Explain this local gubmint tax BS to me.

lendaddy · 07-20-2005, 12:56 PM

Saw a thing on Cali property tax and it got me thinking:

What kind of fukced up model is property tax? It's not based on any actual need, it's just a boon for gubmint spending. The fact that I could sell my house for 30% more this year than last doesn't cost my locality anything.....so why do they need 30% more tax revenue????

This model need to be chaged to a flat fee per acreage or something. Maybe a premium on certain areas? Heck, I don't know. Sup, why do local gubmints need more money when my property goes up in value?

mikester · 07-20-2005, 12:58 PM

It's based on Value - which I know you know. I know where you're coming from - it's a racket. On the upside - it goes to the schools so they can teach ebonics.

legion · 07-20-2005, 12:59 PM

So they can employ people that can afford to live in the area.

Kinda a self-propagating cycle.

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

Even better - with the massive appreciation, the tax windfall has to be phenomenal. So why is the state still broke?

legion · 07-20-2005, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by widebody911
Even better - with the massive appreciation, the tax windfall has to be phenomenal. So why is the state still broke?

Because...in all levels of government in this country there is no relationship between spending and revenue.

A legislature can pass a bill to study the impact of a new bridge on the snail population (to borrow an example). They are not required to say where the money will come from.

Further, when tax receipts take a dive, they are not required to cut spending.

lendaddy · 07-20-2005, 01:08 PM

Since it's a school thing (prop taxes) I'm guessing you're gonna/already have seen massive school renovations and contruction. I mean heck, if you don't spend it, what esle can you do with it, right?

strother · 07-20-2005, 01:22 PM

Texas has no state income tax. Sales tax is where the state gets its funding, and municipalities get most of their funding through property tax. I like this.

red-beard · red-beard's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
Saw a thing on Cali property tax and it got me thinking:

What kind of fukced up model is property tax? It's not based on any actual need, it's just a boon for gubmint spending. The fact that I could sell my house for 30% more this year than last doesn't cost my locality anything.....so why do they need 30% more tax revenue????

This model need to be chaged to a flat fee per acreage or something. Maybe a premium on certain areas? Heck, I don't know. Sup, why do local gubmints need more money when my property goes up in value?

Every tax that is passed is _designed_ from the start to "Soak the Rich". However, there are never enough rich people around to make the tax worthwhile, so the tax base grows until it hits the majority.

Property tax here in Texas, especially Houston, where there is only a 10% limit to the amount that your value can be raised (for tax purposes), 10% per year is what the taxes are going up.

Where in the H3LL is all the money going??? With the property values going up as fast as they are, the tax collections should be up by more than 50% in 4 years. Inflation has _not_ grown by 50% in 4 years, only 12.5%, so the net growth in inflation adjusted revenue is 33%. Are we getting 33% more of everything?

I preferred the way it was done in upstate NY. They set the city budget, calculated the value for all property in the City, then divided it up! You never knew exactly what the rate would be, but you usually didn't have 10% increases every year.

In California, they can only raise your prop taxes 2% per year. So they do...

strother · 07-21-2005, 03:47 AM

Well, for what it's worth, the taxable value on our home has only gone up 10% in five years while the market value of our home has gone up over 30%. They've not raised our value the maximum every year, even though they could. Right now, our taxable value is $50,000 less than the market value.

lendaddy · 07-21-2005, 03:49 AM

So do you care what they use the money for, or is it cool for them to just add on to the budget with this "found money"?

Government is suppose to provide ........

Screw it I give up today.

red-beard · red-beard's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by strother
Well, for what it's worth, the taxable value on our home has only gone up 10% in five years while the market value of our home has gone up over 30%. They've not raised our value the maximum every year, even though they could. Right now, our taxable value is $50,000 less than the market value.

You are very lucky. Mine is "over" value and I'm going in next week to get my assessment lowered.

turbo6bar · 07-21-2005, 04:34 AM

Wait until the bubble pops. Folks will be in line waiting for property tax adjustments.

red-beard · red-beard's Garage

I don't think _we_ are in a Bubble here. The prices are still very reasonable and affordable, if not cheap.

San Diego, OTOH, is crazy. And LA LA land? Well, what else can you say...

Superman · 07-21-2005, 06:33 AM

I think I understand your question Len, and I'm not sure I have an answer. Red Beard points out that making poor people shoulder the greatest tax burden probably would not work. He goes on to explain that most taxes are designed to place the burden on persons and organizations that have the capacity to pay.

I've got no problem with public scrutiny of government decisions. Obviously. We own our government and its just is to serve us. But I also know that in order to serve us, government must have some means of achieving those goals we set for it, and some means of providing the services we expect and request. And that taxes must be at least somewhat "progressive" in the sense that they must target folks who can pay.

Interestingly, property taxes is one of those areas where taxes are often taken from certain folks, and applied to help certain other folks, and the two groups are different. Property taxes are mostly used to fund education. Young couples with small children in school are by and large not the owners of high-value property. What is a bit heart-warming to me is my observation that property owners, even retirees on fixed incomes, commonly vote to approve school levies. They vote to raise their own taxes in order to fund education, which those older and established citizens recognize as important for the community's future.

As an aside, I grew up in Northern Idaho, near a breathtaking lake called Lake Coeur d'Alene. Many of the people I know who live on that lake (mail is delivered by boat, and many of the homes do not have roads to them...it's rather quaint) were homesteaded by a great grandfather. Sadly, this lake is becoming developed so quickly that property values are EXPLOSIVE. Some of families who own these multi-generation properties are having to sell them simply because they are not well-to-do, and cannot afford today's property taxes. Sad.

So, I understand. I understand how unfair this tax can seem. I also understand that education is important. I do not agree with those of you (Island, for example) who seem to believe that gubmint is in the business of deliberately ruining peoples' lives and that taxes are not necessary. That gubmint services are cost-free.

DaveE · 07-21-2005, 06:41 AM

So do they actually re-assess your property every year and raise your taxes? They haven't done a re-assessment in years where I live. I never heard of anywhere that does re-assessments anually. Is this just a general rant against property taxes?

TheMentat · TheMentat's Garage

Seems strange to me that your education is funded by municipal property taxes. It sounds as though it would be pretty easy for some municipalities to slip into a downward spiral over the course of one generation, simply due to something like, say, the bursting of a housing market bubble...

lendaddy · 06:53 AM

No, I wasn't starting an argument on who pays taxes and the fairness involved. I want to know why my county needs 30% more revenue to cover costs when my property value goes up 30%. Since they obviously cannot predict these massive increases they could not have budgeted for them. So here they sit with 30% more cash than they claimed they needed. Where does it go and/or how can they justify spending it?

Don't get me wrong, there is obviously some rhetoricasl stuff in there and I know damn well they'll spend it on something"important", but the model is what pisses me off. It should be:

Projected expenses are: $xxxxx

Therefore taxes will be: $xxxxx

NOT

Projected expenses are: $xxxxx

Therefore taxes will be: as much as we can get regardless of need.

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

The whole thing is completely counter-intuitive.

Communities become more stable (require less police activity) when people own their own homes.

Local government should be promoting and maybe even incentivizing home ownership.

Instead they do the opposite.

Sometimes taxation legislation is passed because the voters will tolerate it -- not for any logical reason. Lots of property tax legislation was passed when the majority of the population was renters.

Time to revisit some laws.

strother · 07-21-2005, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
So do you care what they use the money for, or is it cool for them to just add on to the budget with this "found money"?

Are you asking me? That's a weird question. Do you expect someone to say, "Why would I care why the government is taking money from me?"

strother · 07-21-2005, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveE
So do they actually re-assess your property every year and raise your taxes? They haven't done a re-assessment in years where I live. I never heard of anywhere that does re-assessments anually. Is this just a general rant against property taxes?

Not sure about the ranting part, but yes, here in Houston, they do an assessment EVERY year.