....property taxes too high?

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Biggd

This is such a ridiculous example. I could see how you would enjoy that scenario as I would also. If that was the case I would have bought many acres on the water years ago and just held on to it. The main reason I didn't was because of taxes. Although in if I knew what I know now I still should have. Percentage of taxes on everything are based on value.

Serious side note:
i am enjoying this debate, and everyone keeping it civil, this is what the forum is all about!

back to my soap box:

when the state sets a sales tax, does it adjust tax rates based on desirability of an item? on a meal tax, does it adjust tax rate based on where and what type of restaurant it is? on a hotel tax, does it adjust tax rate based on where it is? You can argue that i bought a more expensive meal so I am paying more tax so I chose that meal like i chose the property. But I might be buying a bigger meal a la McDonalds vs a 16oz steak

A market value flaw is that if my property is not up for sale, how does anyone know what I am willing to sell it for and what is someone willing to pay for that particular item, you do not, which is often the same counter argument of: they valued my property at 500k but I just bought it last year at 450k or i just bought it three months ago for 400k so why do they think its worth 500k now.

Yes if you went to a flat real estate tax, those in less desirable areas of a town will go up and those in more desirable areas will go down, at the end of the day the the land tax would be the same and if I have a 2000sqft home and the other was a 1500sqft home, there would still be more taxes coming from the extra 500sqft at the same rate, not market value

[Garcia]

Let me me clear, I would love to have both my properties taxed at the same rate as all the others in town, regardless of location, as this would certainly benefit me! After all, it doesn't make sense to bring all value UP to take into account waterfront vs. non waterfront property, so therefore my waterfront property will be taxed at a lower rate.

But a serious question: assuming that towns need at least a significant portion of the taxes currently being collected (even if people say there is tremendous waste, there is no way you can cut more than 25% out of the existing budget and still provide the services people ask for - and I think 25% is already too high), aren't those people with land of lower value going to pay more to balance out the lesser amount higher valued properties will be taxed at? How would it work?

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by AC2717

Serious side note:
i am enjoying this debate, and everyone keeping it civil, this is what the forum is all about!

back to my soap box:

when the state sets a sales tax, does it adjust tax rates based on desirability of an item? on a meal tax, does it adjust tax rate based on where and what type of restaurant it is? on a hotel tax, does it adjust tax rate based on where it is? You can argue that i bought a more expensive meal so I am paying more tax so I chose that meal like i chose the property. But I might be buying a bigger meal a la McDonalds vs a 16oz steak

A market value flaw is that if my property is not up for sale, how does anyone know what I am willing to sell it for and what is someone willing to pay for that particular item, you do not, which is often the same counter argument of: they valued my property at 500k but I just bought it last year at 450k or i just bought it three months ago for 400k so why do they think its worth 500k now.

Yes if you went to a flat real estate tax, those in less desirable areas of a town will go up and those in more desirable areas will go down, at the end of the day the the land tax would be the same and if I have a 2000sqft home and the other was a 1500sqft home, there would still be more taxes coming from the extra 500sqft at the same rate, not market value

Everyone that owns waterfront property would love your proposal but everyone else would be paying more and hate it. Because no matter what they still have to collect the same amount. It would just be divided up differently.
What you're willing to sell it for has no bearing on value. I sold my house to my son at a discounted price but he is still paying taxes on it's assessed value and if he went to sell it he would get a much higher price than what he paid for it. That's why when you go to sell a house it is appraised by looking at comparable properties that have recently sold. It's not a perfect science but it's pretty close .

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Biggd

What you're willing to sell it for has no bearing on value. I sold my house to my son at a discounted price but he is still paying taxes on it's assessed value and if he went to sell it he would get a much higher price than what he paid for it.

yes correct, tax based on values on a market assessed value. What I am saying is that market assessed value should not be apart of it

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by AC2717

yes correct, tax based on values on a market assessed value. What I am saying is that market assessed value should not be apart of it

I have a home in Ma and a home in NH. What I have noticed is the assessed value of my home in NH is pretty close to the price that I believe it would sell for. My realtor has confirmed that most homes in, Meredith, the town I'm in are selling very close to assessed value.
My home in Ma is assessed far below what I could sell it for but I'm not calling the town and telling them to tax me on it's real value.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Biggd

I have a home in Ma and a home in NH. What I have noticed is the assessed value of my home in NH is pretty close to the price that I believe it would sell for. My realtor has confirmed that most homes in, Meredith, the town I'm in are selling very close to assessed value.
My home in Ma is assessed far below what I could sell it for but I'm not calling the town and telling them to tax me on it's real value.

I suspect your home in MA is assessed at a level comparable to others in town. If your assessment were abnormally low, all your neighbors would be going to the assessors looking for abatements using your home as an example of why their rate should be reduced.
There are a variety of professions where the job is to look at all the assessments and try to get a better deal for the owner, or a group of owners. Big industry does this all the time in part because you may have a unique plant and there are no comparable sales to look at (they may use an income method). If I can get you an abatement, I get a commission.

For those who talk about living there but not being able to vote, that's the situation for businesses. They pay property tax but can't vote. They do negotiate with the town--we'd like this intersection redesigned, we need this sort of skilled worker, could you add that to the school curriculum?

Second Homeowners may not vote (you don't have to be from out of state, just out of town) but they can form organizations to work with the Selectmen. The Gilford Island Association has done well by its members, good Glendale docks, and parking, fire boat, an officer on duty,(See that Meredith), a special "Island Dump Day", etc.

[Woody38]

You should have a vote where your second home is located. It is possible for you or your wife to become a resident. When we lived on Cape Cod the dealer where we bought the boat was telling everyone they should have one member be a resident in order to vote in the community. As he said you have expensive property and should have a vote.

----------------------------------------------

I am a retired workaholic and continuing aquaholic

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by AC2717

yes correct, tax based on values on a market assessed value. What I am saying is that market assessed value should not be apart of it

So if market value should not be any part of it, what differentiating factors should be considered? What are your taxes paying for? Roads, schools, bridges, police fire?

Why shouldn't your taxes be based on what government services you could potentially use and need to have available?

No kids in the school system? Lower the tax. Part time resident? Lower that tax. Only one or two people living in your property? Lower the tax.

Why is the family with 5 kids paying less property and federal tax then you? Aren't you, the single homeowner, using a lot less in government services than that large family?

Is the tax structure completely backward?

In an ideal situation shouldn't taxes be to support services that you need?

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

So if market value should not be any part of it, what differentiating factors should be considered? What are your taxes paying for? Roads, schools, bridges, police fire?

Why shouldn't your taxes be based on what government services you could potentially use and need to have available?

No kids in the school system? Lower the tax. Part time resident? Lower that tax. Only one or two people living in your property? Lower the tax.

Why is the family with 5 kids paying less property and federal tax then you? Aren't you, the single homeowner, using a lot less in government services than that large family?

Is the tax structure completely backward?

In an ideal situation shouldn't taxes be to support services that you need?

I assume, and hope!, this is written in jest!

[swnoel]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

So if market value should not be any part of it, what differentiating factors should be considered? What are your taxes paying for? Roads, schools, bridges, police fire?

Why shouldn't your taxes be based on what government services you could potentially use and need to have available?

No kids in the school system? Lower the tax. Part time resident? Lower that tax. Only one or two people living in your property? Lower the tax.

Why is the family with 5 kids paying less property and federal tax then you? Aren't you, the single homeowner, using a lot less in government services than that large family?

Is the tax structure completely backward?

In an ideal situation shouldn't taxes be to support services that you need?

I agree with some of your points... most communities 60% or more of your property taxes are for our broken public schools! They need a better way to pay for schools... tying a noose around property owners necks isn't going to solve the money issue.. or lack of it.

[swnoel]

Originally Posted by swnoel

I agree with some of your points... most communities 60% or more of your property taxes are for our broken public schools! They need a better way to pay for schools... tying a noose around property owners necks isn't going to solve the money issue.. or lack of it.

I just read in an article recently in Manchester NH , 72% of the taxpayers don't even have children! https://www.nhbr.com/November-9-2018...ublic-schools/

[lagoon]

Originally Posted by AC2717

yes correct, tax based on values on a market assessed value. What I am saying is that market assessed value should not be apart of it

All of that is correct but, many lake front homes are not new and year round and are from the age of true cottages. They are owned by folks who love the lake area and have long been the backbone of taxes in the area. I have contested tax rates appraisals several times and the explanation is never as clear as I have seen in these posts.

The fact is they are much more likely to tax you on the frontage, the view and not the value of the place at all. Most of use with cottages are considered tear downs if the place is ever sold. We strive to maintain the lake life of old and value the area, the friends and the towns that surround the lake areas.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by lagoon

The fact is they are much more likely to tax you on the frontage, the view and not the value of the place at all.

If you are on the lake, the value of the place IS the frontage and the view. If you disagree, and you are on the lake, I recommend selling your current place, moving to a nicer house just a few hundred yards away, and pocketing $500K or so.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Biggd

Everyone that owns waterfront property would love your proposal but everyone else would be paying more and hate it. Because no matter what they still have to collect the same amount. It would just be divided up differently.
What you're willing to sell it for has no bearing on value. I sold my house to my son at a discounted price but he is still paying taxes on it's assessed value and if he went to sell it he would get a much higher price than what he paid for it. That's why when you go to sell a house it is appraised by looking at comparable properties that have recently sold. It's not a perfect science but it's pretty close .

That just proves the old adage that the only good tax is one that someone else has to pay.