U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Vermont
 [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 11-05-2010, 05:08 PM
 
Location: Manchester Center, VT
84 posts, read 180,096 times
Reputation: 51

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ex-springfielder View Post
The out-of-staters who own the big second homes in vermont pay property taxes but do not pay income tax to Vermont.
I am guessing that the property tax rates for non-residents will be raised substantially. After all non-residents don't vote!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-05-2010, 09:14 PM
 
Location: Live - VT, Work - MA
819 posts, read 1,267,047 times
Reputation: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flashback View Post
I am guessing that the property tax rates for non-residents will be raised substantially. After all non-residents don't vote!!!!
Here's the thing about that, when the tax rate eclipses NH property tax rate, they'll see movement from VT to NH as far as second homes go. To many (not all but many) there is little difference between Killington, Stowe, etc. and the NH resort towns and condos. At some point, while they may prefer the VT mountains and lakes.........the total screw job on taxes will bite them in the arse.

I'll only take so much from a non-resident tax standpoint. The ultimate insult to people's intelligence is the fact that it is the "school tax" that they crank up on you......so let me get this straight.......I pay a higher school tax on schools I could never send my kids to........it's bad enough to feed me a spoonful of crap......it's a total kick in the nutts to call that spoonful "sugar"......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2010, 05:43 AM
 
Location: The Woods
16,936 posts, read 22,213,665 times
Reputation: 9020
Driving out the second home owners, the rich ones anyways, would have a temporary benefit to VT'ers who could then better afford property....until the legislature cranks up the taxes on residents after revenues drop from nonresidents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2010, 08:04 AM
 
274 posts, read 594,207 times
Reputation: 202
Driving out non-residents removes a source of income for residents (those precious dollars non-residents spend). As far as NH resort towns...they are an extra couple hours from NYC. Most of the tourists in the MT Washington Valley are from Mass and Quebec. Very few from Jersey/NYC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 03:51 AM
 
Location: Live - VT, Work - MA
819 posts, read 1,267,047 times
Reputation: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Driving out the second home owners, the rich ones anyways, would have a temporary benefit to VT'ers who could then better afford property....until the legislature cranks up the taxes on residents after revenues drop from nonresidents.
I don't think this would have the benefit you anticipate. The real estate market takes a long, long time to make the type of correction it would need to drop to the level required to solve the issue you are referring to (affordability). For this teory to work wages and total revenue and employment would have to at least stay at the same level. Unfortunately, the much more immediate impact would be the local economies seeing a dramatic drop in revenue from said weekenders leaving impacted towns and villages in worse shape than they are now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 11:25 AM
 
16 posts, read 32,735 times
Reputation: 29
Really, you don't want any of those "weekenders" selling those houses and moving somewhere else. They spend a LOT of money here in Vermont when they visit their "second homes", and so do the Canadians when they come south. If either or both of those groups are encouraged to visit elsewhere, the towns and villages will suffer horribly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 01:13 PM
 
Location: Live - VT, Work - MA
819 posts, read 1,267,047 times
Reputation: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by RRGMGR View Post
Really, you don't want any of those "weekenders" selling those houses and moving somewhere else. They spend a LOT of money here in Vermont when they visit their "second homes", and so do the Canadians when they come south. If either or both of those groups are encouraged to visit elsewhere, the towns and villages will suffer horribly.
I agree 100%.

The reality is that the 1950’s aren’t coming back, not for Vermont and not for anywhere else, the world moved forward, whether we think it has changed for the better or not. It isn’t like Vermont is alone with regards to population increasing inorganically (ie. people relocating); nor are they alone in watching the family farm of 1920-1950 become an obsolete business model due to improved transportation and refrigeration making large corporate farms of the mid-west and west legitimate competition. They aren’t alone in the trials and tribulations of local economies propped up and built around tourist industries (check out any seacoast town).

Kicking out those $ and the homes (ie tax base) they own isn’t going to make anything better, in fact it would probably make it all worse. A good number of hardy native Vermonters have been able to survive this long when traditional manufacturing, farming, railroad, etc. jobs went packing by piggybacking on the only industries on the rise over the past 30-40 years, most fueled by transplants and tourism……now people in those families are real estate agents, town clerks, shop owners, restaurant owners, bartenders, etc. Not to mention all the building trades supported by the “outside” & “new” money.

There may be some good solutions, but this isn’t one of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 06:05 PM
 
Location: The Woods
16,936 posts, read 22,213,665 times
Reputation: 9020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logs and Dogs View Post
I don't think this would have the benefit you anticipate. The real estate market takes a long, long time to make the type of correction it would need to drop to the level required to solve the issue you are referring to (affordability). For this teory to work wages and total revenue and employment would have to at least stay at the same level. Unfortunately, the much more immediate impact would be the local economies seeing a dramatic drop in revenue from said weekenders leaving impacted towns and villages in worse shape than they are now.
I don't know, a sudden glut in supply would lower prices. The Real estate crash happened rather quickly relatively speaking.

The rich tourists/etc. may spend some money here, but I think the negatives of the high real estate prices more than outweigh the benefits. What good is a job where people make 9 dollars an hour, give or take, seasonally, when property is so expensive and rent is too? We'd have a far more diverse economy if not for decades of increasingly regulating everything but tourism out of business. NH has a far better economy, because of less regulations and taxes. VT's voters need to get this state out of the left-wing box before it's completely dead as a state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2010, 03:42 AM
 
Location: Live - VT, Work - MA
819 posts, read 1,267,047 times
Reputation: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
I don't know, a sudden glut in supply would lower prices. The Real estate crash happened rather quickly relatively speaking.

The rich tourists/etc. may spend some money here, but I think the negatives of the high real estate prices more than outweigh the benefits. What good is a job where people make 9 dollars an hour, give or take, seasonally, when property is so expensive and rent is too? We'd have a far more diverse economy if not for decades of increasingly regulating everything but tourism out of business. NH has a far better economy, because of less regulations and taxes. VT's voters need to get this state out of the left-wing box before it's completely dead as a state.
And NH has as many if not more second home owners than VT...........yet they have found a way to have a respectable economy. The problem with VT isn't the one "industry" that brings cash into the state; the problem is a group of bucket-heads in Burlington who think a couple breweries, syrup and some wool clothes are all the economy Vermont needs. I agree the regs in VT are horrid.......second homeowners have nothing to do with that, nor do they keep voting in said bucket-heads every election.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2010, 01:30 PM
 
400 posts, read 724,327 times
Reputation: 473
Most of the second homes I'm thinking of would not represent competitive stock of affordable housing. When I think of an out of staters part time home, I don't envision a basic single family home. I envision small hunting camps, seasonal use cabins or extravagant mini mansions...often in areas that are not particularly close to jobs. I don't see how having more of those on the market would put much pressure on the cost of basic family homes.

We get plenty from the second home owners since they are generally reamed at a higher property tax rate which is also ineligible for the income sensitivity provision. Even if I'm wrong about most of the houses they occupy, I really don't think it would be a net plus in revenue if we drove them all out.
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:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 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 > Vermont
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