The Growing Movement to End Property Taxes Continues in Kentucky, And What It Means For Investors
After many years of back-and-forth, the quest to end property taxes has intensified. Last year, BiggerPockets reported on eight states that were weighing options to reform or outright eliminate property taxes. This year, another state has thrown its hat into the ring.
Kentucky is pushing to freeze property taxes, but specifically for seniors. While that’s a commendable feel-good retirement strategy for the over-65s, it could also present challenges and opportunities for real estate investors as other states jump on board with senior-friendly tax rules.
What Kentucky’s Senior Tax Freeze Would Actually Do
Kentucky lawmakers are advancing Senate Bill 51, a proposed constitutional amendment that would freeze property tax assessments for homeowners aged 65 and older on their primary residence. The measure would lock in the assessed value on a senior’s home starting either the year they turn 65 or the year they purchase the property, whichever comes later, WDRB reports. Seniors would still pay taxes, but only on the frozen value, even if the tax rate increased.
“For instance, if your home was $200,000 when you turn 65 and it goes up to $300,000, you will still pay the tax on the $200,000 in whatever rate it is,” bill sponsor Sen. Mike Nemes (R-Shepherdsville) said in a statement.
“I, too, get emails constantly from people that say, ‘I’m going to have to sell my home or move out of my home because I can’t afford the taxes,’” Sen. Cassie Chambers Armstrong, D-Louisville, said, as WDRB reported. “We know that, for those low-income seniors, homeownership is how they build and transfer wealth to the next generation.”
HousingWire reports that the bill has already cleared the state Senate committee and must be approved by three-fifths of both chambers of the Kentucky General Assembly before going to voters in November as a constitutional amendment.
A Wider Movement to Shield Older Homeowners From Increasing Property Taxes
Kentucky is just one state examining ways to alleviate property tax strain on seniors. Many states now offer some form of senior property tax relief, typically through exemptions, freezes, or deferral programs, that reduce the taxable value or allow payments to be postponed until a sale or death, according to The Mortgage Reports.
New York and Texas
In New York, a recent law allows senior homeowners a property tax exemption of up to 65% of their home’s assessed value, up from 50%, starting Jan. 1, 2026.
Texas lawmakers are also considering something similar. A proposal known as Operation Double Nickel would reduce the threshold for certain school-related property tax benefits from 65 to 55 and freeze the school portion of the bill at its value when the homeowner reaches that age. Analysts estimate that Texans could save around $1,000 a year when the bill is introduced.
The national view
Property taxes are a key factor in deciding where retirees want to live, the New York Times reports, based on a study by WalletHub. It’s why Florida, which, in addition to its mild weather, has no state income tax.
How a Senior Tax Freeze Could Shape Investor Opportunity
If the loss of property tax revenue from senior housing is offsetby increasing taxes on other homeowners, the effects could further decimate affordability. In the case ofinvestors, who tend to own rentals in pass-through structures where property taxes factor directly into NOI and cash flow rather than providing a straightforward personal deduction, it would take a big bite out of cash flow.
The bottom line is that cities need tax revenue to function properly. Should seniors see their taxes freeze, the shortfall would need to be made up from somewhere.
The Kentucky Center for Economic Policy, a nonpartisan research organization, warned about the effect decreased tax revenue could have on school and local services. In 2023, Kentucky collected $4.94 billion in property taxes on real estate, vehicles, boats, airplanes, and business equipment, with most of that revenue coming from real estate, according to Houses Marketplace.
The center wrote:
“The property tax is a critical component of a diverse, resilient tax system because it adds stability to revenues. Capping, freezing, or even eliminating property taxfor broad groups of individuals, as some are proposing, disproportionately benefits the wealthy and harms Kentucky communities becauseit serves as the primary source of revenue for so many local services. The property tax can be modifiedin ways that would make it fairer, but it should be protectedas a vital revenue source.”
The opportunity
On the positive side, a region with a stable senior population, particularly those who have relocated from higher-tax regions, would boost demand for both owner-occupied housing and rental housing from older tenants, many of whom don’t want to be saddled with the financial obligations of owning a home. That could strengthen rental demand in age-friendly submarkets, especially for single-story homes, small multifamily properties, and accessible units.
Senior investors could increase their cash flow
Low real estate taxes would benefit seniors who are also real estate investors.
First, if they do not have to pay higher taxes on their personal residence, they would have more cash in their pockets. Second, if their personal residence were a two-to-four-unit property, they would presumably be eligible for a tax break on some or all of the residence, while also benefiting from the cash flow of having a tenant—a double win when their working life is over.
At the federal level, a New York Times guide to filing 2025 tax returns notes that individuals 65 and older can claim an extra deduction of up to $6,000 for single filers and $12,000 for married couples, subject to income-based phaseouts. That deduction can strengthen after-tax cash flow for older mom-and-pop investors who hold rentals personally or through pass-through structures in which rental income flows through to their individual returns.
Final Thoughts
While low-tax states for seniors might have some long-term implications for real estate investors—both positive and negative—it’s too early to predict what they will be. However, if you are a senior or approaching senior age and a real estate investor, taking advantage of various states’ tax relief measures can boost your cash flow, whether it simply results in less cash going out of your pocket in a single-family personal residence or by boosting your net income in an owner-occupied two-to-four-family residence.
3 Things to Know About Walmart Stock Before You Buy
Investors don’t need to buy the latest and greatest technology enterprises to achieve spectacular results. Walmart (WMT 0.60%) is a case in point. Its share price is up 183% in the past five years and 448% over the trailing decade (as of Feb. 26). This might come as a surprise, as the business flirts with a trillion-dollar market cap.
If you’re impressed by Walmart’s stellar performance, maybe it’s time to take a closer look. Here are three things investors need to know about this retail stock before buying.
Image source: Getty Images.
A steady performer with a wide moat
The current macro environment, particularly in the U.S., can be characterized as a K-shaped economy. This describes the divergence between higher-income and lower-income consumers, with the former faring better than the latter. This backdrop doesn’t faze Walmart, whose entire value proposition is predicated on providing as much value as it can to shoppers. This cuts across income cohorts. And it’s something that will always be in demand.
This points to the reality that Walmart is one of the most stable businesses that investors can find in the market. It reported same-store sales (SSS) growth in the U.S. of 4.6% in Q4 2026 (ended Jan. 31). This was at least the 28th straight quarter that it posted positive SSS. This is a resilient company that navigated the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain bottlenecks, surging inflation, rising interest rates, and tariff uncertainty.
There is also almost zero risk that Walmart gets disrupted or becomes obsolete anytime soon. That’s because it has a wide and durable economic moat.
The company’s gargantuan scale helps fuel its success. It generated $706 billion in net sales in fiscal 2026. Consequently, Walmart has unmatched bargaining power when buying merchandise from suppliers. And compared to smaller competitors, it’s better able to spread out certain fixed expenses.
Walmart’s brand name is also a key strategic asset. Customers have come to expect low prices, a massive assortment, and omnichannel capabilities. Visibility is also broad, thanks to 5,200 total stores (including Sam’s Club) just in the U.S.
Upgrading the business
Despite what investors might initially assume, Walmart is not a dinosaur of a retail enterprise. The business has truly become a tech-forward machine.
It has adapted with the rise of online shopping. E-commerce revenue jumped 24% year over year in Q4, more than four times faster than the overall company. Walmart’s advantage is its physical footprint, as its stores assist in fulfillment capabilities. “We can serve 95% of America in three hours,” CFO John David Rainey said on the Q4 2026 earnings call.
Memberships also shouldn’t be overlooked. Paid subscription service Walmart+ was launched in September 2020. It now has over 28 million members, bringing in a sticky income stream.
Walmart is making a splash in advertising, which saw revenue soar 37% during Q4. And it’s innovating with artificial intelligence, most notably with its Sparky shopping assistant.
Altogether, Walmart’s push to become a more digitally enabled business supports its bottom line. It introduces higher-margin revenue.
Today’s Change
(-0.60%) $-0.77
Current Price
$127.18
Key Data Points
Market Cap
$1.0T
Day’s Range
$127.09 – $128.75
52wk Range
$79.81 – $134.69
Volume
1.1M
Avg Vol
31M
Gross Margin
25.40%
Dividend Yield
0.74%
Don’t ignore valuation
There’s no denying that Walmart is a high-quality business. Its net income is up 97% just in the past three years. That supports management’s ability to return capital to shareholders.
Investors seeking a Dividend King don’t need to look any further. The company just announced another payout hike. It’s been 53 straight years that the dividend has increased.
For those that want a winning opportunity, however, now is a terrible time to put capital at risk. The valuation is excessive, providing no margin of safety. The market is asking that prospective investors pay a price-to-earnings ratio of 45.6 to buy this retail stock. That’s almost double the S&P 500 index’s multiple. Walmart is poised to disappoint its shareholders in the years ahead.
Live Nation Antitrust Trial: 3 things to know as landmark case kicks off in New York court
Nearly two years after the US Department of Justice and a group of state attorneys general sued Live Nation Entertainment, the case has finally reached a Manhattan courtroom.
Jury selection began Monday (March 2), with opening statements expected tomorrow.
The trial, expected to last five to six weeks, will test whether the world’s largest live entertainment company has illegally monopolized key parts of the concert industry — and whether the 2010 merger that united Live Nation and Ticketmaster should be unwound.
But the case arriving at trial looks substantially different from the one filed in May 2024. Court rulings have narrowed the government’s claims, the DOJ’s antitrust leadership has been thrown into turmoil, and Live Nation tried, and failed, to avoid a jury altogether.
Here are three things to know as the trial gets underway.
1. The government’s case has been narrowed — but its most potent claims survived
Judge Arun Subramanian trimmed the government’s case considerably in his February 18 summary judgment ruling. He dismissed the claim that Live Nation monopolizes the national concert promotion market and threw out the allegation that its conduct has resulted in higher ticket prices for fans.
But what survived may matter more than what didn’t. The jury will hear evidence on three core allegations: that Ticketmaster has monopolized primary ticketing at major concert venues through allegedly coercive, long-term exclusive contracts; that Live Nation illegally ‘ties’ access to its amphitheater network to its promotion services, effectively forcing artists who want to play Live Nation venues to hire Live Nation as their promoter; and that a specific ticketing agreement between Live Nation and Oak View Group is anticompetitive.
The judge found that the government “plausibly paints a grim picture for new entrants” and that Live Nation had “vastly overstated” the competitiveness of the ticketing market. On the tying claim, he wrote that “a reasonable jury could certainly find that artists were coerced into going with Live Nation as their promoter to get into its amphitheaters.”
Live Nation then launched a barrage of last-ditch motions: requesting reconsideration, seeking an interlocutory appeal, asking to bifurcate the trial, and challenging the states’ damages expert. As MBW reported, the DOJ called the delay bid a “desperate plea” and argued it was “statutorily barred.”
In a February 27 opinion (which you can read in full here), Judge Subramanian denied all four motions in a single order.
He was particularly pointed on reconsideration: Live Nation had raised legal arguments it failed to present during summary judgment, including a novel claim that tying requires formal market definition for the tied product.
The judge conducted a thorough analysis of the precedent and concluded it does not, dismissing the out-of-circuit cases Live Nation cited as providing “little-to-no reasoning” for their position.
2. The DOJ’s antitrust division is in turmoil — and Live Nation has been pushing for a settlement
The trial is proceeding against a backdrop of political turmoil at the Justice Department.
On February 12, Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater (pictured) — the head of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division — resigned after the White House reportedly requested her departure, less than a year into the role following a bipartisan Senate confirmation. Her top deputy, Mark Hamer, resigned shortly before that. Last week, one of the DOJ’s trial lawyers on the case disclosed that he too is leaving.
Bloomberg and Semafor reported in recent weeks that Live Nation has been attempting to negotiate a settlement for months, with discussions taking place with DOJ officials outside the Antitrust Division — reportedly over Slater’s objections. Those efforts have so far been rebuffed.
The political dynamics have drawn scrutiny. A group of seven Democratic senators led by Amy Klobuchar wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi, warning that Live Nation may be “attempting to evade responsibility by convincing Justice Department leadership to settle the case on terms favorable to the company.”
Live Nation appointed Trump ally Ric Grenell to its board last year, and a Trump-aligned attorney who has advised the company celebrated Slater’s departure on X, writing: “Good riddance.”
The state attorneys general, largely insulated from these federal dynamics, have made clear they will press ahead.
California AG Rob Bonta issued a statement arguing that Live Nation “has manipulated the market and made itself untouchable by any competitor — not because it is better, but because it has created a monopoly.”
3. The DOJ wants to force a breakup, but that outcome is far from certain
Since the lawsuit was filed, the headline outcome has always been the potential forced separation of Live Nation and Ticketmaster — an unwinding of the 2010 merger that the government now seeks to reverse.
That remedy remains technically on the table, but its prospects have narrowed.
The dismissal of the concert promotion monopoly claim weakens the government’s narrative that Live Nation’s vertical integration across ticketing and promotion is itself the competitive problem. Live Nation’s EVP of Corporate and Regulatory Affairs, Dan Wall, seized on this in a since-deleted blog post titled ‘It’s Time to Move On.’ He argued that the dismissal of the concert promotion claims “undermines any serious argument for breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster” and “ends the narrative that concert promotion and ticketing are ‘mutually reinforcing monopolies’.”
But the vertical integration theory hasn’t disappeared entirely. The surviving tying claim, that Live Nation allegedly leverages its amphitheaters to coerce artists into its promotion services, still rests on the interplay between the company’s venue, promotion, and ticketing businesses. If the jury finds that this conduct is anticompetitive, a judge could still conclude that structural separation is the appropriate remedy.
Under the trial structure, the jury will determine liability and any damages owed to the states on behalf of consumers. If the government prevails, Judge Subramanian would then separately decide the remedy — including whether to order a breakup.
If Live Nation is found liable, the states are seeking financial compensation on behalf of fans who were allegedly overcharged. Their damages expert, Dr. Rosa Abrantes-Metz, has built a model using AXS, the next largest primary ticketing company, as a benchmark for what pricing might look like in a competitive market.
According to Judge Subramanian’s February 27 ruling, her analysis works in two steps: first, she calculates how much more Ticketmaster charges venues than AXS does, what she calls the ‘supracompetitive charge,’ then uses a tax-incidence model to estimate how much of that overcharge venues pass on to fans through higher ticket fees.
The February 27 ruling upheld the admissibility of her model, though the judge noted that the final calculation of total damages, accounting for purchaser residency, applicable statutes of limitations, and other variables, may be addressed in a post-trial proceeding rather than put to the jury.
The trial will feature testimony from a parade of music industry figures. Witness lists include Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino, Live Nation president Joe Berchtold, SeatGeek CEO Jack Groetzinger, AEG Presents CEO Jay Marciano, Roc Nation’s Desiree Perez, and Mumford & Sons’ Ben Lovett. Kid Rock — who told a Senate hearing in January that the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger “has failed miserably” — is among the few performing artists cited in court filings, though he is currently working with Live Nation for his latest tour.
Whatever the outcome, the trial itself marks a significant moment, and its implications will extend well beyond ticketing, touching on how vertical integration, exclusive dealing, and market power are understood across the entertainment industry.
The question now is whether the government, despite its internal upheaval, can make its case stick.
Reservoir (Nasdaq: RSVR) is a publicly traded, global independent music company with operations across music publishing, recorded music, and artist management. Music Business Worldwide
The easiest deals brokers are missing right now — and why they don’t start at renewal
The biggest commission opportunities this cycle may not sit at renewal. For some borrowers who locked in near peak rates, the math is starting to change.
New Card Art For Barclays Arrival+
It looks like Barclays is updating the card art for Arrival+ card, /r/creditcard users are seeing the new card in app and via e-mails sent to them. This card isn’t available to apply for directly and hasn’t been for sometime. Barclays did launch an Arrival Premier before admitting defeat and pulling that card too. The card art was last updated in 2018.
Given how basic this card is, I wouldn’t expect a relaunch or anything like that.
Why Younger Generations Are Breaking the Taboo
In days gone by, asking a friend about their salary or a colleague about their political stance was once a social death wish.
But for the younger generation, keeping these secrets is no longer viewed as a mark of sophistication. Instead, they see silence as a strategic disadvantage in a world that feels increasingly tilted against them.
The end of the dinner table silence
Recent data shows a massive shift in what we are willing to discuss over a meal. Research from the Investment Association found that Gen Z and millennials are nearly twice as likely to discuss money and finances at the dinner table as baby boomers. While only a third of older adults grew up in homes where money was discussed, younger cohorts are normalized to it.
For older generations, money was a private matter, often considered vulgar when discussed openly. Today, that stigma has evaporated.
Younger people view these conversations as essential for survival in a volatile economy. If you aren’t talking about your investments or your rent, you aren’t learning how to navigate them. This radical honesty is a survival mechanism born from economic necessity.
Salary transparency as a social movement
Perhaps the most radical change is happening in the workplace. What was once a strictly guarded topic among employees is now a primary tool in negotiations. A Robert Half survey revealed that 86% of Gen Z workers have openly discussed their salaries with colleagues.
This isn’t just idle gossip. Younger professionals view salary transparency as a way to close wage gaps and ensure fairness. They argue that keeping pay secret only benefits the employer, not the worker. By sharing their numbers, they are effectively unionizing the information, making it impossible for companies to underpay individuals without it coming to light.
Furthermore, discussing pay is actually a legally protected right under federal law, a fact younger workers are quick to leverage.
The collapse of the political firewall
In the past, keeping your political leanings private was a way to maintain social harmony and professional neutrality. For younger generations, that firewall has collapsed.
They are far less likely to view politics as a private conviction and more likely to see it as a baseline for compatibility. Because they recognize that government policy directly dictates their ability to buy a home or fund a retirement, they treat political alignment as a critical data point when vetting their social and professional circles.
A study from Johns Hopkins University suggests that while older generations are more likely to rely on traditional news, younger people navigate fragmented, digital spaces where politics and daily life are constantly intertwined.
They are more likely to engage in conversations across political differences than their elders, who often prefer to avoid the topic entirely to maintain social harmony. For them, silence on political matters isn’t polite — it’s a lack of transparency.
Social media advice
Younger people are turning to each other rather than traditional institutions. Nearly one-third of Gen Z investors now turn to social media for investment information and retirement advice. This cohort often feels pessimistic about the future of Social Security, expecting it to provide only a small fraction of their retirement income.
This openness has led to a boom in finfluencers and community-led wealth building. While this carries risks of misinformation, it has successfully demystified complex financial products that were previously the domain of wealthy professionals.
To a 25-year-old, retirement is a topic for a group chat or a TikTok thread. They are swapping investment strategies with the same casual energy their parents use to discuss the weather.
Redefining wealth through transparency
Interestingly, the definition of success is also becoming more public. Younger generations often set much higher benchmarks for success than their predecessors, with Gen Z aspiring to salaries nearly nine times the national average. By speaking openly about these goals, they are holding themselves and their employers to a higher standard of achievement.
This transparency extends to the value of time. Many younger workers are now openly discussing taking pay cuts in exchange for more free time, a conversation that would have been seen as a lack of ambition in previous decades.
By making these preferences public, they are shifting the cultural narrative around what a successful career actually looks like.
A new era of radical honesty
The shift from private to open book is more than a change in manners; it is a change in power dynamics. By refusing to keep their finances and politics private, younger generations are forcing a level of accountability that didn’t exist 30 years ago. They are trading the comfort of polite silence for the utility of shared knowledge.
They are operating on the belief that information is the only way to level a playing field that feels increasingly tilted against them. Whether it is a salary spreadsheet shared among co-workers or a blunt conversation about the state of the economy, the new rule is simple: If you want to get ahead, you have to speak up.
The age of the financial secret is over, and for those willing to talk, the rewards are finally becoming visible.
Whatever your age, if you have over $100,000 in savings, TikTok and Facebook are not your friends. Consider advice from a pro bound to act in your best interests. SmartAsset offers a free service that matches you to a vetted, fiduciary advisor in less than five minutes.
IB Business Management Unit 1 Summary: Intro to Business Management
This video covers all the key concepts you need to know as part of Unit 1: Introduction to Business Management as part of the IB Business Management syllabus. At the end of the video, we will share with you the next steps you can take as part of your study routine depending on your familiarity with the content. Looking for more help with BM? Check out diplomaly.org for practice case studies, videos on response structures and more!
~
TIMESTAMPS
0:00 Intro
0:21 Unit 1.1: Intro to business
2:47 Unit 1.2: Types of business entities
5:04 Unit 1.3: Aims and objectives
6:24 Unit 1.4: Stakeholders
7:02 Unit 1.5: Growth and evolution
10:03 Unit 1.6: Multinational companies
10:32 Exam Strategy
11:01 What’s next?
~
SEE MORE
Website: diplomaly.org
Email: info@diplomaly.org (
WhatsApp: +852-8416-7287 (
Book a free 1:1 consultation with Diplomaly to learn how we can help you master content, improve exam skills, and tackle the IA/EE.
The Risks of Letting AI Direct Conversations
LLMs ask questions differently than humans—and that affects how executives use these tools to make decisions.
Interest on the $38.8 trillion national debt has tripled since 2020, topping defense and Medicaid
The United States is now paying nearly $970 billion a year just to service the interest on its $38.8 trillion national debt—a figure that has nearly tripled since 2020 and already exceeds what the federal government spends on national defense or Medicaid, according to a February analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).
For many Americans, the number barely registers. But budget experts warn it represents one of the most consequential—and least discussed—fiscal emergencies in the country’s history.
The rapid climb didn’t happen overnight. Interest costs have surged owing to a one-two punch: The federal debt load has ballooned by trillions, while interest rates climbed sharply from near-zero post-pandemic lows. As a share of the economy, interest costs have doubled from 1.6% of GDP in 2021 to a record 3.2% in 2025. Today, the government already spends more on debt interest than on Medicaid or the entire national defense budget, programs Americans viscerally feel and politically fight over. Yet the interest line item draws comparatively little outrage.
The $2 trillion threshold
The numbers ahead are even more staggering. According to the Congressional Budget Office’s latest baseline, net interest costs are projected to more than double again, from $970 billion in fiscal year 2025 to $2.1 trillion by 2036.
Between now and 2036, debt held by the public is expected to grow by 86%, adding roughly $26 trillion, while the average interest rate on that debt will tick up another half a percentage point. Together, they will drive interest costs up by 121%.
By 2036, interest payments will consume one-quarter of all federal revenue, up from roughly one-fifth today and just one-tenth back in 2021. Put another way: For every four dollars the U.S. collects in taxes, one will go entirely toward paying creditors—not roads, not veterans, not schools.
When Medicare gets passed
Right now, interest spending sits roughly neck and neck with Medicare, one of the most popular and politically untouchable programs in the federal budget. The CBO projects that by 2029, net interest costs will officially surpass Medicare, making it the second-largest government program, trailing only Social Security. That milestone is less than four years away.
The trajectory doesn’t stop there. By 2047, CBO projects interest costs will exceed even Social Security spending, ascending to become the single largest line item in the entire federal budget—larger than retirement income, larger than health care for seniors, larger than the military.
A crowding-out crisis
The consequences extend beyond accounting. As interest costs swell, they crowd out virtually every other national priority. The CRFB projects that rising interest costs will account for 28% of all nominal spending growth over the next decade and 120% of all spending growth as a share of GDP, meaning other programs will effectively shrink in relative terms just to make room.
The national debt currently stands at approximately $38.77 trillion as of February, growing at roughly $6.43 billion per day. At that pace, the U.S. is projected to hit $39 trillion by approximately April.
CRFB and other fiscal watchdogs argue that a credible deficit reduction plan remains the only viable off-ramp—one that would put debt on a sustainable path, ease pressure on interest rates, and prevent the interest bill from ultimately devouring the budget entirely. So far, Washington has not produced one.
For this story, Fortune journalists used generative AI as a research tool. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.