Please see the discussion of Article 29, which gives more background for this article as well.
What it means: This Article addresses exactly the same topic as Article 29, except the petitioner proposes less of an upward change in valuation exemptions versus Article 29, and proposes that both the income and asset limits be much higher. Under this scenario, many more people would qualify to have their taxes reduced, thus redistributing that tax burden to other, mainly younger taxpayers. The average value of a residence in Hampton is $400,000 (prior to the revaluation). Since the value of the primary residence in Hampton is excluded in the asset formula, a person could have a net asset value of $900,000 or more and still qualify under this proposal. Similarly, a single filer could have an income of $100,000 or a married couple could have an income of $200,000 and still qualify. Thus, many more people in the age groups noted would qualify for the tax exemption, and the taxes that would be excused for them would be picked up by the remaining homeowners.
Those in favor say: No one spoke in favor of the Article at Deliberative Session.
Those opposed say: It was expressed at Deliberative Session that the intent of this program is to help seniors who might not be able to pay their full tax bill to remain in their homes. The limits proposed in this Article as qualifying amounts make the exemption available to people with an income and a net asset value much higher than what might be considered “needs-based” under the original intent of the program. This Article, if approved, would reduce the taxable base, and thus require other taxpayers will pick up the difference.Petitioned
Fiscal impact: There is no direct tax impact, but if enacted there would be a shifting of responsibility with regard to who pays for the needed town revenue.