Year after year I am saddened to see my town continually divided over the ability or inability of its citizens to afford an increase in our property taxes.
At every town meeting, a group of residents approaches the microphone to explain how they are living on a fixed income and will be forced to move from the town theyโve lived in all their lives if taxes increase. Another group approaches the mic and talks about how we cannot afford not to increase the school budget or town budget to pay for vital building expansions or services. And both groups are right. Whatโs wrong is the way we are asked to share the burden.
I believe Hampshire citizens know at a gut level that a property tax is not an equitable way to tax people. A property tax does not know if youโve lost your job or have been forced to take a pay cut. Your property value is simply a snapshot in time that values one asset you own while ignoring your overall financial health. And yet, as proven by the politicians we continue to elect, it seems a majority of citizens show no interest in changing this outdated and unfair method of taxation. So instead we continue to argue with our neighbors about what is a โneedโ and what is a โwantโ when it comes to paying for our schools and town services. Itโs truly heartbreaking.
In thinking about all this conflict, it occurred to me that if we as a state are going to continue to stubbornly cling to the notion of taxing a citizenโs property to raise funds, there is a fairer way to do so โ the town portion of the vehicle registration tax.
If towns were freed to set their own vehicle registration tax rates, they could shift a portion of the property-based tax burden to the vehicle registration tax. And I would argue that the vehicle a citizen drives is a far more accurate portrayal of their overall income and financial well-being than the house they own.
Vehicles are typically going to be purchased or traded/sold every three to five years โ far more often than homes. When a new vehicle is purchased, the purchaser makes a conscious choice as to how much to spend based upon their ability to pay and their โwantsโ versus their โneeds.โ
If someone chooses to buy a $60,000 BMW instead of a reliable used car for $15,000, then I would argue that speaks a great deal toward whether one can โaffordโ a 35-cent increase in the property tax rate or not. Those who live modestly, or simply within their means, would not be dramatically impacted by the new vehicle tax. Those families with several luxury cars in the garage would pay considerably more in taxes. If the luxury car owner reaches a point where they cannot afford the taxes on that luxury vehicle, the choice is simple โ sell the vehicle and buy something cheaper. No need to leave town, sell a house in a depressed market or any of the other draconian choices that are now required when your house is the sole measure of your wealth.
Who could argue that a property tax on vehicles is less fair than a property tax on someoneโs home?
(Scott Metzger lives in Hopkinton.)