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.
YOU VOTE if you live in the area.. Bob for sure votes but Amy doesnt unless she lives in the same area. Amy as a landlaord shouldnt really give a rats patutti about the Taxes because everyone will be paying those .. so its pretty even across the board and Landlords pass on ALL cost.. to the tenants.. Steve your all upset because you think its cutting into your profit and it wont in fact it may well increase you profit/income..I voted for community improvments because it allowed me to raise my rents more.. I was a Landlord and owned enough units that they paid for themselves and for my summer lake home and my home on Cozumel and several nice vacations every year and when I sold them I got to keep a fair amount of money too Thanks Tenants!!!! hahahaha!!! So QUIET CRYING Steve.. I see it as being CHEAP.... Miserly ... AND You One Way Land Lord from you know where hahahaha REALTY TAXES ARE A TAX WRITE OFF... The Tenant Pays Those Taxes........ And You write those Taxes off.. Thats Taxation without representation !!
Last edited by Macgregorsailor51; 05-10-2015 at 07:30 AM..
I have never heard of such a thing!! So I will ask where is this happening? NOW! if your renting it out!! Its Become RENTAL PROPERTY that you also from time to time use.. use.. Thats Different. I have owned Rental Income Property and been surcharged for that.. No Big Deal I passed it right on to my tenants and you can bet your patutti I turned in every rental that wasnt paying that surcharge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
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?
Fairness is irrelevant.
I have been both a landlord and a tenant over my lifetime. I have liked neither. Greedy landlords were always raising my rent and irresponsible tenants were making my life miserable with their late rents and endless complaining.
When one shops in a retail store, one pays a price which provides a profit for the shop owner. If the landlord raises the shop owner's rent, then the price of goods will rise. When one rents, one pays what will provide the property owner a profit.
Rising prices are a fact of life, like it or not.
PS I am surprised, reading through this thread, the tortured reasoning of those who believe that a non resident landlord should be able to vote in a district where she cannot otherwise vote. One votes where one lives. Now then, it is possible that the landlord lives in the same tax district as the tenant, and therefore could legally vote. For example, here in California, for the most part, property taxes are determined statewide. If this situation were to take place with both parties living in California, then the landlord could vote on the matter.
I have never heard of such a thing!! So I will ask where is this happening? NOW! if your renting it out!! Its Become RENTAL PROPERTY that you also from time to time use.. use.. Thats Different. I have owned Rental Income Property and been surcharged for that.. No Big Deal I passed it right on to my tenants and you can bet your patutti I turned in every rental that wasnt paying that surcharge.
In Maryland at least, residential property is denoted as either owner occupied or not. If owner occupied it falls under the Homestead Exemption which limits tax increases to 10%/year (usually due to increasing assessments and not rate increases) maximum, some jurisdictions are lower.
Houses which are owner used seasonally or rentals are subject to the full increase in assessments. As a note, Maryland reassesses all property every three years on a rotating basis. I'm due for one this year since the last one was 2012.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks it make sense for someone who doesn't pay property tax to decide your property tax rate.
Then is doesn't make sense if:
-- people who don't give birth get to vote on abortion.
-- people who don't have children in school get to vote on school taxes or for school board candidates.
-- people who don't have cars get to vote on gas taxes or registration taxes.
-- people who aren't gay get to vote on gay marriage.
and list goes on and on and on.
We all have a vested interest in how our communities are run and funded. If only property owners could vote on property taxes, areas with high numbers of rentals would deteriorate rapidly as the slumlords vote down tax increases causing the school systems to fail, the infrastructure to crumble, and the number of services to decline.
In our political system, every voter gets to vote on every issue in his or her district. If Amy wants representation she can move to the district or sell the rental and buy one in her district.
It may not seem fair to you, but you seem to have some sort of ax to grind with regards to this issue.
. If only property owners could vote on property taxes, areas with high numbers of rentals would deteriorate rapidly as the slumlords vote down tax increases causing the school systems to fail, the infrastructure to crumble, and the number of services to decline.
.
I repeat that I do not see the need for the voting issue to change but this comment has little thought behind it.
Property tax increases get passed on , for one thing, so not out of a LL's pocket.
However, if "absentee" landlords could vote , why would they vote for somethings that would decrease the value of their rentals, almost insure less desirable tenants and subsequently, lower their income?
Then is doesn't make sense if:
-- people who don't give birth get to vote on abortion.
-- people who don't have children in school get to vote on school taxes or for school board candidates.
-- people who don't have cars get to vote on gas taxes or registration taxes.
-- people who aren't gay get to vote on gay marriage.
and list goes on and on and on.
We all have a vested interest in how our communities are run and funded. If only property owners could vote on property taxes, areas with high numbers of rentals would deteriorate rapidly as the slumlords vote down tax increases causing the school systems to fail, the infrastructure to crumble, and the number of services to decline.
In our political system, every voter gets to vote on every issue in his or her district. If Amy wants representation she can move to the district or sell the rental and buy one in her district.
It may not seem fair to you, but you seem to have some sort of ax to grind with regards to this issue.
Property owners have a vested interest in making sure areas they own property in don't deteriorate rapidly. One could argue even they have more of an interest than the tenants. The tenants can pick up and leave with minimal financial impact. The net worth of the property owner is on the line.
The gay marriage one is silly and that will be determined by the courts (as it should be). Civil Rights is not something our country leaves to a vote.
The school taxes one doesn't really make sense either. You'll need to be more specific. What is a "school tax"? Is it one funded through sales tax? Property tax? An actual tax at the school?
Abortion is also not something we leave to a vote. That goes to the courts to decide when life begins and the rights of the mother versus the rights of the unborn.
Also... in each of these you seem to be making a false analogy. They all arguably include people with voting rights who might not really deserve to have a voice... but none of them include a subset of people that are having decisions made for them without a voice themselves (so long as they are or voting age). If gay people weren't allowed to vote on the issue of gay marriage, then you'd have a point. If pregnant women considering abortions weren't allowed to vote, you'd have a point there as well.
When the U.S. was first formed, only landowners had the right to vote in most states -- white, male, landowners.
It does make some sense that only landowners should vote. They have the most to lose or gain; they're usually more informed; they're more apt to stay in the area.
It makes some sense, but not enough. And it's not what Americans have decided is best.
Amy knew when she purchased the property (or when she moved away from it) that she would have no voting rights in that community. It's what we've decided, over the years, is the MOST fair for everyone.
You've mentioned that renters should still have the right to vote for their government representatives, just not on property tax questions. Well, mayors and councilmen make many decisions that affect your property. If Amy wants to vote in the elections where her rental is, she'll have to move to where her rental is. It's "fair" because that's how it's done all across the U.S. and how it has been done for 100+ years. Amy knew that when she purchased the property.
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?
Here in my city, we have a combination of year-round residents and second homeowners who either use the house themselves or rent to tourists in the summer. The 2nd homeowners, many of whom don't even live in NJ, want voting rights here. But I don't think they should have them. They are never going to vote to approve a school budget in a district their kids don't use, they will always vote against open space or historic district preservation if the alternative is to build some new tourist attraction there.
Bottom line, they have totally different priorities and agendas in how our city spends money then the year round residents do (we are very much the minority population-wise). It would change the town, and the people who have investment in schools, safety and infrastructure will lose to those who only care about cutting property taxes and couldn't care less if our schools are bad, cause the ones their kids go to are good.
Ahhhh now I see what your meaning.. as I said where I lived at one time we had additional Realty Tax Assesment On Rental Properties..What your saying is you are not allowed to claim Homestead on both homes because one is not your " Homestead "..its all in perception or the wording I guess..
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person
In Maryland at least, residential property is denoted as either owner occupied or not. If owner occupied it falls under the Homestead Exemption which limits tax increases to 10%/year (usually due to increasing assessments and not rate increases) maximum, some jurisdictions are lower.
Houses which are owner used seasonally or rentals are subject to the full increase in assessments. As a note, Maryland reassesses all property every three years on a rotating basis. I'm due for one this year since the last one was 2012.
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.
