Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
 [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 05-08-2012, 10:47 AM
gg gg started this thread
 
Location: Pittsburgh
26,137 posts, read 25,857,926 times
Reputation: 17378

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tranceFusion View Post
But the bottom line is that the taxes are going up, and fast. How is h_curtis reporting that make his post "inaccuracte" as ML_North stated?

Everyone has been trying to calm fears over the re-assessment by stating the millage will be reduced, but its actually heading the opposite direction.
Correct. The bottom line is "taxes are going up". You could add the word again on the end of that though.

That last tax increase results?

The 1-mill tax hike council approved for this year is expected to raise an additional $54 million. That money went mostly to plug financial holes in the 2012 budget and did almost nothing to solve the county's long-term problems, Mr. Robinson said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-08-2012, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Wilkinsburg
1,657 posts, read 2,683,202 times
Reputation: 994
Quote:
Originally Posted by h_curtis View Post
Yeah, you are right. When my assessment goes up $100K and they raise the millage rate another mill AGAIN, it has the same effect as it would if I was assessed at my old assessment. What was I thinking?
I explained this in detail here: http://www.city-data.com/forum/23282808-post34.html. But since I'm on my lunch break, I'll walk you through it again.

2002 property assessments for Allegheny County totaled $64,176,722,714. 2012 assessments came in at $86,863,845,552.

The change in assessments is:

( $86,863,845,552 / $64,176,722,714 ) - 1 = 35.4%

The pre-reassessment millage rate was 5.69. To comply with the anti-windwall law, the county's net increase in revenue due to the reassessment can be no greater than 5%. Therefore, the new millage rate is calculated as follows:

(1 + 0.05) * 5.69 * ( $64,176,722,714 / $86,863,845,552 ) = 4.41.

So now let's introduce two assumptions:

(1) The county must raise revenue by 10%
(2) Your house was assessed at $100k in 2002 and $200k in 2012

We're going to separate your total change in taxes into two distinct components: the re-assessment adjustment and the post-reassessment tax hike.

The re-assessment adjustment:

County tax bill using 2002 figures

$100k* 5.69 / 1000 = $569

County tax bill using 2012 figures

$200k * 4.41 / 1000 = $882

So the re-assessment adjustment is then:

$882 - 569 = $313

Post assessment tax hike effect

4.41 * 10% = 0.441

$200k * 0.441 / 1000 = $88.2

Compare that to if the county had raised taxes by 10% before the reassessment:

5.69 * 10% = 0.569

$100k * 0.569 / 1000 = $56.9

---------------------------------

So if the tax hike was implemented prior to the re-assessment, your tax bill would have been:

$569 + 56.9 = $625.9

But the tax hike will be implemented after the re-assessment, so your tax bill will be:

$882 + 88.2 = $970.2

And the total change is:

( 970.2 / 625.9 ) - 1 = 55%

However, in order to isolate the effect of the tax hike, you must backout the reassessment effect:

[ ( 970.2 - $313 ) / 625.9 ] - 1 = 1.05

So the net effect of the re-assessment on subsequent tax hikes is, amazingly:

1.05 - 1 = 5%


So, Curt, this is why your wrong.

Last edited by ML North; 05-08-2012 at 11:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Wilkinsburg
1,657 posts, read 2,683,202 times
Reputation: 994
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranceFusion View Post
But the bottom line is that the taxes are going up, and fast. How is h_curtis reporting that make his post "inaccuracte" as ML_North stated?

Everyone has been trying to calm fears over the re-assessment by stating the millage will be reduced, but its actually heading the opposite direction.
See the above post. I'll be happy to further explain any part of that calculation if you'd like.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 10:52 AM
 
408 posts, read 989,628 times
Reputation: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobick View Post
Any tax increase has absolutely nothing to do with the reassesment, that's the inaccuracy. I'm sorry if you can't see that.
For the county, no. For the homeowner who was re-assessed over the average, they get a double wammy as they now own a bigger slice of the bill AND the bill has grown.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Mexican War Streets
1,584 posts, read 2,088,901 times
Reputation: 1389
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranceFusion View Post
For the county, no. For the homeowner who was re-assessed over the average, they get a double wammy as they now own a bigger slice of the bill AND the bill has grown.
Sure...but (1) that's not what Curtis was being criticized for; (2) that homeowner has been most probably paying a disproportionately smaller tax burden for a number of years than they equitably should have been; and (3) there are any number of homeowners who, due to the reassessment, will see their proportionate amount of the tax burden fall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 11:00 AM
 
408 posts, read 989,628 times
Reputation: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by ML North View Post

The pre-reassessment millage rate was 5.69. To comply with the anti-windwall law, the county's net increase in revenue due to the reassessment can be no greater than 5%. Therefore, the new millage rate is calculated as follows:

(1 + 0.05) * 5.69 * ( $64,176,722,714 / $86,863,845,552 ) = 4.41.
I have NOT seen this stated by any government source at this point. Have you? Did I miss it? Or are you just assuming it? Because it sure isn't mentioned in the OP's article.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 11:00 AM
gg gg started this thread
 
Location: Pittsburgh
26,137 posts, read 25,857,926 times
Reputation: 17378
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranceFusion View Post
For the county, no. For the homeowner who was re-assessed over the average, they get a double wammy as they now own a bigger slice of the bill AND the bill has grown.
Yeah, I am in that boat. Going to get crushed. Every time they raise the millage rate I have to plug in that wildly high assessment. Talk about getting crushed. Oh well, life in Allegheny County, while surrounding counties point their fingers and say, look I knew we were right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 11:02 AM
gg gg started this thread
 
Location: Pittsburgh
26,137 posts, read 25,857,926 times
Reputation: 17378
Quote:
Originally Posted by ML North View Post
So, Curt, this is why your wrong. The only "multiplier" effect that the reassessment has on subsequent tax hikes is the 5% anti-windfall limit.
Here is an idea. STOP thinking about one year! Start thinking about 10. Goodness! I don't budget for a year. I budget long term. I suggest you do the same, but if you are in Allegheny County, I guess we have to budget for taxes to go to the moon and maybe back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 11:03 AM
 
802 posts, read 1,317,873 times
Reputation: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by h_curtis View Post
I don't think people like these kind of posts because it brings the nasty tax problem to light. People interested in moving here read the tax issues and they really are in shock. It happened all the time when I sold real estate. People couldn't believe the taxes. That was a long time ago. Wait till they have a look at them 5 years from now.
Exactly.....like me. I love Pittsburgh and am interested in moving there in the future. However, every time I see these property tax increase proposals (along with the cuts to PAT) it makes me cringe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Wilkinsburg
1,657 posts, read 2,683,202 times
Reputation: 994
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranceFusion View Post
I have NOT seen this stated by any government source at this point. Have you? Did I miss it? Or are you just assuming it? Because it sure isn't mentioned in the OP's article.
It was published by the Post-Gazette here:

http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/pdf/2..._allegheny.pdf
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


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 > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh

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