Bipartisan efforts to expand property tax exemptions face pushback from Mills administration
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are trying to expand the state's tax exemption for homeowners. Some want increased exemptions for all Mainers, whereas others want to see expansion for certain groups, including seniors, veterans and those with low incomes.
There is bipartisan agreement that Maine's property tax system needs reform, with legislators saying it was the most common concern they heard on the campaign trail this fall and sharing stories of Mainers who have lost their homes because of the tax. Maine has the highest property tax burden in the country, a statistic Republicans have reiterated throughout the session when voicing opposition to tax increases of any kind.
However, the projected cost of expanding this exemption in any way remains a barrier to change, evidenced by opposition from Gov. Janet Mills' administration during public hearings on the proposals Wednesday.
Currently, the Homestead Property Tax Exemption provides a reduction for property tax purposes of up to $25,000 from the value of a home. In order to qualify, a homeowner must be a permanent resident of Maine, the home must be their permanent residence and they have to have owned a home in the state for at least one year before applying.
The state previously tried to provide tax relief for Maine's oldest residents in 2022.
The Property Tax Stabilization Program allowed those at least 65 years old to freeze their property taxes at the previous year's level regardless of income, as long as they owned a permanent residence for at least 10 years and were eligible to receive a homestead exemption. Mills allowed the law to take effect without her signature.
Taxes take center stage in budget debates
However, the Legislature repealed that program after just one year in effect, following skyrocketing cost projections, concern about wealthy property owners taking advantage due to a lack of income restrictions and the administrative burden it left on municipalities.
While lawmakers last year tried to soften the blow by expanding eligibility to the Property Tax Fairness Credit and creating a Property Tax Deferral Program, the relief from those changes has done little to address the huge property taxes that remain for many seniors, lawmakers argue.
However, some of the tax plans being considered this year borrow from the funding model of the Property Tax Stabilization Program, prompting concern among some who testified.
But while these bills seek to expand the existing exemption, others are eyeing a restructure. For example, the committee will consider a constitutional amendment to allow municipalities to divide taxes on real estate and personal property equally according to their value. A change to the state constitution would require the support of two-thirds of the Legislature to then send the proposal out to voters to ultimately decide.
Sen. Joseph Baldacci (D-Penobscot), along with two other Democratic co-sponsors and one Republican, proposed LD 140, which will increase the tax exemption by $10,000 of the just value of a home starting on or after April 1, 2026.
The increases will stop once the total exemption reaches $95,000, but afterwards the exemption amount would be adjusted annually for inflation.
Baldacci argued that incrementally increasing the tax exemption would be the most fiscally responsible method because it will be more feasible for the general fund to absorb costs.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
'By staging these annual increases over a six-year period, we can deliver property tax relief in a completely fiscally responsible manner based on our current state budgetary resources,' Baldacci said.
House Minority Leader Billy Bob Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor) has proposed a smaller overall increase all at once.
LD 658, which has nine Republican co-sponsors, would double the exemption from $25,000 to $50,000 of the just value of the home.
'This disconnect between the rising cost of property taxes and stagnant incomes is putting pressure on homeowners,' Faulkingham said. 'Increasing the homestead exemption would provide much needed relief.'
While the bill as currently drafted states that this change would begin on or after April 1, 2025, the committee discussed pushing that start date back given the quick turnaround it would require, and Faulkingham said he was open to doing so.
'Many residents, particularly seniors and low to moderate income homeowners, struggle with property tax burdens that exceed their ability to maintain or afford their homes,' Faulkingham said.
Those specific groups, as well as veterans, are the focus of the other bills that seek to change this tax exemption.
'Every bill heard today offers the committee potential tools to bring about property tax relief, as has been well established property taxes are on everyone's mind,' said Amanda Campbell, legislative advocate for the Maine Municipal Association, a nonprofit that provides professional services to local governmental entities across the state.
However, Campbell said the association is only supportive of LD 140 and LD 658 because it is opposed to targeting such relief to limited groups.
Three bills seek to increase the tax exemption for seniors, though by different means and to different degrees.
The exemption would increase to $75,000 for residents who are 65 years old or older who have owned a home in Maine for at least 10 years under LD 7, which Sen. Rick Bennett (R-Oxford) proposed along with three other Republican co-sponsors and one Democrat.
'Expanding the homestead exemption, which is a tried and true program that Mainers are already familiar with, simply makes sense,' Bennett said. 'It's administratively very simple.'
Michael Allen, associate commissioner for tax policy for the Maine Department of Administrative and Financial Affairs, said the Mills administration opposed this bill and others because of projected costs it would incur the state and because of the 10-year residency requirement, which he argued could be unconstitutional. That residency requirement had been in the Property Tax Stabilization Program.
Alternatively, Sen. Donna Bailey (D-York) wants to see changes to the tax exemption made at the local level.
Through LD 559, Bailey and six Democratic co-sponsors are seeking to allow municipalities to adopt a property tax stabilization program for their senior residents approved by ordinance.
The Property Tax Deferral Program, which Bailey advocated for last year, is often seen as a last resort for Mainers who cannot pay their property taxes. Bailey described LD 559 as a 'next to last resort.'
Similar to Bennett's bill, a municipality adopting such an ordinance would have to require the person has owned a home in Maine for at least 10 years. However, the age threshold for this bill is anyone who is at least 62 years old.
This bill would allow a municipality to offset the loss of revenue through a local option sales tax approved by referendum. This funding model raised several objections.
Campbell from Maine Municipal Association argued it mimics the model used by the Property Tax Stabilization Program, which was repealed due to insufficient funding.
Linda Caprara, vice president of advocacy for the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, argued the model would result in some municipalities having more funds than others and not account for seasonal fluctuations or unexpected changes such as tariffs and natural disasters.
Rep. Stephen Wood (R-Greene), along with nine Republican co-sponsors, proposed LD 934 as another avenue to provide relief for seniors, as well as veterans.
Currently, the $25,000 exemption must be adjusted by the local certified ratio, generally the percentage difference between the fair market value of a home and the local assessed value.
This means that unless a municipality has a certified assessment ratio of 100%, the exemption is less than $25,000.
Under LD 934, 100% of the exemption amount would be provided regardless of the assessment ratio of the municipality, if a qualified applicant is either at least 65 years old or a veteran. The bill would also require the state to reimburse a municipality for 100% of the revenue lost, compared to the current 76%.
Greene told the Taxation Committee he knows the bill won't pass because of the high cost to the state. In addition to that concern, Allen with DAFS argued this proposal in particular would be administratively complex.
However, Greene emphasized, as many other lawmakers did Wednesday, that his constituents have voiced to him persistent fears of losing their homes due to the high tax burden.
'We have to do something,' Greene said. 'Especially the seniors and veterans who are on fixed incomes.'
Sen. Cameron Reny (D-Lincoln) took a different approach with her proposal to expand the exemption.
LD 570 would provide an additional tax exemption of $75,000 to families and individuals who make below a certain income, bringing the total tax exemption available for those eligible up to $100,000.
The higher exemption would be available to those who made a federally adjusted gross income for the prior income tax year of less than: $200,000 for a married couple filing jointly, $150,000 for heads of household, and $100,000 for single people or couples filing separately.
The Mills administration is also opposed to this plan, with Allen specifically recommending against the eligibility cliffs and estimating the fiscal impact would be an additional burden on the general fund of about $173 million per year.
'I have seen this committee produce really good compromises that can help all Mainers and I also know each committee member here is aware of the current property tax burdens that are causing a lot of stress,' Reny said. 'I offer this bill to you as a possible aide to our constituents, or as a property tax vehicle for the committee to use.'
The Legislature is also considering other tweaks to the Homestead Property Tax not discussed on Wednesday, such as removing the 12-month waiting period. The Taxation Committee already voted down a plan to change the definition of 'homestead' under this exemption law that sought to expand eligibility to irrevocable trusts.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
a few seconds ago
- Fox News
Schwarzenegger pushing back back against Newsom redistricting bid in California
Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is preparing for a new role. The longtime Hollywood action star who was the last Republican elected governor in Democrat-dominated California is gearing up to oppose the push by current Gov. Gavin Newsom to scrap the state's non-partisan redistricting commission. "He calls gerrymandering evil, and he means that. He thinks it's truly evil for politicians to take power from people," Schwarzenegger spokesperson Daniel Ketchell told Politico. Newsom, whom pundits view as a likely contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, aims to redraw California's congressional maps, to give the state five more blue-leaning House districts ahead of next year's midterm elections. The push by Newsom is a counter effort to negate a move underway by Republicans in GOP-dominated Texas to create five more right-leaning congressional districts at President Donald Trump's urging. The Republican push in Texas is part of a broader effort by the GOP across the country to keep control of their razor-thin House majority, and cushion losses elsewhere in the country, as the party in power traditionally faces political headwinds and loses seats in midterm elections. Trump and his political team are aiming to prevent what happened during his first term in the White House, when Democrats stormed back to grab the House majority in the 2018 midterms. "Texas will be the biggest one," the president told reporters recently, as he predicted the number of GOP-friendly seats that could be added through redistricting in the reliably red state. "Just a simple redrawing, we pick up five seats." Scores of Texas Democrats in the state legislature fled the state, to prevent Republicans from holding votes to pass the new maps. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has called for those lawmakers to be arrested and prosecuted upon their return to the Lone Star State. The moves by Republicans and Democrats to implement rare mid-decade redistricting is opposed by Schwarzenegger, who championed California's nonpartisan redistricting system. "He's opposed to what Texas is doing, and he's opposed to the idea that California would race to the bottom to do the same thing," Ketchell added. Schwarzenegger, during his tenure as governor, had a starring role in the passage of constitutional amendments in California in 2008 and 2010 that took the power to draw state legislative and congressional districts away from politicians and place it in the hands of an independent commission. While the Republican push in Texas to upend the current congressional maps doesn't face constitutional constraints, Newsom's path in California is much more complicated. The governor is moving to hold a special election this year, to obtain voter approval to undo the constitutional amendments that created the non-partisan redistricting commission. A two-thirds majority vote in the Democrat-dominated California legislature would be needed to hold the referendum. "The proposal that we're advancing with the legislature has a trigger only if they move forward, to dismantling the protocols that are well-established," Newsom said on Monday. "Would the state of California move forward in kind? Fighting? Yes, fire with fire." Newsom said the people of California would have the final say. "We will offer them the opportunity to make judgments for themselves, again, only if Texas moves forward," Newsom said.

Business Insider
a few seconds ago
- Business Insider
The real reason Silicon Valley hates Lina Khan
You'd think venture capitalists and startups would support an antitrust crackdown on Big Tech. These behemoths regularly squash promising young startups, using their unrivaled power over users, data, and various digital markets. But when antitrust regulators gave enforcing regulation a real shot in recent years, the VC industry's howls of displeasure became very loud. The apotheosis of this arrived last week, after Figma IPO-ed and its stock surged 250%. Former FTC Chair Lina Khan took a victory lap, saying regulators' efforts to block an earlier Adobe acquisition resulted in a far better outcome. "A great reminder that letting startups grow into independently successful businesses, rather than be bought up by existing giants, can generate enormous value," Khan wrote on X. "A win for employees, investors, innovation, and the public." Silicon Valley goes berserk "Colossal stupidity," responded Vinod Khosla, one of the most successful VCs in Silicon Valley. "Lina Khan cuts off the right hand of a genius pianist, who nevertheless perseveres and produces a one-handed masterpiece, for which she then takes credit," Shea Levy, a software engineer at defense tech startup Anduril, wrote on X. "It's crazy that you prevented that acquisition and infuriating that you're taking credit for Figma's success," Trevor Gehman, cofounder of a startup called Clearstream, tweeted. I asked a Silicon Valley M&A advisor for comment on Friday, and they responded with a kind of manic poem. This person asked not to be identified when discussing sensitive matters. Their response really captures the strength of feelings here, so it's worth sharing. " She doesn't deserve s***. She has done zero to create anything. Ever. Anywhere. Except carnage and havoc." Is that a Haiku? I'm not sure. Anyway, why so much vitriol? How VCs make a living The real reason VCs and their advisors hate limits on M&A is that they threaten the main way they make money. The industry loves to pretend it's in it for the long haul and wants to build enduring businesses that disrupt the goliaths of the sector. But in reality, M&A deals are the main way VCs make money from their startup investments. While they tweet publicly about changing the world, they often privately push founders to sell out to Big Tech. So if anyone gets in the way of such transactions, they become very twitchy. "People wonder why VCs cheer on Big Tech deals, it's simple: M&A offers a soft landing. Startups can flame out quietly instead of dying publicly," said Jordan Thibodeau, who worked on M&A deals at Google and now hosts the SVIC podcast. "Compared to the compliance nightmare of an IPO, getting acquired is the cleanest escape hatch and ensures most employees have a safe landing." "FDIC insurance for bad bets" Thibodeau said, pre-Lina Khan, and before Republicans decided to target the tech industry, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft were a kind of welfare office for founders and their VC sponsors. "M&A was basically FDIC insurance for bad bets," he added. "If it crashes, rich uncle Sundar or daddy Zuck will bail us out." At least legendary VC Paul Graham made some effort to be honest here, although he could have been clearer that Y Combinator relies heavily on larger tech companies buying the startups he backs. "Startups are risky. Sometimes when you keep rolling the dice things turn out well. Sometimes not. But founders should be able to decide for themselves when to stop," he wrote in response to Khan's post on X. We want our M&A fees For anyone else involved in tech M&A, such as investment bankers and deal lawyers, any limits on transactions mean fewer commissions and other fees. So, of course, they're inclined to criticize antitrust enforcement — whether deals are good for consumers and society or not. In the US, the DOJ was officially responsible for questioning Adobe's acquisition of Figma. But a lot of the ire for this, and other similar situations, has focused on Khan, a revolutionary antitrust regulator who ran the FTC during President Biden's recent term in office. She pioneered a new type of tech antitrust enforcement that focused on factors other than the traditional US test of whether consumers might see higher prices from M&A. Jonathan Kanter, a DOJ antitrust official, was part of this movement, but Khan is often credited with starting it. "Lina Khan did her job. She was active, competent, and gave the Biden administration what they wanted, aggressive oversight on tech," Thibodeau said, while saying that he disagreed with some of her antitrust moves, such as the FTC's efforts to block Microsoft's acquisition of Activision and the successful challenge to Amazon's purchase of iRobot. During Biden's time in office, her new approach led to a pretty big decline in tech M&A activity, as you can see from that chart above. So, when Khan tweeted a victory lap after the Figma IPO, it's understandable that VCs went berserk on X — just not for the reasons they said publicly.


New York Times
a few seconds ago
- New York Times
Trump Praised a Sydney Sweeney Ad, and American Eagle's Stock Soared
On Monday, American Eagle's stock rose by more than 23 percent after President Trump complimented the company's controversial advertisement featuring the actress Sydney Sweeney, upon learning that she shared his political affiliation. When speaking with reporters on Monday morning, Mr. Trump was asked what he thought about the backlash to her ad campaign and then was told that Ms. Sweeney is a registered Republican. 'Now I love her ad,' he said. He added, 'You'd be surprised at how many people are Republicans.' Then, on social media, he posted that the ad was 'the 'HOTTEST' ad out there.' He said that American Eagle's jeans were 'flying off the shelves' and then said, 'Go get 'em, Sydney!' Public voting records in Florida confirm that Ms. Sweeney registered as a Republican on June 14, 2024, but the actress has not commented publicly on political issues, nor has she publicly endorsed Mr. Trump. Representatives for Ms. Sweeney did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the issue. The show of support from the president probably contributed to the surge in American Eagle's stock, Rich Smith, a stock market analyst at the financial services company Motley Fool, wrote in a post on Monday. But such an endorsement could end up being a 'double-edged sword' for the company, he wrote, because it could 'alienate' segments of consumers. The stock lost some of the gains on Tuesday, with a 2 percent decline at the opening bell and further declines after the start of trading, but Monday's bump was an example of Mr. Trump's influence on the market and on the financial condition of businesses. The company has been struggling — its sales declined in the first quarter of the year — and the ad campaign was an attempt to reverse its downward trajectory. With his comment and post, Mr. Trump seemed to provide a boost to that effort. The ad in question, which was released in July, shows the popular actress clad in American Eagle denim while she talks about genetic traits. The camera then zooms into her blue eyes as she says, 'My jeans are blue.' When the ad first appeared online, American Eagle's stocks rallied in a bout of meme-stock mania. That initial bump to the company's stock price was short-lived. The ad — along with its accompanying tagline, 'Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans' — was criticized on social media for seemingly celebrating eugenics and white beauty standards, and the stock tumbled. The ad also set off debates about whether the company deliberately courted controversy as a marketing strategy and about the ever-shifting standards of political correctness. On Friday, days after the ad was released, American Eagle posted a statement on Instagram declaring the campaign 'is and always was about the jeans.' It did not immediately respond to requests for comment about Mr. Trump's endorsement or the company's recent stock performance.