Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico > Albuquerque
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-08-2010, 12:04 PM
 
Location: New Mexico U.S.A.
26,527 posts, read 51,500,813 times
Reputation: 31318

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovehound View Post
If you think it is fair to have owners of identical value properties pay different taxes, then could you please justify why?
Some homestead exemptions, exemptions in some cases where elderly have become widowed, blind or otherwise handicapped.

Is it fair? I'm sure some would say it is not fair. I have no objection to helping people in some situations if it is a real need, and not a handout.

The New Mexico 2001 law was intended to protect the elderly and low-income families living in neighborhoods with rapidly rising property values by placing the 3 percent annual cap on increases in assessed property taxed values. Unfortunately, it did cause problems to new buyers when the property changed hands.




Rich
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-08-2010, 12:07 PM
 
Location: SoCal
14,530 posts, read 19,975,586 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by santafescribe View Post
Maybe I'm missing something here, but to me the position of new buyers is clear. You buy a house, you know the approximate tax you will pay based on what you pay for the house. You're probably paying more tax than your neighbor. But you'll pay less tax than the neighbor who comes after them.
Yes, you are missing something. You buy a house you're more screwed than somebody who has owned a house for a few or several years. What you know or don't know has nothing to do with fairness. Owners of similar properties should have similar tax obligations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by santafescribe View Post
You may not pay the amount you figure immediately, but sometime in the next couple of years you will. So plan accordingly. No uncertainty there.
How about just basing the property tax of every property on its current value and no matter how long it has been owned? You could figure that out right immediately and no need for years of bookkeeping.

Quote:
Originally Posted by santafescribe View Post
We have low property taxes, compared to most of the places people are coming from. Taxes happen. We need them, and in New Mexico we certainly need them. Existing homeowners can complain, and be upset about inequity, but that happens everywhere - look at Calif. after Prop. 13.
I may have not said so yet but California's Prop. 13 has been a mess! It created exactly the situation we're discussing, and in fact it exacerbated the situation.

The real solution is that the government (CA, SF, whatever) shouldn't balance the cost of expensive programs on the backs of homeowners. The real problem is bloated government programs, and the government goes after property owners because they are the low hanging fruit, victim taxpayers who find it difficult or impossible to escape the tax by selling and relocating.

The government is the problem, not the tax itself.

Last edited by Lovehound; 09-08-2010 at 01:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2010, 01:24 PM
 
Location: SoCal
14,530 posts, read 19,975,586 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poncho_NM View Post
Some homestead exemptions, exemptions in some cases where elderly have become widowed, blind or otherwise handicapped.

Is it fair? I'm sure some would say it is not fair. I have no objection to helping people in some situations if it is a real need, and not a handout.

The New Mexico 2001 law was intended to protect the elderly and low-income families living in neighborhoods with rapidly rising property values by placing the 3 percent annual cap on increases in assessed property taxed values. Unfortunately, it did cause problems to new buyers when the property changed hands.
I'm just now learning about this problem as it affects Santa Fe (and due to my possible relocation to SF).

That sounds almost the same as California and its Proposition 13.

You seem to tacitly agree that the problem is related to rapidly rising property values and an associated rapid rise in property taxes.

We could possibly discuss helping senior citizens on fixed incomes and people with low incomes. I'm both of those, and I would appreciate the help, although I'm open for arguments that it would be unfair to help those two segments.

I still assert though that the real problem is bloated government and them financing the bloat on the backs of property owners. I doubt anybody believes there should be no taxes at all. The disagreement is how much and should people pay different for the same properties?

And noting that this problem exists in California and hasn't been solved here either. In fact that's one reason I'm leaving California is because I want to live somewhere else and I can't afford the taxes on a property similar to what I own now because I'd lose my Prop 13 benefit and have to pay the full amount. (Not that I'd choose to live the rest of my life in Los Angeles anyway, even if taxes weren't a factor.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2010, 01:32 PM
 
Location: SoCal
14,530 posts, read 19,975,586 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by WEisMD View Post
If government (Federal, State or Local) can't figure out a fair and equitable way of taxing the middle class, then I will play their game!!
That's exactly the problem! The government is taxing the middle class unfairly. And I believe part of the problem is that government (everywhere in US) is just too damned big and wants too much money.

I'm tired of the best government money can buy. What I want is a bare bones basic government that gives us (and taxes us) for all the basic necessary services, and then let the public go to the private sector if they want anything better.



By the way, a word of explanation, I hope nobody minds my frequent posts to this topic in the last couple of days. I've just found out about this discussion and I'm reading it page by page to catch up. Obviously this topic is very interesting and important to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2010, 02:20 PM
 
Location: SoCal
14,530 posts, read 19,975,586 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa Fe View Post
That is interesting. California has had excellent public education all the way through graduate school and I'd hate to see anything happen to it. But if your city spends $16K per student then it is hard to blame Prop 13 for any decline.

Here in Santa Fe our public schools are mediocre at best and have been this way for some time. We can't blame Tax Lightning -- it has not been in effect that long and a 3% annual increase adds up. Plus we have a lot of new construction where the property tax is not capped. I blame the parents -- they don't seem to care. 80% of Pojoaque Valley 11th graders are NOT competent in math -- ho hum.

Another question but related -- do you feel that current financial crisis in California is unrelated to Prop 13? Here the city is contemplating layoffs, but it is hard to blame that on Tax Lightning. I suspect that the city has taken on too many "self-supporting" projects and ends up diverting tax revenue to these projects. Then tourism drops off in the recession and the gross receipts tax takes a hit.
Recognizing that your comments are a year old now...

California "has had" excellent public schools from K through grad school, yes, but the operative word is "has" as in past tense. Our public educational system is now in turmoil and it was in turmoil at the time of your post although you may have been unaware of that (and admitting this is my opinion although it is shared by many).

To say that our financial problems in California are unrelated to Prop 13 might be a bit too much, but Prop 13 isn't the cause of the problems. Again this is my opinion, but California's problems are caused by ever expanding government problems, increasing size of government, and shrinking revenue caused by the recession.

You can't just keep increasing taxes when the economy slows to make up for the lost revenue. Government and those who want big government and big programs have to accept that when the economy slows the government is going to have to lighten the load and adjust to decreased revenue. This means that government programs will have to be curtailed and government employees will have to either have pay decreases, furloughs and layoffs, or all of the above.

Again, the problem is not taxes. The problem is bloated government and a slowed economy. Rather than increasing taxes the solution is to reduce the size and cost of government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2010, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,667 posts, read 6,545,009 times
Reputation: 4817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovehound View Post
We could possibly discuss helping senior citizens on fixed incomes and people with low incomes. I'm both of those, and I would appreciate the help, although I'm open for arguments that it would be unfair to help those two segments.
The only "help" I'd propose is to let people get a loan on their equity to pay the taxes if they really need to. You only have an appreciable property tax increase if the value of your property has risen a lot... so you have equity you can draw on.

Everybody paying the same % rate, is the only think that makes sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2010, 05:58 PM
 
475 posts, read 1,262,434 times
Reputation: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poncho_NM View Post
Some homestead exemptions, exemptions in some cases where elderly have become widowed, blind or otherwise handicapped.

Is it fair? I'm sure some would say it is not fair. I have no objection to helping people in some situations if it is a real need, and not a handout.

The New Mexico 2001 law was intended to protect the elderly and low-income families living in neighborhoods with rapidly rising property values by placing the 3 percent annual cap on increases in assessed property taxed values. Unfortunately, it did cause problems to new buyers when the property changed hands.




Rich
It would be quite easy to pass laws helping the elderly and low-income by lowering their property taxes and it would be constitutional and I would support reasonable laws of this nature..

Tax lightning does these things poorly or not at all. If I die and my wife goes blind -- she is then a blind, elderly widow. She will stay pay 3 times what many of our neighbors pay -- some of them younger, seeing and wealthier.

Tax lightning was designed do exactly what it does -- to shift to shift the tax burden to newcomers. It is entirely unconstitutional and it is entirely unfair. . It serves then to allow entrenched politicians to spend our money corruptly and wastefully and yet the majority of their constituents are protected from the resulting higher taxes and do not retaliate at the polls. It thus helps reelect corrupt politicians like Ben Lujan who was behind its passage and has resisted all efforts to get rid of it. Santa Fe politicians were behind its passage and it protects them in their corruption and waste.

My essential point, however, is that tax lightning, particularly the changes proposed by Martinez, make this an unwise to buy a home. It is a good time to wait and rent and see what shakes out. The law now says people should be informed. I am trying to do that. I don't know whether you agree or disagree with me on this point or this effort.

Last edited by Santa Fe; 09-08-2010 at 06:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2010, 05:13 AM
 
475 posts, read 1,262,434 times
Reputation: 126
Default The scarlet letter of a perpetually higher tax bill

Property 'tax lightning' raises ire | tax, ire, lightning - News - Clovis News Journal

The above is a story on tax lightning in the Clovis newspaper.

Two points:

1. The continuing silence of the Santa Fe newspaper on the issue is only further indication of their cooperation with the corrupt Santa Fe politicians who have been behind Tax Lightning from the start.

2. Note this also about the Martinez proposal (quoting from the article):

***The real estate industry has also warned that houses with higher tax bills would be branded with the scarlet letter of a perpetually higher tax bill, making them harder to sell.***

So I am not making this up. Buy now and you face the possibility of a "perpetually higher tax bill" and a house "harder to sell." If the truth gets widely know, it could be a disaster for the real industry for the next year or so. But blame Martinez, not me.

Last edited by Santa Fe; 09-09-2010 at 05:26 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2010, 03:06 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque
5,548 posts, read 16,023,992 times
Reputation: 2755
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff
The only "help" I'd propose is to let people get a loan on their equity
to pay the taxes if they really need to. You only have an appreciable property tax increase if the value of your property has risen a lot...
so you have equity you can draw on.
This could also be done with a permanent lien on the property.

Many retired folks ( if they are doing it right ) retire with no debt.
Having to borrow from the equity might prompt them to sell when they
don't need to. The state shoule also attach a realistic interest rate
to the lien. It's still a debt, but it might not feel like it so some people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2010, 04:43 PM
 
Location: New Mexico U.S.A.
26,527 posts, read 51,500,813 times
Reputation: 31318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovehound View Post
I'm just now learning about this problem as it affects Santa Fe (and due to my possible relocation to SF).
It is a State Law, it affects the entire state of New Mexico. However, you may be able to find a good deal with this economy and some of the reduced valuations. A good real estate agent or broker could probably advise you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovehound View Post
That sounds almost the same as California and its Proposition 13.
It's not. I see no value in trying to compare the two. There are too many variables and other possible issues.

After having been enacted over 30 years ago people still debate Proposition 13.

The initial Proposition 13 lowered property taxes by rolling back property values to previous year (I don't remember the year).

There was no initial rollback in the New Mexico law.


Under Proposition 13, the annual real estate tax on a property is limited to a 2% increase per year of its assessed value. This "assessed value," is the current market value.

The New Mexico law has a 3% cap per year but the "assessed value," is
One-third of the property's market value.


California Proposition 13 was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court 30+ years ago, and remains that way.

The New Mexico Second Judicial District Judge Theresa Baca ruled that the 2001 state law unfairly created a class of people who are taxed more because of when they bought their homes. Judge Baca ruled that violated the New Mexico state constitution. I believe this is still only affecting property taxpayers in Bernalillo County. Santa Fe is not in this county.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovehound View Post
You seem to tacitly agree that the problem is related to rapidly rising property values and an associated rapid rise in property taxes.
No, not rapidly. I have been calculating and observing for 30+ years that decent properties have been appreciating about 4% per year. That is my conservative estimate, which I have used in buying property, I have been happily been proven wrong in the past, fro 1972 to 1998 that has been an under estimate. The New Mexico tax law, and this economy has changed that. I also have some property in Florida which has dropped in value an estimated 40% in the past two years (But it served it's purpose well).

If a property tax is fixed at 2%, and the value of your house remains the same, then your taxes will stay the same. That part is simple math. But when the assessor comes around, every 2 or 3 years (whatever), when you improve your home (and the assessor comes around) or when you sell, the residence is normally is re-assessed. (That is one purpose of building permits (there are other reasons))

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovehound View Post
We could possibly discuss helping senior citizens on fixed incomes and people with low incomes. I'm both of those, and I would appreciate the help, although I'm open for arguments that it would be unfair to help those two segments.
I do volunteer work. We donate money to various causes. And most of the time I am willing to help people who really need the help. There are some states where elderly people are being driven from their home because their property taxes have gone too high for them to be able to keep their home.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovehound View Post
I still assert though that the real problem is bloated government and them financing the bloat on the backs of property owners. I doubt anybody believes there should be no taxes at all. The disagreement is how much and should people pay different for the same properties?
It's very easy to just arbitrarily blame the government or even other people for various issues. I don't even consider that on topic here. It's just a vauge statement. This is the New Mexico forum.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovehound View Post
And noting that this problem exists in California and hasn't been solved here either. In fact that's one reason I'm leaving California is because I want to live somewhere else and I can't afford the taxes on a property similar to what I own now because I'd lose my Prop 13 benefit and have to pay the full amount. (Not that I'd choose to live the rest of my life in Los Angeles anyway, even if taxes weren't a factor.)
"Prop 13 benefit"? Don't know about it, don't really want to know, but it's just one other factor you have to consider.


Rich
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico > Albuquerque
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top