City lowers millage rate by about 30% and assessment are up about 50% (Pittsburgh: real estate, 2013)

[steindle]

Originally Posted by Lobick

The level of misinformation surrounding this issue continues to befuddle me. There are three factual assertions in your post, none of which appears to be true.

He hasn't even gotten to the hidden provision where Luke takes away our guns.

[trackstar13]

Originally Posted by Lobick

The level of misinformation surrounding this issue continues to befuddle me. There are three factual assertions in your post, none of which appears to be true.

1.) Public transportation cuts = less services
2.) Increasing assessments/lowering millage = tax increase
3.) Both the Tribune Review and the Post Gazette are reporting that Pittsburgh is "lowering taxes"

Again good luck with your property assessment appeal.

[gg]

I don't know about MLNorth's huge explanation, but maybe I am calculating this wrong? I am looking at an average here, not how many properties when up enough to push taxes up on each property. If you did look at how many properties had an increase large enough to have an increase tax, then the title might read okay, but I still don't care for it.

Old assessment:

$100,000 home pays $1,392 because millage rate as 13.92

New assessment:

$148,000 home is now going to pay $1,428 because the new millage rate is 9.65

This doesn't take into consideration the new homestead rate, but I could provide that pretty easily by just plugging in those reductions in assessment for the new calculation.

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by track2514

1.) Public transportation cuts = less services
2.) Increasing assessments/lowering millage = tax increase
3.) Both the Tribune Review and the Post Gazette are reporting that Pittsburgh is "lowering taxes"

Again good luck with your property assessment appeal.

1. The public transportation cuts are because of state funding cuts. Local money wasn't been cut.
2. The taxes are not increasing on the whole. It is a revenue neutral reassessment and the math has been done twice.
3. The current PG headline is "Property tax rate reduced by Pittsburgh Public Schools," which is strictly accurate and not the same thing as lowering taxes. The Trib headline is "Pittsburgh school board drops property tax rate by 30 percent." Again, they are completely accurate in the headline and not claiming anything about lowering taxes. The rate of taxes is described as being lowered because the rate is being lowered.

[ML North]

Here are the facts, as I can recall them:

• Some taxes are going up, some are going down.
  
  
• In AGGREGATE, property taxes will be increasing by 5%.
  
  
• Property taxes on a slight majority of RESIDENTIAL properties are going down.
  Here is where the distinction between median and mean is necessary. Although the mean increase in assessments is 48%, the majority of residential properties experienced much smaller increases. This is because higher value residential properties appreciated more so than lower value residential properties and because high value commercial properties also increased at a much higher rate.
  
  
• The Post Gazette reported that property taxes RATES -- one of the two necessary components for calculating tax obligation -- are being decreased, which is 100% correct.
  
  
  
  
  

[trackstar13]

Originally Posted by Moby Hick

1. The public transportation cuts are because of state funding cuts. Local money wasn't been cut.
2. The taxes are not increasing on the whole. It is a revenue neutral reassessment and the math has been done twice.
3. The current PG headline is "Property tax rate reduced by Pittsburgh Public Schools," which is strictly accurate and not the same thing as lowering taxes. The Trib headline is "Pittsburgh school board drops property tax rate by 30 percent." Again, they are completely accurate in the headline and not claiming anything about lowering taxes. The rate of taxes is described as being lowered because the rate is being lowered.

1. There have been many more cuts I could go on and on here, so it is a waste of time. (Police, fire, etc.)
2. I will believe it when I see the new revenue numbers after taxes have been collected.
3. Property tax rate reduced does not mean lower taxes to the reader, what world are you living in?

[ML North]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Old assessment:

$100,000 home pays $1,392 because millage rate as 13.92

New assessment:

$148,000 home is now going to pay $1,428 because the new millage rate is 9.65

This is correct. But to take it a step further:

1428 / 1392 - 1 = 2.59% increase.

More importantly, what you need to realize is that the number of properties above the 48% average is not necessarily equal to the number of properties below the 48% average, which means that even though a property that appreciated at the average rate of 48% will see a 2.59% increase in taxes, that doesn't mean that most - or even half - of the property owners in the city will see that same increase. In fact, the way the assessments have turned out, most will see a lower increase in tax obligation than the average, and some will even see their taxes go down.

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by track2514

3. Property tax rate reduced does not mean lower taxes to the reader, what world are you living in?

I went to Catholic school. I know the difference between a rate and the product of that rate and another number.

[trackstar13]

Originally Posted by Moby Hick

I went to Catholic school. I know the difference between a rate and the product of that rate and another number.

I could care less about what you know, I am talking about media sensationalism and the average reader who may only read the headline and celebrate their decreased taxes.

[ML North]

Originally Posted by track2514

2. I will believe it when I see the new revenue numbers after taxes have been collected.

You don't need to see the revenue numbers. It can all be proved with 5th grade arithmetic.

Originally Posted by track2514

3. Property tax rate reduced does not mean lower taxes to the reader, what world are you living in?

Perhaps to a reader who doesn't understand the basic intricacies of property taxes, but that's not an excuse for a newspaper to avoid printing something that is 100% accurate, or even worse to print something that is altogether inaccurate.