Property taxes...buying a home...help! (Austin, Post: real estate, condo, how much)

[CBB_bear]

Prop 13 alone isn't the reason for the disaster. It, combined with other stupid things CA does, created the problems. Prop 13 is just one ingredient in the stew.

Sure, it's complex, but there are very clear ripple effects from that particular property tax policy(especially regarding school funding and issues relating to housing turnover in the housing market). Suggesting that property taxes stay frozen for people until the house changes owners (which a PP suggested), is essentially repeating CA's mistake.

[blktoptrvl]

No matter where you live, additional cost to the mortage; MPI Taxes, HOA fees, and increases on those costs need to be considered part of the cost of the home.

Don't forget too that you will need all new blinds, furniture, utilities, pots, pans, etc... a heavy water bill (in the hundreds?) for the first few months while protecting the newly sodded lawn, and some maintenance (yes, even for a new home). In my first month in my newly built home, I spent an additional 4K a month just getting the house fitted out.

You need to consider all of that while figuring out if you can afford the house.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by CBB_bear

Sure, it's complex, but there are very clear ripple effects from that particular property tax policy(especially regarding school funding and issues relating to housing turnover in the housing market). Suggesting that property taxes stay frozen for people until the house changes owners (which a PP suggested), is essentially repeating CA's mistake.

I don't disagree. A tax freeze in Texas would be a bad idea. I'd rather have us reduce and replace, though I hold out no hope of that ever happening. Or if it does, that it will be done right.

Steve

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by CBB_bear

Sure, it's complex, but there are very clear ripple effects from that particular property tax policy(especially regarding school funding and issues relating to housing turnover in the housing market). Suggesting that property taxes stay frozen for people until the house changes owners (which a PP suggested), is essentially repeating CA's mistake.

The money could come from somewhere else. What about all those so-called 'historic' properties and the commercial properties that are valued well below market? Why clobber a long-time homeowner just because the area around them has increased in popularity? What is it about their 50 year old homestead that makes them deserving of a disproportionate tax burden? Do they use more services? Receive special fire and police protection?

[centralaustinite]

Originally Posted by 10scoachrick

The money could come from somewhere else. What about all those so-called 'historic' properties and the commercial properties that are valued well below market? Why clobber a long-time homeowner just because the area around them has increased in popularity? What is it about their 50 year old homestead that makes them deserving of a disproportionate tax burden? Do they use more services? Receive special fire and police protection?

They own a valuable financial asset that has increased in value. Believe me, I know it sucks, the value of my home has exploded and for the first time, I could see possibly having to leave the house due to the tax burden over the next 20 years, but the chances of an income tax or VAT are very low, if you are going to run a system on property taxes . . . then, this is probably the way to do it. Texas and Austin in particular, have very few historic properties. Scrap the tax break and it wouldn't make any difference. Commercial properties are a different matter. But be careful what you wish for, might drive many local, iconic businesses out and leave us with nothing but chains backed by deep-pocketed corporations.

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

They own a valuable financial asset that has increased in value. Believe me, I know it sucks, the value of my home has exploded and for the first time, I could see possibly having to leave the house due to the tax burden over the next 20 years, but the chances of an income tax or VAT are very low, if you are going to run a system on property taxes . . . then, this is probably the way to do it. Texas and Austin in particular, have very few historic properties. Scrap the tax break and it wouldn't make any difference. Commercial properties are a different matter. But be careful what you wish for, might drive many local, iconic businesses out and leave us with nothing but chains backed by deep-pocketed corporations.

I'm sure it would create all sorts of hardships for some; BUT, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Historic properties and commercial properties could pay MORE of their share and some relief could be given to the homeowner who is living in their property...not their heirs, not a rental unit, not a unit that has been sold...JUST the homeowner who LIVES in the property in question. As soon as ownership/occupancy changes, all bets are off. Freezing taxes after age 65 or deferring taxes until the property owner dies is nothing but a slap in the face.

[scm53]

...What about all those so-called 'historic' properties and the commercial properties that are valued well below market?

What is it about their 50 year old homestead that makes them deserving of a disproportionate tax burden?

All in the eye of the beholder. I gave up on "fair" in about the third grade.

[AustinDude360]

Originally Posted by scm53

All in the eye of the beholder. I gave up on "fair" in about the third grade.

lol. I can see it implemented for the short-term to protect get tax hires for new buyers...but no more than 3 years.

Honestly, if your tax value has increased so much that you can't afford to live in your home, that would mean you have a crazy amount of equity. Rentals go up due to tax increases as well so it's very difficult to escape this unless you move to a cheaper area.

[sojourner77]

Honestly, I think we need a higher property tax rate. Valuations are way too high right now, so the tax rate is not suppressing values the way it should. I'm not a tax-and-spend type of person, but the city is falling short in a lot of areas (maintenance especially).

I would prefer that we increase property tax revenue through higher rates, then ask voters which projects they want to spend that finite amount towards. The gratuitous bond elections are ridiculous.

This arrangement would cap home values, limit the city budget, and reduce long-term bond debt that the city is accruing.

[sojourner77]

If we lower the property tax rate, what would happen? Home values would rise of course, and the tax receipts would remain the same because of those higher valuations. Zero-sum.

Who does that lower-tax/higher value arrangement benefit? Not the homeowners who remain or move within town, they would just slosh the equity around.

Current homeowners that move out of Austin and take their money with them, would be the ones to see the benefit from lower tax rates. If we lower the tax rate, we will be just like California, as people leave and export their enhanced equity to other parts of the country.

At that point, we're screwed if we ever need to raise property taxes, just like CA.