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.
OK, I'm asking. What is your opinion of the outsourcing of tax valuations to a private company? What is your opinion on the fact the tax office got it so wrong, that the taxpayers are now forced to spend millions to pay someone else to correct the mess? What is your position on what needs to be fixed to keep a similar debacle from happening again?
You have said plenty in response to my posts and this topic I've created, but you said very little about your position on this. Now is your chance.
The fact that you say "topic" instead of "thread" illustrates fundamental differences between us. There have been plenty of threads on this topic.
I am here to have a conversation. It doesn't seem like we can do that with each other so what's the point? Let someone else ask the questions if they want to give it a shot.
^Oh come now. You made 33 posts in this topic. The most of anyone. Yet you won't state your own opinions of the issues I raised? Even after you said that you would if asked? I'd really be most interested in hearing them so no worries about a civil conversation on my part. OK.
What I'm missing from the property tax discussion is the bottom line - a much heated debate for anyone anywhere in the US who owns a home... At the end of the day, the municipality has costs - a "budget" that consists of dialtone (keep the lights on) items, pensions, debt, maintenance, various discretionary items, and reserves. That number for all intents and purposes is somewhat fixed from year to year - most of the core items won't change that much. So in the end they should know what it costs to provide the services for the foreseeable future.
However, instead of allocating those costs back to the homeowners in a direct way; they do these evaluations so that those with "nicer" houses carry more of the tax burden... essentially backing into the number... and worse, they intend to offset costs of these services via a variable revenue stream like other taxes (sales, gas, etc) - which nobody can say for sure how much they'll collect on these... they can only SWAG it... and frankly this is counter intuitive to downward economies when people are spending less - invariably meaning less revenue from these other taxes - invariably meaning they need more property tax. It just seems rather archaic and dated.
I agree with you that government has no idea how to downsize in a down economic situation. This is why we get into these painful situations in the first place. Furthermore I also disagree that private property should be encumbered with tax levies. it means that you can never actually "own" your house. You can always pay off the mortgage, but you can never get rid of making payments on it, and we are talking about payments that are now in the $100s/month, or else the tax office will take it from you. It's an abomination of private property rights.
I agree with you that government has no idea how to downsize in a down economic situation. This is why we get into these painful situations in the first place. Furthermore I also disagree that private property should be encumbered with tax levies. it means that you can never actually "own" your house. You can always pay off the mortgage, but you can never get rid of making payments on it, and we are talking about payments that are now in the $100s/month, or else the tax office will take it from you. It's an abomination of private property rights.
For the record, I agree with you on the latter... but what are our viable options short term? There are pension and debt obligations that need to be satisfied. How do you do that without property tax?
Private industry has plenty of examples of how to handle pension and debt obligations. I'm not advocating they go back on what they already owe, but they can certainly curtail any further debt and/or new pension obligations. It won't happen however. Government won't be downsized until forced by the people or circumstances.
Here is a much more in depth article about the botched revaluation from the Herald Weekly group of papers. The problem also seems to be much worse than what was put forth by the very government friendly TV media in Charlotte. I like how one party referred to the significant negative impact to homeowners due to the "negligence" of the tax appraisers office.
I think the article is 100% on the mark. I know of one case where a homeowner got a 30% increase on a less than 6 year old home where there was exactly the same home down the street that had been abandoned (no electric meter) because nobody will buy it. Obviously one of the neighborhoods where NO tax appraiser ever ventured into.
While obviously they should work to correct the values, I'm not sure I agree with giving people refunds. The last reval was in what, 2003? So chances are a lot of the same people complaining now were paying less taxes than their house was worth in 2005-2008 and I'm sure weren't complaining then.
^A number of those places mentioned in the article didn't exist or were under development in 2003. The homes were built after 2003. So when they got their first appraisal, it was simply the closing price of the home. If the house was built during the housing boom, then no doubt they had a high initial valuation. What the tax office apparently hasn't taken into account is the depreciation that has taken place since 2008.
IMO, anyone who paid too much tax, especially after they tried to appeal and were turned down, are owed a refund with interest by the county and city government. They took money they didn't deserve. I can see this headed to the courts if something isn't done.
^A number of those places mentioned in the article didn't exist or were under development in 2003. The homes were built after 2003. So when they got their first appraisal, it was simply the closing price of the home. If the house was built during the housing boom, then no doubt they had a high initial valuation. What the tax office apparently hasn't taken into account is the depreciation that has taken place since 2008.
IMO, anyone who paid too much tax, especially after they tried to appeal and were turned down, are owed a refund with interest by the county and city government. They took money they didn't deserve. I can see this headed to the courts if something isn't done.
First, that was a badly written article. To use the phrase "home equity" is a bad choice IMO. In one place he says 150 and others he says 151. He typed "boar" versus "board". I e-mailed him about that. I hope it hasn't gone to the printers yet.
I'm not sure about closing prices. I suppose it would be covered since it is market value at the time. Pearson does say they are mostly concerned with older neighborhoods (pre 1980 I believe) such as Myer's Park.
I spotted checked A101 which is where most of the complaints (or at least the loudest) have occured:
And this neighborhood is a wide mixture of old and new homes. It's the land value that socked them more than anything else.
If you take the value ratio, for example 0.77 and multiply that by 100 and subtract it from 100 you get my estimated increase in value based on mean sales over two years. They only looked at two year sales which is one of the reasons the reval was delayed so long.
So a .77 should see a 23% increase not 100% based upon these numbers.
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.
