Why aren't any PA counties among the highest property taxes? (Philadelphia: sale, high crime)

[Sideblinded]

I have lived and owned homes in 4 states, (*IL, Wi, Ne & PA) taxes were similar. The school districts were better, but the museums and parks were not. *Not Chicago.

My parents had lakefront property in WI, they moved when their taxes surpassed their mortgage payment!

[grimacista]

While the 'property tax' may be high you have to look at the overall tax burden. Texas has no income tax, so the government has to get its take somehow. Here in the Northeast we get income taxes and property taxes.

[hempfield mania]

Texas also has MUD taxes, much higher sales tax and they tax just about everything you buy and their insurance rates for everything are far and above anything anyone in PA could imagine.

But, they do have a part time legislature and no state income tax, among other things. I never owned property when I lived in Houston so I never had to pay those taxes but people down there still complain.

Schooling, well, they have their own problems dealing with all the illegals and their children getting schooled on the public dime with special "spanish only" classes taking time away from traditional classwork, among other things.

You do get more house for your buck in the Houston area than you do here in PGH. My sister in law is finding that fact hard to swallow right now.

She went from new construction, 4100 sf home with top of the line finishes and fixtures for $420,000 to having to look in the $550,000 to $625,000 range for smaller, dated, older homes here in PA.

[gg]

Delaware rocks. I think that would be a cool place to retire. Pittsburgh isn't very good with the huge school tax burden. In my town the average yearly tax would be around $15K +. Considering the wages Pittsburgh pays, that is out of whack. Not like people are making the same amount of money here as in Connecticut. People need to take that into consideration when comparing taxes in an area. Pittsburgh doesn't pay a NYC wage, unless of course you are a teacher.

[ML North]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Pittsburgh doesn't pay a NYC wage, unless of course you are a teacher.

Or of course if you live in Fox Chapel, where the median household income in 2009 was $182,739. City-Data: Fox Chapel, PA

In 2009, the median household income for NYC was $50,033. City-Data: New York, NY

Point being -- it's not fair, nor is it a good comparison, to compare the real estate tax burden in the richest area to average income across the entire metro.

[gg]

Originally Posted by ML North

Or of course if you live in Fox Chapel, where the median household income in 2009 was $182,739. City-Data: Fox Chapel, PA

In 2009, the median household income for NYC was $50,033. City-Data: New York, NY

Point being -- it's not fair, nor is it a good comparison, to compare the real estate tax burden in the richest area to average income across the entire metro.

I wasn't, I was comparing the commuters in Connecticut not the NYC downtown.

I think one of the most misleading tax stats in Pittsburgh is because within the city limits there are some amazingly cheap housing. I mean what is the average price for a home in the Hill? Lincoln Larimer? Homewood? East Hills? Those places playing $500 a year in taxes are in the stats and there are so many of them. If you don't like daily doses of gunfire, you need to look at the taxes that more livable areas have to pay. There are just so many lean-tos in Pittsburgh that it messes up the stats and makes it look like we aren't paying much. If you have children, your tax burden in Pittsburgh would be huge, because you are trying to live in an area that is safe. Check out what that costs. For those that want to live in safe areas, it is VERY expensive to live here due to school taxes.

[BrianTH]

Harold Miller broke this all down for the Pittsburgh region before:

Pittsburgh's Future: Are Property Taxes High in the Pittsburgh Region?

The two key charts:





In a nutshell, our property taxes paid as a percentage of home price are on the high side, but since our home prices are so low, our property taxes paid as a percentage of income are pretty typical (slightly high, but not by much). Of course when you factor in the other costs of home ownership tied to home price (e.g., mortgage and insurance), that means home ownership remains a relatively good deal in the Pittsburgh area.

I've seen people try various ways to squirm out of these results, but none of them make much sense. For example, factoring in relative incomes makes the comparison look better, not worse. This is also looking at median homes and median homeowner incomes, so it doesn't really matter what is happening at the bottom end of the market (the median home is not some rat-infested pile of moldy bricks in a warzone, or whatever it is these people want you to believe). Conversely, while it is also not directly representing information about the top end, all the same factors apply: the advantages of homes being lower priced more than outweigh the tax issue, even for high-income people shopping in our higher-end neighborhoods.

But, of course, trying to convince some people they are not radically overtaxed is basically impossible--for them it might as well be a religion, and you can't argue with religious beliefs.

[BrianTH]

By the way, though, I would love to see us shift a large portion of that tax burden to other forms of taxation. Some amount of taxation of property makes sense for services tied to the property--things like paying for local streets and other local public works, at least a portion of police and fire, and so forth. But I think we rely way too much on property taxes for other services, most notably public schools (which are for the benefit of kids, not property, and they take those benefits with them wherever they go). And even with respect to property, there is a good argument for doing things like taxing unimproved land value instead of improved property values:

Land value tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So I am not arguing that we shouldn't change anything. I'm just pointing out that we do not in fact pay a highly unusual amount of property taxes in the Pittsburgh area.

[Picksburg Stillers]

Originally Posted by Hopes

Three high schools does not a great state school system make.

Smartest State 2006-2007

I'm wondering if the schools in Vermont are flooded with kids who have limited or no knowledge of English. Compared to the other border states, California, Arizona, and New Mexico, Texas looks pretty good. In fact, adjusted for race, Texas scores better than the national average in math, reading, and science on standardized tests.

[gg]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

In a nutshell, our property taxes paid as a percentage of home price are on the high side, but since our home prices are so low, our property taxes paid as a percentage of income are pretty typical (slightly high, but not by much). Of course when you factor in the other costs of home ownership tied to home price (e.g., mortgage and insurance), that means home ownership remains a relatively good deal in the Pittsburgh area.

The charts don't tell the story I told in the post prior. The fact of the matter is, if you took out neighborhoods that are riddled with crime and poverty the values skyrocket. If you feel you could comfortably live in the middle of Homewood, then my point may not apply, but the value of homes in neighborhoods that are safe are way higher than that average you are showing. In the crime areas there are tons of $10k or even below homes that are all over the city. Hence the statistics are really off for anyone wanting a safe area to live.

It is VERY expensive to live here if you want to live in a safe area. You can't take in consideration the countless homes in the Hill and other areas that pay less than $500 a year in taxes if you have kids or want some safety, but if you are comfortable living in Northview Heights, I suppose your argument is valid.