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.
I don't believe in the current system of taxing more for higher priced homes. It is not a one-time expenditure like most consumer products taxed the same way. Affordability of taxes by homeowners should have no bearing on one's FAIR share of paying their taxes when they all use practically the same amount of community resources that the taxes go toward. A 5 bed colonial (~ $800k) on a 60x100 isn't going to use up double the amount of resources that a 3 bed ranch (~ $400k) on the same plot size next door does. It should not be fixed pricing (taxation by value) as such.
If you guys want to talk about fair, this system is wrong to begin with. Equal shares of the tax burden for equal use of resources (plot size, utilities, memberships, registrations, etc.). And yes, for LI, that does make for bad news for most smaller homes having to also pay the inflated civil servants' compensation causing high taxes in the first place. Maybe then more people would care.
As it is now, people are essentially being punished for modernizing their homes [for comfort, aesthetics, and enjoyability]. Homes that are well over 60 years old. Do I even need to go into how asinine it is with this grievance process where all people are doing is shifting the burden to others because they submitted paperwork while others do not? We just keep playing their game.
I don't believe in the current system of taxing more for higher priced homes. It is not a one-time expenditure like most consumer products taxed the same way. Affordability of taxes by homeowners should have no bearing on one's FAIR share of paying their taxes when they all use practically the same amount of community resources that the taxes go toward. A 5 bed colonial (~ $800k) on a 60x100 isn't going to use up double the amount of resources that a 3 bed ranch (~ $400k) on the same plot size next door does. It should not be fixed pricing (taxation by value) as such.
If you guys want to talk about fair, this system is wrong to begin with. Equal shares of the tax burden for equal use of resources (plot size, utilities, memberships, registrations, etc.). And yes, for LI, that does make for bad news for most smaller homes having to also pay the inflated civil servants' compensation causing high taxes in the first place. Maybe then more people would care.
As it is now, people are essentially being punished for modernizing their homes [for comfort, aesthetics, and enjoyability]. Homes that are well over 60 years old. Do I even need to go into how asinine it is with this grievance process where all people are doing is shifting the burden to others because they submitted paperwork while others do not? We just keep playing their game.
In 1963, my parents dormered the upstairs, they chose to put hardwood down on the floors. When the inspector came he mentioned that the choice of hardwood flooring increased his taxes as compared to carpeting. My dad asked, "so how would you know if I had carpeted now and hard wooded later on down the road" and he said "we wouldn't." So taxing higher quality materials has been going on forever.
In 1963, my parents dormered the upstairs, they chose to put hardwood down on the floors. When the inspector came he mentioned that the choice of hardwood flooring increased his taxes as compared to carpeting. My dad asked, "so how would you know if I had carpeted now and hard wooded later on down the road" and he said "we wouldn't." So taxing higher quality materials has been going on forever.
Yes, it's also higher-taxed when they paid for the product to begin with. Also, what they did in 1963 was also considered upgrading their quality of life. It doesn't mean they have to continually tax people for doing so on an annual basis.
Ask yourselves, what is the point (and more importantly - motivation) to working harder to earn more if you're going to lose more? So many ideas are so ass-backwards, and only imposed to cater to certain people. Can't claim "fair" at all.
In 1963, my parents dormered the upstairs, they chose to put hardwood down on the floors. When the inspector came he mentioned that the choice of hardwood flooring increased his taxes as compared to carpeting. My dad asked, "so how would you know if I had carpeted now and hard wooded later on down the road" and he said "we wouldn't." So taxing higher quality materials has been going on forever.
This is the biggest issue, you redo your kitchen "legally" pull a permit they charge you more because you gave a natural stone instead of laminate. It's only like this in Nassau. I sold my town of Oyster Bay house and we are currently building a house in the town of Huntington. Huntington doesn't care if I install 24k gold floors with diamonds as grout or I go with a more conventional oak floor. It is Sale price, sq footage, lot size, attached/detached garage. Those are the core factors, how many bathrooms, finished basement, fire place, pool etc have minimal impact. It makes more sense in Suffolk as it is run by the townships not county. I don't think Nassau could every do it this way. OB would have the friends and family tax discount!
Yes, the system is broken, but based on the links:
1st house, 2547 sq ft, built in 1983, 6 bed, 3 bath
2nd house unknown sq ft (looks like less than 1800), 4 bed, 2 bath, built in 1927.
Curb appeal of #1 is monumentally nicer than #2. How these two could be used for comparison is as bad as Nassau's system itself. No way are they comparable.
Still, the cheaper one probably grieved and is still taxed for a 1927 home. The newer one was probably hammered as a new construction in the 80's or was significantly blown out since and never grieved. They should have challenged their assessment. I'm sure they got the 37 mailings per year from tax lawyers in the mail like the rest of us.
Last edited by monstermagnet; 09-24-2018 at 10:48 AM..
The only reason Nassau is broke is because the county is responsible for the assessments.
This should be turned over to the towns. But it will never happen because too many lawyers are donating to Currans and Manganos, Democrat, or Republican campaigns.
How is it that Nassau County would believe, for taxing purposes, that these homes are comparable in any way whatsoever? One would argue that the owner of the smaller home should have contested his taxes every year, like the owner of the larger, more luxurious home. But why should he have to? Any fool can see that they are not comparable - look at the huge difference in asking prices! This is but one example of why Nassau County's property assessment system DOES NOT WORK. Same neighborhood - HUGE difference in houses - yet pay practically the same in taxes.
I dont understand why property taxes are higher for a more expensive house anyway. taxes should be based on location only.
lot size & location of lot.
why should the town collect more or less based on what people put on their land.
Money and control. That's what it's all about.
Communism.
Yes, I'm sure that Fidel Castro and Nicolas Maduro collaborated to design Nassau's tax assessment system.
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.
