![]() |
![]() |
|
Home | Forums | Gallery | Webcams | Blogs | YouTube Channel | Classifieds | Register | FAQ | Donate | Members List | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Topsfield
Posts: 57
Thanks: 5
Thanked 12 Times in 4 Posts
|
![]()
I have a friend who lives near San Fran, apparently their RE tax is set by the original purchase price, its only reset when the property sells. She bought in the early seventies, and is sitting pretty relative to paying low RE taxes. The state will get its re-val when the property sells and new owners come in.
If this is indeed the way it works in CA, I like it. Seems like a better approach. It doesn't force out older folks who are on a fixed income. Plus, I'd imagine it forces the state to balance the books in a more broad based way. Right now seems to me that NH's obsession with not having an income tax and not having a sales tax forces the state to come after us RE owners. I'm tired of floating the boat for renters, non resident workers, border crossing shoppers, etc. Add to that that us islanders have virtually no burden on the town....no school, fire protection, garbage pickup, etc. NH needs to find a way to share the tax burden, not depend so much on RE owners. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Gilford
Posts: 50
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
![]()
One more plus for changing residence to FL is the fact that I could get a homestead exemption on my property taxes. As many now have pointed out,an income tax in NH would drive many high earners to other no tax states. Factiod: people live here just because of the no income, no sales tax enjoyed by NH. Change it and arevia taxpayers.
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: phoenix and moultonboro
Posts: 1,558
Thanks: 61
Thanked 276 Times in 194 Posts
|
![]()
California had a ballot initiative started by a man named Jarvis called prop 13 that passed I think in 1978. It was response to the same problem now facing Nh that is a continued increase in property taxes. prop 13 set taxes ( i believe)at 1% of value with value being 1978 or whenever the latest price it sold at.
__________________
it's tough to make predictions specially about the future |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: So. California & Lakes Region
Posts: 256
Thanks: 225
Thanked 106 Times in 61 Posts
|
![]()
Correct...prop 13's biggest benifit is that you know when you buy your place exactly what your property taxes will be. So many spend a higher percent of their household income on mortgage payments because they know what their obligation will be. HOWEVER....we have sales tax (anywhere from 5 to 81/2 %)depending on the county you live in and we have a state income tax. However if you are a property owner the tax on your income and sales tax is known and something as long as you work and make spending decissions you have more control over. Even though I also have a place in NH and plan to retire there, the property tax on the very small lakefront parcel I have is the same as my CA house which I paid a lot more for than the NH place. My worry as with many others in NH is that once I am on a fixed retirement income, the largest wildcard factor is my tax obligation on the property. No state income tax or sales tax is not the reason I decided to make the move.
BTW Ca. governer just cut a huge amount from the budget (billions) because of revenue shortfall from the changing economic climate. No tax increase to offset the huge deficit. While many are unhappy as it will impact many social service programs, I have not heard a peep about raising taxes and suspect that in this election year that will not be a discusion topic in CA. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|