Moultonboro assessor larceny

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

That's interesting math but does it actually work out in your favor?

Taxes are an annual expenditure that directly erode any gain in value meaning that the value of the property has to exceed the growth of the taxes paid annually in order for you to come out on top.

For example if your tax bill is 8K per year that would mean your property would have to beat that year over year in value increase. Since the taxes paid are on an upwards sliding scale so too must the property value. Keep in mind that if your property value goes down, stagnates or basically doesn't keep up with the annual taxes you're in the red.

So for a real world example my primary residence has doubled in value in 20 years of ownership... yay right? Nope! Now my property assessment has been fairly accurate in tracking the actual market value so no complaint there per say BUT my property taxes have gone up just shy of 5X over in that same time frame and have consistently outpaced the actual annual increase in home value so I have essentially spent the equivalent to all that increase in value incrementally in the form of taxes. What a deal.

The problem is people don't look at the cost to hold property just look at what it's worth when it's sold versus what it was purchased for. It's not zero sum game. In NH, property is not the best of investments in fact if at the end of owning a piece of property you end up breaking even after calculating all the holding and transaction costs consider yourself lucky.

Hmmm...completely accurate yet completely misleading all at once. Your lake house or land is not an investment, it is a luxury good. Taxes on that luxury good are not a penalty or investment expense, they are the cost of performing services that benefit you and other residents. That some people make money on lake houses (using whatever definition you'd like) is terrific, but not the definition of success here.

[WinnisquamZ]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Hmmm...completely accurate yet completely misleading all at once. Your lake house or land is not an investment, it is a luxury good. Taxes on that luxury good are not a penalty or investment expense, they are the cost of performing services that benefit you and other residents. That some people make money on lake houses (using whatever definition you'd like) is terrific, but not the definition of success here.

Same can and should be said about every home you purchase. Equity is not guaranteed, as many realized in 2008


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Sue Doe-Nym]

In response to Winni83’s thoughtful post: I agree with you 100%. The Town of Moultonborough doesn’t need to employ a team of “experts” , whose job is to add the same %age increase across the board to waterfront properties. Any low-level employee can multiply last year’s assessment x 1.16 and achieve the same result our “expert” did! That is just crazy! Those in charge of our town finances do not mind wasting taxpayers’ money. Spending responsibly should be everyone’s goal. 🙁

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Hmmm...completely accurate yet completely misleading all at once. Your lake house or land is not an investment, it is a luxury good. Taxes on that luxury good are not a penalty or investment expense, they are the cost of performing services that benefit you and other residents. That some people make money on lake houses (using whatever definition you'd like) is terrific, but not the definition of success here.

I wasn't referring to a lake house this is my primary residence also in NH, which is an average house in an average town who's tax rate hovers in the low to mid 20's per thousand. I didn't realize a house is a luxury item.

In 20 years of ownership I have paid out ~133% of the purchase price in taxes on a assessed gain of 100%. It gets even worse if I factor in other holding costs, but for the purposes of this discussion I'll stick to just taxes.

Speaking of luxurious lake houses... my island camp has actually turned out to be a better ROI running just slightly ahead of the taxes paid to assessed value increase since I have owned it.

The problem I see is that nobody actually pays attention to all the costs associated with property ownership only look at the purchase versus sell price. Acquisition costs, holding costs such as taxes, mortgage, upkeep, renovations etc... are never part of the equation. It's not a money maker if the aforementioned is running multiples of what gain is realized. Right now for every dollar that I make on my house will cost me $1.95 when all is said and done BEFORE any real-estate transaction fees and commissions. In other words it's a huge net loss in the long run.

[JEEPONLY]

So, to get your percentage of increase, are you folks taking the difference between the new assessment (higher) and the old, and then dividing it (the difference) by the old assessment?

As mentioned above- i can see how you can multiply the old assessment by 1.(whatever) and get the new assessment total, but that's only if you already know the rate of increase.

Sorry, majored in English.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Math was not my strong suit either.....so when I figured the %age increase your way, we are up only 13%.
I am not faulting our new assessment as much as the “ across the board” methodology that the assessors apparently used. The waterfronts and quality of water (clear vs. murky) are not uniform and should be assessed/taxed accordingly.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Sorry to be posting so much. I made an error in computing the assessment by doing the entire thing, land and buildings. Jeep, your way is correct, and doing land only = 16.67%. For all you math geniuses: please be patient. 🙄

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

I wasn't referring to a lake house this is my primary residence also in NH, which is an average house in an average town who's tax rate hovers in the low to mid 20's per thousand. I didn't realize a house is a luxury item.

In 20 years of ownership I have paid out ~133% of the purchase price in taxes on a assessed gain of 100%. It gets even worse if I factor in other holding costs, but for the purposes of this discussion I'll stick to just taxes.

Speaking of luxurious lake houses... my island camp has actually turned out to be a better ROI running just slightly ahead of the taxes paid to assessed value increase since I have owned it.

The problem I see is that nobody actually pays attention to all the costs associated with property ownership only look at the purchase versus sell price. Acquisition costs, holding costs such as taxes, mortgage, upkeep, renovations etc... are never part of the equation. It's not a money maker if the aforementioned is running multiples of what gain is realized. Right now for every dollar that I make on my house will cost me $1.95 when all is said and done BEFORE any real-estate transaction fees and commissions. In other words it's a huge net loss in the long run.

OK, this is all reasonable. Against these costs you might estimate the amount you would have spent in rent to live in a similar home.