U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-12-2019, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
3,857 posts, read 3,948,379 times
Reputation: 3723

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PVW View Post
I was struck by this statement:

"For the record, the city’s property tax system favors homeowners in single-family homes, condos and co-ops over renters. It benefits homeowners in neighborhoods where property values have soared over those in less well-off areas. It especially reduces taxes for the most expensive condos. In doing so, it favors whites over minorities."

Renters don't pay property taxes, and from reading this statement, one would presume there are no minority homeowners in communities where property values have soared.
Renters do pay property taxes.. in the form of rent. Property taxes are a component of the rent price.
There are some minority homeowners in those multi-million dollar neighborhoods that get preferential tax treatment, but not many. How many minority home owners live in De Blasio's neighborhood?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-12-2019, 02:36 PM
 
21,750 posts, read 14,441,933 times
Reputation: 15313
I'll say it again; city and Albany won't do anything about property tax mess unless or until forced by legal action. There isn't an upside to politicians as any changes are bound to tick off so called "middle class" homeowners.

Current system was designed back in the 1980's (IIRC) to staunch and or prevent "white flight" as middle class homeowners were leaving NYC for NJ or other areas. Lynch pin of that plan was the cap on how much property taxes and rise (or decrease) in any given year and overall in general. That part of law has created massive distortion which is the source of most ills seen today.

One to three family homeowners pay the *least* amount of property taxes; commercial is highest, followed by co-op/condo. Like much else in this city the property tax system is designed to protect one group at expense of others.

Problem is you have plenty of middle class or below homeowners who cannot even afford the low property taxes already assessed. If things go up they are in trouble.

Because NYC property tax system is a hot mess it has other ways to raise revenue including an income tax. Smart persons sit down, run the numbers and decide for various reasons they are better off paying higher property taxes in NJ, Westchester or LI, *and* getting more back in terms of services/amenities that directly affect themselves (and families), than forking over to NYC/NYS.

If city ever allowed NYPD, FDNY, Corrections and some others to live in NJ, more of Westchester or LI than currently allowed there would be a huge exodus. Certain high income areas of Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens and even Bronx are largely that way due to huge presence of uniformed city employees. If they go, areas would become busted hoods in about a generation or less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2019, 02:46 PM
 
21,750 posts, read 14,441,933 times
Reputation: 15313
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVW View Post
I was struck by this statement:

"For the record, the city’s property tax system favors homeowners in single-family homes, condos and co-ops over renters. It benefits homeowners in neighborhoods where property values have soared over those in less well-off areas. It especially reduces taxes for the most expensive condos. In doing so, it favors whites over minorities."

Renters don't pay property taxes, and from reading this statement, one would presume there are no minority homeowners in communities where property values have soared.
Then you presumed wrong: https://ny.curbed.com/2018/9/7/17828...ncrease-report



https://furmancenter.org/thestoop/en...rty-tax-reform

What do you think is happening in Harlem, Bedford-Stuyvesant, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, areas of North Shore on SI, and many other areas of Brooklyn, Queens and even now Bronx along with upper Manhattan?

When areas were busted hoods (like Harlem) minorities who owned property paid relatively low taxes. Now these areas are gentritying because comparable sales are increasing values they are seeing the assessed value of their homes rise.

There are two ways to make money off property taxes. One is via direct rates, and the other is by assessed value. City hasn't raised property taxes since last of Bloomberg's increases were phased in by early 2001 or so. But thanks to a booming RE market assessed value of homes are going up. If your house was worth $200k a few years ago but is assessed at $300k or more you are going to pay more without anyone actually raising actual property tax rates.

This how city is raking in so much money atm Sam the Eagle and city council cannot find ways to spend it all fast enough. Where do you think all the money for all the various SJW programs they've created is coming from?

On the flip side when property values decrease city (and state for that matter) takes a hit. If things get bad as they did in 1970's or so, and or after a major event such as 9/11/01 or economic/fiscal crisis, then a huge hole is created in budget. That is when city turns around and raises property tax rates to achieve same affects. Bloomberg did just that to deal with NYC economy in aftermath of 9/11/01.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2019, 05:29 PM
PVW
 
38 posts, read 11,545 times
Reputation: 35
I understand the argument that taxes get passed along to tenants, but I've never been persuaded by it, because tenants don't pay taxes directly, and all sorts of costs get passed along, including for all kinds of city services that landlords are likely to pay, like water and sewer expenses plus whatever else the landlord must pay. I'd only be persuaded it tenants were showing up with itemized rent bills saying that they paid a certain portion of their rent in property taxes.

If anything, the bigger problem in my view is that apartment buildings--if they are rent stabilized--pose the greater problem for landlords recouping their expenses, regardless of the real estate taxes. But of course, that's a nonissue in light of the recent reforms to the rent laws.

Commercial non-residential properties where businesses are located, well if they are treated differently, they are not the same as residential properties. So there is no need to tax the similarly.

And as for the minority homeowners in gentrifying areas claiming their assessed values are far more than their houses are worth, because of gentrification, I know that homeowners can challenge assessments. How effective that policy has been, is a different story. But I appreciate that these challenges take place on a case-by-case basis rather than based upon a blanket assessment of how homeowners are alleged to be affected by the existing tax policies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2019, 05:43 PM
 
21,750 posts, read 14,441,933 times
Reputation: 15313
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVW View Post
I understand the argument that taxes get passed along to tenants, but I've never been persuaded by it, because tenants don't pay taxes directly, and all sorts of costs get passed along, including for all kinds of city services that landlords are likely to pay, like water and sewer expenses plus whatever else the landlord must pay. I'd only be persuaded it tenants were showing up with itemized rent bills saying that they paid a certain portion of their rent in property taxes.

If anything, the bigger problem in my view is that apartment buildings--if they are rent stabilized--pose the greater problem for landlords recouping their expenses, regardless of the real estate taxes. But of course, that's a nonissue in light of the recent reforms to the rent laws.

Commercial non-residential properties where businesses are located, well if they are treated differently, they are not the same as residential properties. So there is no need to tax the similarly.

And as for the minority homeowners in gentrifying areas claiming their assessed values are far more than their houses are worth, because of gentrification, I know that homeowners can challenge assessments. How effective that policy has been, is a different story. But I appreciate that these challenges take place on a case-by-case basis rather than based upon a blanket assessment of how homeowners are alleged to be affected by the existing tax policies.
Stop splitting hairs; regardless if tenants pay RE taxes directly or indirectly fact remains they still fork over.

Rent includes (or should) all costs a LL incurs for doing business, plus a little something on top for profit.

Since you brought up the subject this is one of the largest hates against rent control systems. Property taxes, sewer, water, all go up but a LL is only allowed to recoup a portion of that if increases are not passed that take everything into consideration.

As for balance of your post again it doesn't matter what you *think* all rental housing aside from single to three family homes are *commercial properties* and taxed accordingly. Doesn't matter if it is a SRO hotel or multi-family apartment building, it is what it is.

Commercial non-residential landlords have various ways of getting their property taxes paid. Most in whole or part pass on those rates to tenants. By this meaning by agreement (lease) commercial/retail tenants agree to pay a portion or all of LL's property taxes. https://www.saltinsights.com/2018/01/181/

Challenging property tax assessments is a mixed bag:

https://www.crainsnewyork.com/articl...perty-tax-bill
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2019, 06:28 PM
PVW
 
38 posts, read 11,545 times
Reputation: 35
Regardless of what any of us may think--splitting hair arguments regarding tenants paying, etc., I would bet that when this matter makes it way through the courts, these types of arguments will likely be raised, and especially since DeBlasio's administration doesn't intend to do anything about this now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2019, 07:36 PM
 
85 posts, read 36,504 times
Reputation: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVW View Post
I was struck by this statement:

"For the record, the city’s property tax system favors homeowners in single-family homes, condos and co-ops over renters. It benefits homeowners in neighborhoods where property values have soared over those in less well-off areas. It especially reduces taxes for the most expensive condos. In doing so, it favors whites over minorities."

Renters don't pay property taxes, and from reading this statement, one would presume there are no minority homeowners in communities where property values have soared.
This seems like an unnecessary dig at Caucasians and is mainly untrue. The system favors older built homes as there is a cap on the amount of taxes that can be raised per year. So a pre war 2 family house worth 2m can pay less taxes than a newly built 1 family.

Also, Asian home ownership percentages have continued to increase year over year and benefit from the current system. Or do they not count as "minorities" for housing purpose either?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2019, 04:14 AM
PVW
 
38 posts, read 11,545 times
Reputation: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by dosun View Post
This seems like an unnecessary dig at Caucasians and is mainly untrue. The system favors older built homes as there is a cap on the amount of taxes that can be raised per year. So a pre war 2 family house worth 2m can pay less taxes than a newly built 1 family.

Also, Asian home ownership percentages have continued to increase year over year and benefit from the current system. Or do they not count as "minorities" for housing purpose either?
That is exactly what I was thinking. It's certainly plausible that there are minority owners of one or two family houses who have no problem with the current tax system. But presuming it's all about whites and gentrifiers benefiting over minorities removes the nuance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2019, 06:16 AM
 
Location: Confines of the 101 Precinct
20,314 posts, read 35,344,875 times
Reputation: 8750
http://worldpopulationreview.com/sta...-lowest-taxes/

In case any of you are "fed up" with the taxes here
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence

Forum TOS: http://www.city-data.com/forumtos.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2019, 08:42 AM
 
Location: New York City
8,513 posts, read 6,505,414 times
Reputation: 6304
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeventhFloor View Post
Actually I think NYC is primed for the next big middle class exodus. I can see many people bolting for a lot of those places. Austin, TX and Nashville, TN are some of the top destinations for people who want cultured urban style living but without all the bulls***
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

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 York > New York City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top