No on 1, what on 2?

I got my ballot for the Tennessee general election today. I ripped it open just like it was Christmas. Oh, look at my beautiful yellow ballot.

I’ve filled it all in. I even voted in the unconstested race. I took the time to laugh at the funny names of some of the independent gubenatorial candidates – like Marivuana Stout Leinoff. Who in the world name their child Marivuana? As it turns out nobody did, she named herself. And I checked out Carl “Twofeathers” Whitaker’s website – crap website, at least in Mozilla, but he does have some lovely banners freshly prepared for bloggers such as myself. See:

But I wouldn’t advise voting for this long-haired “independnent conservative” living in Sevierville. No sirree.

I voted on the ballot proposition for constituion amendement #1 – the anti gay marriage amendment. I voted no. I will explain why I did so in a future post.

I’ve voted for everything but Constitution Amendment #2. And I’ve held off because I don’t really understand it. And I don’t want to vote for something I don’t fully understand.

OK here’s what it says:

Shall Article II, blah, blah be changed by including…

By general law, the legislature may authorize the following program of tax relief:

(a) The legislative body of any county or municipality may provide by resolution or ordinance that:

1. Any taxpayer who is 65 years of age or older and who owns residential property as the taxpayer’s principal place of residence shall pay taxes on such property in an amount not to exceed the maximum amount of tax on such property imposed at the time the ordinance or resolution is adopted;
2. Any taxpayer who reaches the age of 65 after the time the ordinance or resolution is adopted who ownse residential property as the taxpayer’s prinicpal place of residence shall thereafter pay taxes on such property in an amount not to exceed the maxiumum amount of tax on such property imposed in the tax year in which such taxpayer reaches age 65; and
3. Any taxpayer who is 65 years of age or older, who purchases residential property as the taxpayer’s principal place of residence after the taxpayer’s 65th birthday, shall pay taxes in an amount not to exceed the maximum amount of tax imposed on such property in the tax year in which such property is purchased.

So basically it’s a tax freeze on property owned by old people. Old people good, taxes bad, ability to locally vary taxes to take account of local circumstances very good, right?

Well, I’m not so sure.

Why should old people get this benefit? Why not low income people with small children, or veterans, or farmers or UT fans or old Southern families ? (What was that Faulkner short story about the woman who said she didn’t have to pay property tax because her father had been a Civil War general and who possibly killed her Yankee carpetbagger husband?)

And, I have to wonder – who is really benefitting from this? Wealthy old people – or wealthy people who are about to be old. And who exactly is about to be old? Why it’s the baby boomers – the selfishest generation. Wealthy baby boomers are only too happy to limit taxes on wealth and might even push for an income tax in Tennessee as their wealth increases and their incomes drop. And I have a sneaking suspicion that real beneficiaries will be baby boomer property developers. Just wait and see.

Anyway, I’m inclined to vote NO on 2 – but I’m not going to vote on this proposition and seal my ballot until…let’s say Tuesday evening, so I’m open to persuasion until then.