Property tax estimate for 2013 (Austin, Happy: live in, area, values)

[Trainwreck20]

Yeah, that is a bit sketchy, I don't know what the interest rates on the loans are, but they more than 0. And what if you have a loan already against your house to pay for college or something? And while the property value might go up over time, anyone that had tried to do what you suggest in 2003 or 4 and then was forced to sell in 2009 or so would be totally screwed.

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by Austin97

No system is fair. There is no way to compare fair vs unfair. There is no system that is more or less fair than others. There are only systems that create the most economic value, societal stability and stable tax flow for the government.

For example,
It is easy to argue that people who have higher property values are actually receiving more protection from the city as they have more to lose. Therefore they should pay more (ala insurance). If they have a larger house, it will take more firefighters to put it out plus they have more at stake. They benefit more so naturally should pay more.

People who make more money are benefitting more from the system. Who benefits more from the government stabilizing the stock market, rich or poor folks? The rich benefit disproportionately from the stabiity the government provides.

The system that exists is "fair" because that is the system that has been voted into existence by the people. That makes it the "fairest" system.

I was with you for the first four words...then you lost me.
We're actually looking at homes that are valued at HALF the value of our current house. Some are actually LARGER and more difficult to access(for emergencies, as you mentioned) than our current home. Because it has Corian instead of granite, builder tile instead of custom floors, standard cabinets instead of upgraded, does it somehow cost HALF(in this case half of $9999/ yr) as much to 'protect and service'? These less expensive homes are in the same subdivision, same schools, etc

Heck, I reckon for each mile we moved our 'house' closer to town, the taxable value would go up about $10K. If we plopped it down in Great Hills, would it somehow cost twice as much to 'protect'?

There are some arguments that folks with 'more' should pay more in taxes, but the 'presumed' value of the house ain't a good place to start.

[mayfair44]

Property Tax Forum tonight in HP...more held through May...scroll down for calendar of dates/locations...

Property Tax Forums

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by 10scoachrick

There are some arguments that folks with 'more' should pay more in taxes, but the 'presumed' value of the house ain't a good place to start.

I believe the argument is that folks that can afford more expensive properties should have to contribute more to the cost of government, as they are benefiting more from our society. The "presumed" value of their property "IS" a good place to start. Would you rather they tax you based on your bank accounts?

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by Austin97

No system is fair. There is no way to compare fair vs unfair. There is no system that is more or less fair than others. There are only systems that create the most economic value, societal stability and stable tax flow for the government.

For example,
It is easy to argue that people who have higher property values are actually receiving more protection from the city as they have more to lose. Therefore they should pay more (ala insurance). If they have a larger house, it will take more firefighters to put it out plus they have more at stake. They benefit more so naturally should pay more.

People who make more money are benefitting more from the system. Who benefits more from the government stabilizing the stock market, rich or poor folks? The rich benefit disproportionately from the stabiity the government provides.

The system that exists is "fair" because that is the system that has been voted into existence by the people. That makes it the "fairest" system.

It's fair because the two wolves (Democrats and Republicans) have decided what's for dinner...us.

If it's true that a big house costs more to "protect", then why not just bill per home for protection? I'm fine with just paying for my home.

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

I believe the argument is that folks that can afford more expensive properties should have to contribute more to the cost of government, as they are benefiting more from our society. The "presumed" value of their property "IS" a good place to start. Would you rather they tax you based on your bank accounts?

HOW are they benefiting more? Couldn't it be argued that the most successful folks are actually paying MORE to society?

[Trainwreck20]

Well, there are a thousand plus ways of looking at it, but if you look at your typical upper middle class to upper-class citizen, they benefit hugely from a stable country with a political system that tends to favor those with money (for the most part). If this was Venezuela, the government would just come and take your land/company when you got to be successful.

[HappyTexan]

You live in a "hot" area folks. Increased values/taxes are to be expected.

Heck, it took a refinance in 2009 to get the county to reduce my appraisal $50K but then it shot up again after that.

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Well, there are a thousand plus ways of looking at it, but if you look at your typical upper middle class to upper-class citizen, they benefit hugely from a stable country with a political system that tends to favor those with money (for the most part). If this was Venezuela, the government would just come and take your land/company when you got to be successful.

I like to think everyone in the US benefits from a stable country. Oh, and ever heard of eminent domain? The government can come take your land in the USA as well.

[je4xff]

Originally Posted by Austin97

This isnt true.

It IS true and it does happen.

Originally Posted by Austin97

Your taxes going up means the value went up. If the value went up you can take a HELOC to pay taxes and still come out way ahead.

Your house was 100K, you pay 3K taxes/year. Your house jumps to 400K, you now owe 12K/taxes per year. You take out a heloc for 200K and use that to pay taxes for the next X years. During that time, your price (presumably) went up.

Your ponzi-like suggestion might actually work for some - but I wouldn't exactly call that a financially responsible long term strategy.