Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [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 06-21-2022, 09:17 AM
 
4,952 posts, read 3,059,948 times
Reputation: 6752

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by moguldreamer View Post
It sounds like you do not have any problem - after all, any trend that is unsustainable and hence cannot go on forever, won't.

Very true, speaking of properties; there are some indications the housing market is in fairly deep trouble.
Pricing on luxury and even lower end homes coming down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-27-2022, 03:18 PM
 
Location: Paradise CA, that place on fire
2,022 posts, read 1,741,861 times
Reputation: 5906
No other state besides CA has Prop 13, so many states have been ruined and displaced tens of thousands of senior citizens, the very people who made these communities nice and desireable placed to live. "

I think Arkansas has a thing where homeowners 65 or older never get a tax increase if they stay there. I have no idea how true is that, or not.

In California, under Proposition 13, the annual real estate tax on a parcel of property is limited to 1% of its assessed value. This "assessed value" may be increased only by a maximum of 2% per year until, and unless, the property has a change of ownership. The assessed value is the purchase price.

The 2% limit usually goes up by more than 2% due to special bonds and such. When Paradise wanted to build something for the high school our taxes went up $ 140 a year, on top of the 2%.

I'd love to see a property tax based on the size of the home, multiplied by a factor calculated by the number of people living there, and increased or reduced by a factor calculated to the cost of living, - compared to the national average.

Why the above?

A single woman in her thirties, stockbroker, no kids, would pay over $ 30 K for taxes in a 3-million dollar condo in San Francisco, while barely using government services.

A married couple with four kids, living in a 3-bedroom old house they inherited from their parents, might pay very little in property taxes, but use plenty of government services.

Last edited by mgforshort; 06-27-2022 at 03:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2022, 04:57 PM
 
Location: Australia
3,602 posts, read 2,309,895 times
Reputation: 6932
Our state premier is hell bent on an American style property tax system and has brought in the first stage in the state budget.
Very unpopular move by the looks of it and along with other issues he is likely to get himself turfed out next year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2022, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Victory Mansions, Airstrip One
6,762 posts, read 5,061,212 times
Reputation: 9214
This proposal is easily abused.

The assessor's friends and family could put a high number on their home values, and then the assessor buys at those inflated prices. Rinse and repeat, often.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2022, 01:54 PM
 
7,836 posts, read 3,829,904 times
Reputation: 14790
Quote:
Originally Posted by hikernut View Post
This proposal is easily abused.

The assessor's friends and family could put a high number on their home values, and then the assessor buys at those inflated prices. Rinse and repeat, often.
Wait. Not all government employees are 100% ethical & beyond reproach? I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you.

All kidding aside, you do have a good point regarding collusion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2022, 09:34 AM
 
2,330 posts, read 962,697 times
Reputation: 1411
Quote:
Originally Posted by hikernut View Post
This proposal is easily abused.

The assessor's friends and family could put a high number on their home values, and then the assessor buys at those inflated prices. Rinse and repeat, often.
Why would the assessor buy the overvalued homes?
Even if he's in cahoots with the homeowners, it would raise so many red flags in an audit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2022, 01:56 PM
 
7,836 posts, read 3,829,904 times
Reputation: 14790
Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthRabbit View Post
50% of my property taxes go to fnd public education (more than 50% on my TX properties)... Schools have pretty much a blank check and little to no accountability
I'm under the impression that property taxes for schools are things that are voted upon by the public. Perhaps that's just where I've lived. Of course, "... it's for the children" has historically been an effective marketing phrase, even if the money somehow ends up funding teacher's defined benefit pensions or headquarters administrative bloat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2022, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
5,464 posts, read 5,713,438 times
Reputation: 6098
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgforshort View Post
No other state besides CA has Prop 13, so many states have been ruined and displaced tens of thousands of senior citizens, the very people who made these communities nice and desireable placed to live. "

I think Arkansas has a thing where homeowners 65 or older never get a tax increase if they stay there. I have no idea how true is that, or not.

In California, under Proposition 13, the annual real estate tax on a parcel of property is limited to 1% of its assessed value. This "assessed value" may be increased only by a maximum of 2% per year until, and unless, the property has a change of ownership. The assessed value is the purchase price.

The 2% limit usually goes up by more than 2% due to special bonds and such. When Paradise wanted to build something for the high school our taxes went up $ 140 a year, on top of the 2%.

I'd love to see a property tax based on the size of the home, multiplied by a factor calculated by the number of people living there, and increased or reduced by a factor calculated to the cost of living, - compared to the national average.

Why the above?

A single woman in her thirties, stockbroker, no kids, would pay over $ 30 K for taxes in a 3-million dollar condo in San Francisco, while barely using government services.

A married couple with four kids, living in a 3-bedroom old house they inherited from their parents, might pay very little in property taxes, but use plenty of government services.
Under your scheme, you would be penalizing families with kids, which is weird. The government wants to encourage births, since US has a negative birth rates, and kids become taxpayers after 20 years, so they are worth the investment.
It has to be in reverse, childless adults should pay significantly more in taxes. They use up significantly more tax resources over their lifetime. Expect it to be the case in the future by the way. It is coming.
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:


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 > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top