In an age of shrinking and tighter budgets at all levels of government, including police, fire, and school districts, I wonder what kind of budget impact this would have if it were implemented in Missouri. Any data available on that David?

I don’t have any figures, but I should add that these programs usually are operated at the state level. The state typically advances payments to cities and counties and school districts, and then ultimately collects the back taxes and interest.

I see, that would cancel the effect on things like school districts. Thanks for the info.

The same thing can be accomplished with the existing system of “reverse mortgages,” which are essentially large loans that are secured by people’s homes. The agreement is that the people live in their homes until they die, and then the lender recoups the loan from the sale of the property. Part of the loan money can be used to pay property taxes along with all other expenses.

I had this very discussion with a neighbor of mine who is close to retirement. His argument is that retirees do not have the income to continually increase their property tax. Then I suggested for the government to put a lien on the property each year for the delinquent pp till it is sold. His response was that his children would then have to pay the tax.
So the bottom line is to float this balloon and see what the objections are. If the complaint is truly a fixed income issue, this will work. I think the reality is something else. Besides, this is a mute issue. With housing sale prices dropping, our tax should drop next year, right!

John2

Unfortunately, I have a libertarian streak that says if you can’t afford to stay in your home of several decades, whether it’s because of taxes, maintenance or utilities, it’s probably time to think about downsizing. The only other alternative is the Florida model of shifting an ever-increasing tax burden onto someone, anyone else - businesses, new arrivals, young people starting families, etc., etc. Face it, nobody LIKES to pay taxes. When they’re applied equitably and fairly, they’re at least a little easier to swallow. But the ONLY way for one person to pay less is for everyone else to pay a little more. Plus, your home, much like your church, is not the structure, but the people and their activities that put a life into the structure. A smaller, more intimate, more manageable and potentially more energy-efficient home is a better alternative than hanging onto the “big house” after the kids have moved out . . .

You’re no Libertarian. You’re no libertarian at all.

How did we come to this? When did it become possible for a person to be forced from their home because they can’t afford a tax that is determined subjectively.

I agree with you somewhat about just selling the old house and moving on but I don’t think senior are going to be too exited about packing up 30-50 years of accumulated junk and moving when they can just die someday and let their kids worry about it.