Then:
“My opinion is that to extend tax breaks to seniors in order to keep them overhoused and isolated in the suburbs is not necessarily the right answer,” Healey told a State House News Service reporter two weeks ago, in an interview that was made public yesterday. “It’s an answer, but the best answer would be to bring them into our city and town centers, into more appropriate housing, and free up those properties to get back on the tax rolls of the community.” …
“Right now, the situation that’s causing an imbalance in our suburban communities is that many of our seniors are aging in their homes …. Plus, they may have three or four bedrooms and only be using one of them. There are families that need that housing.”
Now (idea #40 – no permalink since the whole stupid thing is in Flash):
Given a choice, senior citizens overwhelmingly prefer to remain in their homes or with their families instead of entering a long-term care facility. There is an opportunity for a win-win solution for Massachusetts if we make a commitment to focusing on expanding less costly home health care services. Providing tax incentives to caretakers, who dedicate a significant amount of their time and personal resources to care for an elderly relative, will allow more seniors to remain in their home in a caring environment.
So … I guess she was against those tax breaks before she was for them. Or she was for encouraging seniors to leave their homes in the suburbs and to move into “more appropriate housing” before she was against it. Or something. Flip, flop, flip, flop.
I see another BMG-TV project taking shape…
sachem_head says
I see what you’re driving at here, David, but it sounds to my ear as if the two quotes are dealing with different issues. In the first, it sounds like Healey is talking about the property tax circuit breaker. In the second, it sounds like she’s talking about home health care.
<
p>
That said, she does sound cold and uncaring in the first quote about seniors (“overhoused”!?) and warmer and fuzzier in the second, but it’s a bit weak as a gotcha, in my opinion.
mike-m says
Kerry Healey will spend her golden years with a Butler, Maid, Gardeners and Personal Driver. In each of her multi million dollar homes spread out across the Country.
My wife and I have worked our entire lives and will be lucky to hold onto this house when we retire.
What a horrible thing for the elderly to hear from someone who may hold so much power over their lives.
theloquaciousliberal says
I sincerly hope that BMG-TV, the “Patriot Majority” and Democrats in general will realize that this is a ridiculous issue to debate.
<
p>
First, despite my staunchly liberal views, I personally think Healey was right on the issue and only wrong on the spin. Many senior’s are “overhoused” in the sense that they now live in houses that are too big for their needs, are paying property taxes on their home’s current value, and don’t plan on leaving their home or taking advantage of their equity before their deaths. Using our government resources (“tax breaks) in a way that perpetuates this social ill is terrible public policy. No politician could/should ever say this but seniors who truly cannot afford their property tax bill should either move, get a reverse mortgage or seek the assistance of those who anticipate inheriting their house.
<
p>
Second, the “flip flop” thing doesn’t work here. In the first instance, Healey’s talking about property taxes. In the second she’s talking about tax breaks for home health care workers. At best, Healey was “against seniors” before she was “for seniors.” At worst, Healey was bravely stating the truth about the real solution to seniors’ property tax burden before she was compassionately supportive of seniors’ desire to stay out of nursing homes.
<
p>
dweir says
You missed a part of your quote from the Globe article, the part where she says:
<
p>
<
p>
Wouldn’t want to include a statement that gives a more accurate portrayal of her character, now would you?
<
p>
Anyway, you’re referring to two different tax breaks. I believe she is still against the proposed property tax exemptions for seniors (there was a bill, not passed, that would have allowed towns to totally exempt seniors — rather than just defer their tax payments).
<
p>
The tax break in no. 40 is for the caregiver, not the senior.
<
p>
peter-porcupine says
Over 50% of the homeowners in my town are over age 65.
<
p>
If they don’t pay taxes – who will? The three families left with kids?
dweir says
Okay BMGers, you took it up a notch. I agree that seniors remaining in large homes despite their economic ability to pay for them is not something we should subsidize. I didn’t post it in my original comment because I didn’t want to start some side argument. I’ve got to give you guys credit for recognizing the merit in her position and perhaps even the political courage it took to say it.
nopolitician says
If we pursue a policy that encourages seniors to move once they become empty-nesters, or once they retire, who is to say that they’re going to remain in Massachusetts?
<
p>
I think that imbalances between demographic groups can have disasterour affects on municipalities. Imagine a town that has no seniors, and a lot of school-age kids. The finances don’t work compared to a town that has a good mix of both seniors and school-age kids.
dweir says
My town is rated near the top for percentage of homes with school-aged children. However, it is not the responsibility of the state to subsidize the living standards of seniors who choose to live beyond their means. State subsidies would just make a community like mine a donor community! The problem with subsidies is there is always a cutoff — age, income, etc. — and always people who just don’t qualify.
<
p>
The better solution is choice. I don’t think anyone is talking about a policy to encourage seniors to “move” in some ambigous sense. But communities need to recognize they have to be part of the solution and allow the types of housing that will allow more seniors (and others) to stay in their community.
peter-porcupine says
theloquaciousliberal says
No one suggested a policy “encouraging” seniors to move. Just that encouraging seniors to stay “overhoused” is bad public policy. A subtle but important diffence.
<
p>
Moreover, I disagree with your premise that it’s neccessarily bad to have a town with fewer seniors and more school-age families (let’s forget the strange idea that public policy could somehow lead to a town with no seniors and children living with no parents?). It might be but, without delving too much in too statistics, it might not be. Off the top of my head, your “nightmare” would probably increase the single-family housing suppply, reduce the number of seniors paying discounted property taxes just for being seniors, slow-down “white flight” and encourage working adults (with kids) to move back in to the town/city.
<
p>
More when I have time to do some research 9or from others?)….
gary says
I assume you’re on board with 1-39.
david says
lisriba says
I’m new to the board so not sure of all the rules, but in my blog I’ve pointed out the problems with 3 or 4 of her 50 points.
<
p>
Frankly, the whole thing reads to me like a checklist of reasons NOT to vote for KH.
gary says
I saw your blog entry. The proposal says raise the age a student can drop out of high school to 18. You graduated at age 17. Ms. Healey’s proposal has no effect on early graduation ages. AND you know it.
lisriba says
She talks about dropouts in her explanatory text, but her specific proposal is to raise the age of mandatory school attendance.
<
p>
The law doesn’t appear to differentiate between graduates and dropouts.
<
p>
That’s why I’m asking.
gary says
gary says
In your opinion?
lasthorseman says
Again highly irrelevant. Death, seniors, medication, nursing homes and the entire geriatric procedure and protocol, policies have evolved into an entire industry.
You, your aging parents have absolutely zero control even in these last moments of life. The state controls all.
I am planning my escape from the home now.
Oh, and there are commercials for relocation to beautiful Arkansas on cable channels. Even Mass flight is an industry!