Better tax breaks
Published: Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2013, 9:01 p.m.
Regarding the news story “Tax break for seniors offered by Pennsylvania Senate majority leader” (Oct. 9 and TribLIVE.com) about Sen. Dominic Pileggi's Senate Bill 299 to freeze senior citizens' school property taxes: Nice try, but not good enough for seniors in counties recently reassessed.
The bill would allow such counties and municipalities to continue to increase taxes.
Most of the seniors I know have a substantial retirement income, much more than the incomes of minimum-wage workers who own homes or of disabled homeowners.
Is any senator, including mine, willing to amend this bill accordingly?
The latter two groups are the ones who need property tax breaks as a matter of having a roof over their heads.
Any property-tax legislation should be income-based, as is the current senior citizen property tax/rent rebate program.
With Pennsylvania having the second biggest senior population in the country, I think this is just another election-time ploy to gather votes.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Ethanol’s benefits
- Thanks to our veterans
- Privatization disastrous
- ‘Chained’ sellout
- Christians must vote
- Forgetting troops
- Obits interesting
- Legacy: All lose
- More overreach
- Unconstitutional funding
- New sewer fee not unreasonable