Well, sort of.
In exchange for assuring that residents 65 and older never see another tax rate increase, the commissioners stripped away the $69,000 tax exemption for residents who will turn 65 next year or thereafter.
The goal is to safeguard house-rich but cash-poor senior citizens from being priced out of their homes. But it only works if the house rapidly appreciates in value over several years.
A senior who may well need the help the most – one who lives in a modest home that is appreciating little – won't be as fortunate. For that person, the $69,000 exemption – which reduced the taxable value of a home by that amount – would provide greater immediate financial assistance than a tax-rate freeze.
According to a county analysis, it will take eight years before tax savings under the freeze are greater than what seniors would have saved with the exemption instead.
Philosophically, this newspaper has opposed property tax breaks based on something as arbitrary as age. Easing the burden on some wealthier retirees – if it means putting a heavier one on young couples starting out – isn't a wise policy.
We believe that keeping the senior citizen exemption in place and adjusting it periodically would have given the county and seniors of all income levels greater flexibility. The majority of county commissioners obviously disagreed.
Other possible options would have been to let needy seniors decide whether to take an exemption or the tax freeze, depending on which is better for their circumstances, or permitting a combination of a tax rate cap and senior citizen exemption.
It's good that county officials recognize that many older residents live on tight budgets. But a tax freeze is not the fairest way to help those who most need help.
