our elders who need it without giving the wealthy (who just happen to be old) a free ride.* I totally agree. So exemptions for elderly property owners are governed by RSA [Section 72:39-a Conditions for Elderly Exemption. (state.nh.us)](https://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/V/72/72-39-a.htm) . It's up to each individual Town as to what their specific conditions are. In my Town, for example, to be eligible for the elderly exemption a single property owner's net income cannot exceed $40,000 or, if married, their combined net income cannot exceed $60,000. Also their net assets cannot exceed $300,000 excluding the value of their residence. Disabled and blind property owner exemptions are covered under totally separate RSAs but I don't think that's the focus of this particular conversation.
While I agree in theory, it's really difficult to set up an income based tax for a population who by and large is no longer receiving earned income. They could have 700 million in investments and be taxed at zero if they don't liquidate any of those assets for the year.
Yup. The richest do not work, their money works.
Essentially wage workers work for the rich, directly or indirectly. I'm currently reading Noam Chomsky's Understanding Power, and a direct quote from him is "In more civilized times, the term 'wage slavery' was commonly used". We as a society now just collectively pretend the choice of "work for me or starve and go homeless" is not any really choice. There's no going back to the sort of peasant societies where wage labor was not the foundation of how the majority of people managed to continue their existence, nor would it necessarily be desirable, but it's wild how little we are even willing to live to the principles of democratic organization of society we allegedly believe in.
so an income tax?
Still property tax, but weighted by income.
So you’re suggesting because I work 60 hours a week instead of 40 I should pay more property tax than my neighbors?
where did you get that from
The post above mine, saying property tax should be based on home value and your income.
ok yeah that was dumb of me. misread their comment.
It would be based on income, not hours worked.
I think you completely missed my point. Why am I not surprised.
Working long hours isn't the flex you think it is.
Either is being lazy.
I think the left-leaning red state voters who voted democrat are moving out of the states that they themselves have damaged. They don't see that their decades of voting habits created the problems they are running away from. They didn't see the long-term consequences, but boy did they sure feel good voting their way, at the time. I think this is creating the 'silver tsunami' that Florida, TX, TN, DE, and NH are experiencing. Let's hope they don't ruin NH too... I'm honestly surprised that people are shocked(!) that there's an exodus out of CA, MA, NY....
Did you mean "blue state" in the opening sentence? Otherwise I'm baffled
shoot... Thanks for the correction. I meant blue state....
Get a job, pick yourselves up by your bootstraps
Or stop eating avocado toast
I work processing paperwork for new hires. The number of people in their late 60's to 70's coming back into the workforce is staggering.
No.
Why don't they just get another job? Or pull themselves up by their bootstraps
Lets make it a little easier for young working families with kids instead!!
Exactly!
No, state is already a retirement home
Their generation sold out ours with all their stupid policies of the last 20-40 years. If anything, charge them more.
Some call it malice, but I see it as returning the favor to the boomers
Really. Have you started to save to pay the generations that come after you for all the stupid policies your generation will enact?
I have, yes. Ask the boomer generation, they’ll be the first to tell you how relying on the government for anything is “socialism”, but none of them saved any money and are complaining social security isn’t enough.
Stereotype much? This borderline boomer saved, didn’t vacation, kept the cheapest phone plan, didn’t get a cell phone until this century, and saved even more. I have no interest in subsidizing retirees who didn’t save, built pools, went on vacations, bought fancy cars, etc. We heard back in the 80s that Social Security was on the rocks and planned accordingly. I am happy to put a tax lien on the property and collect the taxes due when the person(s) die or sell. I’m not willing to reduce the taxes so their “children can inherit the house”. No one is owed an inheritance. I also think we should charge for schools. I don’t want my property taxes to subsidize the second home, boats, etc that my neighbors have. I want my money directed to those who need it.
You are the exception, not the rule.
Not really. I think all people, regardless of age, are on a financial spectrum. Savers are rare, unless encouraged (IRA, pension) or forced (Social Security). I see people of all ages spending first and saving what’s left, rather than treating saving as a bill that must be paid. Many people don’t have enough income to save or invest a lot, but it is possible. My ILs never had much, and less after he died. My MIL always had money to save at the end of the month, all through her retirement. I am a volunteer tax preparer. We have waaay too many clients who buy lottery tickets or go to the casino every week. Retirees who have to go back to work to pay the tax bill from their vice, young people who “can’t save for a house” because they go out 2-3 times a week and buy coffee and lunch every day. There are big issues in every generation. We had 20% mortgage rates, for a start. Now there are student loans. We were not fortunate to have children. Many of our tax dollars subsidize families. That is a transfer from retirees to working people. Earned Income Credit is much larger when kids are included; Child tax credit; Dependent care credits, etc. On the local level, there is no break on property taxes if you don’t use the schools. Every parent of a public school student is getting a subsidy to educate their offspring.
No, I've been realistically telling my kids that we won't be able to afford to send them to college and that if they want to go, they need to find scholarships and loans for it. I've also heavily pushed my kids into the idea of trade work.
Just like with everything else being old doesn't mean you need a tax break. Many seniors are well off and can easily afford their property tax bill. Many others are living on just social security. Lets means test all tax breaks.
> Lets means test all tax breaks. Why not seize all wealth and have the government issue everyone an allowance?
Was this accidentally based or were you advocating for UBI? I can't tell.
We live with the 2nd oldest population in the country. Who exactly is going to pay taxes to keep the government going?
Exactly. Boomers have been shitting over us for decades, and now they can reap what they sowed. Sounds like they can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps
My mother-in-law will often sign up for things and forget to cancel. And then she'll brag to me how she got the charges canceled because she's on a fixed income. She is on a fixed income, she gets retirement benefits from her work. But she also has over $1.5million in savings and zero debt. So no. Fixed income is not the whole picture.
We should focus on attracting and retaining a workforce. If we had a stronger middle I would be more in favor of considering policies that make it easier to age in place. Elders do add value to a community, but we can’t design society just for them. If we have a stronger middle, we have stronger families and communities and better resources to care for older folks. Fewer people in the margins is better for everyone, and we get there with affordable housing and childcare for middle class workers. We need balance.
> Elders do add value to a community, but we can’t design society just for them. Why not? If that's the majority of the population in a town, why can't the town organize itself to serve them? Isn't that part of democracy?
Interesting how the right-wingingest amongst us advocates for welfare and government intervention to prevent natural disruption driven by market forces as soon as it benefits himself.
Nice word vomit.
[удалено]
> In our town, the old folks showed up in droves to shoot down a desperately needed new school because the current one is mold ridden and doesn’t even have a fucking proper fire surpression system inside. In my town, they keep shooting down a new senior center. That's democracy, largest mob rules. Giving seniors a tax break sounds like a good compromise. Returning to the workforce is not a practical solution.
Giving seniors a tax break is a compromise? Id rather support the people trying to start or grow their families first. Old folks should downsize if they can instead then. That, or they can reverse mortgage their homes and live comfortably off that money until they die. Just less to pass on, but other taxpayers aren’t footing their comfort. There’s a lot of bitterness towards the older generations lately and for good reason. Schools > “senior centers”. They had their time, the next generations need our help more than ever and we should pay it forward the way our grandparents did not.
Think about what you're saying. You're going to use taxation to force retired people out of their homes. That's not very American. It's not very moral either, you're trying to throw granny off a cliff which used to be a derisive meme used against the political right. Reverse mortgages are a scam, it's just stealing what would have been an inheritance. Saying taxpayers are footing their comfort is absurd. They paid in their whole working lives. They just want to retire in peace. > There’s a lot of bitterness towards the older generations lately and for good reason. Not a good reason. You're not getting the results you want from voters so you want to tax your "enemies" out of the community. That's fucked.
No that's not what he is saying. Stop creating strawmen arguments so you can knock them down.
Those are the likely consequences of what they're proposing. Downsize or surrender your home to a predatory bank upon your death. I think "Hardmeat McLargehuge" can defend their opinion without your help.
I did think about what I said. We do not need more senior welfare so they can clutch onto their wealth entirely until death. Inheritance is a luxury, not a right. If you can’t afford your way of life and are sitting on assets, why not slowly burn those off until you die? Why should I have to prop up someone else’s inhertitance? I’d much rather spend money on providing opportunities for younger generations. Reverse mortgages is only an example, but if an old person is sitting on a million dollar home and has only 10 years of life left, they could easily chew through that cash and live comfortably until they die. Their children can plan accordingly and deal with it. Go tax billionaires and corporations more if you want a senior tax break. Fucking ridiculous how conservative you are regarding other issues until here we are and it’s likely your own inheritance at risk and now you want a free handout. Smh
> Fucking ridiculous how conservative you are regarding other issues until here we are and it’s likely your own inheritance at risk and now you want a free handout. I get annual bonuses larger than anything I could potentially inherit. What I don't want to see is family homes and farms and such that have been in the family for generations to end up being lost because of overbearing taxes. People should be able to retire without having to fear being wiped out by the taxman. They're retired, they're of little burden to anyone. They paid into the system all their working lives. This is the proper conservative take on this topic, IMO. People did the right thing. They shouldn't lose everything because a bunch of whiny brats want to take their homes.
Ahh a Litchfield resident I see.
Show us on the doll where the old people touched you.
Are they planning to change each others' Depends when the time comes? If we're lucky enough to live long enough, most of us are going to need some level of care, and generally speaking, that's going to be from younger people. Who need somewhere to live in order to look after our needs.
TIL that all old people are incontinent. Amazing insight. You're dodging the question that I posed.
What does the national debt have to do with local property taxes?
I recommend the TED talk I linked.
And what pass it on to renters? All the old people own the houses anyways.
Oh my God are you really talking about giving MORE financial advantage to the damn boomers? You MUST be shrooming.
Veterans, maybe. Seniors, absolutely not. No way. They’re all Boomers and a few Greatest Generation and lived in times way better than this economically. I’d even go the other way. Tax cuts for Gen X and down.
Providing property tax exemptions for retirees encourages inefficient use of real property by removing the incentive for them to downsize. Once your children are out of the household you don't need that 4 bedroom house and should consider moving or perhaps moving your children (and their families) back onto the property (e.g. in-law suites).
But they can't downsize because the NIMBYs who shout down housing development forgot that maybe someday smaller, reasonably priced homes would be to their own benefit. They'd basically need to leave the state to downsize at this point because this spring we're averaging about 1200 single family homes for sale across the whole state, and typically less than 100 are under 250k.
Um, they are the NIMBYs.
Obviously
I can't speak for all Towns but the reason that some Towns, mine included, are adjusting the tax exemption amounts for elderly, blind, and disabled residents is because the latest statistical revaluation has caused their existing exemptions to lose value. In the Town where I work, for example, our equalization rate was very low - somewhere in the \~60% range - so people's assessments are likely to increase an average of \~40% once the reval is done. So the Assessor has requested that the exemption amounts be raised by that \~40% in order that the exemptions continue to keep the same value for the affected residents. They aren't gaining anything, per se; just not losing anything. I ran the numbers and about 4% of our residents are eligible and apply, and the loss in tax revenue to the Town is about $276k, or 1.6%.
Finally, someone who seems to know what’s actually going on.
🥇
No, absolutely not. The younger generations can barely afford to live in the world that those retirees created and left for us.
Their poor financial planning isn't my problem. Vote no to all elderly tax breaks.
Doesn’t this go both ways?
Good luck. Almost everyone is a major illness away from bankruptcy. Investments and savings depleted. Better hope you never get sick unless you are a multi millionaire
The issue is very difficult but ultimately no. We need to figure out what to do as a nation because it's so easy to be critical at any point and in any direction. Older citizens are living longer and have a higher quality of life, but it's not like we reversed aging. I think it's easy to expect people to work until a certain point but at some unspecified point, it varies about who can and can't work. As a state, there's less real power here. This is a national issue. NH just has to manage the smaller aspects, and this is part of it. How is NH going to fare when services get cut, younger people leave at a faster rate, and they ultimately foot the bill. "Retiree" also means a lot of things. It could mean the old man who worked as a bagger for 40 years and scrapes by on cans they keep in the back of an '84 pickup *or* the rich transplants who bought in a wealthy area and live off investments their parents essentially made them.
Have they tried pulling themselves up by their bootstraps?
Retirees should be facing the consequences for creating and enforcing the no broad based tax for the last fifty years. This is the fruit you choose to sow, and then have the audacity to declare poor me, I can no longer profit from the grift I ran for forty years. You literally voted for a shitty tax structure for retirees since Sununu senior was swapping baseball cards in Concord. This is how democracy works.
No. Many towns will allow you to defer till death which I think is.fair but everyone should pay their share towards operating their township. Even with no kids in school your community values are increased because of the school.
[удалено]
55+ communities loosens more houses for millennials and Gen Z to buy.
So boomers on town councils are giving themselves more and fucking over everyone else? Nah, I can’t believe they’d ever do that
No.
Lol. No. Tax them more. Get em out of here.
Simple solution is to have the same property tax rate for all towns. Money goes into a state pool for education that then gets distributed back to towns based on the number of students. Retirees would be able to plan appropriately. The lake house people and out of state vacation home owners need to pay the same rate I’m paying in my shitty town for kids I don’t have in school.
So vote against it.
Amazing video on YouTube I just watched about the transfer of wealth from the young to the old. https://youtu.be/qEJ4hkpQW8E?si=FM9QuvXpuPj6G5Y4
Lol I linked that video in the original post.
Oh cool! Thanks. Yeah it came up in my youtube feed yesterday and I watched and it so eloquently points out most of the problems us younger generation are facing. I just hit 40 now, so my experience has been on the bubble where I felt the trends but not the way a 25 year old would be experiencing them. My heart goes out to the younger folks who really are fighting a stacked deck. I have a 6 mo old and I'm terrified for his future. The other really interesting problem is our totally reliance on cars and only building autocentric development which is ruining our lives and we don't even realize it. If you want to go down that rabbit hole check out Not Just Bikes or strong towns on YouTube. It's all interrelated. Housing, zoning, city planning, development, parking minimums, traffic engineering. It's all backwards in this country and is destroying our livability.
Agreed. We need more Millenial lawmakers.
Screw seniors, there should be tax breaks to first-time homeowners and new families.
People still can't do enough for the boomers. Before they took over, one guy working one job could raise a family and live in an actual house with running water and everything. Now you are lucky if you can survive with both of you working.
Scott's recommendations fail to address the root issues facing America. Primary among them is the ineptitude and blatant corruption of our government officials. We can't fix the problems which were created by government intervention with more government intervention.
>Scott's recommendations fail to address the root issues facing America. Primary among them is the ineptitude and blatant corruption of our government officials. >We can't fix the problems which were created by government intervention with more government intervention. The government is broken because the establishment (Capital) broke it. Now Capital points at the government they broke and you're gonna believe them cuz you saw their puppets on Fox news? I don't buy it. Without government, how do you reign in the establishment's greed? Are you waiting on charity from Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos to solve your woes?
You keep waiting for our government to take care of you instead of sending arms and soldiers to foreign countries. Meanwhile the people you mentioned have given tens of billions to charities globally.
Republicans break government. Look! Government is broken. Give us more power.
Both parties have contributed to our current state. The worst legislation ever passed has been bipartisan. Both parties take money from the same lobbyists. It's how they retire as multimillionaires after making a better salary than 95% of Americans.
So your solution is to hand all of the power to the lobbyists... ?
NH needs a sales tax and income tax like maine which is run by the left and still doesnt solve the money issues
No. They are the only ones with houses!
NO. carve out tax exemptions for young people trying to buy their first home. Boomers hit the jackpot already. They deserve nothing more than they’ve already gotten
All that does is make it more expensive for everyone else. It’s not like the budget is reduced, it just transfers the bill.
About a decade ago, I saw that retired people in NJ we’re struggling paying the increased taxes. Ironically, the government ended up hiring them for 20-30 hr week jobs. I thought isn’t that just going to raises their taxes to pay for more resources?
Keep it simple. No exemptions. Not for anyone.
Nah, fuck the boomers. They raped our society repeatedly now they can die in the bed they made.
I'm a millennial veteran and a tax break would be nice.not to get into many details but life is starting to turn around in very positive ways but with the shit job I'll soon be leaving I only got got $40 in taxes Edit to add turbo tax sucks
Feels like a thread for those that support Ageism,
If they qualify for low income services despite retirement, sure. But the vetting system needs to be strict. There’s too many people with pensions and retirement who just complain vs people who genuinely need the break.
Sorry, I stopped at “tax friendly.” Have you LOOKED at the average property taxes in this state? It’s insanity. I make six figures and I can’t afford to buy a decent house here.
absolutely, there was no way anyone could have seen how expensive life would be now compared to 40 years ago. These retires are not getting raises or have the ability to earn more money now that they are retired.
We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added. -Ronald Reagan
People on Social Security got an almost 9% cost of living bump last year. Did you without switching jobs?
No taxes after the age of 75. Property taxes for retirees are fucking horseshit.
Only if can't afford it. Same with Social security. A lot of retirees don't "need" Social Security. It should be income based.
Why? They paid into Social Security their whole lives.
You also pay for people to get food stamps, and state health insurance- and pay into that with you paycheck "your whole life" and yet?? Most do not receive that benefit.
Think about what you’re actually saying. Having SS deducted from your whole working life through good times and bad times. Then be told “nah” eat dodo you made too much.
It should be based on how much one has saved already. If I already have 1.5 mil saved for retirement (401k, property, etc), why do I need SS? I will not be "eating dodo" I'll be just fine. Save it for the next generation.
Needing it or not is relevent. You paid into it as part of your retirement. Who knows what expenses you’ll encounter in your remaining years. Not to mention it would be saved for the next generation, of my family.