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'm not saying the property should vote... but the owners of the property should... when it comes to a property tax. Telling someone to only buy rental properties where they live is crazy. It's almost like telling gay people to just live in places where they have adequate civil rights.
I own a second home. That home is not our primary residence. The county commission in that county made a decision to charge higher property tax rates to property owners who own a property as a secondary, as opposed to a primary residence. That decision costs me an extra $750 to $1,000 per year.
Do I like that? No. Do I accept that? Yes. Because I made a decision to purchase that property and I had the opportunity at the time to do "due diligence". I knew or should have known what I was getting into.
You're whining to the wrong person here. In fact, judging from the replies your getting, I think just about everyone disagrees with you.
The reason I got to thinking about this is because I live (but rent) in one city while I own a home in another. The other day, I was able to vote on a property tax increase where I don't own property yet I am unable to vote on a property tax increase where I do own property. It just seems backwards.
What you seem to be missing is that property taxes have nothing to do with property per se. Property taxes are about funding local municipal projects. Just like local sales tax. They are are local taxes that are decided by local people.
You voted in the election because as a resident of that area, you would be concerned if your town had good roads, libraries, community centers for the elderly, etc. Don't you want those things?
An absentee owner who legally lives somewhere else doesn't care a thing about the local town or the residents. They would probably always vote "no" on a property tax because they aren't concerned about the quality of life in a town where they don't live.
If you live in Los Angeles, are you really concerned about the quality of life for the residents of Pittsburgh?
I respectfully disagree. If we were talking about a sales tax or something else that RESIDENTS deal with, then the RESIDENTS should be making the decision. However, if the tax is on PROPERTY OWNERS, then the PROPERTY OWNERS should be making the decision. IMO.
If you don't have a residential address, owner or rental, within the voting district you are an observer.
I pay local property taxes in three states. I think they are too high. As someone has already said, its my due diligence to know and adjust rents accordingly. The problem I encounter is that because I know the financial struggles of several tenets I do not adjust so it ends up a double taxation. (My decision)
I think the larger point of this discussion would be the cause of the local increases. The big tax cuts at the federal level has a "trickle down" effect of less revenue sharing and forcing addition burdens on those of us with property but little income.
Let's say Anytown, USA, is holding a vote to decide whether or not to raise property taxes by some amount to fund the construction of a new school.
If Amy owns a house and rents it out to Bob and his family, but doesn't live in Anytown herself, who should be making the decision on whether or not to raise property taxes.
It sure seems to me like Amy should be the one voting... not Bob. But I'm pretty sure Bob would get to vote, not Amy (though I guess it depends where Amy is registered to vote; Let's just assume she is registered to vote elsewhere).
I don't really see a difference between this situation and if a Homeowner's Association were to vote on improving some aspect of the community. In that case, the property owners get a vote (and quite often weighted percentages based on the amount of square feet they own in the neighborhood/building or something).
I understand one is a private and the other is public, but philosophically it seems the same.
Thoughts?
oooh, have I got one for you:
Lets say Anytown. Michigan, has a statewide school property tax rate of x, not subject to voter approval (which it does).
Let's say Anytown, Michigan, also has a local school property tax rate on rental property of 3x, subject to periodic voter approval (which it does, owner-occupied primary residences are exempt from this 3x tax).
Lets say Amy owns a house, lives elsewhere, and rents it out to Bob and his family. Lets also say Bob's next door neighbor Chris owns her home and thus pays the statewide school tax rate of x but not the additional local school tax rate of 3x.
Lets say this local 3x school property tax is on the ballot at its scheduled periodic renewal time. Who should be eligible to vote on it?
I pay local property taxes in three states. I think they are too high. As someone has already said, its my due diligence to know and adjust rents accordingly. The problem I encounter is that because I know the financial struggles of several tenets I do not adjust so it ends up a double taxation. (My decision)
I think the larger point of this discussion would be the cause of the local increases. The big tax cuts at the federal level has a "trickle down" effect of less revenue sharing and forcing addition burdens on those of us with property but little income.
Your legislature failed you (and your Michigan tenants) 20 years ago. They created a system which guarantees insane property taxes on rental property.
Amy doesn't live in Anytown. Why should she get a vote?
Because she owns the property that is being taxed on its value, and because the value of her property (and thus, the amount of tax she has to pay) can be affected by the results of local elections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Amy made a decision not live in Anytown.
Well then, because she is not using the services of the local government, she should not be expected to fund it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
If Amy wanted a say in property taxes in Anytown she should have chosen to live either in the house she rented to Bob or in another property within city limits.
If she is denied a voice in matters regarding property taxes, then she should not be required to pay them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Its people who live within a community that should be making vital decisions about police and fire protection, schools, parks, and municipal services.
Then property taxes should be paid directly by renters to the local taxing authority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveklein
If we were talking about a sales tax or something else that RESIDENTS deal with, then the RESIDENTS should be making the decision. However, if the tax is on PROPERTY OWNERS, then the PROPERTY OWNERS should be making the decision. IMO.
This is correct. Those taxed should have a voice. Those denied a voice should not be taxed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv
As pointed out earlier, the RESIDENTS of the area pay the taxes directly if they own the home, or indirectly if they rent.
If Amy is to be denied a vote in the jurisdiction that is taxing her property, then property tax should be paid by the residents directly to the taxing authority. If Amy is to be left out of the loop, then she should be left COMPLETELY out of the loop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d
Property does NOT have rights. People have rights.
Including the right to participate in government in jurisdictions where governmental decisions affect them. There is no reason to deny representation to a person merely on the basis of them owning property in a certain jurisdiction. If they have to pay, then they get a say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal
What you seem to be missing is that property taxes have nothing to do with property per se.
Then please explain why they attach a lien to the property of those who are delinquent in paying property tax.
Property taxes have everything to do with the property: it is the property that is being taxed on its value.
I own a second home. That home is not our primary residence. The county commission in that county made a decision to charge higher property tax rates to property owners who own a property as a secondary, as opposed to a primary residence. That decision costs me an extra $750 to $1,000 per year.
Do I like that? No. Do I accept that? Yes. Because I made a decision to purchase that property and I had the opportunity at the time to do "due diligence". I knew or should have known what I was getting into.
You're whining to the wrong person here. In fact, judging from the replies your getting, I think just about everyone disagrees with you.
Lets say you converted your second home to a rental. Would that extra $750 to $1,000 per year tax be fair to your tenants?
I'm not saying the current situation should change but there are other factors than property taxes such as zoning changes that could affect the value of the property substantially as well as have the potential to affect the desirability of the rentals.
Let's say Anytown, USA, is holding a vote to decide whether or not to raise property taxes by some amount to fund the construction of a new school.
If Amy owns a house and rents it out to Bob and his family, but doesn't live in Anytown herself, who should be making the decision on whether or not to raise property taxes.
It sure seems to me like Amy should be the one voting... not Bob. But I'm pretty sure Bob would get to vote, not Amy (though I guess it depends where Amy is registered to vote; Let's just assume she is registered to vote elsewhere).
I don't really see a difference between this situation and if a Homeowner's Association were to vote on improving some aspect of the community. In that case, the property owners get a vote (and quite often weighted percentages based on the amount of square feet they own in the neighborhood/building or something).
I understand one is a private and the other is public, but philosophically it seems the same.
Thoughts?
You're wrong. The people renting should always get the vote because the landlord, since they are passing on the expenses of owning the house to their tenants, could always vote against anything that would favor their tenants. The tenants are not going to vote for anything that would raise the taxes and possibly their rent because they are the ones living there and therefore paying. But a landlord, might.
It's not the same situation where you just own the house. You are bringing in an income on the house through renting and that income is coming from someone else. And that someone else should have some level of control since they are paying to live there and the outcome of a vote will have more of a direct monetary impact on them than it necessarily would on the landlord, who can pass hikes in taxes onto their tenants.
Last edited by Shankapotomus; 05-10-2015 at 05:13 AM..
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.
