Residential growth in city rivals suburbs (Atlanta, North Atlanta: rental, homes, neighborhoods)

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by cqholt

You make it sounds like renters are less of a person than homeowners?

They probably represent less tax money for the local government.

[cqholt]

Inner City Growth and Competition in the U.S. - CityLab

[Tarzanman]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

They probably represent less tax money for the local government.

Why would they? Someone has to own rented real estate, so someone is paying taxes on the property.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by Tarzanman

Why would they? Someone has to own rented real estate, so someone is paying taxes on the property.

And actually rentals are likely paying more in property taxes because their owners don't get to take a homestead exemption.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by jsvh

And actually rentals are likely paying more in property taxes because their owners don't get to take a homestead exemption.

Sure, but the building owners are actually paying the taxes, right? The burden on the taxpayers would be the total property tax on the property divided by the number of units, assuming equal rent for all units. Or is that not true?

Rental houses might be different. I obviously have no idea.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Sure, but the building owners are actually paying the taxes, right?

Yes.

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

The burden on the taxpayers would be the total property tax on the property divided by the number of units, assuming equal rent for all units. Or is that not true?

I am not sure I understand the question. What "burden on taxpayers"? The taxpayer in this case is the owner of the apartment building. Their taxes will be based on the total value of the property.

[Mutiny77]

For renters, property tax is factored into rent.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

For renters, property tax is factored into rent.

That's what I was trying (badly) to ask about. I assume if a unit has 10 renters, that each would be paying roughly 1/10 of the total property taxes as part of their rent.

Since many rental properties are higher density than non-rental properties, I would guess that per capita taxes paid are less among those renters then they are among those who own their own properties, lowering their value as taxpayers in a real estate tax context.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

That's what I was trying (badly) to ask about. I assume if a unit has 10 renters, that each would be paying roughly 1/10 of the total property taxes as part of their rent.

Since many rental properties are higher density than non-rental properties, I would guess that per capita taxes paid are less among those renters then they are among those who own their own properties, lowering their value as taxpayers in a real estate tax context.

Renters do not pay the property tax, the owners do. If a unit sits empty the building owners still pay the property tax.

Your assumption about rentals being worth less is based on two unsupported assumptions: that rentals are denser (most apartment and condo buildings are interchangeable) and that denser properties pay less tax per capita.

The only impact of a condo building converted to apartments (or vice versa) would be that taxes would be the same except the apartments would no longer qualify for the homestead exemption.

Short answer: the same home will pay more taxes as a rental than owner-occupied.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Renters do not pay the property tax, the owners do. If a unit sits empty the building owners still pay the property tax.

Sorry, I'm assuming a smart owner will pass that to the renters.

Your assumption about rentals being worth less is based on two unsupported assumptions: that rentals are denser (most apartment and condo buildings are interchangeable) and that denser properties pay less tax per capita.

Most owners, in this metro, are in single-family homes.