U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Hampshire
 [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 05-22-2020, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Fields of gold
1,360 posts, read 1,231,872 times
Reputation: 3046

Advertisements

Clearly we disagree, but I'm curious. How much RE tax is too much? Is it 3000, 5000,7000?
Can you back up for me any articles/references of people losing their homes due to rising taxes? (I'm being serious here).
I get it. I live in a high tax area, I know for sure I could never retire here. Taxes always go up. If I know my taxes will rise/ double even over 20 years, why would I stay? Sometimes real life catches up to some who didn't plan properly (not all mind you).
On another note, wouldn't a sales tax be more effective for lowering overall taxes? It would gain monies from tourists, out of Towners etc.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-23-2020, 01:09 PM
 
2,739 posts, read 4,150,162 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by grouse789 View Post
Clearly we disagree, but I'm curious. How much RE tax is too much? Is it 3000, 5000,7000?
Can you back up for me any articles/references of people losing their homes due to rising taxes? (I'm being serious here).
I get it. I live in a high tax area, I know for sure I could never retire here. Taxes always go up. If I know my taxes will rise/ double even over 20 years, why would I stay? Sometimes real life catches up to some who didn't plan properly (not all mind you).
On another note, wouldn't a sales tax be more effective for lowering overall taxes? It would gain monies from tourists, out of Towners etc.

Even on LI NY, I don’t know anyone who lost their home over property taxes. Although my parents house is paid off, their property taxes are 16k per year/$1,300 per month. For an average 500k home. However, if you think just SS and MAYBE a small pension is going to cover that along with everyday living expenses, that’s not happening. Regardless of where you live.

How much is “too much” in taxes also depends of the home value/purchase. I try to base everything off of a basic 1500 SF house valued at 500k. Of course location is the biggest factor too.
A million dollar home with 12k-15k in taxes, I guess is considered cheap.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2020, 07:37 PM
 
8,592 posts, read 5,539,336 times
Reputation: 9900
Here in MA, they offer tax relief to seniors through a tax deferment and recovery agreement. It allows someone to remain in their home and defer taxes until the home is sold. Of course interest is added but it can be a way for a house rich, income poor person to remain in their home.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2020, 07:49 PM
 
Location: WMHT
4,447 posts, read 5,025,868 times
Reputation: 6414
Post NH RSA 72:38-a "Tax Deferral for Elderly and Disabled"

Quote:
Originally Posted by robr2 View Post
Here in MA, they offer tax relief to seniors through a tax deferment and recovery agreement. It allows someone to remain in their home and defer taxes until the home is sold. Of course interest is added but it can be a way for a house rich, income poor person to remain in their home.
NH RSA 72:38-a
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2020, 10:44 AM
 
7,051 posts, read 3,720,944 times
Reputation: 5189
Quote:
Originally Posted by grouse789 View Post
Clearly we disagree, but I'm curious. How much RE tax is too much? Is it 3000, 5000,7000?
Can you back up for me any articles/references of people losing their homes due to rising taxes? (I'm being serious here).
I get it. I live in a high tax area, I know for sure I could never retire here. Taxes always go up. If I know my taxes will rise/ double even over 20 years, why would I stay? Sometimes real life catches up to some who didn't plan properly (not all mind you).
On another note, wouldn't a sales tax be more effective for lowering overall taxes? It would gain monies from tourists, out of Towners etc.

Quote:
How much RE tax is too much?
Any amount not equally & equitably distributed among all property owners.


Quote:
Can you back up for me any articles/references of people losing their homes due to rising taxes? (I'm being serious here).
There are numerous news articles and stories about people losing their home due to rising property taxes - do an internet search. This is not something new and you will find articles going back to 2007 and before. If you REALLY and TRULY want to understand the extent of the problem - call the folks at HomesAhead.org in NH and ask them how prolific this problem is - especially among the elderly. When tax collections are promulgated on a basic need (housing) - which includes mortgage, insurance, taxes, property maintenance, etc - there is no where to hide when income doesn't cover expenses. This is a huge problem and with the coming wave of foreclosures and unemployment this is going to become more in focus.

Quote:

On another note, wouldn't a sales tax be more effective for lowering overall taxes? It would gain monies from tourists, out of Towners etc.
[/quote]
Yes. Giving more thought to this and the reluctance of some lawmakers wanting to switch to a broad based tax system -- it occurred to me that if that did happen - the argument for current use would diminish greatly. I would bet you anything that many of those opposing the broad based tax change own property in current use.


Here is an actual example of the abuse of the tax system and how property tax payers that don't own 10 acres or more are getting screwed:


2 properties are in Newbury, NH (an already low tax town) - about 1 mile apart. Both raw land. One is slightly over 10 acres and the other is 8.6 acres. Their tax valuations are 60k for the 10 acre lot and 57.9k for the 8.6 lot. Through the miracle of current use - the 10 acre lot pays $8.89 in tax per year, and the 8.6 acre lot owner pays $919.45/yr. If and when the person takes the property out of current use - they would pay a $600.00 penalty - that does not even cover one years worth of taxes if they had been paying their fair share. Criminal all away around.


Of course the way taxes are collected vs. how the need for taxation is generated is another discussion. We need to do away with all govt. pensions and retirement programs and put them on 401k's like anyone else. That may require a slight pay raise but it would be worth it. Right now we are paying 2 teachers to teach one student - one to teach and the other who is in retirement. Same goes for every other worker supported by taxpayers. Delve into tax law and tax benefits and you quickly learn that those who write the laws and make the regulations do so for their benefit.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2020, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Low-tax NH & TN
199 posts, read 148,852 times
Reputation: 531
Quote:
Of course the way taxes are collected vs. how the need for taxation is generated is another discussion. We need to do away with all govt. pensions and retirement programs and put them on 401k's like anyone else. That may require a slight pay raise but it would be worth it. Right now we are paying 2 teachers to teach one student - one to teach and the other who is in retirement. Same goes for every other worker supported by taxpayers. Delve into tax law and tax benefits and you quickly learn that those who write the laws and make the regulations do so for their benefit
Yeah, it's beyond criminal to tax future generations to pay for services today. If tax payers pay your wages, there should be zero promise of future benefits. Pensions are just another way to hide the true cost of government.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2020, 09:39 PM
 
Location: Fields of gold
1,360 posts, read 1,231,872 times
Reputation: 3046
Quote:
Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease View Post
Any amount not equally & equitably distributed among all property owners.


There are numerous news articles and stories about people losing their home due to rising property taxes - do an internet search. This is not something new and you will find articles going back to 2007 and before. If you REALLY and TRULY want to understand the extent of the problem - call the folks at HomesAhead.org in NH and ask them how prolific this problem is - especially among the elderly. When tax collections are promulgated on a basic need (housing) - which includes mortgage, insurance, taxes, property maintenance, etc - there is no where to hide when income doesn't cover expenses. This is a huge problem and with the coming wave of foreclosures and unemployment this is going to become more in focus.
So what your really saying is that this has gone on forever. Rising taxes. Just like anywhere else. If people know their taxes are going up, and they wont be able to pay them, then wouldnt they, shouldnt they move to a less expensive area? I dunno, like Forida or Tenn? Or maybe to this place in Chester NH? 1/2 acre, nice modest home, $5000/year taxes. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5...70449403_zpid/
Yes. Giving more thought to this and the reluctance of some lawmakers wanting to switch to a broad based tax system -- it occurred to me that if that did happen - the argument for current use would diminish greatly. I would bet you anything that many of those opposing the broad based tax change own property in current use.


Here is an actual example of the abuse of the tax system and how property tax payers that don't own 10 acres or more are getting screwed:


2 properties are in Newbury, NH (an already low tax town) - about 1 mile apart. Both raw land. One is slightly over 10 acres and the other is 8.6 acres. Their tax valuations are 60k for the 10 acre lot and 57.9k for the 8.6 lot. Through the miracle of current use - the 10 acre lot pays $8.89 in tax per year, and the 8.6 acre lot owner pays $919.45/yr. If and when the person takes the property out of current use - they would pay a $600.00 penalty - that does not even cover one years worth of taxes if they had been paying their fair share. Criminal all away around. How is this criminal? Be a wise buyer?



.[/quote]

Its not like these laws are new or anything. So, no one is springing these taxes on people. Actually come to think of it. If elderly cant afford there taxes, VT. is right next door. They do have a more progressive tax system there. Something like if you earn under $60,000 your real estate tax is capped, etc. It really does work out for lower income people in VT.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2020, 10:00 PM
 
2,658 posts, read 2,294,245 times
Reputation: 5122
Quote:
Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease View Post
paying their fair share.
"Fair share" is completely arbitrary. Here's a chart of historical income tax rates in the US:

https://files.taxfoundation.org/lega...ry_nominal.pdf


Scroll down to 1950 and look at the rates. The lowest rate was 20% (there was no 0% rate, someone with an income of $1 paid $0.20 in Federal Income tax). No matter what you pay today, you would have paid more in 1950 (including after adjusting for inflation). Are you paying your fair share? What's fair, and who gets to decide?


Quote:
Originally Posted by grouse789 View Post
If elderly cant afford there taxes, VT. is right next door. They do have a more progressive tax system there. Something like if you earn under $60,000 your real estate tax is capped, etc. It really does work out for lower income people in VT.
This is really the crux of the matter, and it applies to everyone equally, not just the elderly. There are 50 states, each of which does things in their own way. Which state (/ region in a state) is the best for any given person depends on their unique circumstances. People need to look seriously at their options and make the choice that works best for them. It can make a big difference in your life. Staying where you are and expecting the state to change to better meet your specific needs is usually not going to work out well.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2020, 08:07 AM
 
7,051 posts, read 3,720,944 times
Reputation: 5189
Quote:
"Fair share" is completely arbitrary.

Not in this circumstance. 2 people owning the same thing in the same town should pay the same amount of tax. Wouldn't you agree?



Quote:
Staying where you are and expecting the state to change to better meet your specific needs is usually not going to work out well.

It is ridiculous to tell people who have lived in a state for 30 years to pack up and move and go somewhere else if their property taxes have increased to the un-affordable level through no fault of their own. Especially if others nearby are being given preferential tax treatment.



I posted an example above of taxes on 2 nearly identical properties in the same town (Newbury) -- what is your basis for supporting that real life example?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2020, 08:34 AM
miu
 
Location: MA/NH
17,683 posts, read 38,586,549 times
Reputation: 17692
IMO those with school age children ought to pay more in taxes than those who chose to be childless. And I would think that after twelve years of paying property taxes, of which the bulk is used towards public education, a childless adult's contribution toward the public education system should be much lower. It's about paying towards the services used, not supporting those who have thoughtlessly produced children without having the financial means to do so. It is stupid that with the schools closed during this pandemic, that society needs to be worried about school-aged children missing out on their free school breakfasts and lunches. Or that anyone is worried about the weekends when these children are not getting fed properly. We have to stop being a crutch for these loser parents.

If NH property taxes are paying for public schools, then the contribution should be fairer. Stop punishing home owners and rewarding renters. And all the towns' property taxes should be pooled and evenly distributed all of the state. We have too many parents who buy a house in a town with good schools and high property taxes, then once their children graduate from high school, then sell their house to move to a much lower tax rate town. And that is definitely NOT fair in the least.
Rate this post positively 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 Hampshire

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2023, 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