1

Is this question still unclear?
If so, can someone please tell me where/what the confusion is?

Why is there no “tax relief program” (for real estate property in many US states) for the poor like they have for the people over 65?

The fact that we help the poor and homeless with shelter, foodstamps.. etc, but at the same time we take away the (paid off) houses owned by people who live on an equally poor budget (under the poverty line) if they are unable to pay the real estate taxes seems like a contradiction to me.

About the house in question (that went up in "value" this year from $26k to $32k), the assessor said it went up because: "Average prices of the real estate properties in the area have gone up"
In my opinion, the "value" of the house is something of a hypothetical or potential 'one time' "if sold" nature. It does not mean more actual money in the pockets of the owners every year.

There are "tax relief" programs for people over 65, but not for the rest of the poor. Why?

My questions are:

1 - Why do real estate taxes go up when the assessed value goes up for external reasons (beyond the control of the owner and with no immediate benefit to the owner)?

2 - Why is there no real estate tax relief (or partial relief) for the poor (in many US states)?

In my opinion the question is both clear and on topic. In the essence it asks for an explanation to what looks like a contradiction (we give to some poor and we take from other poor ppl) and another explanation to what seems like an inconsistency (we give breaks to old people, but not to younger)

3

Another problem with the question is that it is Too Broad. You ask about "many states" but they may not have the same reasons. If what you really care about is your state, why not ask about it specifically? Also, you ask two questions at the bottom.

I agree that an answer is also likely to be speculative (opinion-based). Because it is unlikely that anyone said, "I don't care about property tax relief for the poor because..."

Your question has always read like you are promoting giving "poor" people property tax relief. We don't want to encourage people to post questions as a way of promoting points of view. So we downvote and close them.

The only reason I'm not voting to close is that I'd like to answer.

0

Your question might be less unclear now.

However, IMHO, there are still two major reasons not to reopen your question:

1. primarily opinion-based

A very short answer to your question "Why?" is: Because there is no law stating so.

If you go into the next level "why is there no law?" it's because the majority hasn't voted for it.

Both of those are too trivial to be considered useful.

If you ask "Why is there no majority?" you get into opinion-based territory. You likely will get many different reasons. The current answer lists three already, with a fourth in the comments. And I can think of several more possible answers.

2. Pushing a POV

Your question still reads like a rant. It contains many loaded words, and even asserts that some things are "a good thing".

You also reacted negatively to the single answer that list several possible explanations. And you haven't selected it as the "accepted answer" after six days, even though there are no alternative answers and it does answer the "why."

To me, it sounds like you do not want an answer to the "why," but want to be assured in your POV that there should be relief.


Because of the two reasons mentioned above, I don't think it's time to reopen your question yet.

  • Tha fact that there is only one answer does not mean that the answer is good. – Alex Doe May 21 at 1:47
  • I now know how to answer "why such law" questions. "Because people voted that way" :) – Alex Doe May 21 at 1:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .