[davidt1]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

I wonder how they compare the rankings. In California property taxes are based on the price you paid when you bought your house. Thus, one family who bought their house in 1962 might be paying $500 a year while the house next door who bought it in 2006 may be paying $15,000 a year for essentially the same house. Do they do an average?

I prefer sales taxes. With sales taxes, it is up to you how much tax you pay. Want to pay less tax? Buy less. Run the sales tax up to 10%, fix the roads, cut property tax = I am happy.

Very nice thought, except I haven't met a single politician or public employee union who want to cut property taxes. Giving up free money (taxes) is not how government works.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by Usrname

Yes.
'For real-estate property tax rates, we divided the “median real-estate tax payment” by the “median home price” in each state. We then used the resulting rates to obtain the dollar amount paid as real-estate tax on a house worth $184,700, the median value for a home in the U.S. as of 2016 according to the Census Bureau.'

If you sort that LAST column in the report, "Annual Taxes on Home Priced at State Median Value," Michigan is right in the middle of the pack. The top 5 are East Coast States. Illinois is#6 (worst).

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-wit...y-taxes/11585/

[magellan]

Originally Posted by jackmichigan

C'mon. You're undoubtedly smarter than that (and you mentioned it twice!). Sure, many people are unable to pay (or choose not to pay) their property taxes, but they lose their house to tax foreclosure in short order. Michigan has the quickest tax foreclosure process in the country.

Property taxes are the most unjust form of taxation because property taxes are not tied to ability to pay. My property taxes will be going up over 10% next year and that will really be a burden. It would be much more fair if property taxes were capped at a certain percentage of your income.

No, you don't lose your house in Detroit. There are so many delinquent that Wayne County and Detroit have no way to keep up. It's like a big enterprise/tax free zone. Enjoy.

[xPlorer48]

Mine is up over 12% in the PNW just this year. Gentrification of a rural area.

[Unsworth]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

I wonder how they compare the rankings. In California property taxes are based on the price you paid when you bought your house. Thus, one family who bought their house in 1962 might be paying $500 a year while the house next door who bought it in 2006 may be paying $15,000 a year for essentially the same house. Do they do an average?

I prefer sales taxes. With sales taxes, it is up to you how much tax you pay. Want to pay less tax? Buy less. Run the sales tax up to 10%, fix the roads, cut property tax = I am happy.

My mothers house in California has been in the family for 90 years. She pays very low taxes but the properties next door pay much more because when houses sell the new assessed value basically matches the market value.

Sales tax is by far the most fair tax. If you have more money to spend, you are likely wealthier and therefore can pay more taxes.

[zthatzmanz28]

move to Livingston County, the LOWEST taxes (and worse services) in almost all of Michigan.

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by Unsworth

The schools in Michigan are not that great.

https://www.bridgemi.com/talent-educ...ain-back-class

I know I sound negative, but a lot of government money can be wasted. Michigan has a state income tax, some local taxes and 6% state sales tax. They also tax people with pensions. Michigan also collects 60.8 cents of gas tax per gallon and vehicle registration fees increased. With all that tax you would think things would be better than they are here. (Let's don't even get started about the road conditions)

Michigan does have some great amenities as you mentioned but with all the other taxes and the heavy property tax it does get discouraging.

This is an average. The good schools in Michigan are pretty great. However the bad schools are really super terrible. what one should look at is how good are the schools in a place I can afford to live in Michigan, vs. how good are the schools in a place I can afford to live in State X.

Southern California has some really good schools in some places, but even with an income in excess of $325,000 we could not afford to live in those places (unless we moved form a house to a condo). On about half that income in Michigan, we can afford to live in any public school district and the best Michigan schools are as good or better than most or all of the upscale area public schools in Southern California - especially if you go beyond test scores in evaluating the schools.

[Zenstyle]

...the LOWEST taxes (and worse services)...

Exactly so. These two things go together like poison ivy and itch.

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by Zenstyle

Unsworth writes:
I spend less in consumer spending because of the increasing tax burden.

This is a good thing. The less consumer consumption, the better, environmentally speaking.

Not necessarily. Cheaper living is less environmentally beneficial for the most part. For example, organic foods that are not factory processed and not vacuum sealed in multiple layers of plastic are the most expensive. Buying reusable grocery bags is an added expense when you can just use the plastic ones for free. Sorting and rinsing recyclables is an added expense (water and time).

People do not stop eating or consuming if they have less money, they just eat and consume less well/cheaper products and do not spend the extra money for more environmentally conscious products. Hybrid cars are a perfect example. for most people they cost more in additional purchase costs than you will ever save in fuel costs. thus, you buy one because either you think it will make you seem cool to your peers, or simply because you want to be more environmentally conscious. However if you have less money, you do not buy an expensive hybrid. You buy a cheaper basic ICE car. Many people will and do pay more to be more environmentally conscious, but when they have to tighten up, the willingness to pay for PC consumables is substantially diminished.

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by Usrname

Yes.
'For real-estate property tax rates, we divided the “median real-estate tax payment” by the “median home price” in each state. We then used the resulting rates to obtain the dollar amount paid as real-estate tax on a house worth $184,700, the median value for a home in the U.S. as of 2016 according to the Census Bureau.'

That makes their report an unrealistic comparison for people looking at which state has the lower tax burden for them. Someone moving into California will not have the opportunity to obtain housing with low property taxes. they will pay the super high property taxes applicable to a new buyer. So averaging in the property taxes of people who bought their house in 1948 skews the comparison.

if you want to compare "your" tax burden as of today, you need to compare what you would pay in property tax if you bought a house there right now.

to give you an example when we sold our California house in 2005, we were paying about $2,200; the buyer had to pay something like $15,000. thus, while the average for revenue purposes might be $8.600, averaging would give an unrealistic comparison to states where your taxes on the same house would be less than $15,000.