It is time to stop the sloppy thinking and writing about the impact of the override. In the post about whether Newton has gotten over Newton North, there are comments that there are families who won’t be able to afford $343 in new taxes, the median increase. The most vulnerable will not pay the average increase. They won’t even come close.
The sloppy thinking does the most vulnerable a disservice.
Let’s review the basics. The override will increase the property tax rate by $.50 per $1,000 of home value. The override’s $343 median additional burden is based on the median house value in Newton: $686,000.
Now, let’s do the math. A family putting 20% down on a $686,000 has a mortgage of $548,000. At 5% on a 30-year note, the monthly payment is north of $3500 a month. Let’s say that the family bought the house for $400,000 and the house appreciated to $686,000. In that scenario, the monthly payment is over $2000 a month (and the family has at least $286,000 in home equity). If that family is spending 30% of pre-tax income on housing (well over guidelines), they are making $80,000.
I’m going to go out on a limb. A family that can meet $2000 to $3500 in monthly mortgage obligations can afford a $343 tax increase. By definition, such a family is not among the most vulnerable.
What will the impact be on the most vulnerable? Someone better versed in affordable housing can probably give a better answer, but we can do some rough calculations. To qualify for reduced price school lunches, a family of four must make less than $42,643. Assume that the family pays 30% of pre-tax income on housing (again, well above guidelines) and owns their own home. Thirty percent of pre-tax income translates into a mortgage of slightly more than $150,000. Assuming 20% down, that translates to a house value of less than $200,000.
On a $200,000 home, the increase from the override is $100. At the risk of seeming heartless and indifferent, I defy someone to find a family with a household income less than $42,643 that is going to move out of Newton because $100 tips them over the edge.
Obviously, there are some other scenarios. A family making less — their housing costs will be less, their override increase will be smaller. A family whose home has appreciated in value (manageable debt, but high assessment leads to higher than $100 override increase) — every $25 in override increase is $50,000 in home equity owned free and clear.
Unless someone can provide a different scenario, when we’re talking about the override impact on the most vulnerable, let’s use the more likely figure of $100 … at most.
Would it be better if the family qualifying for reduced school lunches had fewer burdens to shoulder? Absolutely. But, that’s the stuff of different posts.
Sean-I don’t know what to say. You leave out the human element: the senior citizen living on a fixed income, parents who sacrifice to rent an apartment so their kids can go to safe schools with an excellent reputation, people who have other essential costs that eat up their income (elderly and sick relatives to care for as an example).
Not to mention it’s been many years since you could purchase a house in Newton for $200,000. Right now, the lowest priced condo is $217,000 and has 686 sq. ft.
That being said, one of the main reason I plan to vote for the override package is because children from the most vulnerable families will benefit hugely from schools that have reasonable class sizes and aren’t overcrowded.
Sean, if you are going to do the math, you should include all of the figures. When you figure home related expenses, together with the mortgage payment are little things like homeowners insurance (try to get a bank to lend to you without it) property taxes and utilities. Assuming a $2000 a month mortgage payment or $24,000 a year, plus insurance (you tell me), plus taxes on a median priced house ($7,882), plus water/sewer ($1,200 a year, conservatively speaking), plus heating oil this year is forecast to be $2500 or so, and already you are up over $35,000 a year just for a house. Now add one kid in college, or a kid or two who needs braces, plus $1800 a year for school activity fees. Even families who are somewhere in the middle are already stretched.
Oh, and don’t forget the revenue side of the equation. The median household income in Newton is $104,000. HUD says that the generally accepted definition of “affordability” is for a household to pay no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing. So, look there, the median household in Newton is already paying around 35% of their pre-tax household income for median priced housing (assuming they bought ten or fifteen years ago). For Newton, HUD calculates a low household income for a family of 4 at $65,000 a year. One in five families in Newton have household incomes at or below that level. They are barely hanging on, my friend. So get real. Limiting your calculus to the “truly needy” omits and disrespects a big part of the middle class. And the “47%,” too, as I recall some loser saying.
All the more reason Newton should adopt the residential exemption. Help me get that passed. I cannot do it alone.
There are people in Newton whose homes have more than doubled in value since they bought them, who have low mortgages on houses they never could have afforded now. I have 3/4 equity in my home, so my mortgage is much lower than one would expect for a house of its value. Many people pay more than 30% of their incomes on housing.
At the same time, many of us have our disposable incomes dropping as our insurance premiums, fuel costs, etc. increase more than our take-home pay does. And many of the people who are having trouble don’t necessarily qualify for school lunches. If you were unemployed for 2 years but are now back at work, you can have an income well above the cut-off and still have a hard time making it financially.
I don’t think anyone has said people will move out of income because of the increase. What people have said is that it will be a hardship for some people, not all of whom are seniors who qualify for tax amelioration. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have an override, but it does mean we need to be aware that an amount of money that’s trivial to you may be important to someone else in Newton.
While I am happy for my 4% raise…..my health insurance went up 13% for 2013. Those of us in middle class are slowly being squeezed. But count my vote as yes. No one will buy my cute little house if in 20 years the current Angier is still in use…..we are in that district. I choose to live here….so I have one family vacation in New Hampshire for a few days. No island hopping for this family. Education is important.
Jane,
You’re right. A single post can’t address all the issues. More to come.
Sean, this is THE wrong argument to make in favor of the override. Just stop before you really piss people off.
Ted,
You’re killing me.
On the one hand, your making excuses for some of the wealthiest folks in the country. The median family (by income) in Newton is in the top 15-20% income nationwide. There is absolutely no reason to be making tax policy on the assumption that folks in this strata are “squeezed.” We’ve got a city to run. If you can’t make do on more than 80% of America has, you need to be making better decisions: smaller house, less fancy car, stay-cations, &c.
Me at the home of the Newton median family. Knock, knock. Who’s there. Me. Me who? You’re rich. That’s not a joke. I know.
On the other hand, you’re fighting the good fight. The way we fund this city is insufficiently progressive. (More on that in a post, later.) I’m interested to learn more about what Cambridge has done.
We need to be a little more discriminating than saying that the entirety of Newton’s bottom quintile is barely hanging on. But, at least you’re in the right neighborhood.
If we over-state the struggles of those who may have tough decisions, but aren’t actually struggling by any objective measure, then we underfund the city, to the detriment of those who really are struggling.
Sean – the median income in Newton may be in the top %15-20 nationwide, but so is the cost of living in the Boston area. Have you looked at how that changes if you instead use cost-of-living adjusted income? My income would buy me a lot more in most parts of the country, but it that doesn’t mean a thing around here. Someone earning $80K can comfortably support a family of 4 in many places, but not around here.
Sean: I agree with Ted. A more persuasive argument is WHY we need an override. People will decide on their own whether they can afford it or not.
Sean,
I have campaigned across this city many, many times. People tell me their problems without me asking them. Without a doubt the biggest complaint is taxes. Everything is relative and everyone has their own reality. It doesn’t make a difference if it’s reality or not, it’s their perception. There are a lot of people in this city who are house rich. These people should be listened to and empathized with.
When I ran for Mayor in 2005 I went door to door and I heard quite a few people say they tried to question their tax increase with Cohen’s administration and the answer at city hall was: What do you care, sell you’re house, buy a house in chelmsford and make lots of money.
This response is unacceptable, even if it’s just one person complaining…unacceptable.
For a good discussion of the effect of adjusting for cost of living in a metro area, see http://www.coli.org/coliadjustedmhi.asp
If you go to the link below, you’ll see that in 2009, the Boston area cost of living meant that a median income of $66,870 was equivalent to $51,837 in other parts of the country, putting us 28th in cost-effectiveness:
http://truecostblog.com/2009/12/10/list-of-metro-areas-by-cost-effectiveness-adjusted-income/
So in real buying power, Newton’s median income is nowhere near the top 15-20% in the country.
Let me give you my scenario. I bought my house in newton for under $200,000 close to 20 years ago, when i had a career and was taking home a good income. Two children (one special needs) later, I am divorced, working two part-time jobs, and have refinanced my home out to 30 years. I am the person barely hanging on. The tax portion of my mortgage is higher than the principal and interest. I need six more years to get my kids through school and then I will sell my home.
I made a relatively narrow point in my post: the family faced with the median override increase is not, by definition, struggling. If you live in a $646,000 home, you can afford an additional $343 dollars a year.
Flipping it, if you are struggling, you’re not going to face a $343 dollar a year increase. By definition.
There is a larger point that is implied by concern for families above some meaningful measure of truly struggling. (For argument’s sake, let’s use Ted’s Newton bottom quintile number: $65,000.) The concern is that there are families above the bottom quintile that will be, by virtue of the additional override burden be forced to make choices on essentials. The case is overstated.
In Ted’s case of a family with a $2500 mortgage not being able to make ends meet, the family is simply in a house it cannot afford. We cannot say that it is okay to sacrifice to move to Newton, but then protect you from having to pay for the bare minimum of Newton services.
But, Sean, good people will say, you’d turn Newton into a place only the rich can afford to live. No, if it were up to me, I’d double the density in Newton, making it a place anyone could afford to live. And, I would be unapologetic about requesting reasonable taxation.
If we cannot reasonably ask families in the nation’s top two quintiles to pay a few hundred dollars more, if we redefine struggling up, then we have given up on the project of municipal government.
Bill,
Ted (and now you) want to limit the discussion to what is politically palatable. Not my job.
I am furious with my elected representatives, most of whom are responsible for the inexcusable way that we are paying for Newton North and, with a few exceptions (Ted among them), are wholly unwilling to lead Newton residents to understand that, whatever anger they have about how the debt was incurred, the debt from NNHS is crushing the city.
I am furious with the tentative approach to fixing our city’s fiscal problems and the passive resistance to the overstated claims that a few hundred dollars is going to crush families who are not among the truly struggling.
I am flabbergasted by the poor math and the shoddy reasoning.
I am disappointed that the city didn’t take obvious steps to better offset the regressive impact of the override on the most vulnerable, like adding funding to strengthen programs to eliminate fees on a need basis. (Again, Ted is on the right side on this one.)
And, yes, I am wholly disappointed that there aren’t more officials and active citizens making the point that Jane made above and somewhere else (I can’t find it right now): concern about the obligation that the override puts on the most vulnerable ignores that those same families stand to benefit from better roads and schools, too.
Sean, the problem is statewide. The available housing that is affordable to low to moderate income households (i.e., costs no more than 30% of household income) is substantially less than the demand. Consequently, there are a lot of low to moderate income households who are paying up to 50% or more of their income for housing across Massachusetts.
Your counter-argument comes down to “[w]e cannot say that it is okay to sacrifice to move to Newton, but then protect you from having to pay for the bare minimum of Newton services.” Your empathy is touching. Where would you have them go? Should they “self deport” to another state that is more affordable (if there is one)?
The truth is, a lot of people bought houses in Newton and elsewhere that they cannot easily afford to maintain now, either because they bought more than they could afford to begin with or, perhaps, because of loss of a job, or reduction in salary, or lower wages from reduction in hours, or lack of a raise, increased health care costs, or divorce, or disability, or death of a spouse, or… I could go on.
I am not a shill for the override campaign. Rather, I am merely pointing out that your conclusions do not necessarily follow from the totality of the circumstances and that you are being a little presumptuous about other’s people’s ability to afford any kind of increase in their non-discretionary household expenses. Since I see little likelihood that you will change your thinking, I see no further need to keep responding. Perhaps someone else can knock some sense into you. But I won’t hold my breath.
I agree with Jane and others who point out that we need to do the things that the override and debt exclusions will pay for and that virtually everyone will benefit from better streets, sidewalks and schools. But allow people the dignity to decide whether and what they can afford without demeaning or minimizing the impact of even a modest tax increase on their household budgets.
Day Mom,
Thank you for joining the conversation. And, thank you for providing a specific case to discuss. Among other things, your situation illustrates the ridiculousness of funding municipal government — particularly education — with property taxes … but only to a point.
To be honest, I don’t think that we should be making public policy decisions based on your definition of struggling. If you are paying more in property taxes than in principal and interest, you have, by definition, a substantial amount of equity in your home. By my calculations, to have higher tax payments than principal and interest, you’d have to have over 80% equity in your house.
The Newton tax rate is 11.49%. As Ted noted above, the taxes on the $686,000 median home are $7,882 or about $660 a month. A $660 payment on a 30-year note at 5% means an initial borrowed amount of under $130,000, leaving $556,000 in equity (81%).
If you bought for $200,000 in 1992, it’s possible, but unlikely that your assessed value is $686,000, but it’s more likely around $400,000. At $400,000, your taxes would be $4,596 a year (or $383 amonth). To have a principal/interest payment less than your tax payment, you’d have to have an initial principal of around $70,000. And, you’re facing a $200 a year increase if the override passes.
I do not think that we should consider someone who has $330,000 in home equity as unduly challenged by a $200 a year increase in property taxes. Not when the city is struggling. Not when the overall tax burden is less than it was 20 years ago.
Quick digression. It does strike me that the city’s finances are similar to a struggling house-rich family. Both paid more for real estate than they could afford to pay for.
Back to Day Mom. I know that looking just at the numbers ignores a bunch of factors. Your home equity is your retirement. You probably want to stay in your home to stay in your kids’ school district. You want to stay in your home generally. There are complicated policy questions implicated.
We should not have federal tax policy that encourages home ownership as the principal savings vehicle. Your inadequately diversified. You’re stuck with the cash-flow demands that follow from the property tax consequence of having built up that equity. I’d start phasing out the home mortgage interest deduction tomorrow.
We should have more diversified housing options in Newton, so that you could have moved to less expensive housing as your circumstances changed, without having to move schools. As noted above, that’s wholly within Newton’s control. I’d radically loosen zoning tomorrow.
But, we are where we are. And, if you are sitting on 75% or more home equity, I do not think that yours should be the case that we are designing policy around. I understand that you have tough choices to make. But, you are definitely in a different situation than folks who are truly struggling, who really have no options.
Ted,
I do hope that you continue to respond, because the debate we’re having is critical. As I have said innumerable times in the past*, I and others end up going head-to-head with you because there are few public officials willing to have these kinds of debates and because you are unique in the depth and breadth of your response. Yours is an essential voice.
You are absolutely right; there is woefully insufficient affordable housing in the state. (Actually, the lack of insufficient affordable housing is probably an Eastern Massachusetts problem, but I quibble.) There is a very simple solution: build more housing.
And, you are absolutely right that housing takes up too much of people’s income. The answer is to lower the cost of housing. And, again, there is a very simple solution: build more housing.
If Newton Mom were to sell her home to a developer who could build multiple units, she would unlock the equity in her home and have a more affordable housing option. She’d be more diversified (having presumably put the sale proceeds into an index fund) and her property tax burden would be lower. Newton Mom, are you in favor of greater density?
But, you might reply quite accurately (paging Jeff Seideman), Sean, if we lower the cost of housing for Newton Mom, we lower the ratio of property tax revenue per pupil. And, we lose the benefit to Newton Mom of having moved here in the first place. She might as well move to Chelmsford**.
And, that’s your empathy argument: I’m insufficiently empathatic to those who want the benefit of high property values, but don’t want to pay the associated property taxes. On that point, you are correct.
Every property owner in Newton who does not actively support more density in Newton is complicit in the tax burden problem.
*Actually, it’s probably quite numerable, like 3 or 4, but at least I’ve made the point repeatedly.
**I don’t want her moving to Chelmsford because the cost of commuting from the far suburbs eats up the housing savings, adds to environmental problems, wastes her time, and makes for a miserable region. I’d rather have her living in multi-family housing in Newton, preferably in Day’s catchment zone, if that’s her preference.
The override vote will not be taking place in a vacuum. 2013 is going to be a bad year for taxes. So Newton voters will evaluate the $343 median override tax increase along with all the other taxes going up in 2013 or that may go up:
$280 median increase in Newton property taxes
http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/x1978613788/Property-taxes-to-go-280-in-Newton#axzz2FygEPUgx
Increase of $960 – $1960 (at least) from expiration of the Social Security payroll tax cut
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57559808/will-the-2-social-security-payroll-tax-cut-expire/
Increase in federal income tax from expiration of Bush era income tax cuts
http://www.npr.org/2012/10/01/162056898/for-high-earners-expiring-tax-cuts-would-hit-hard
Increase in state gas tax of $0.20 per gallon?
http://www.wbur.org/2012/12/21/patrick-proposed-tax-increases
Increase in state income tax to 5.95%?
http://www.wbur.org/2012/12/21/patrick-proposed-tax-increases
Increase in Amazon sales tax ($62.50 per $1000 spent)
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/12/18/amazon-sales-tax-deal-massachusetts-analysis/
3.8% tax increase on investment income for households making $250,000 or more
http://swampland.time.com/2012/12/07/5-new-obamacare-taxes-coming-in-2013/
0.9% increase in Medicare payroll tax for household making $250,000 or more
http://swampland.time.com/2012/12/07/5-new-obamacare-taxes-coming-in-2013/
The above list doesn’t include all the new restrictions that will limit deductibility (lower flexible spending account amount and an increase in the threshold for deducting health care expense) or those that will raise the cost of health care (the medical device tax).
The above isn’t a commentary on the projects involved in the override, but instead a commentary on the context in which the override vote will be taken.
Sean writes “I do not think that we should consider someone who has $330,000 in home equity as unduly challenged by a $200 a year increase in property taxes. Not when the city is struggling. Not when the overall tax burden is less than it was 20 years ago.”
That’s a ridiculous statement. Home equity isn’t money in the bank. If I sell my small condo that has more than doubled in value since I moved to Newton, I’ll have to pay a similar amount to get something the size I need within commuting distance of my job, not to mention the costs of selling and moving. And, btw, Day Mom’s home is probably worth closer to $500K at this point.
Many of the private colleges recognize this issue in their financial aid formulas, capping the amount of home equity they count in their calculations to 1-2x annual income.
Sean – I am astounded by your lack of empathy and unwillingness to acknowledge that there are people in Newton who are hurting. Yes, we need these overrides, but that doesn’t mean we can’t recognize that amounts that are little impact for some will cause difficulties for others.
@Jane. Thanks for the thoughtful post with its conclusion that the pros of supporting the overrides far outstrip the negatives even for seniors on fixed incomes like me. Also thanks to Sean, Ted, Tom, Bill and others for the time they took to offer a range of perspectives on many of the fiscal and policy issues these override proposals are certain to raise. I felt I learned a lot in reading what you all had to say.
I’m supporting the override in large measure because it’s clearly needed. I also believe the Mayor has done as much as possible to rein in costs and engage the public in what’s needed, the benefits of the entire override package, and how much each project or program will cost. Almost every state, county and local government is experiencing the same kind of budgetary challenges Newton has had to face during these last few years. One thing that Newton has going for it has been the ability of the Mayor, various interest groups, and city employees to make meaningful savings with a minimum of rancor. That’s a pretty fair definition of leadership.
I don’t think most seniors will vote for or against these overrides simply on the basis of whether they think each item directly supports any specific need or program they benefit from. Most of us know that Angier, Zervas and other elementary and middle schools are in deplorable condition and simply must be replaced or rehabilitated.
Bill Brandell: “A more persuasive argument is WHY we need an override.”
Good point. And the answers are:
1. Because Newton administrations neglected the city’s schools, fire stations and roads during the past 40 years, while raising their own salaries, pensions and health care.
2. Because Newton NIMBYs don’t let developers to build commecial structures whose tax revenues are almost twice as big as residential.
3. Because Newton administrations keep wasting taxpayers’ money on useless studies that don’t fix problems.
4. Because Newton politicians think of their re-election by special interest groups, but don’t think of the entire city needs.
5. Because Newton administrations keep wasting taxpayers’ money on boondoggles like Newton North, Newton South and every public project that involves unions who charge almost twice as much as non-unions.
As for the financial ineqiality being discussed here, consider these numbers:
The average income of the top 10% of American earners are 15 times greater than that of the bottom 10%. In Russia that number is 17, in South America – 25, in Scandinavian countries – 4 (four).
Read more: http://village14.com/netwon-ma/2012/12/override-how-vulnerable-are-the-vulnerable/#ixzz2G0itYy8H
@Anil… now how am I supposed to start out 2013 in good cheer after reading that post?! Ahhhhh!!!!!
Anil – These are the tax increases that have me truly worried sick: “3.8% tax increase on investment income for households making $250,000 or more” and this one, “0.9% increase in Medicare payroll tax for household making $250,000 or more” 😉
Of course for your whole set of tax increases to go into effect, other than the override, depends upon the continued total dysfunction of the House of Representatives. Let’s hope for a better 2013 in Washington.
The missing backstory to Anil’s dystopic vision: our total overall tax burden is lower now than it has been in the last twenty years. Austerity at the state and local level, driven by years and years of anti-tax agitprop, fueled the recession and continues to put a drag on economic recovery. The state is up to its eyeballs in transportation-related debt because of politician’s relentless refusal to get motorists to pony up the costs of driving. &c.
And, things are getting progressively less progressive as the richest among us wield an unhealthy level of influence on government.
In terms of macroeconomics, now might not be the best time to jack up taxes. We need to get unemployment down first. But, it’s high time we confronted the fact that we are not willing to pay for what we demand: great schools, smooth roads, strong defense, &c.
Sorry, Emily!
@Jane – the only tax increase I included that is explicitly part of the “fiscal cliff” discussion are the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts.
@Sean – the article you cited seems to be a comparison to 1980, when Jimmy Carter was president. I’m not sure a return to that era is something anybody wants. But regardless of how our current tax payments may compare to past years, the sheer number of new increases coming is sure to be a shock to most people and that is going to affect how people will feel about paying even more, even if for worthy projects.
Anil wrote:
That’s why I’m here, Anil, to help mitigate the shock with some helpful perspective.
Please note that the article covered the entire 20-year period, not just the Carter era. We also have a lower tax burden than the high-growth Clinton era.
Bob Burke:
“Almost every state, county and local government is experiencing the same kind of budgetary challenges Newton has had to face during these last few years.”
That’s true, but not every municipality builds boondoggles like Newton North while neglecting most of their schools, fire stations and roads. Not every municipality lies to their citizens and then asks them to pay more taxes. That’s why some of them are willing to pony up overrides.
Let the Newtonians who voted for Newton North pay for the new override. Most of them wanted to be deceived for some twisted psychological reason. I know their philosophy: “You cheat on me – I cheat on you!” So it goes.
Ted wrote:
My what big judgment you have, Grandma!
The setting of tax policy necessarily means deciding for others what they can and cannot afford. Individuals don’t get to pick and choose the tax rate they pay. In the case of the override the mayor and the board decided, too cautiously if you ask me, what residents of Newton could afford. (Of course, the ridiculous Prop 2-1/2 gives citizens a respite from representative democracy and grants the ability to vote on what the can and, more importantly, choose to afford.)
You and others have raised the perfectly legitimate concern that the proposed tax increase might not be affordable. Totally reasonable and appropriate topic for polite, reasoned conversation. Your position also has the virtue of sounding thoughtful, generous, and considerate.
I have raised the other side of the equation: that the concern about affordability is overstated, bringing numbers to bear. Admittedly, my position makes me look a tad grumpy and unfeeling (on Christmas Eve, no less!). But, it is just as legitimate a conversation for public discourse.
There is an obvious risk if we (the city as a whole) don’t consider affordability: we tax people who cannot afford it. But, there is just as large a risk that follows if we overstate the affordability of the proposed override: we set the bar too high for asking residents to pay their fair share, with the consequence that we underfund important government programs — including capital initiatives.
That’s not demeaning or minimizing, it’s taking into consideration that we cannot afford to put our children in crumbling schools or overcrowded classrooms.
I’m finding this back/forth, especially between Sean and Ted to be absolutely first rate and very helpful.
This discussion is getting to an important aspect of the overrides that I always felt was neglected. As some know, in the past, with the help of many caring people, I put a fair amount of time & money where my mouth is helping those negatively impacted by overrides.
I always wished I had the magic wand to REALLY determine, beyond my personal experience, the length and breadth of this issue: how hard an override of any amount was for some of those among us.
I appreciate the minds on this blog and thread working it out.
At this stage I’ll say and repeat some of what Tom S. has said: in my travels, I met MANY people, including the elderly, injured vets, and single parents for whom an override of any amount was brutal. The old saw that many aldermen used, “Hey, it’s just the price of a coffee a day” would irritate me. I know my experiences are anecdotal at this stage, but for many, they’ve long given up the coffee, night out, dinner, etc. and have no where else to cut.
While I agree we cannot sit and do nothing, my concern is that we’re in the middle of economic storm that leaves many on the tipping point.
@Sean, your conversation might be legitimate but your point is not. Just from the few people on this blog and others’ anecdotal information, your numbers are not the whole story. Rather than insisting it’s okay and that everyone is in as good a situation as you’re in, why not move more towards a way to find the folks who are on the edge and help them. I think @Marderosian said it very well. We cannot do nothing, but being closed minded about others’ situations just leads us down the path to a neighborhood many of us would not want to be a part of.
Thank you, mgwa, for your supportive remarks.
Sean, I must say that your posts were interesting, unexpected, and rather condescending. I posted my situation in support of Ted’s 12/22 post, not to request a public policy decision be made based on my supposed ‘definition of struggling”. What you and your math apparently cannot relate to is that I will do anything I must in order to give my children the stability of staying in their home and school system. Do without the bus to avoid the fee? check. Do without clubs and sports because of the fees? check. Stop going to the pool in the summer with them to save the fee? Yes. All fine, no problem, this is my choice to stay here. I have done my extreme couponing and returnables and I am no longer living paycheck to paycheck.
Contrary the conclusion Sean seems to have drawn of me, I will support the debt exclusions for the two schools. I have yet to decide on the override, however. I can’t really see how we need more police when the entire department appears to show up for fender benders.
As for Sean’s density question: unless you are asking for over-55 housing, the net result of increased density is increased pressure on the schools, and therefore further tax increases. I won’t state my personal opinion yet because I anticipate a good laugh when I read what Sean thinks I believe in.
One last item for thought… what prevents Newton from instituting a city income tax, as I believe New York City does, rather than relying so heavily on real estate taxes? That would be more helpful to the elderly, the lower-income households, and those who are temporarily lower income due to job losses etc.
Ted, thank you for representing ALL of your constituents. It is not an easy thing, and I appreciate what you do.
Wishing you all a very happy and healthy New Year.
@day mom, I appreciate your kind words. While I do not speak on behalf of the override campaign, I do want to let you know that the Mayor and his CFO told the board that the override is also needed to fund a capital stabilization account that will make it possible to pay the debt service on the school reconstruction projects. If you get a chance to attend one of the town meetings leading up to the override, I hope you take the opportunity to ask about that.
I would add that Sean and I actually agree about density, particularly in village centers. Residential development in village centers tends to be more transit oriented since parking is limited and public transit is (usually) conveniently located. This tends to attract residents with fewer or no cars, young working couples and singles who commute downtown, seniors and others who do not have a net negative fiscal impact on the city’s finances.
I am pretty sure that a city income tax would require special legislation, which the legislature may or may not be willing to adopt. Newton has adopted some local sales taxes that by adopting state enabling statutes, e.g. meal tax surcharges. But I am with you inasmuch as I believe that property taxes tend to be regressive.
@day mom, supporting the 2 debt exclusions and not supporting the operating override will somewhat diminish the debt exclusions’ passage. Why? Because a byproduct of replacing Angier and Cabot is to expand their capacity [equals more classrooms] and the operating override provides the teachers’ funding for those.
Ted, your thoughts on increased density in city centers make sense. I’m actually not opposed to increased density in general, and in fact feel that over-55 housing is discriminatory. Contrary to what my wallet tells me, I would support zoning for multi-family residences. Being a financially challenged liberal causes me to argue with myself like that. 😉
It would be interesting to know whether a local income tax would require new legislation. I imagine not many politicians would have the appetite for it however.
Dan and Ted, I will do my research on the operating override before making my decision. There is still time for that. As Mark stated above, many folks have nowhere left to cut from their budgets. Can the city hold on a bit longer without the increase until the economy improves? Can the residents on the edge hold on a bit longer? It is never a “good” time to ask for more money, but this is certainly an unusually bad time to ask.
Day mom, Winston Churchill said: “Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.” I disagree with him on that, but as an old Liberal, I too find I am having more arguments with myself, too.
Changing tax policy is intentionally difficult, Prop 2-1/2 (which was adopted by a voter initiative petition) being Exhibit A. Even changing our state income tax to a progressive tax, with higher tax rates for higher income levels, requires a constitutional amendment. I would not expect that a local income tax would be adopted unless some property tax relief were included. Which is why, after the New Year, I am going to ask the Mayor whether he will support the residential exemption to provide relief to homeowners living in less expensive homes in the city. If he is willing to support it, I am willing to try to get it pushed through the BOA. If not, well, then there isn’t much point.
Ted – thank you for that, and for understanding that there are a number of us like Day Mom and myself who are willing to pay for what is needed but are hurting and have nothing left to give up.
Day mom and mgwa, when I was growing up, my family fell on very hard times. My mom worked three jobs to put my sister and me through college and gave up almost everything to do it. She passed away 8 years ago last Thursday, and not a moment goes by that I do not feel thankful for her having been my mom. So hang in there. Your children will thank you for it and you will be rewarded for your sacrifices (if not in this world, then in the next).
Thanks Ted. My son already thanks me for it – I’m blessed with a truly wonderful kid.
@mgwa, that’s great! Speaking from personal experience (as a father and a son), sons sometimes have a harder time showing how they really feel.
Ted – he’s the same way for the most part about not verbalizing, but is very good about showing appreciation for the big stuff. He may say things, but he shows appreciation through thoughtfulness, including being reluctant to accept anything he doesn’t think I can afford. I’m a very lucky mom.