More property tax breaks veterans? Who would say no? Well, not many as it turned out at the November election when two more property tax breaks for veterans were approved by voters. 

That approval has drawn more scrutiny since then. Several of our readers and experts criticize the cuts for not helping homeless veterans of which there are many. 

More significant, they point out the tax breaks will shift more of the tax burden to other property owners to make up for lost revenue including seniors on fixed incomes. In Bernalillo County that could amount to an extra $100 a year in property tax per homeowner, says the County Assessors Office which did not take a position on the amendments. 

After all that, it's time for the flip side of the coin as reader Bob Carroll takes up the cause in favor of the amendments. 

Joe, I read with dismay your December 4 article on the recently passed Constitutional Amendments on tax breaks for veterans. As you noted, the amendments were approved by a substantial majority of the voters, 83% for HJR 5 and 73% for HJR 6. The amendments recognize the sacrifice that the veterans have made for the good of our nation. It is also important to note that neighboring states have even more generous provisions for veterans (Texas, for example).  The Department of Defense, in making its determinations on which bases will receive more missions, and which bases will remain open, places a heavy weight on which states have military friendly laws for service members, veterans and their families.

The first Constitutional amendment (HJR 5) ties a property tax reduction for veterans based on the percentage of their service-related disability. The previous provision only granted an exemption for veterans with a 100% service related disability. If you had a 60% or 40% disability, you were out of luck.  Under this bill, if you have a 40% disability then you will get a 40% reduction on your property taxes.  

About a quarter of New Mexico veterans have some level of service-connected disabilities. The average reduction in the tax bill for these veterans will be about $767 and will cost taxpayers about $14 a year (see legislative FIR, or Fiscal Impact Report). Other states have similar deductions for partially disabled veterans (Texas, for example).  The FIR assumes that every veteran takes advantage of this amendment, which never happens, and the impact is likely to be far lower.

The cost of the second amendment that reduces the bills that veterans receive for property taxes is de minimis. The amendment provides that the exemption, which was pegged at $4,000 in 2006 to be deducted from the taxable value of the property, will be raised to $10,000 and will be tied to the rate of inflation in prospective years. Keep in mind that we are talking about a $10,000 deduction on the value of the property, not on the tax bill. 

New Mexico has 142,000 veterans, and about half claim the property deduction. A $10,000 reduction in the valuation of a $300,000 house in Albuquerque (to $290,000) doesn’t mean much financially to the homeowner. It means a lot more to a veteran living in a $40,000 trailer.  The average reduction in actual taxes paid by veterans will be about $180. This is an annual burden on the general population of $34, which again assumes that every veteran will apply for the exemption.

I won’t argue that our tax system is perfect or that a different approach might benefit more people. I do maintain that recognizing our veterans and enacting provisions that are in line with other states is important in keeping our veterans here in New Mexico. 

UBI

Reader Maureen Skowran is enjoying the discussion of a Universal Basic Income but. . .

Hi, Joe. I am loving the support for guaranteed income, such as from Mitchell Freedman on Nov. 21 and Ken Tabish on Dec. 4. But Ken is misleading by calling his proposal “universal basic income.” “Universal” means “all” – and giving the money to only families with children is clearly not all. 

“Universal basic income” has a well-established meaning. According to GiveDirectly, which runs one of the longest-standing basic income programs, it means: 

"Universal, serving all members of society; Basic, enough to cover basic needs; and an Income, an unconditional, recurring payment guaranteed for recipients’ lifetimes. To truly meet the definition of “basic,” the payment must also be sufficient to cover fundamental needs."

This isn’t a critique of the proposal’s merits but a call for clarity about what it actually represents.   

This is the Home of New Mexico Politics.