View Single Post
Old 08-28-2007, 09:14 AM   #82
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickie B from HB
Jeff-

You make some good points. But keep in mind that the value of your property is meaningless if you have to live in it. For those on a fixed income property appreciation only means that perhaps they will have to sell when the taxes become unaffordable. Where do they move to? Will they move to some less desireable location where the costs are less? Is this the destiny of NH property owners? Your reasoning leads one to conclude that you are okay with this. Is this the legacy you want for NH?

DB
Life is choices and challenges...

Short memory?

Reread an important part of his input:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffk
People in New Hampshire also decided (knew) that the tax burden would fall on property owners. Many years ago the people who owned valuable property were the “well to do”. They ended up paying the taxes. Everybody was happy. But now, through the growth of value in property, many “common” people are being burdened with real estate assets worth millions. They, whether they like it or not, have become wealthy. The long known policy in New Hampshire is that the property owners pay the taxes in proportion to the value of their property. Is this a surprise? How could it possibly be? Further, if the owners lived in New Hampshire they have had many years without state income or sales taxes. This is not an inconsequential advantage. Also, given a million dollar property appreciating at 3% a year ($30,000) it about equals the property taxes in Laconia. Maybe the kids could help on the taxes for what will be their million dollars plus inheritance. Maybe a reverse mortgage would help?

I live in New Hampshire and own both a primary home and a house at the lake and pay as much in property taxes as I would if there were a 6% state income tax. I picked out our Lake property in Moultonborough specifically because the taxes there were low. Even so, my property taxes have more than doubled in the 13 years we have owned it. Its value has quadrupled. I think it’s a fair deal. I love the Lake and plan on retiring there eventually. However, if I needed to, I could sell the lake house and pocket the money to fund retirement. I don’t think I’ll need to because I’ve planned for tax and cost of living increases. However, you can never tell.

Do I have a guarantee that I get to live at the Lake? If I don’t or can’t pay my tax bill someone else will have to. Is it fair that I can skip out on my bill and they have to pick up my share because I have a house I don’t want to give up?
__________________
[Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ]
GWC... is offline   Reply With Quote