Slowing Austin's property tax madness (renter, insurance, how much)

[Biscuits]

The 50% success rate of today's AISD election not withstanding, Austin citizens typically pass nearly every bond put before them. This obviously leads to an increase in property taxes that is -- in my opinion -- unsustainable. I think most of us are pro-Austin (and pro school children) but at what point will we come to the realization that continually voting to raise our taxes will create a city that only those of above-average wealth can live in?

I personally would love for Austin and the other local taxing authorities to have every conceivable project (rail, jumbotron scoreboards, medical schools, dental schools, veterinary schools, etc.) but if those projects cause me enough financial pain that I can no longer afford to live here, then what have I gained?

Here are two law changes that I would support:

1) End the frozen school taxes on those 65 and over. Unless I understand the law incorrectly, this allows a large group of voters the luxury of voting to "buy" something that they are exempted from paying for.

2) Every renter should be provided a statement with their lease that details precisely how much of their monthly rent is applied to property taxes. I am confident that there is a significant number of renters that do not make the connection between property taxes and their rent.

I'm sure there are some better ideas out there and I'd enjoy hearing them.

[pmiranda]

1. I kinda doubt most old folks are voting for bond packages. Every person I know over 50 has a "F the government" attitude. Maybe I just know alot of grumpy old people :-)
2. I'm not sure that rent has a direct relationship to property tax. I think rent is set by the market, which has more to do with supply and demand than a small percentage of the cost of property. I am not a landlord, and I'm sure if I were I'd want to be able to raise rent when the taxes increase, but I don't know that it's the biggest driving factor.

[Biscuits]

Originally Posted by pmiranda

1. I kinda doubt most old folks are voting for bond packages. Every person I know over 50 has a "F the government" attitude. Maybe I just know alot of grumpy old people :-)
2. I'm not sure that rent has a direct relationship to property tax. I think rent is set by the market, which has more to do with supply and demand than a small percentage of the cost of property. I am not a landlord, and I'm sure if I were I'd want to be able to raise rent when the taxes increase, but I don't know that it's the biggest driving factor.

1. We disagree on this. I think there are a significant number of seniors who enjoy their civic duty. And assuming you are correct, then this change gives them a vested reason to vote.

2. I understand that rent is market driven. This does not change the fact that the first x-amount of rent must go towards the owner's property tax bill unless said owner would like to lose her property on the county courthouse steps. Profit is optional, taxes are not.

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by Biscuits

1. We disagree on this. I think there are a significant number of seniors who enjoy their civic duty.

2. I understand that rent is market driven. This does not change the fact that the first x-amount of rent must go towards the owner's property tax bill unless said owner would like to lose her property on the county courthouse steps. Profit is optional, taxes are not.

1) By your statement, I'm not sure if I'm enjoying my civic duty or not. I should enjoy paying higher taxes...or paying frozen taxes?...or voting for bond issues?

2) The tax folks have enough to do without providing a marketing service for landlords. IF the owner wants the renter to know what the taxes are, that's easy enough to provide...just a couple of clicks or a copy of the tax bill. I doubt the renter cares about HOW the rent amount was figured...only cares about how MUCH it is.

BTW, we dislike the property tax so much, we're looking to cut it in half. I've got other plans for that $5000/year(and rising). Apologies to those who bought their homes for $70K and are now taxed @ $250K or more.

[Biscuits]

Originally Posted by 10scoachrick

1) By your statement, I'm not sure if I'm enjoying my civic duty or not. I should enjoy paying higher taxes...or paying frozen taxes?...or voting for bond issues?

2) The tax folks have enough to do without providing a marketing service for landlords. IF the owner wants the renter to know what the taxes are, that's easy enough to provide...just a couple of clicks or a copy of the tax bill. I doubt the renter cares about HOW the rent amount was figured...only cares about how MUCH it is.

BTW, we dislike the property tax so much, we're looking to cut it in half. I've got other plans for that $5000/year(and rising). Apologies to those who bought their homes for $70K and are now taxed @ $250K or more.

Voting has been referred to as a civic duty. I'm sorry if that is confusing.

There are generally two camps regarding renters and their payment of property taxes. One says they aren't paying any. If this is the case I'd be in favor of this:

Only those who pay property taxes can vote on bonds that are paid by property taxes.

The second camp says they do [indirectly] pay property taxes. If this is the case -- which I think it is -- then I believe they should know what they are paying. Possibly they care, possibly not. Do you care when your actions affect your budget? Are renters that different?

The details of landlords providing tenants a statement showing the tax obligation of a rental unit would not require the "tax folks" as you have imagined. Even if it did, how exactly would that be a marketing service?

[atxcio]

The impression I get from these split results on the AISD bond election is:

1) Austin is pretty much evenly divided on the issue

2) A small percentage of completely uniformed voters ended up making the difference in this election. I mean, who would vote for some of the bonds and not all? Seems like the reasons "for" or "against" were pretty much applicable to ALL of the bond proposals. But a small (but in the end significant) number of voters just chose yes/no based on the wording of the bond description on the ballot and their reaction to it.

Lots of good fodder for political consultants to research, IMO. Perhaps more bond issues will start being split up like this?

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by biscuits

voting has ben referred to as a civic duty. I'm sorry if that is confusing.
i think voting in a bond 'election' is quite different from voting for the bonds. The presumed 'duty' is to vote(either way).

there are two camps regarding renters and their payment of property taxes. One says they aren't paying any. If this is the case i'd be in favor of this:only those who pay property taxes can vote on bonds that are paid by property taxes.
Let me check my history books on landowners being the only ones to have the right to vote.
Renters are paying property taxes as much as they are paying the mortgage(if any) on the property. If the landlord defaults on the property tax payment, how can you say the taxes were paid?

the second camp says they do [indirectly] pay property taxes. If this is the case -- which i think it is -- then i believe they should know what they are paying. Possibly they care, possibly not. Do you care when your actions affect your budget? Are renters that different?
your point is taken...the long-term rental amounts certainly would be expected to rise if the property taxes rise enough. Who's to say what amount over the property tax should be paid by the renter? This magic 'market' everyone talks about. Heck, i reckon some properties maybe shouldn't or can't generate enough rent to even cover the taxes(high priced hunk of land with a dilapidated house, for example).
"Hey! YOU can't vote...your rent doesn't even cover the taxes on the property!"
the details of landlords providing tenants a statement showing the tax obligation of a rental unit would not require the "tax folks" as you have imagined. Even if it did, how exactly would that be a marketing service?
you said: "2) every renter should be provided a statement with their lease that details precisely how much of their monthly rent is applied to property taxes". sounds like the only way to make sure that is accurate is to provide a tax document to someone other than the owner. Would you trust the owner to provide accurate information? They could certainly fudge the numbers if left to their own devices. What about the owners who don't think it's anyone's business how much they pay in taxes? I understand the notion that renters are somewhat isolated from the 'vote for x, pay for it with higher taxes' slap in the face; but i don't think another 'required disclosure' and the attendant red tape are the answer. I consider it 'marketing' in the sense that it makes a presentation to a potential 'buyer'(renter).

I hope all our votes don't boil down to "i can't vote for that...our rent will go up $11/month if it passes."

It may boil down to the 'temporary' nature of renting for many properties in Austin. Perhaps the renters see the bonds as bringing something beneficial in a shorter term and not measuring that against the more permanent tax increase.

I guess I would ask if you think the renting voters cast enough 'yes' votes on bond issues to swing the outcome. Would it be any different if your 'Law #2" passed?

[Biscuits]

Originally Posted by 10scoachrick

I hope all our votes don't boil down to "i can't vote for that...our rent will go up $11/month if it passes."

I would be thrilled if our votes boiled down to precisely that. "Buying" what you can not afford is ridiculous.

[mimimomx3]

I would support eliminating the exemption for historic property. There is no reason why they shouldn't pay property taxes. These are million dollar homes.

[Komeht]

Renters don't pay taxes. Landowners may only pass along costs (whether the cost is tax, maintenance, insurance or note payment) what the market will bear.

Renters should not get to vote on budgetary issue. They don't get the bill, they don't write the check, there is never a reason to not vote for any given proposition. As long as our institutions are to be funded with property taxes then those who pay property taxes and only those who pay property taxes should be allowed to imact that vote.

If someone wants to switch to a much saner form of taxation then I'm all for it.