[wallinbl]

So, I just got my property tax statement for 2006: $7300, which is up from the $2700 I paid last year. I live in a decent neighborhood of houses that are 1800-2800 square feet and 25-30 years old. They are neither low end nor high end.

The problem that caused my high taxes is a nifty state constitutional amendment called 'Save Our Homes'. The gist of the law is that the assessed value of a home can not be increased by more than 3% year over year given that the ownership of the home has not changed. Seems like a nice way to keep that little old lady living on a pension from getting whacked by rising taxes. The problem is that the city & county have budget increases due to inflation or whatever else, and they can't really raise anyone's taxes. They can, however, raise taxes on homes that were just sold. So, someone like me has a second child and decides that he needs a larger home. I moved (within the same county) to a larger house that I paid only 10% more for than I sold my other house for. The result is that I see a 170% increase in my taxes because it's a chance for the property appraiser to recover some of that budget shortfall they're having due to all the other people whose taxes can't increase.

Now, I'm paying more than twice what most of my neighbors are paying in property taxes. Why? Because I moved, and I have to make up for the taxes that could be paid by others that didn't move. While my 10 nearest neighbors are all paying an average of $3300, I'm paying $7300. If the increased need were distributed among us, we'd all be paying $3663, but instead, I'm the only one paying for the budget increases.

Yes, I'm complaining and arguably whining. However this really ends up being a rather significant issue because it changes who can afford to buy houses, and we already have a problem with that in this state due to property values and the ridiculous cost of homeowner's insurance.

[TETENAL]

Do I get this right? You are paying more than $600 in taxes a month for a house you already own?
What is this? Monte Carlo?

[davesimondotcom]

Property taxes are a mess and, like many taxes, they punish the successful and discourage said success.

Property taxes essentially make it so that even when your mortgage is paid off, you never own your home, the government does.

Both my parents and my only surviving grandparents own their homes outright. It makes sense that they pay for homeowners insurance (they get a service for that, after all), but there should be another way raise the money than continuing to pay what amounts to an infinitely long mortgage payment for their homes to the state.

Sounds like you got hit extra-heavy by this. My sympathies. $603/month is more than half of what I pay for my mortgage AND insurance. That is criminal, IMHO.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Do I get this right? You are paying more than $600 in taxes a month for a house you already own?
What is this? Monte Carlo?

That's not bad, actually. My property taxes aren't quite that high -- around $350/mo last I checked -- but they're going up. Many communities around here have much higher taxes.

The bulk of the property tax burden around here is for school taxes. Luckily, we have a pretty good school district here, but I know people who pay much more just for the local school district tax, and end up with schools that are so bad they end up sending their kids to private schools anyway.

If you wonder why there are so many people against teachers unions and public education in general in this country, or why bills like "No Child Left Behind" get passed which try to put artificial metrics around the teaching process, it's because school funding is something that hits most Americans personally in the wallet every year, and they want to think they're getting something good for the money.

[itai195]

Not to make this political or anything

Thank the Republicans, this property tax scheme was one of the things that propelled people like Reagan onto the national stage when they first pulled it off in CA (Prop 13). It's remarkably popular even though personally I think it's nothing but another generational wealth transfer scheme. Today many people still seem to like Prop 13, especially those who haven't bought a home since the 70s. Personally I pay $670/mo in property taxes (just bought in 2006), more than my parents, my parents-in-law, and my brother, all of whom have homes worth $200k-$600k more than mine.

[smacintush]

I don't care who's to blame. I've said it before and I'll say it again:

"Taxes are the most basic form of oppression."

They take excessive amounts of ourmoney from us, on pain of imprisonment, and waste/steal a third of it.

Property taxes are especially heinous. They do nothing good for anyone except the politicians who view it as a government entitlement and go out an fritter it away…and then they say they need MORE because the budget is so tight.

Hundreds of dollars a month is absolutely outrageous for simply having the gall to own your own property.

Of course, I personally can't complain about MY property taxes…they come out to about $23 a month! And they DOUBLED when Indiana "fIxed" their property tax scheme a couple of years ago.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by itai195

Not to make this political or anything

Thank the Republicans, this property tax scheme was one of the things that propelled people like Reagan onto the national stage when they first pulled it off in CA (Prop 13). It's remarkably popular even though personally I think it's nothing but another generational wealth transfer scheme. Today many people still seem to like Prop 13, especially those who haven't bought a home since the 70s. Personally I pay $670/mo in property taxes (just bought in 2006), more than my parents, my parents-in-law, and my brother, all of whom have homes worth $200k-$600k more than mine.

It's bound to be political.

The only difference between the effect of something like Prop 13 and otherwise is that the taxes would have risen to that level under the former owners and wallinbl would have known the tax burden he was taking on.

Many (not all) property taxes go up and up and up because we, the people, vote them up through levies. So I guess we can't complain TOO much.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by smacintush

I don't care who's to blame. I've said it before and I'll say it again:

"Taxes are the most basic form of oppression."

They take excessive amounts of ourmoney from us, on pain of imprisonment, and waste/steal a third of it.

Well that is exactly the mindset that led to taxation schemes like the one wallinbl complained about.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

It's bound to be political.

The only difference between the effect of something like Prop 13 and otherwise is that the taxes would have risen to that level under the former owners and wallinbl would have known the tax burden he was taking on.

Not exactly. The tax burden would be spread much more evenly. As it is, wallinbl is subsidizing his neighbors' low tax bills. Younger Americans buying their first homes and trying to start families subsidize older Americans who have lived in their homes for decades and pay a pittance in taxes. Warren Buffet's example was how he pays several times less property tax on his multi-million dollar Malibu home than a young family in a new home in Sacramento. This is absurd.

Statewide property tax revenue without Prop 13 would probably also be larger, which means all the sales tax, income tax, and other tax increases we in CA (and probably other states) have suffered probably wouldn't be necessary (and that would benefit non-homeowners as well).

Either way, wallinbl should have been informed by his realtor, lender, or escrow agent how much to sock away for property taxes. In CA if you buy a new home you need to pay about 1.25% of your home's value in taxes, and your tax is capped to rise at no more than 2-3% annually.

[Dakar]

Yet another reason why I never want to own a house.

[Mac Bird]

Fair Tax, anyone?

http://www.fairtax.org

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by itai195

Either way, wallinbl should have been informed by his realtor, lender, or escrow agent how much to sock away for property taxes. In CA if you buy a new home you need to pay about 1.25% of your home's value in taxes, and your tax is capped to rise at no more than 2-3% annually.

I knew an increase was coming and even spoke with the property appraiser's office ahead of time to obtain assistance in estimating. Their estimate was $6100, which is still rather high.

I'm not complaining that I didn't know it was coming - I'm complaining that a simple amendment that won support from voters due to its mantra of "protect the little old ladies on fixed incomes" has created a significant disparity in who pays taxes. Do my neighbors use less of the local government resources than I do? No, they actually use more since their kids go to school and mine aren't old enough. I'm willing to contribute to the education budget despite not making direct use of it, however I'm not really willing to pay an unequal share of the taxes due to the fact that I simply purchased my house at a different time than they did.

[itai195]

Yeah I agree. That's how they sell it though -- who wants to kick little old ladies out onto the street? Nevermind that they could come up with some other loophole to keep little old ladies from being taxed out of their homes.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Mac Bird

Fair Tax, anyone?

http://www.fairtax.org

Property taxes still exist under the fair tax. The fair tax really only seems to apply to the taxes collected by the federal government and state and local governments would still be coming up with screwy ways to get money.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by itai195

Well that is exactly the mindset that led to taxation schemes like the one wallinbl complained about.

No, it's only part of it. Another part is the "entitlement" mindset I mentioned. They feel that they NEED and DESERVE to have a larger revenue simply because the can't figure out how to manage a budget properly. They automatically connive a way to INCREASE taxes somewhere instead of controlling themselves.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by itai195

Nevermind that they could come up with some other loophole to keep little old ladies from being taxed out of their homes.

And it's really simple, too. Just have the little old ladies apply for an exemption and set the criteria for exemption to be that you qualify for Social Security disbursements. That would even include those that became disabled and were unable to work.

[itai195]

Prop 13 had the opposite effect smacintush, it lowered total property tax revenues. This is one of the reasons it's so popular: for most people it kept property taxes artificially low. At that point the government had to start fishing for revenues elsewhere -- sales tax, income tax, etc. Now CA has some of the highest sales and income tax rates in the nation. I agree that incompetent governance and corruption led to those increases as well, but Prop 13 didn't help.

I wonder how Florida is pulling it off with no state income tax, personally.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by itai195

Not exactly. The tax burden would be spread much more evenly. As it is, wallinbl is subsidizing his neighbors' low tax bills. Younger Americans buying their first homes and trying to start families subsidize older Americans who have lived in their homes for decades and pay a pittance in taxes. Warren Buffet's example was how he pays several times less property tax on his multi-million dollar Malibu home than a young family in a new home in Sacramento. This is absurd.

So I guess I'm not sure exactly how this works. I thought that property taxes were calculated based on a fixed percentage of the value of a home. And as the value of the home goes up, the taxes go up.

However, with Prop 13-type plans, the value goes up but the taxes don't until a new owner takes possession. At that point, the taxes "catch up" to where they would be had they kept raising year after year.

Are you saying that the taxes are raised even more to "make up" for the years it didn't go up? If so, damn, it's even worse.

But this isn't the only place where we as the younger generation are getting more burden than our parents and grandparents.

Social Security, anyone?

[itai195]

You have it right, when a new owner takes over the property taxes reset to the level they 'should be' based on the value of the home. For example, owners of a home bought for $100k in 1973 would probably pay around $2k in property taxes in 2006. That home is actually worth more like $800-900k today, and if a new owner bought it at that price they'd pay $10000-11250 annually in property taxes. I call it a subsidy because there's no reason for someone to pay 5-6x as much property tax as his neighbor for a similarly valued home.

This is personal property by the way. Businesses have figured out how to exploit Prop 13 by deeding their property to shell corporations. When they sell the property they actually sell the shell corporation so technically it's not a property sale, thus the value of the property for tax purposes doesn't reset to its current value, and thus the new owner doesn't have to pay increased property taxes.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Property taxes are especially heinous. They do nothing good for anyone except the politicians who view it as a government entitlement and go out an fritter it away…and then they say they need MORE because the budget is so tight.

You do realize that your property taxes pay for things like public schools, local parks, hospitals, libraries, etc. etc.

Originally Posted by smacintush

No, it's only part of it. Another part is the "entitlement" mindset I mentioned. They feel that they NEED and DESERVE to have a larger revenue simply because the can't figure out how to manage a budget properly. They automatically connive a way to INCREASE taxes somewhere instead of controlling themselves.

The real problem with budgets (especially at the state and local level) is that there is no incentive to save money beyond the gratification of not wasting money. At our work, we are budgeted a specific amount, but if we come in below that for the entire year, we get a small percentage of what was saved.

Needless to say, we cut corners when we can.

[ghporter]

That sort of thing goes on here in San Antonio too. Sure, the RATE doesn't go up, and may even go down. But the VALUATION of the house can change a lot, and when you multiply the rate by the valuation, the actual tax ALWAYS goes up.

My property taxes pay for one of the best school systems anywhere, a county hospital system, EMS, and a bunch of other services. This money CANNOT go anywhere else, and ALL the officials who are responsible for spending the money that comes in are elected-and can be unelected pretty quickly. I don't begrudge what the money goes for at all. But I DO begrudge the politicians who smile and say they're lowering my taxes when they really mean they're changing the rate, but will push behind the scenes for higher valuations.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

You do realize that your property taxes pay for things like public schools, local parks, hospitals, libraries, etc. etc.

Yes, and I realize that the government at all levels is full of waste and corruption costing about a third of revenues, and that when you add up:

property tax
income tax
sales tax
capitol gains tax
local taxes
sin taxes
the myriad of taxes on our phone and wireless bills
gas tax
excise tax
death tax
gift tax
social security tax
corporate tax
payroll tax
airline ticket taxes
etc.
etc.

we are getting raped.

And it isn't only the politicians that try to justify all of these taxes, the average person does too much like you just did with the property tax.

Go ahead. Add it up and realize that not some, but most of our money goes to taxes and when taxes go up, they never REALLY go down. They lower or repeal one and create or raise another.

And then politicians and even average people have the NERVE to talk bout people not wanting to pay their fair share. We pay a highly unfair share as it is.

OK, I'm done bitching now.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Yes, and I realize that the government at all levels is full of waste and corruption costing about a third of revenues, and that when you add up:

property tax
income tax
sales tax
capitol gains tax
local taxes
sin taxes
the myriad of taxes on our phone and wireless bills
gas tax
excise tax
death tax
gift tax
social security tax
corporate tax
payroll tax
airline ticket taxes
etc.
etc.

we are getting raped.

And it isn't only the politicians that try to justify all of these taxes, the average person does too much like you just did with the property tax.

Go ahead. Add it up and realize that not some, but most of our money goes to taxes and when taxes go up, they never REALLY go down. They lower or repeal one and create or raise another.

And then politicians and even average people have the NERVE to talk bout people not wanting to pay their fair share. We pay a highly unfair share as it is.

OK, I'm done bitching now.

What I've found is it's easy to shake your fist at the government.

[itai195]

Isn't it a bit of an exaggeration to say that most of our money goes to taxes? I'm not aware of any of those taxes you listed having rates over 100%. You seem to have a problem with the concept of taxes.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by ghporter

My property taxes pay for one of the best school systems anywhere, a county hospital system, EMS, and a bunch of other services. This money CANNOT go anywhere else, and ALL the officials who are responsible for spending the money that comes in are elected-and can be unelected pretty quickly. I don't begrudge what the money goes for at all. But I DO begrudge the politicians who smile and say they're lowering my taxes when they really mean they're changing the rate, but will push behind the scenes for higher valuations.

This brings to light two problems:

1. Not everyone who is responsible for tax money is beholden to the taxpayers and held accountable for their actions during the next election cycle. This can be read as: Beauracracy is out of control. Beauracracy is out of control. Beauracracy is out of control. They make me say that in triplicate. (Dennis Miller)

2. Raising taxes has become a shell game. "Let's see where we can hide this and sneak it by." For exmaple:

Say a city has money in the general fund for their libraries. Politicians see a PR opportunity to say that "we need to fund our libraries!" So they spin off a special budget just for libraries. Then they pass a levy (raise taxes) by leading people to believe that if they don't vote for it, the library will fall apart.

Now there is a "Library Fund." But do they take the money that was earmarked for libraries from the general fund and move it over to the library fund? Of course not!

General fund doesn't shrink to 90% of it's original size. It stays right at 100%. But now the 10% (obvious exageration) that was for the library is given to other departments. So taxes are now at least 110% of what they were.

[itai195]

In CA they use a different approach. The state government has a pitiful library fund, if any, and tries to guilt voters into voting for a bond measure to pay for library upgrades. True, our libraries are ancient, but how about they take some of our tax money in the first place and plan ahead.

[brassplayersrock²]

CA libraries compared to MA libraries compared to looks, technology and materials is a joke. i was so shocked at how much BETTER MA libraries are over all than MA libraries. more books on everything, more computers ect ect.
we CA people need better libraries or our kids will be left in the dust

Alex

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by itai195

Isn't it a bit of an exaggeration to say that most of our money goes to taxes? I'm not aware of any of those taxes you listed having rates over 100%. You seem to have a problem with the concept of taxes.

About a third of my paycheck each month is taken out for taxes. Then add in sales tax, the extra taxes added onto other things you buy (gas, cigarettes, alcohol) and property tax and I can believe that's more than 50 percent going to the government in the long run.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

So I guess I'm not sure exactly how this works. I thought that property taxes were calculated based on a fixed percentage of the value of a home. And as the value of the home goes up, the taxes go up.

However, with Prop 13-type plans, the value goes up but the taxes don't until a new owner takes possession. At that point, the taxes "catch up" to where they would be had they kept raising year after year.

Are you saying that the taxes are raised even more to "make up" for the years it didn't go up? If so, damn, it's even worse.

Say the local city needs $300,000 in tax revenues to pay the teachers and police and whatever else. There are 100 homes in the city and each has taxes of $3,000 per year. That's all well and good. Next year, the city's budget increases 10% to $330,000, but they are limited to a 3% increase in property taxes due to the cap. Each house's taxes can increase to $3090, leaving them with a shortfall of $21,000. Luckily, 8 of the houses were sold in the last year, so the city gets to reassess their taxes. Since they're $21,000 short and have 8 new homeowners, they can assess the taxes at $5715 for those 8 houses. Now, their tax revenues are $330,000 (92 * $3090 + 8 * 5715). However, a few of the people are paying twice as much as the others. The reason they pay more? They moved. They might not even be new to the city - it was just that 4 homeowners sent their kids off to college and needed a smaller house and 4 homeowners had kids and needed a bigger house. They sold to each other and moved, and so the city taxes the crap out of them.

It's easy to get people to vote for such a thing - in the example city, it would likely pass with 92% of the vote. Of course, people are just being shortsighted because they'll end up moving eventually, and they'll get boned for it when they do. But, most people are all about immediate gratification.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

About a third of my paycheck each month is taken out for taxes.

I pay more in property taxes than I do in Federal Income Tax.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

About a third of my paycheck each month is taken out for taxes. Then add in sales tax, the extra taxes added onto other things you buy (gas, cigarettes, alcohol) and property tax and I can believe that's more than 50 percent going to the government in the long run.

Hmm, I don't think it's even close for me. I calculate I pay about 24.8% of our gross income to federal and state income tax, FICA taxes and property tax. I'm not sure how much sales and gas tax we pay, but I doubt it's 25.2% of our income. And that's with my wife being self-employed so we have to pay both halves of her FICA tax, though being married, saving a lot, and having a sizable mortgage does put us in a favorable tax bracket.

[Spliffdaddy]

I'd leave the state before I'd pay $500/month in property taxes.

Move to Kentucky, folks. Where $500 will pay your property tax for 4 years.

[itai195]

Yeah but you have to live in Kentucky

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I'd leave the state before I'd pay $500/month in property taxes.

Move to Kentucky, folks. Where $500 will pay your property tax for 4 years.

I'd love to go back to Lexington. Most of my family lives down here, though, and my kids really like being near all of them.

[milhous]

i'm all for offshore shells. if corporations can use them, we should be able to as well.
but in the end, there is desperate need for tax reform.

[LeftWingLock]

Originally Posted by ghporter

That sort of thing goes on here in San Antonio too. Sure, the RATE doesn't go up, and may even go down. But the VALUATION of the house can change a lot, and when you multiply the rate by the valuation, the actual tax ALWAYS goes up.

Exactly the same thing goes on around here. Our city boasts about having a comparatively low tax rate compared to other towns in the state but the local accessor artificially boosts the assessed valuations every year so our taxes just keep going up. On top of that, they keep adding fees for city services that used to be covered by our taxes. We now have a garbage fee, recycling fee, and storm sewer fee (they found a way to tax the rain). Of course these new fees are on top of the property tax we are already paying.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by itai195

Isn't it a bit of an exaggeration to say that most of our money goes to taxes?

The median total tax burden is around 35%. (Federal, state, and local). This doesn't include all of the little hidden taxes and such. So it MAY be a slight exaggeration, but only a slight one. Taxes make up a larger share of family expenditures than food, clothing, housing, and transportation combined.

Excessively high business taxes come right out of the pockets of those of us on the payroll. When a private citizen tells you that you have to give up FIFTY PERCENT of your profits to him or he will do bad things to you it's called extortion. When the government does it it's called taxes.

You seem to have a problem with the concept of taxes.

Not at all! Taxes are an important source of revenue for the government. I have a problem with being over taxed on order to pay for the spending addiction of the government, the waste, the corruption and the unneeded programs that plague our budget.

And I have a SERIOUS problem with the lack of transparency and the over complication of our tax system…but that's another story.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I'd leave the state before I'd pay $500/month in property taxes.

Move to Kentucky, folks. Where $500 will pay your property tax for 4 years.

The only problem with living in Kentucky is... you LIVE in Kentucky

[Big Mac]

Everyone seems to hate burdensome taxation, yet around half the country (America) also supports the social welfare state that necessitates and perpetuates said taxation.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Everyone seems to hate burdensome taxation, yet around half the country (America) also supports the social welfare state that necessitates and perpetuates said taxation.

Bingo... I always chuckle when I hear a politician say "I'm going to lower taxes... and increase the police force and fire departments, MORE teachers, more help for the elderly, more more more"

And we wonder why taxes keep going up.

I would rather vote for someone that said "I'm going to reduce taxes by trimming the fat from our police force, fire departments, etc. etc." but that person would never get elected.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Beauracracy is out of control. Beauracracy is out of control. Beauracracy is out of control.

It isn't limited to government - corporations have the same problem. As a whole, we dont' really manage large organizations well. Get enough people together in a company, municipality, whatever and everthing breaks down. I'm not really willing to badger government about it when I've yet to see any other organization do a decent job, and that includes organizations whose purpose is to profit and therefore have motivation to be efficient. Governments are just more visible because they are supposed to be transparent.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

It isn't limited to government - corporations have the same problem. As a whole, we dont' really manage large organizations well. Get enough people together in a company, municipality, whatever and everthing breaks down. I'm not really willing to badger government about it when I've yet to see any other organization do a decent job, and that includes organizations whose purpose is to profit and therefore have motivation to be efficient. Governments are just more visible because they are supposed to be transparent.

I have seen many companies that are efficient - and the profit motive is the main motivator to be sure.

It's sad, but how many times have you heard about a government cutting 30,000 jobs? Yet you hear of corporations doing it all the time.

I hate to be referred to as corporate fat, but I was one of the people who were a victim of downsizing - trimming the fat. Twice.

I can't recall a single, non-elected government employee who has been laid off to make things more efficient.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

It's sad, but how many times have you heard about a government cutting 30,000 jobs? Yet you hear of corporations doing it all the time.

Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but I don't see mass layoffs as efficient management. They bloat for a bit, whack off a chunk, bloat for a bit, whack off a chunk, and repeat. If you follow the corp for a while after the layoff, they are quite often back up to the same size in a few years. In the mean time, they realized short term money by causing financial problems for a few thousand people, many of whom they subsequently hired back. It's really a rather depraved tactic. They'll say they did it to save the company, but it's time to find better ways of managing your business that don't involve treating people like they're machines that can be turned on an off as needed.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I have seen many companies that are efficient - and the profit motive is the main motivator to be sure.

It's sad, but how many times have you heard about a government cutting 30,000 jobs? Yet you hear of corporations doing it all the time.

I hate to be referred to as corporate fat, but I was one of the people who were a victim of downsizing - trimming the fat. Twice.

I can't recall a single, non-elected government employee who has been laid off to make things more efficient.

I see what you are saying, but security is one of the benefits of working for the government. On the down side, "you never get rich working for the government." That being said, I have noticed that government positions are paying more, but are becoming much more difficult to get. [Some of the application processes take 6+ months to a year... or longer].

It's funny, after college, I applied for a clerk position at the state level... A YEAR AND A HALF LATER, I received a call for an interview. Since I moved out of the state, I was no longer eligible.

[ghporter]

There are a lot of government jobs that shelter people who could (or would) not do well in the private sector. In most corporations, one must be actively involved in getting something done, or one is seen as a downsizing candidate-even if that "something" isn't terribly smart or efficient, at least one is doing something. In government jobs, particularly state and local jobs, you can often get by with just showing up and giving the job a half-hearted effort, particularly if you interact with the public!

[Oozinator]

I love my apartment. It costs me $600 a month, has beautiful wood floors, old world craftsman details (built in the 20), new energy efficient furnace, I don't pay for hot water, a/c in the bedroom, and it's in a great location. I'm not sure if I'll ever own a house. I'd rather fritter away small change on rent. For now anyway.

[Oozinator]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

So, I just got my property tax statement for 2006: $7300, which is up from the $2700 I paid last year. I live in a decent neighborhood of houses that are 1800-2800 square feet and 25-30 years old. They are neither low end nor high end.

The problem that caused my high taxes is a nifty state constitutional amendment called 'Save Our Homes'. The gist of the law is that the assessed value of a home can not be increased by more than 3% year over year given that the ownership of the home has not changed. Seems like a nice way to keep that little old lady living on a pension from getting whacked by rising taxes. The problem is that the city & county have budget increases due to inflation or whatever else, and they can't really raise anyone's taxes. They can, however, raise taxes on homes that were just sold. So, someone like me has a second child and decides that he needs a larger home. I moved (within the same county) to a larger house that I paid only 10% more for than I sold my other house for. The result is that I see a 170% increase in my taxes because it's a chance for the property appraiser to recover some of that budget shortfall they're having due to all the other people whose taxes can't increase.

Now, I'm paying more than twice what most of my neighbors are paying in property taxes. Why? Because I moved, and I have to make up for the taxes that could be paid by others that didn't move. While my 10 nearest neighbors are all paying an average of $3300, I'm paying $7300. If the increased need were distributed among us, we'd all be paying $3663, but instead, I'm the only one paying for the budget increases.

Yes, I'm complaining and arguably whining. However this really ends up being a rather significant issue because it changes who can afford to buy houses, and we already have a problem with that in this state due to property values and the ridiculous cost of homeowner's insurance.

That's total bullshit dude. What I'd do is sell your house to a family member for something like $100, then have them asses it knowing hte purchase price, then sell it back to you. Something. Anything. **** the system back man. Don't just bend over and take it. Look for loopholes to exploit. Bend them over the couch man.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Oozinator

That's total bullshit dude. What I'd do is sell your house to a family member for something like $100, then have them asses it knowing hte purchase price, then sell it back to you. Something. Anything. **** the system back man. Don't just bend over and take it. Look for loopholes to exploit. Bend them over the couch man.

That's a scam and the local tax entity won't go for it. They assess based on REAL value (whether the valuation is that exact price or not), and gaming the system that way will just cause you problems.

But every tax entity I know of has an appeals process and it's something worth pursuing. In most cases, the assessor has the burden of proof, so when you point out that all the houses of similar size and condition in your area have sold for a lot less than your assessed value, when you point out that your yard backs onto a mall parking lot, or that your neighborhood is inaccessible in heavy rains, they have to disprove that these issues reduce the actual value of your property. And generally (at least around here) they wind up reducing the valuation rather than argue too hard about it.

[Oozinator]

I'd still find a loophole. If all else fails, find the auditor, break into his house, and steal **** from him directly.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by ghporter

But every tax entity I know of has an appeals process and it's something worth pursuing. In most cases, the assessor has the burden of proof, so when you point out that all the houses of similar size and condition in your area have sold for a lot less than your assessed value, when you point out that your yard backs onto a mall parking lot, or that your neighborhood is inaccessible in heavy rains, they have to disprove that these issues reduce the actual value of your property. And generally (at least around here) they wind up reducing the valuation rather than argue too hard about it.

I've emailed them with several things that I have found, and they're coming out to look at the property next week.

Given the way taxes are calculated here, I can pretty clearly prove that they are altering the value of my house based on budget needs. They send you a statement that shows your estimated taxes, and it usually contains three numbers. The first is your taxes from last year (in my case, those were based on the previous owner). The second is your "proposed" taxes, which are your new taxes if the budgets get approved for various agencies that are funded by tax dollars. The third is what your taxes would be if the budget changes were not approved. In my case, there is a $1000 difference between the second number and the third number. Taxes are calculated by multiplying the assessed value by a millage rate. Since the millage rate is known and constant, that means the difference between the two columns can only be the assessed value of my home.