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)