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.
Yes, I was attracted by I-747 and closed on my house in Jan' 07 just to be shown that I was premature in my logic. Although my tax rate is lower than what I paid in Texas it has gone up steadily and I now pay 65% more that I did initially.
This is exactly what happened to me... I did all my research and due diligence... I-747 was the law of the land and voter approved.
It was not 18 months later when it was tossed and my Thurston County Tax increased 80%... from $6800 to $12,000. Hopes of retirement dashed.
Rented the home for $1800 a month and $1000 of that was going to pay Property Tax.
If you had stayed in Texas you'd probably be paying 65% more property tax today than you did back in 2007 also. This is not unique to Washington. The costs of education, road construction, policing, fire protection, and everything else that taxes pay for has gone up as well.
Not unique to Washington but one 80% increase cannot be the norm?
California has not had double digit year over year tax increases since the mid 70's... over 40 years ago.
Not unique to Washington but one 80% increase cannot be the norm?
California has not had double digit year over year tax increases since the mid 70's... over 40 years ago.
Do you think there is a general tendency to target the what is considered 'the rich' or upper middle class? By that I mean properties which appear higher end or larger compared to average or lower end homes in the county?
The reason I ask is that during our house hunting I've been watching both current taxes along with year over year increases. Unlike before, there is an abundance of real estate data publicly available at one's finger tips. In the vast majority of cases, these somewhat larger, nicer homes seem to have been hit the hardest in terms of year over year percentage increases. Jump down to the average to smaller home in somewhat older neighborhoods and the changes are not as stark. Its almost like a threshold that once you pass, you're the new deep pockets for future more significant tax increases. True that everyone still pays, but there seems to be this tendency if you live in a newer, larger home on a larger piece of land.
I've seen homes that I look at which are really nice and may be a bit of a stretch financially. But when I look at the taxes including increases its a big turn off. Almost better to fly under the radar than reach too far like that. kwim?
Do you think there is a general tendency to target the what is considered 'the rich' or upper middle class? By that I mean properties which appear higher end or larger compared to average or lower end homes in the county?
The reason I ask is that during our house hunting I've been watching both current taxes along with year over year increases. Unlike before, there is an abundance of real estate data publicly available at one's finger tips. In the vast majority of cases, these somewhat larger, nicer homes seem to have been hit the hardest in terms of year over year percentage increases. Jump down to the average to smaller home in somewhat older neighborhoods and the changes are not as stark. Its almost like a threshold that once you pass, you're the new deep pockets for future more significant tax increases. True that everyone still pays, but there seems to be this tendency if you live in a newer, larger home on a larger piece of land.
I've seen homes that I look at which are really nice and may be a bit of a stretch financially. But when I look at the taxes including increases its a big turn off. Almost better to fly under the radar than reach too far like that. kwim?
Derek
Yes to a point although my 85 year old neighbors living in a converted garage with a small cottage home they rent also got a big hit... but they too had acreage like I do...
If you have a very old and modest home of limited square footage you can very well fly under the radar most of the time.
What did us in was a speculator paid a big price for some waterfront acreage with plans of subdividing and making a fortune... the locals simply could not see it as waterfront is severely restricted due to setback, slope, etc...
The Bust came and the speculator lost his shirt... nothing was ever built and nothing to this day has been.
But, that one sale doomed all of us because it was used to justify the cost of land going through the roof... and we were all reassessed accordingly...
The improved part has not changed all that much as the county has that pretty well dialed in... but the land turned out to be the wild card...
Where I grew up in California each sale/transaction stands alone... at least since 1978... so having someone bid up the home next to you only to loose it through foreclosure doesn't make your taxes increase.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,726 posts, read 58,067,115 times
Reputation: 46195
Do be advised On-line Data is :
Trailing data
Does not indicate the 'multiplier' codes applied (there are several; quality of construction, depreciation, view, waterfront) Mine
gets applied 'better than average construction' rate $250/sq. (I built it for $38 / sf including the land, well, septic, road, timber clearing, ....)
May not note the 'exemptions' / credits of taxpayer (The TX Due will include but not report why it is lower than market RATE.
May be a trailing physical evaluation cycle (every 4 yrs)
"MULTIPLIERS' (assessor) add up very fast compared to what homeowners get to use at 'contesting valuation time' (We only get to use addition and subtraction, NOT multiplication. I am miffed that WA uses 'Resell' valuations and comps (As if your house is spiffed / ALWAYS ready to sell and fetch top price). Seems like that should have been a 'class-action' against WA assessors decades ago. Is your 'taxed' house spiffed and prepped / inspected / repaired / certified for a new buyer? They won't let me count a negative for being in the 5% of homes in the county w/o internet access (Who would want that?) Gonna weed out some 'high-end' buyers.
My house gets totally destroyed... Valuation on my land / home site is ~$500k for the dirt ONLY. (I paid slightly under $20k)(Taxes = $7350 on the dirt, even if I am living in a motel / teepee / RV)
Thus my biggest WA Property tax beef... I built this joint brick by brick, nail by nail, shovel by shovel to LIVE in it until death , Not to resell it!!! (I would still need a replacement joint to lay my pillow) PERFECT for the tax guy, Terrible for the serfs.
BTW: I never consider a personal home as an asset, it is very much a liability! / obligation. Investment value? If a home price only doubles every 10 yrs, it is a very poor performing 'investment' (?). I doubt that happens in too many markets. (but can happen here on occasion). remember the early 1980's ... Spotted Owl days. Properties were just NOT selling!
Gonna miss my Choc Lab (RIP @ age17) Only ONE person would he NOT let out of their car... Tax assessor Everyone else got a 'smile' greeting
Last edited by StealthRabbit; 01-18-2019 at 08:12 PM..
Do you think there is a general tendency to target the what is considered 'the rich' or upper middle class? By that I mean properties which appear higher end or larger compared to average or lower end homes in the county?
The reason I ask is that during our house hunting I've been watching both current taxes along with year over year increases. Unlike before, there is an abundance of real estate data publicly available at one's finger tips. In the vast majority of cases, these somewhat larger, nicer homes seem to have been hit the hardest in terms of year over year percentage increases. Jump down to the average to smaller home in somewhat older neighborhoods and the changes are not as stark. Its almost like a threshold that once you pass, you're the new deep pockets for future more significant tax increases. True that everyone still pays, but there seems to be this tendency if you live in a newer, larger home on a larger piece of land.
I've seen homes that I look at which are really nice and may be a bit of a stretch financially. But when I look at the taxes including increases its a big turn off. Almost better to fly under the radar than reach too far like that. kwim?
Derek
Tax rates, unlike Federal income tax, are not progressive. You don't trigger some higher rate once your assessed value exceeds a certain level. So no, they are not targeting the rich.
What has happened in WA is that the property tax structure has been completely overhauled in response to the recent supreme court ruling over education: https://dor.wa.gov/get-form-or-publi...ding-education which has increased property taxes in some districts and lowered them in some in an effort to make funding more equitable across the state. Bottom line? Wealthy districts like Camas or Bellevue are now doing more to subsidize education in poorer more rural districts. In states like Oregon where state funding comes more from income taxes that sort of thing just happens automatically and one really doesn't notice it. in WA the change is somewhat jarring because wealthy districts have been used to just taking care of their own, which isn't how things work anymore.
My guess is that we are a LONG way from completion and are basically just starting down a long path to making education funding more equitable and stable. There are going to be a lot more changes and revolts in the future until we are done.
Yes to a point although my 85 year old neighbors living in a converted garage with a small cottage home they rent also got a big hit... but they too had acreage like I do...
If you have a very old and modest home of limited square footage you can very well fly under the radar most of the time.
What did us in was a speculator paid a big price for some waterfront acreage with plans of subdividing and making a fortune... the locals simply could not see it as waterfront is severely restricted due to setback, slope, etc...
The Bust came and the speculator lost his shirt... nothing was ever built and nothing to this day has been.
But, that one sale doomed all of us because it was used to justify the cost of land going through the roof... and we were all reassessed accordingly...
The improved part has not changed all that much as the county has that pretty well dialed in... but the land turned out to be the wild card...
Where I grew up in California each sale/transaction stands alone... at least since 1978... so having someone bid up the home next to you only to loose it through foreclosure doesn't make your taxes increase.
So did the county ever reassess accordingly after the bust like they did during that 'speculative' boom?
I have seen this scenario mentioned in a number of WA threads where folks with acreage tend to get hit harder/hardest. I know Stealth has mentioned his increases and even attempting to contest them to no avail. There was a native up in Bellingham who described himself as middle class. His family had owned a nice piece of land on a lake for years. And although they built their own home on it, taxes got so high they were forced to sell. That area has gotten so popular and prices have gone up with it. Lakefront property is now where the rich people live. Its just unfortunate for locals who may have owned a piece of land in the family which they can no longer afford. Something about that doesn't seem right.
For some the caliber of local public schools is very important and they are willing to pay more to be included.
Others could care less... maybe no children or vacation home, etc...
The Serano Decision in California where the State took over public education funding is a big reason Prop 13 because law... it was one thing to pay higher taxes benefiting local schools and another when the local tax money left the district...
The goal of Serano was equity... but it also marks the decline in California public education.
If the idea was to even out... i.e. bring up the low performing and pull the down the top performing to even it all out... then it has been somewhat successful.
Remember, those with means simply opt for private when pushed.
So did the county ever reassess accordingly after the bust like they did during that 'speculative' boom?
I have seen it mentioned in a number of WA threads that folks with acreage tend to get hit harder/hardest. I know Stealth has mentioned his increases and even contesting them to no avail. There was native up in Bellingham who described himself as middle class. His family had owned a nice piece of land on a lake. And although they built their own home on it, taxes got so high they were forced to sell. That area has gotten really popular and prices have gone up with it. Lakefront property is now where the rich people live. Its just unfortunate for locals who may have owned a piece of land in the family they can no longer afford. Something about that doesn't seem right.
Derek
Yes... it did drop some... about $2500 one year from the peak... but then started to climb.
Again, this would not have been possible had I-747 stood... and I-747 was key in my decision.
Rent almost covers property taxes, maintenance and insurance...
Maybe if I was able to avail myself of WA no personal Income Tax it would all balance?
Also, it is fair to point out that if you own a modest home with low income there is a provision to freeze your property tax... it does work for one of my neighbors... 800 square feet home living on Social Security...
Yes... it did drop some... about $2500 one year from the peak... but then started to climb.
Again, this would not have been possible had I-747 stood... and I-747 was key in my decision.
Rent almost covers property taxes, maintenance and insurance...
Maybe if I was able to avail myself of WA no personal Income Tax it would all balance?
Also, it is fair to point out that if you own a modest home with low income there is a provision to freeze your property tax... it does work for one of my neighbors... 800 square feet home living on Social Security...
As an income property owner in WA who is retired or no longer working in the state, what is the benefit in keeping those properties? I mean from a financial perspective as opposed to simply wanting to keep it in the family, etc..? I see this working in CA with prop 13, but not necessarily other places.
Regarding the modest homes, I do think there are shades of gray or levels of burden as Texasdiver mentioned. I guess that has to do with increased property taxes in the more affluent areas to give to the more needy for improved education services, etc...
Derek
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.
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.
Only ONE person would he NOT let out of their car... Tax assessor
Everyone else got a 'smile' 
greeting
