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.
No word if it will make to legislative sessions most unlikely
"instance, a buyer who snapped up a Clinton Hill brownstone for $3 million in 2017 only has to pay taxes on a sliver of that amount — $24,000, leaving the lucky owner with a tax bill of just $4,297 a year."
"Meanwhile, the owner of a relatively modest half-million-dollar Bergen Beach bungalow pays nearly an identical amount, despite being worth just one-sixth"
No word if it will make to legislative sessions most unlikely
"instance, a buyer who snapped up a Clinton Hill brownstone for $3 million in 2017 only has to pay taxes on a sliver of that amount — $24,000, leaving the lucky owner with a tax bill of just $4,297 a year."
"Meanwhile, the owner of a relatively modest half-million-dollar Bergen Beach bungalow pays nearly an identical amount, despite being worth just one-sixth"
I don't think that market value should always equal assessment value for tax purposes, especially considering that many old time owners are low/limited income and couldn't support the tax bill if their assessed value went up. Such a plan threatens to only further speed along gentrification and push out long time residents who own and want to remain.
Even if the plan only applied to new home purchases (which I'm skeptical of), I still say that the plan is unfair to these buyers. They already pay a higher tax rate due to their higher incomes. NYS and NYC can't keep trying to tax their way out of their problems. And, make no mistake about it, this is purely about raising revenues as it won't stop gentrification.
I don't think that market value should always equal assessment value for tax purposes, especially considering that many old time owners are low/limited income and couldn't support the tax bill if their assessed value went up. Such a plan threatens to only further speed along gentrification and push out long time residents who own and want to remain.
There is STAR and Enhanced STAR (>65 years old) but I don't know how much the E-STAR reduces taxes.
When I bought my Dumbo condo in 2007, I had a gentrification real estate tax abatement. My RE taxes were like $140 a year. But it was no fun paying NYC income tax, in addition to high tax bracket state and Federal taxes.
NYC's byzinatine and complex property tax system is complicated because it does what every other policy in city and state does; protect one group (in this case middle class 1-3 family home owners) over commercial property owners and co-ops/condos.
Idea of taxing assessed values along with easing tax increases in over several years was to prevent middle-class homeowners from fleeing city, which they were doing in 1970's through 1980's.
Result is commercial property pays most taxes in city, followed by co-ops and condos, but single to three family the least. Worse Albany routinely comes up with various schemes (always with strings attached) to give "relief" to condo and co-op buildings. This even though for some strange reason (unique to NY) they are taxed not as "owned" property, but rentals.
Fast forward to 2000's city is raking in huge sums not by raising property taxes, but on assessed value increases. Entire NYC property tax system is bogus and needs starting over from scratch.
That being said however this is a *VERY generous city and (welfare) state, and property taxes make up a huge portion of city revenue. If things are changed you know rates won't go down across the board, someone will be paying more and others less. That is unless someway is found to make up any difference in revenue.
"Critics have contended that the property tax system is overly complex and opaque, that property assessments are not reflective of true market values, and that classifications and caps aimed at mitigating rapid property tax increases contribute to disproportionate tax burdens across many populations."
tax the ****ing real estate developers who knock down affordable apartments to put up million dollar luxury condos that nobody even buys
landlords and real estate parasites are destroying the city
Opinion: No more truer words have been spoken. Well Done...........
As a former land owner,I lived in my multi family, kept the rents $200 lower ,kept my home
in beautiful shape and still made a decent buck when I sold it. Yes I could have made a ton more
but instead I settled for having former tenants calling me to this day telling me they miss me. May
not mean much to most but means the world to me...........
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.
