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 are ignoring decades of hard data. There has been an exodus from the area to the sun belt and western states for decades now. Part of it is due to climate but a large part of it is taxes. Taxes on individuals as well as businesses which are at the heart of capital formation. Open your eyes.
As a CFP ®, I think I know a few things about financial planning. One, building home equity is a very good thing to do. Two, the vast majority of homeowners do not hold their mortgages, especially first mortgages, for 30 years. This further underscores point one. Three, we have had relatively low interest rates for more than a decade, not a brief period. Even if that were not the case, mortgage interest is still tax deductible for the vast majority of home mortgages.
Your arguments are not valid. They fly in the face of decades of demographic data and are at odds with sound financial planning techniques.
Conversation over. Continue with yourself if you wish. I am out. Good luck to you and yours.
I'm actually referencing hard data. You are not using hard data. The Rochester metro has not had a mass exodus. It has gained every single actually counted census. Open your eyes. Quit curve fitting one census estimate in 2018 to support your mythical claim that taxes are causing a "mass exodus". It's just a logical fallacy that using census data (which you've been using to make your claim) proves is not true when counting real data, and not an estimate.
It's no surprise that retirees tend to move to the sunbelt and that younger people tend to move for school. That's not unique to Rochester. It happens every place. That population has been offset in Rochester by migration in. It doesn't matter how you feel. That is a fact. The Rochester metro has never lost population on a census.
As for you being a CFP, that's great for you. I have a graduate degree in Finance myself. It might quite surprise you my experience. And with my experience, I'll be honest with you. I've never met a CFP that I'd trust with my money. Most do not give very good advice and base their decisions on fees they can generate from the assets.
With your experience that you have, I certainly hope you don't base decisions for your clients future decisions on short-term time frames such as the last 10 years. Would you tell a client 5 years from retirement to invest 100% in stocks because the last 10 years has been so great? I really hope not.
Past performance is never a predictor of future performance. The smart decisions are to make them based on the complete history of the market and economy and hedge for the future. If you can't understand how the last 10 years of interest rates are abnormal, or why they've been so low, then you can't possibly understand the danger of future rising rates on current homeowners or those looking to buy in the future. Especially the danger to lower middle class buyers today and in a few years.
I'm actually referencing hard data. You are not using hard data. The Rochester metro has not had a mass exodus. It has gained every single actually counted census. Open your eyes. Quit curve fitting one census estimate in 2018 to support your mythical claim that taxes are causing a "mass exodus". It's just a logical fallacy that using census data (which you've been using to make your claim) proves is not true when counting real data, and not an estimate.
It's no surprise that retirees tend to move to the sunbelt and that younger people tend to move for school. That's not unique to Rochester. It happens every place. That population has been offset in Rochester by migration in. It doesn't matter how you feel. That is a fact. The Rochester metro has never lost population on a census.
Older middle aged folks and retirees are moving to places where their kids moved to. That is a fact. I've even witnessed 3 generations of a family move to the Sun Belt, due to the horrid economy and ridiculous taxes of the Rochester area. I've heard about other families doing the same.
Quote:
That population has been offset in Rochester by migration in.
Who is moving to Monroe County, NY? Third worlders, welfare seekers, old people looking for health care they need, and people fleeing the East Coast. Not exactly the demographics one should expect to grow an economy with. I'm citing articles in the D&C, as well as hard data.
It's a fact that the household incomes of people moving to places like Rochester are far below those who are moving out.
Quote:
The Rochester metro has never lost population on a census.
It will in 2020. I've seen the stats on surrounding counties' population losses, and they're staggering. Only Ontario Cty will gain any appreciable population in the census, and I predict Monroe will lose population vs. the 2010 census.
I've also perused maps for home sales in places like Wayne Cty as a benchmark of sorts. The number of vacant homes there is mind boggling. Literally people are abandoning their homes, and moving south.
Quote:
As for you being a CFP, that's great for you. I have a graduate degree in Finance myself. It might quite surprise you my experience. And with my experience, I'll be honest with you. I've never met a CFP that I'd trust with my money. Most do not give very good advice and base their decisions on fees they can generate from the assets.
With your experience that you have, I certainly hope you don't base decisions for your clients future decisions on short-term time frames such as the last 10 years. Would you tell a client 5 years from retirement to invest 100% in stocks because the last 10 years has been so great? I really hope not.
I'll take a stab at this one.
I work with numbers and stats as part of what I do for a living. I would never recommend buying a house in a metro like Rochester. Upstate is dying, and death is coming quicker to that region of the country as productive people and older folks with disposable incomes are fleeing at a faster pace than they were 15-20 years ago.
To say taxes have no bearing on a housing market in a metro like Rochester's is really funny to me. I've seen stats on smaller metros which have housing stock worth way more than Rochester's, in places across the country with similar economies and demographics. Those metros have stronger, growing economies, with low local taxes. I know people who live in metros across the Midwest who are paying under $2,000 in property taxes, on $350K+++ assessed. Great schools, safe streets, etc. People in dying places like Rochester have to go into a lot of debt for home improvements and whatnot, because of the crushing tax burden. Many people in similar metros do not.
Quote:
Past performance is never a predictor of future performance. The smart decisions are to make them based on the complete history of the market and economy and hedge for the future. If you can't understand how the last 10 years of interest rates are abnormal, or why they've been so low, then you can't possibly understand the danger of future rising rates on current homeowners or those looking to buy in the future. Especially the danger to lower middle class buyers today and in a few years.
The danger lies within financial ignorance.
Interest rates have been used as a political weapon over many decades. As the cost of living went up, wages did not rise so people could afford the same standard of living which was common in decades previous. Low interest rates have fueled a fake economy built on debt. The very people who create(d) these problems got the government and the judiciary to get rid of regulations which protected consumers, that way they could create a situation where the illusion of "status" could be within peoples' grasps. Meaning more debt, at a higher risk for both the consumer and the debt holder, could be allowed
I would welcome higher interest rates, in fact much higher rates:
Quote:
...understand the danger of future rising rates on current homeowners or those looking to buy in the future.
Explain this "danger".
If the U.S. economy is so bad that raising interest rates a half of a point would crash the economy, which as of 2 or maybe 6 years ago definitely would have crashed the economy, then this country has much bigger problems than interest rates.It also proves to me that we're no longer a productive nation, jerks like the National Assn. of Realtors would rather pocket wads of other peoples' money, with the full backing of taxpayers when the crap hits the fan, than look out for the good of the economy as a whole and where this country should be, in the future.
The interest rate nonsense is another weapon the elites use to control people and their purchasing decisions, both short and long-term. I buy nice, used things, and pay cash. Have since '05 or so, after paying off a vehicle I bought new in '01. Financed a house in '08 here in Traveler's Rest, SC, it's our only debt to speak of. My credit cards used to have interest rates under 10%, now they're around double that so I don't use them.
Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) is a scheme used by the elites to get people to buy bigger and more expensive things they really don't need, and can't afford. It's that illusion, again. A new truck costs $50K, one with roughly the same options cost $25K, 20 years ago. 20 years ago someone would get a 48 month loan, now it's a 72 month loan. A home loan term might have been 20 years, back in the 70's, with 1/3 down. Today, people are financing for 30 years. It's an unsustainable financial scheme, fueled by debt.
You actually may have certain municipalities that get covered by multiple agencies. For instance, the village of East Syracuse up until a few years ago, was covered not only by its village police force(which doesn't exist any more), as well as the town of DeWitt police force and the Onondaga County department. So, you can get duplicate services from different agencies.
Police force overlap is the exception rather than the rule. You don’t have two police departments conducting two separate investigations into the same crime. County vs state police do, in some cases, patrol the same roads. While I agree this is an unnecessary duplication, it could easily be argued that this practice reduces cost because of the increased ticket revenue it generates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VA Yankee
Your "typical forms of government in NYS" are all taxing authorities and no one is passing on collecting their fair share. Your services are duplicated in each of the 721-733 school districts (as an example), because each district must provide transportation, buildings, upkeep, special education along with other education obligations, vo-tech, a school board etc. All this cost and all of this is being duplicate in each district but its ok because school districts are taxing authorities also so they can raise their fair share each year.
700+ school districts or one... same amount of students. Same amount of teachers. Same amount of busses. Same amount of buildings, upkeep and everything else on your list. There is absolutely nothing saved on any of these functions by consolidating. (Only three school boards in NYS get a salary - a practice I disagree with. Not sure why you think that is relevant). Many districts I know of already share services on things like vocational training, if they are not already handled on a county-wide basis.
The only real savings that consolidation advocates point to is administration cost. This is still questionable. You don’t go from 10, 20 or 30 districts to one and keep the size and salaries of just one of those admin staffs. In addition to which, admin costs are a small part of the total budget.
It is generally agreed that the potential for savings typically only lies in districts with under 1500 enrollment. This is potential savings when the conditions are right. If there can be savings by doing go, I’ll be the first one in line to support it.
Note, however, that would not save one cent off the tax bill for the majority of us. Most NYers are in larger districts that will see no savings (and potentially higher costs) from consolidation.
I’m not claiming consolidaiton would never work. Only that it has limited application in New York and is NOT not the magic bullet many like to think it is.
Quote:
You can replicate the above example where multiple public works, road crews law enforcements are present in a county. Look at the Monroe County, the property tax table https://www2.monroecounty.gov/property-taxrates.phpis 23 pages if you want to print it out. That's one county..
Like the OP I live in a county with 1 government, one taxing authority and a school district that must submit a budget, have it approved and operate within it. Yes it is far more cost efficient to have consolidation of services.
Okay, so there are multiple public works/road crews/etc in a county. Are you claiming that most of these sit around with nothing to do most of the day? If so, that is a problem within that particular public works department. They need less people.
There are x number of trucks and people to work on y number of roads. If you consolidate all the departments into one, there are still the same number of roads requiring the same number of man-hours to maintain. It costs the same whether one or 10 departments maintain them. In the larger counties it is easy to see how multiple departments make sense. I also know smaller counties where the town roads are maintained by a small, efficient department. Administration is one (elected) person who “works” part-time. Crews are also part-time and called in as needed. Very efficient and more responsive than the county level services.
Duplication of services would imply that the different departments are doing the same work on the same road. If that’s the case, then there is a serious management problem that consolidaiton would not fix. What the village charges you for, the town does not charge you for. What the town charges you for, the county does not.
Start in incorporated village and decide not to maintain your own roads and you still pay the same amount to the town and/or county for that service. If the village takes that over, you pay the village and no longer owe that portion of the tax to the town. You only pay once.
Yes, there are administrative costs. The mayor and other officers get paid. Usually very little. At the town level it becomes more lucrative as a full time career (at least in the much larger towns, some of which are as large as counties in NC). Those ARE costs that can be eliminated, but they barely make a dent in the tax bill.
Better to look at salaries and benefits. New York teachers are among the highest paid in the nations. North Carolina (the original comparison) ranks #35 in teacher pay. Consolidation would only increase cost since the lower paid teachers would have to be increased so everyone was paid the same.
Other services suffer the same compensation difference. For example, the average police officer salary in NYS is almost twice that of NC ($77k vs $42k). Add union contract rules and other benefits and that’s where you will find a better explanation for the tax difference.
Give a teacher, road crew, police officer, etc. in NY the same pay and contract as the NC average and you will see the tax rate change considerably. Then, you can look at the isolated cases where consolidation might benefit a few select areas.
From what I can find, Brockport has outrageous taxes. Maybe they provide a list of services worth that kind of money. I don’t know. If not, “consolidation” is not the issue - it’s gross mismanagement. “Consolidating” Brockport into a higher government entity might solve that problem, but only because it would eliminate the idiots who are throwing away money. That kind of waste can also happen at higher levels, but it is much harder to fix. Much easier to vote out people at smaller govenerment entities.
I can just as easily point to other villages that have similar taxes to the surrounding areas, while providing extra services to their residents.
Police force overlap is the exception rather than the rule. You don’t have two police departments conducting two separate investigations into the same crime. County vs state police do, in some cases, patrol the same roads. While I agree this is an unnecessary duplication, it could easily be argued that this practice reduces cost because of the increased ticket revenue it generates.
700+ school districts or one... same amount of students. Same amount of teachers. Same amount of busses. Same amount of buildings, upkeep and everything else on your list. There is absolutely nothing saved on any of these functions by consolidating. (Only three school boards in NYS get a salary - a practice I disagree with. Not sure why you think that is relevant). Many districts I know of already share services on things like vocational training, if they are not already handled on a county-wide basis.
The only real savings that consolidation advocates point to is administration cost. This is still questionable. You don’t go from 10, 20 or 30 districts to one and keep the size and salaries of just one of those admin staffs. In addition to which, admin costs are a small part of the total budget.
It is generally agreed that the potential for savings typically only lies in districts with under 1500 enrollment. This is potential savings when the conditions are right. If there can be savings by doing go, I’ll be the first one in line to support it.
Note, however, that would not save one cent off the tax bill for the majority of us. Most NYers are in larger districts that will see no savings (and potentially higher costs) from consolidation.
I’m not claiming consolidaiton would never work. Only that it has limited application in New York and is NOT not the magic bullet many like to think it is.
Okay, so there are multiple public works/road crews/etc in a county. Are you claiming that most of these sit around with nothing to do most of the day? If so, that is a problem within that particular public works department. They need less people.
There are x number of trucks and people to work on y number of roads. If you consolidate all the departments into one, there are still the same number of roads requiring the same number of man-hours to maintain. It costs the same whether one or 10 departments maintain them. In the larger counties it is easy to see how multiple departments make sense. I also know smaller counties where the town roads are maintained by a small, efficient department. Administration is one (elected) person who “works” part-time. Crews are also part-time and called in as needed. Very efficient and more responsive than the county level services.
Duplication of services would imply that the different departments are doing the same work on the same road. If that’s the case, then there is a serious management problem that consolidaiton would not fix. What the village charges you for, the town does not charge you for. What the town charges you for, the county does not.
Start in incorporated village and decide not to maintain your own roads and you still pay the same amount to the town and/or county for that service. If the village takes that over, you pay the village and no longer owe that portion of the tax to the town. You only pay once.
Yes, there are administrative costs. The mayor and other officers get paid. Usually very little. At the town level it becomes more lucrative as a full time career (at least in the much larger towns, some of which are as large as counties in NC). Those ARE costs that can be eliminated, but they barely make a dent in the tax bill.
Better to look at salaries and benefits. New York teachers are among the highest paid in the nations. North Carolina (the original comparison) ranks #35 in teacher pay. Consolidation would only increase cost since the lower paid teachers would have to be increased so everyone was paid the same.
Other services suffer the same compensation difference. For example, the average police officer salary in NYS is almost twice that of NC ($77k vs $42k). Add union contract rules and other benefits and that’s where you will find a better explanation for the tax difference.
Give a teacher, road crew, police officer, etc. in NY the same pay and contract as the NC average and you will see the tax rate change considerably. Then, you can look at the isolated cases where consolidation might benefit a few select areas.
From what I can find, Brockport has outrageous taxes. Maybe they provide a list of services worth that kind of money. I don’t know. If not, “consolidation” is not the issue - it’s gross mismanagement. “Consolidating” Brockport into a higher government entity might solve that problem, but only because it would eliminate the idiots who are throwing away money. That kind of waste can also happen at higher levels, but it is much harder to fix. Much easier to vote out people at smaller govenerment entities.
I can just as easily point to other villages that have similar taxes to the surrounding areas, while providing extra services to their residents.
I wasn't stating that in those terms, but more in terms of patrol.
I wasn't stating that in those terms, but more in terms of patrol.
Understood, but the point still stands. Those “patrols” are revenue generating operations. More patrols = more income.
Aside from that, consider:
‘The combined patrols result in a coverage of x. For arguments sake, let’s say it results in two police cars each driving down your street once each day.
Now you consolidate. Will that result in one car driving by once each day? If so, you saved some money. But you are also receiving half the service you were receiving (while not likely saving 50%).
If you think that reduction of service warranted, the problem is not consolidation. It is having too many police on the payroll . The department is overfunded. It would make more sense to reduce the size of one, or both police forces. You are assuming consolidation means a 50% cut in manpower (based on the example used). That is not the case. It is likely that a consolidation will result in little or no cut to personnel, while the lower paid workers will get a raise to be on par with the higher paid force.
It does depend on the particular situation. I think it a highly unusual situation that two local police entities are patrolling the same area at the same time. I am not against consolidation. I simply take issue with the implication that it makes sense outside of a few specific cases.
I would love to see a legitimate source for savings that would result in eliminating New York “towns” and shifting to one per county school district system. The studies I have seen on school districts, for one, indicate there is no savings to be had for the large majority of districts in NYS. That’s without even considering most consolidations (in the corporate world) never achieve the promised savings, and often increase costs. Since government has a history of underperforming the corporate world I am very skeptical where those savings would come from.
Bottom line is I can see where you and other are coming from and appreciate your position. I just believe it is not fact based and there is no financial data to support the idea on a large scale basis in New York.
Understood, but the point still stands. Those “patrols” are revenue generating operations. More patrols = more income.
Aside from that, consider:
‘The combined patrols result in a coverage of x. For arguments sake, let’s say it results in two police cars each driving down your street once each day.
Now you consolidate. Will that result in one car driving by once each day? If so, you saved some money. But you are also receiving half the service you were receiving (while not likely saving 50%).
If you think that reduction of service warranted, the problem is not consolidation. It is having too many police on the payroll . The department is overfunded. It would make more sense to reduce the size of one, or both police forces. You are assuming consolidation means a 50% cut in manpower (based on the example used). That is not the case. It is likely that a consolidation will result in little or no cut to personnel, while the lower paid workers will get a raise to be on par with the higher paid force.
It does depend on the particular situation. I think it a highly unusual situation that two local police entities are patrolling the same area at the same time. I am not against consolidation. I simply take issue with the implication that it makes sense outside of a few specific cases.
I would love to see a legitimate source for savings that would result in eliminating New York “towns” and shifting to one per county school district system. The studies I have seen on school districts, for one, indicate there is no savings to be had for the large majority of districts in NYS. That’s without even considering most consolidations (in the corporate world) never achieve the promised savings, and often increase costs. Since government has a history of underperforming the corporate world I am very skeptical where those savings would come from.
Bottom line is I can see where you and other are coming from and appreciate your position. I just believe it is not fact based and there is no financial data to support the idea on a large scale basis in New York.
Where do you come to that conclusion?
Another way to look at it, is that you have less to pay for in terms of staffing.
I'm thinking in terms of jurisdiction and I never said anything about a 50% cut in manpower. Nor have I said anything about eliminating "towns". Consolidation or dissolution of villages, yes and many in state have and are doing just that.
In terms of consolidation of schools, I'm thinking in terms again of staffing and in terms of spreading the burden relatively "evenly". Considering that many counties in the South have done, it and in term have lower taxes in that regard, that would seem like it is evidence enough.
A lot of this can come down to how consolidation occurs as well. I actually presented a couple of plans in the Syracuse forum, that don't include school closures or even forcing anyone to move or be bused anywhere, as I would include the MN/WI Open Enrollment aspect along with consolidation.
Again, if it is as simple as political corruption, social handouts(hope that includes all forms), etc. how much would that help reduce taxation, if the same structure is still in place?
Older middle aged folks and retirees are moving to places where their kids moved to. That is a fact. I've even witnessed 3 generations of a family move to the Sun Belt, due to the horrid economy and ridiculous taxes of the Rochester area. I've heard about other families doing the same.
Who is moving to Monroe County, NY? Third worlders, welfare seekers, old people looking for health care they need, and people fleeing the East Coast. Not exactly the demographics one should expect to grow an economy with. I'm citing articles in the D&C, as well as hard data.
It's a fact that the household incomes of people moving to places like Rochester are far below those who are moving out.
I work with numbers and stats as part of what I do for a living. I would never recommend buying a house in a metro like Rochester. Upstate is dying, and death is coming quicker to that region of the country as productive people and older folks with disposable incomes are fleeing at a faster pace than they were 15-20 years ago.
Stop it with the hyperbole. It's getting real old from you. My anecdotal evidence living here trumps your anecdotal evidence from years being away from Rochester.
Quote:
To say taxes have no bearing on a housing market in a metro like Rochester's is really funny to me. I've seen stats on smaller metros which have housing stock worth way more than Rochester's, in places across the country with similar economies and demographics. Those metros have stronger, growing economies, with low local taxes. I know people who live in metros across the Midwest who are paying under $2,000 in property taxes, on $350K+++ assessed. Great schools, safe streets, etc. People in dying places like Rochester have to go into a lot of debt for home improvements and whatnot, because of the crushing tax burden. Many people in similar metros do not.
what? Taxes ARE a PART of your mortgage payment. Homeowners aren't going into any more debt just to pay their taxes than any other metro. Do you understand how banks calculate debt to income to determine qualifying loans? Guess what, they include taxes in there. The Rochester metro is driven by AFFORDABILITY. Homes have lower median sale prices here as compared to equal homes in these other areas of the country you mention. You actually end up with more home for the same mortgage. More of that goes to taxes. But you end up with a BETTER home for the same mortgage payment. Again, that is looking at affordability without using blinders on and only strictly looking at taxes. In the vast majority of the country, paying the same mortgage payment each month is going to get you a lower quality home than here in Rochester. Again, look at the WHOLE mortgage payment. Not just the taxes.
Again, I'm going to repeat this because it seems you want to ignore the entire picture. You will end up with a better home here in Rochester (lower home valuation), but you'll be paying the same mortgage payment each month as in lower taxed parts of the country.
Quote:
The danger lies within financial ignorance.
It sure does.
Quote:
Interest rates have been used as a political weapon over many decades. As the cost of living went up, wages did not rise so people could afford the same standard of living which was common in decades previous. Low interest rates have fueled a fake economy built on debt. The very people who create(d) these problems got the government and the judiciary to get rid of regulations which protected consumers, that way they could create a situation where the illusion of "status" could be within peoples' grasps. Meaning more debt, at a higher risk for both the consumer and the debt holder, could be allowed
I would welcome higher interest rates, in fact much higher rates:
Explain this "danger".
If the U.S. economy is so bad that raising interest rates a half of a point would crash the economy, which as of 2 or maybe 6 years ago definitely would have crashed the economy, then this country has much bigger problems than interest rates.It also proves to me that we're no longer a productive nation, jerks like the National Assn. of Realtors would rather pocket wads of other peoples' money, with the full backing of taxpayers when the crap hits the fan, than look out for the good of the economy as a whole and where this country should be, in the future.
The interest rate nonsense is another weapon the elites use to control people and their purchasing decisions, both short and long-term. I buy nice, used things, and pay cash. Have since '05 or so, after paying off a vehicle I bought new in '01. Financed a house in '08 here in Traveler's Rest, SC, it's our only debt to speak of. My credit cards used to have interest rates under 10%, now they're around double that so I don't use them.
Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) is a scheme used by the elites to get people to buy bigger and more expensive things they really don't need, and can't afford. It's that illusion, again. A new truck costs $50K, one with roughly the same options cost $25K, 20 years ago. 20 years ago someone would get a 48 month loan, now it's a 72 month loan. A home loan term might have been 20 years, back in the 70's, with 1/3 down. Today, people are financing for 30 years. It's an unsustainable financial scheme, fueled by debt.
Oh good. We agree on something. Now guess what happens to that home that has a sales price 100K higher (for equal home here in Rochester). If interest rates rise 3 points, that 100K is a difference of 200 a month. For middle class to lower middle class which are the majority of home buyers, that can mean the difference between being able to afford that same home. The AFFORDABILITY of the home goes down. Taxes are relatively static and only change a few percentage points per year. The AFFORDABILITY in Rochester which doesn't have home prices swinging up and down is going to continue to be easier to afford a home in.
Again, a mortgage has 5 components for most buyers. Taxes, PMI, Insurance, interest and principal. When buying a home at higher interest rates, the interest obviously goes up. And the current 0 interest policies are keeping these interest rates at abnormally low levels. Right now that interest can go into the principal allowing buyers to buy more home. And in low tax, high home value areas, it fuels the financial ignorance where people think homes are an investment. They speculate, anticipating their home values rising in the future. That's where the danger lies. Low interest rates fuel home speculation.
Again, yes property taxes are high in Rochester, yes most of those taxes go to the schools, yes Rochester schools are far superior than most schools in the country. Yes the quality of life is high in Rochester. NO Rochester is not dying. No Rochester homeowners are not "drowning in debt" because of property taxes. YES Rochester homes are much more affordable because of lower home prices. And NO the Rochester market won't swing violently or threaten the ability of lower to middle class home buyers from being able to afford homes when interest rates rise.
And again, for a lower middle class home buyer, the homes are more attainable here in Rochester because of the relatively fixed tax, the lower home sales price, and the lower affect of interest rates rising.
Stop it with the hyperbole. It's getting real old from you. My anecdotal evidence living here trumps your anecdotal evidence from years being away from Rochester.
Key word here is "anecdotal". Typical delusional speak for a "Rochester booster".
Did you know Rochester went through a recession, maybe more than one recession, in recent years? I didn't think so.
This region has seen $10B+++ in private investment since 2010, and I continue to meet more and more people from Rochester down here poking around. The little "investment" in Rochester has been in the speculative, and terribly risky, downtown housing market. So what happens when that bubble bursts?
Quote:
what? Taxes ARE a PART of your mortgage payment. Homeowners aren't going into any more debt just to pay their taxes than any other metro. Do you understand how banks calculate debt to income to determine qualifying loans? Guess what, they include taxes in there. The Rochester metro is driven by AFFORDABILITY. Homes have lower median sale prices here as compared to equal homes in these other areas of the country you mention.
You have to be kidding.
I've seen homes in Pittsford and other higher dollar parts of Monroe County that were, and probably still are, dumps. A lot of people of different incomes around Rochester do not maintain their properties, they either don't care, and figure they'll just sell at some point and move somewhere else, or they can't afford to.
Most people I know around Rochester are struggling. Good luck feeding a family of 4 there on less than $80K/year, or having any quality of life on less than $100K.
A $250K house there will have at least triple the tax burden as many comparable metros across the country. There are plenty of places with assessments comparable to Rochester's suburbs, yet the tax burdens are a fraction of those of Rochester residents.
Quote:
You actually end up with more home for the same mortgage.
Your simple math is mortgage+escrow.
Not with an average 3.3% property tax burden in Monroe County. Some communities, like Greece, Chili, and Brighton have much higher burdens than 3.3.%, in fact right around 4% or more. Avg. U.S. property tax burden is 1.15%
Quote:
More of that goes to taxes. But you end up with a BETTER home for the same mortgage payment. Again, that is looking at affordability without using blinders on and only strictly looking at taxes. In the vast majority of the country, paying the same mortgage payment each month is going to get you a lower quality home than here in Rochester. Again, look at the WHOLE mortgage payment. Not just the taxes.
I'll gladly pay the mortgage on my 2003 vintage home, plus property taxes, than pay for a post-war house in Rochester that's 50 years old, for the same amount of mortgage plus taxes. Folks we know in Monroe County are paying upwards of $6500 in taxes on houses built in the 60's. That's insane. With my tax savings my house will be paid off sooner, too.
Quote:
Again, I'm going to repeat this because it seems you want to ignore the entire picture. You will end up with a better home here in Rochester (lower home valuation), but you'll be paying the same mortgage payment each month as in lower taxed parts of the country.
People would rather their money goes towards their mortgage payment, vs. some corrupt local tax authorities/jurisdictions.
Quote:
Oh good. We agree on something. Now guess what happens to that home that has a sales price 100K higher (for equal home here in Rochester). If interest rates rise 3 points, that 100K is a difference of 200 a month. For middle class to lower middle class which are the majority of home buyers, that can mean the difference between being able to afford that same home. The AFFORDABILITY of the home goes down. Taxes are relatively static and only change a few percentage points per year. The AFFORDABILITY in Rochester which doesn't have home prices swinging up and down is going to continue to be easier to afford a home in.
Again, a mortgage has 5 components for most buyers. Taxes, PMI, Insurance, interest and principal. When buying a home at higher interest rates, the interest obviously goes up. And the current 0 interest policies are keeping these interest rates at abnormally low levels. Right now that interest can go into the principal allowing buyers to buy more home. And in low tax, high home value areas, it fuels the financial ignorance where people think homes are an investment. They speculate, anticipating their home values rising in the future. That's where the danger lies. Low interest rates fuel home speculation.
Interest rates help to regulate various consumer decisions within the economy. Unfortunately, they've been exceedingly low for 20 years. Low interest rates can also mask the high tax burden in various places across the U.S. it can cut both ways.
Quote:
Again, yes property taxes are high in Rochester, yes most of those taxes go to the schools, yes Rochester schools are far superior than most schools in the country.
Overpriced public schools. NY State education results are in the middle of the pack, vs. other states.
Quote:
Yes the quality of life is high in Rochester. NO Rochester is not dying.
Yes, Rochester is dying, per just about any metric. People pay a lot less in taxes for a comparable or even better quality of life, in other metros.
Rochester has been on the decline for 30 years or more. The metro did not recover from the '00-'01 national downturn (it was bad in '04 and '05, as I remember while living through it), and all of Upstate did not recover from the '07-'09 downturn.
The core of the city was rotting byt the 50's, according to people I know who remember.
Quote:
No Rochester homeowners are not "drowning in debt" because of property taxes. YES Rochester homes are much more affordable because of lower home prices. And NO the Rochester market won't swing violently or threaten the ability of lower to middle class home buyers from being able to afford homes when interest rates rise.
And again, for a lower middle class home buyer, the homes are more attainable here in Rochester because of the relatively fixed tax, the lower home sales price, and the lower affect of interest rates rising.
Of course, if living in an old house that needs a lot of work is their thing.
More proof Rochester is dying, consistently in the Top 5 worst metros for birth rates, right up there with Buffalo, Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh:
How do you qualify for the star program and the enhanced star program? I am relocating back to Rochester and what the taxes are will depend on how much money I can plan on spending on a home. I am 70 years old so do I qualify for the enhanced star program?
As a transplant, I really disagree with this idea of Rochester dying. I know there's a lot of poverty in parts of the city but the suburbs seem healthy. Compared to other parts of the country, people are well dressed, nice cars, homes look well kept, towns are so clean. I don't see much obesity, I see tons of bikers, hikers, boaters, etc. which imo, indicates a good class of people. Once you get to Wayne, you might have more trashy people but whatever.
I've been to most of the major cities in the US and this idea that Rochester is going to be full of tumble weeds soon seems pretty far fetched.
Everyone in NY complains about taxes, that's just part of living in NY. I've never lived with such a bunch of complaining. If an extra 2-3k is really going to impact your life to the point where it's keeping you up at night and you can secure the same pay for a lower taxed area, then go. To me, uprooting lives for $300/month seems excessive but to each their own.
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.
T
