Should I contest our property tax appeal? (Pittsburgh, Carnegie: real estate, buying a house)

[Bong477]

Originally Posted by Hip Priest

My agent advised me that the taxes on the house I'm currently in the process of purchasing might very well increase, since the property is presently assessed at quite a bit less than what I'm paying for it. I hope the school district doesn't appeal. Is it common for the districts to appeal? This might sound controversial, but I personally believe that childless people like myself shouldn't have to pay school tax--we don't benefit, since we have no kids!

Depends on what school district. Pittsburgh city has generally not challenged many properties in the past, but its entirely possible that could change after the reassessment because it will now be far easier to challenge properties considering that all properties should be (in theory of course) assessed at what they are actually currently worth.

In 2013, when buying a property you should assume you will pay property tax on the full amount which really is the amount you SHOULD be paying. If you end up paying less, good for you.

[The King of Um]

Originally Posted by sealie

Well, then, you won't mind if the kids around you are dumb and unemployable and stealing your stuff in ten years.

No, you're misinterpreting what I meant. Allow me to clarify. Students are entitled to a high-quality, thorough education in the public schools, should their parents choose to send them to public schools. Their parents, however, should be responsible for the cost; parents, therefore, whose children utilize public education should have a greater tax burden than they currently have. It's a matter of fairness. Childless people, as well as those who send their kids to private schools, shouldn't be oppressed.

[Bong477]

What you propose is basically just private school. Public education means that it is paid for by the public with tax dollars. In theory, everyone benefits from a more educated population. In practice, the value we get (both with and without kids) from the current public school system is debatable.

[Goodjules]

Originally Posted by Hip Priest

No, you're misinterpreting what I meant. Allow me to clarify. Students are entitled to a high-quality, thorough education in the public schools, should their parents choose to send them to public schools. Their parents, however, should be responsible for the cost; parents, therefore, whose children utilize public education should have a greater tax burden than they currently have. It's a matter of fairness. Childless people, as well as those who send their kids to private schools, shouldn't be oppressed.

You really can't see how society as a whole benefits from an educated populace? I highly doubt if free public k-12 education could survive if only parents of school age kids in the public school system had to fund it. My kids are grown and I still believe the US absolutely has to have high quality public education for all.

[sealie]

I understand perfectly what you meant and I am surprised that it was not obvious. Per pupil spending is around $15k. I don't think asking parents to pony up $15k per child is cool, because I don't think raising the next generation is a luxury that only the upper middle class should be allowed. And yes, you're basically proposing private school.

[Copanut]

Never liked the argument about not having kids so those people should be exempt from paying for schools. Short sighted, to be sure. EVERYONE should have a K-12 education, not just those well off enough to pay for their own.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by Hip Priest

No, you're misinterpreting what I meant. Allow me to clarify. Students are entitled to a high-quality, thorough education in the public schools, should their parents choose to send them to public schools. Their parents, however, should be responsible for the cost; parents, therefore, whose children utilize public education should have a greater tax burden than they currently have. It's a matter of fairness. Childless people, as well as those who send their kids to private schools, shouldn't be oppressed.

You basically said the same thing with more words. Sealie didn't misrepresent you.

[The King of Um]

Originally Posted by juliegt

You really can't see how society as a whole benefits from an educated populace? I highly doubt if free public k-12 education could survive if only parents of school age kids in the public school system had to fund it. My kids are grown and I still believe the US absolutely has to have high quality public education for all.

Well, Julie, admittedly, I wouldn't mind so much if (1) taxes weren't so outrageously high and (2) the quality of public education were better. Let's face it, by the large, our population isn't that well educated. In our day, very seldom is a public school education a high quality education. In my grandparents' day, from what I understand, public education was a lot more rigorous. When I was in high school, I remember my grandmother always asking me, "Where's your homework? You don't have to write nearly as many papers as I did back in the '30s." So, I kind of resent paying taxes to schools that I know are going to mismanage my hard-earned and wisely-invested money in one way or another--they're certainly not going to use the money wisely to facilitate students' learning.

[Tinare]

Hip Priest -- did you attend public schools?

[The King of Um]

Originally Posted by Tinare

Hip Priest -- did you attend public schools?

I attended a mix of public and private, actually. However, the public schools I attended, I'm sorry to say, were pathetic. Although I'm not religious (or even a Roman Catholic), I have to say that the Catholic school I attended provided a very quality education.