Moultonboro assessor larceny

[rsmlp]

So I just got my new "proposed" assessment and my land value magically increased by 16.5%. our property is waterfront. I checked our neighborhood and EVERYONE'S land increased by 16.5% if on the water. I then checked other waterfront in Moultonboro and apparently ALL waterfront has increased by the same %. WOW. Amazing how all properties in one town can increase by the same % across the board!

This strikes me as nothing but a huge money grab by the town and property owners must show their outrage.

I will be appealing but I suspect I know the outcome...

[Sue Doe-Nym]

We hear you! We have the same new proposed assessment. Just imagine the glee at town hall, with all the extra $$$$ to play with. It is imperative that the millage be reduced significantly, and it’s possible that the Selectboard will be diligent in this. The new assessment is not so problematic; it’s the millage and how our tax bills are impacted. JMHO.

[Little Bear]

The Tuftonboro assessors must have attended the same "money grab" class that the Moultonborough assessors attended. My assessment went up 50% for an island property.

[Wifi-1]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

We hear you! We have the same new proposed assessment. Just imagine the glee at town hall, with all the extra $$$$ to play with. It is imperative that the millage be reduced significantly, and it’s possible that the Selectboard will be diligent in this. The new assessment is not so problematic; it’s the millage and how our tax bills are impacted. JMHO.

For sure, lakefront owners will bear a greater percentage of the tax collected, therefore, their tax bills will be higher. The big question is what new project will be sprung on the taxpayers ? Another try at a swimming pool, senior center or ??

[Biggd]

Moultonborough has always had the lowest waterfront taxes of all the Winni waterfront towns. Now you're being bent over like everyone else.

[kjkam]

Laconia did the same thing about 2 years ago, all lake front up 30% on the land value, with the exception of commercial properties which several received abatement.

[Descant]

This old thread seems to come up every year. Only the name of the town changes.
If spending doesn't go up, and the assessment does go up as required by state law to keep pace with market value, then the tax RATE goes down. You won't know the tax rate until it is set in October by the state. Of course, most town finance officers can usually estimate any change within a penny or two before they send the paperwork to the state. (Trivia: Actually, it's done on line though the Municipal Tax Rate Setting Portal, MTRSP. I just learned that yesterday.)

[kjkam]

If you were a conspiracy theorist....

Year before town election, increase assessments on the people most likely not to have the ability to vote, their taxes go up, but the overall rate decreases, so those whose assessments did not change actually get the benefit of a reduction in taxes, and have the ability to vote, voters are happy, politicians get reelected, wait 2-4 more years and repeat....

[loonguy]

Has Moultonborough land that is not waterfront property also been assessed at a higher value this year and, if so, what is the typical percentage increase? The prior posts appear to assume only waterfront property assessments have been increased; perhaps one of the authors of prior posts has the details for all property and can share such information on the forum.

[tummyman]

Things look questionable. Last year my waterfront land went down 1.9%, now it is up 16.67%. And every one in our neighborhood went up the same percentage. This is the possible penalty of the town switching assessors this year to a new firm. And there are no details available for any properties. No property cards. Nada. And the BOS was never informed of what the results of the new assessments were before they were mailed. And the TA was on vacation. People need to make a loud noise about this.....it is outrageous.

[panther]

16.67% increase for me too. Will be watching carefully for final rate in Oct.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

According to our letter from the town, a printed listing of all proposed values is available at town offices and public library. We will be reviewing that. It will be important that taxpayers pay attention to the proposed budgets and millage rate! We are not unhappy with our assessment per se, but their methodology might be questionable. If they are going to do an “across the board” valuation, this should be up for discussion. For instance, what parameters are they using? There are so many variables when you are evaluating a [waterfront] property
(location, water quality, etc.). Should be interesting. Let your Selectboard members know your concerns.

[winni83]

The 2019 Preliminary Values are on the Town's website in PDF format.

See

https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/sit...y_location.pdf

[Lakegeezer]

Posted on the town web site is a list of increases:
The results of the PRELIMINARY 2019 Valuation Update are as follows:
Waterfront improved increased 11.8%
Residential improved increased 5.6%
Residential Vacant increased 10.9%
Manufactured Housing increased 1.4%
Residential Condos increased 1.3%
Commercial improved increased 4.1%
Industrial improved increased 4.7%
Overall the town increased by 9.6%

As mentioned, waterfront land went up 16.7% while people's "back lots" went up about 8%.

The only positive spin I can think of is that non-waterfront lots will see their taxes decrease, helping to attract more full-time residents to the low-taxed town.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

I just checked it out online. For Squam waterfront....OUCH!
As for properties we are very familiar with, there are some definite discrepancies. What each owner does re their own property is up to them, but more worrisome is the final millage rate.

[LIforrelaxin]

Well I see I am not the only one that was outraged by my property Tax Assessment this year in Moultonborough.

The good news is I had the property appraised back in the Spring, and well it didnt appraise for either the old or now new assessed value...

So yes I will be appealing as well.

NH has many fiscal anomalies, being overzealous on seasonal property assessments is on of them......

Fortunately I feel like I have good data on my side, but we will see....

By the way, my neighbor is trying to sell for roughly the new assessed value, I don't think it has sold.... my appraisal is a 200K delta..... Bottom line is someone is cooking the books.... All in the name of trying to keep NH "Tax Free", which is a crock of, well never mind.....

[Woodsy]

I don't get what the big deal is.....

When was the last time your assessment went up? Was it double digits last year? Taxes are inevitable...

Woodsy

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I don't get what the big deal is.....

When was the last time your assessment went up? Was it double digits last year? Taxes are inevitable...

Woodsy

Woodsy, in all places where I have owned property, the Assessed values is very close to if not exactly the same as the fair market value of the Property.

The only place I have owned property that is not that way is NH.... The Assessed values have always been higher then the fair market value of the property. For the most part I am willing to take the good with the bad, and don't get fired up about the difference I know is there. But some odd years ago the Assessed values jumped considerably... causing a surge in property taxes while keeping the tax rate the same..... Now here we go again doing the same thing.... effectively raising the take rate but hiding it by higher assessment values.....

This happens all over NH, from what I can tell.... All in an effort to keep that "Tax Free" image....

What I don't like is being told that the value of my property is considerably more then it really is..... If I could sell it for the Assessed value, I wouldn't have an issue, but I know I can't.... and the delta between fair market value and assessed value is now around 200K in my case....

I am guessing that delta means I am paying an addition 1.6K per year in taxes, on a property value that I can't realize.....

I am not looking for my taxes to go down.... I am really after true assessment value.... and truth in Tax Rates..... We should not be see discrepancies like this.....

[Sue Doe-Nym]

LI,you might have a legitimate question/complaint. The question is...how many who are so irate would actually sell their property at its assessed value? Oh, no? I didn’t think so! In other words, if you are complaining about your $800k assessment, but wouldn’t consider selling for under $1 million, kwitcherbitchin.
P.S. This doesn’t apply to those who have a legitimate issue with this.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

LI,you might have a legitimate question/complaint. The question is...how many who are so irate would actually sell their property at its assessed value? Oh, no? I didn’t think so! In other words, if you are complaining about your $800k assessment, but wouldn’t consider selling for under $1 million, kwitcherbitchin.
P.S. This doesn’t apply to those who have a legitimate issue with this.

Yes your point is valid.... Here is the thing, if I was offered the assessed value I would very much consider selling the property.... My property has a simple camp, season structure, that is less then 10% of the value.... So they are telling me all my value is in the land. Which again I am fine with, I know if I sell the next owners are likely to demolish the camp and build something year around..... However if the fair market value of the camp, is 200K less with the season structure on it, what I am being told, is if I want to sell I should first demolish the structure, so that the land is worth more......

End of the day this is all semantics.... NH needs more tax revenue, most of the towns do not want to raise tax rates.... So when the state ups it share, their counter measure is to raise property values.... Do we really not see the problem here..... It called telling the truth....tell me the truth, and I am happy, Lie to me so that your state doesn't have to institute a sales tax or income tax, and inflate the value of personal property over the fair market value, I am not happy......

What everyone in Moultonborough should have recognized is that the Assesment company is new this year, likely because the old company would not just simply raise the value of the land. There are multiple layers going on here, and it all semantics......

Bottom line is they have raised my Taxes... That I am fine with.... Do it honestly and not hidden, and I go away no problem....

What I am taking issue with is not the taxes, it is telling me that my property is worth something that I can not reasonable sell it for.............

[tummyman]

Seems to me that when we had Donor towns that they used gross assed values to determine the shares. So we need to be careful that the assessed values are not too out of line. There is too much variation now between last year and this year. Wonder how much is due to the new appraisal firm.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

My husband spoke with the assessor’s assistant, and it sounds as though assessments are being done properly. They are aware of inconsistencies that will need correcting over time, through the appeals process and so on. Property values have increased a lot over the past few years, and it’s to be expected that the property assessments will follow suit. That, in itself, is not a bad thing because the two valuations are supposed to be in sync with each other. What should concern us all is the tax rate that will be set in another two months or so. Unless the powers at Town Hall intend to go wild with the next budget, I would certainly hope that we see a substantial reduction in the tax (millage) rate for the next year. We need to keep a close eye on this and be involved.

[Descant]

I'm amazed at the lack of understanding here. The State of NH does not get any of the local property tax. In March, you pass a town budget. On April 1, assessments are set. Allowing time for all this to settle out, in October, the state sets a tax rate for each city/town. Tax bills go out in December. Most towns run on a calendar year. The state runs on a fiscal year, July 1, so there are some schedule differences. Yes, there is a statewide property tax for education which mostly goes back to the town it came from. In my mind, it's a little subterfuge to meet the requirement of the Claremont lawsuits for education funding. In addition, the state redistributes a portion of the Meals and Rooms tax BACK to the towns to help reduce the local property tax burden. The state also gives money back to towns for school building aid, low cost revolving loans for sewer an water infrastructure. There is also a Clean Drinking and Groundwater Trust fund from which the state gives low cost loans and GRANTS for water projects and land purchases to protect the watershed around water sources, such as ponds and wells. Let me think. What else? Moultonboro budgets $200K/year for milfoil control. The state matches a portion of that. DES develops control master plans and supervises management efforts. You get DASH (Diver Assisted Suction Harvesters) which were bought with donations, mostly raised by your local, Stewart Lamprey... All to benefit shorefront owners.

Your local tax rate is based mostly on local spending (Town Meeting Budget and SCHOOL budget, the big bucks.) If voters approve big budgets you get bigger taxes.

Business and industry do not get to vote on these budgets, only residents. In Moultonboro, shorefront non-residents are the industry. You pay taxes, but no vote. You can vote with your feet, and leave. There are plenty of folks willing to buy your house. If you think you are taxed unfairly compared to neighbors, there is an appeals process, first within the town and then to the state Bureau of Land Tax Appeals.

As an island resident (Gilford) I can use my property for only part of the year. I can't send my kids to school. But I pay taxes based on market/assessed value. Fortunately, the Gilford Island Association and the BOS work well together and we get nice docks, Glendale, dumpsters, a fire boat and other cooperative efforts. The non-resident shorefront owners in Moultonboro should consider forming an association to work with the town on common issues. Or have you already such a group and the whiners don't participate?
Here endeth the rant.

[tis]

Descant, I agree with you except I would question your point that most of the education tax comes back to our towns. If you are one of the "rich" towns on the lake, most likely you are paying more and getting less back. If you have info on this I would love to see it. They have been playing around with bringing back the donor town tax which would cause us to pay even more. We all better get out and protest that because just by have high valued property, we already pay more When they had the donor town tax before cities like Manchester built new million dollar ball fields with it.

[jeffk]

I sold my lake house in Moultonborough in 2015 for 4.4% over the assessed value. The only time you really KNOW whether your assessment is accurate to market value is when you have money in hand from a sale.

Assessment is a complex ESTIMATION and all you can really hope for is that the evaluation criteria are fair and that they are fairly applied to all. Further, since part of the process is the resultant price of current house sales, it will always be a moving target.

If ALL the property in town was appraised for for 10% more and the budgets of the town/county/etc did not change, your property TAX would not change because your assessment would remain the same proportion of the overall town valuation. Lake property, like it or not, usually is rising faster in value because it is more desirable and prices are bid up. In bad economic times, it can also crash more.

If your property is proportionately a bigger slice of town valuation because its value has increased, you owe a larger proportion of tax. That's how property taxes (and income taxes) work. It the overall town value went up around 10% and your value went up 17%, you are likely to be paying more tax but how much is NOT a 17% tax increase. You won't know until the budgets and rates are officially set.

But be cheerful! If you WERE to sell, you would get more for your property! I was certainly happy that my lake house increased 3.3 times what I bought it for 21 years prior. And I didn't begrudge the higher property tax the increased value brought over the years. If I had bought NON lake property for the same original value, I would have paid less tax and made a LOT less money on the sale. PLUS, I got to live in it for 21 years! WHAT A DEAL!

[Descant]

Originally Posted by tis

Descant, I agree with you except I would question your point that most of the education tax comes back to our towns. If you are one of the "rich" towns on the lake, most likely you are paying more and getting less back. If you have info on this I would love to see it. They have been playing around with bringing back the donor town tax which would cause us to pay even more. We all better get out and protest that because just by have high valued property, we already pay more When they had the donor town tax before cities like Manchester built new million dollar ball fields with it.

Yeah. Schools are a problem. A big political problem. More often than not, when the legislature fumbles the ball, the referees (courts) take possession and put it someplace nobody expected and then they say "Keep playing, but make up some new rules". Across the state, look at the thriving charter schools, church based schools and other private alternatives, even home schooling. On top of the taxes, so many people are looking at and using alternatives to traditional public schools, at significant personal expense (time if not money). And I have a separate diatribe about school finances, but that's not really part of this discussion about property assessments.

[swnoel]

This what happens when out of staters don't clean their baggage and bring the things they were running from! Remember it's for the children... do you hate children?

[Descant]

Originally Posted by swnoel

This what happens when out of staters don't clean their baggage and bring the things they were running from! Remember it's for the children... do you hate children?

I do. My oldest was three weeks old when we moved here after my Naval duties were completed, so they all grew up in NH.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by jeffk

But be cheerful! If you WERE to sell, you would get more for your property! I was certainly happy that my lake house increased 3.3 times what I bought it for 21 years prior. And I didn't begrudge the higher property tax the increased value brought over the years. If I had bought NON lake property for the same original value, I would have paid less tax and made a LOT less money on the sale. PLUS, I got to live in it for 21 years! WHAT A DEAL!

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.

[Wifi-1]

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.

I wish the IRS would do the same calculations.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

FYI, in case you don’t already know this: Moultonborough tax rate is currently $7.72 per $1000 assessed value, which follows:
Municipal. 2.44
Local school. 1.94
State edu. 2.10
County. 1.24
The only categories under town control are municipal and local school budgets. Many feel that the school budget is consistently bloated, yet few want to deny any request made, as being against the children. 🙄 The school population declines while the budget increases . 🤨 There were TWENTY FOUR graduates in this year’s senior class! 🙁 No wonder the taxpayers are getting sick and tired!
Sorry for the rant. This is a topic for another thread.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

P.S. If our taxes are to stay the same (Ha! Fat chance!), the tax rate needs to go from 7.72 to 6.82. 😀

[tis]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

P.S. If our taxes are to stay the same (Ha! Fat chance!), the tax rate needs to go from 7.72 to 6.82. 😀

Usually they do go down but in a few years they are right back up even above that 7.72 that you had but with the high valuation. They tell you how low your rates are hoping you will forget why.

[tbonies]

Great summary. The reality is, no matter what the issue, cause or rationale, some people (usually the same people) will rant if they have to pay more for anything. Just the way it is. My guess is, at the macro level, most waterfront appraisals are reasonably close to what the property could be sold for.

Originally Posted by Descant

I'm amazed at the lack of understanding here. The State of NH does not get any of the local property tax. In March, you pass a town budget. On April 1, assessments are set. Allowing time for all this to settle out, in October, the state sets a tax rate for each city/town. Tax bills go out in December. Most towns run on a calendar year. The state runs on a fiscal year, July 1, so there are some schedule differences. Yes, there is a statewide property tax for education which mostly goes back to the town it came from. In my mind, it's a little subterfuge to meet the requirement of the Claremont lawsuits for education funding. In addition, the state redistributes a portion of the Meals and Rooms tax BACK to the towns to help reduce the local property tax burden. The state also gives money back to towns for school building aid, low cost revolving loans for sewer an water infrastructure. There is also a Clean Drinking and Groundwater Trust fund from which the state gives low cost loans and GRANTS for water projects and land purchases to protect the watershed around water sources, such as ponds and wells. Let me think. What else? Moultonboro budgets $200K/year for milfoil control. The state matches a portion of that. DES develops control master plans and supervises management efforts. You get DASH (Diver Assisted Suction Harvesters) which were bought with donations, mostly raised by your local, Stewart Lamprey... All to benefit shorefront owners.

Your local tax rate is based mostly on local spending (Town Meeting Budget and SCHOOL budget, the big bucks.) If voters approve big budgets you get bigger taxes.

Business and industry do not get to vote on these budgets, only residents. In Moultonboro, shorefront non-residents are the industry. You pay taxes, but no vote. You can vote with your feet, and leave. There are plenty of folks willing to buy your house. If you think you are taxed unfairly compared to neighbors, there is an appeals process, first within the town and then to the state Bureau of Land Tax Appeals.

As an island resident (Gilford) I can use my property for only part of the year. I can't send my kids to school. But I pay taxes based on market/assessed value. Fortunately, the Gilford Island Association and the BOS work well together and we get nice docks, Glendale, dumpsters, a fire boat and other cooperative efforts. The non-resident shorefront owners in Moultonboro should consider forming an association to work with the town on common issues. Or have you already such a group and the whiners don't participate?
Here endeth the rant.

[jeffk]

You have an interesting point of view.

If your point is that an investment in property is not a good investment because of the costs involved, I would agree with you. If the point were to make money I would rather have money in a reliable stock. Property has taxes, maintenance, insurance, utilities, and other costs, all of which tend to proportionately rise over time and take a larger piece of the returned sale value. Further, a lot of the costs are out of your control and beyond your planning. You don't buy property as an investment, not if you want to maximize your returns. You buy property to use. THAT is it's value. The cost to own, including taxes, are associated with ownership.

As to the rising proportional amount of taxes, THAT is because the town keeps raising spending. Some of it is due to rising costs but other things are because the town planners want to provide shiny new things to its citizens and the resident, voting citizens agree. As far as I know, anyone in the country that uses property (unless you live in your parent's basement) pays taxes on it; either directly as the owner, or indirectly through rent. It's a way to pay the costs of running a town. And as far as I know, everyone gripes about the amount of taxes paid. It's the true national sport.

However, some of the tax increase, based on where you live and the rate of value increase compared to the rest of the town, is due to increase of value. That value is additional money in your pocket at the time of sale and New Hampshire funds its local spending based on that value. The reality that it is a part of the cost structure of property ownership doesn't diminish the fact that you are paying more because your property is more valuable. If your grandfather bought a lake front property for $50,000 and you sell it for $2,000,000, that's still $2,000,000 in your pocket no matter how much tax has been paid through the generations. If the property wasn't lakefront and only increased to $300,000 in value, you would have paid a lot less in tax and get a lot less in your pocket from the sale. I am OK with paying the addition required tax to live on the more valuable lake property. Just like I was OK with paying more to buy the property in the first place.

What I said is I don't begrudge the tax paid over the years, any more than I begrudge the propane I had to buy and the new roof I had to put on, AND I got a higher return on my lake property than I would for non lake property. The tax is not causative of the value increase, just a necessary evil associated with it. I knew the tax was part of the ongoing costs when I bought the property. I knew taxes would increase over time and I knew some of it would come from increasing valuation.

My only concern through the years has been that I am being taxed equitably compared to others with similar property. At one point, I realized they were taxing me on an inaccurate description of the house and I had two other valuations done that came in lower than my appraisal. I won an adjustment. But to be honest, at the time of sale, I wondered if the lower appraisal also lowered the sale price of the property. If so, I would have happily paid the increased tax to get a higher sale price. There's no way to be sure.

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.

[longislander]

Death and taxes ......

Surprised nobody has proffered the differences of market value, to appraised value, to assessed value, over time. Historical data is relevant to relevant history, however.

A point not made yet, relative to Moultonborough's available data, is on the town website in the tax/gis section, and then the Vision Property card section. The property card has "appraised value" and "assessed value" side by side. You pay taxes on the assessed value.

Market value ... in the eyes of the beholder.

Perusing the April 1st, 2017 to March 30th, 2019 Moultonboro sales report can give an idea of some recent relevance of market value to assessment.


https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/sit...ale_report.pdf

[DickR]

Originally Posted by longislander

.....
Perusing the April 1st, 2017 to March 30th, 2019 Moultonboro sales report can give an idea of some recent relevance of market value to assessment.

Scanning that report, I don't see any obvious upward trend in sale price vs assessed value for shorefront properties. Some went higher, others went lower.

[chasedawg]

Originally Posted by rsmlp

So I just got my new "proposed" assessment and my land value magically increased by 16.5%. our property is waterfront. I checked our neighborhood and EVERYONE'S land increased by 16.5% if on the water. I then checked other waterfront in Moultonboro and apparently ALL waterfront has increased by the same %. WOW. Amazing how all properties in one town can increase by the same % across the board!

This strikes me as nothing but a huge money grab by the town and property owners must show their outrage.

I will be appealing but I suspect I know the outcome...

You thought Moultonboro was bad at 16.5%. How would you feel if your waterfront property even on an island went up 49% like ours did and most everyone that has called me in Tuftonboro.

[winni83]

I checked on my waterfront land assessment and it did go up by 16.67%. I checked a sampling of 4 of our acquaintances in Moultonborough on different parts of the Lake and their waterfront land values also went up by exactly the same factor of 16.67%. Our respective shore fronts have wildly different characteristics – walk in sandy beach, perched beach, no beach (all ledge), etc. How is that possible when as I understand it, the assessment of the land is supposed to be based on the value of that individual parcel? Unless the answer is that the values prior to this preliminary re assessment were perfect and without error so that all the “expert” had to do was apply one percentage increase across the board, this makes no sense. That approach would certainly hold down the “experts” cost of doing the work. The response that the final tax rate may (???) not result in a tax increase is not satisfactory since if the assessment is flawed, then that does not make the final tax any less flawed. It will be interesting to see that the State Department of revenue Administration thinks of this valuation methodology.

[Wifi-1]

Maybe they are just jacking everyone up, and processing the "equality" thru the abatement (complaint) process ? Cheap and dirty and they will come out ahead, as many people either won't know or want to spend money on a lawyer.

[swnoel]

My question is ... Could you sell your property for the assessed value? If you can prove you can't you have a valid complaint. Otherwise ... it's for the children.

[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.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by swnoel

My question is ... Could you sell your property for the assessed value? If you can prove you can't you have a valid complaint. Otherwise ... it's for the children.

So here is my delemia, based on some investigative work, I could sell my property for something close to the assessed value..... Unfortunately how long it may take me to do so is another question entirely....

On place in my area was for sale, for 2+ years off and on, and the other was on sale for now 1+ year, and may have sold.... and a third sold within I believe 18 months..... All places have about the same amount of land, and the land is all valued roughly the same.....

Now if I look at my appraisal done this year, his price is based on selling the property within 6 Months....

This all makes my head hurt.... I was thinking of fighting my assessment, but now I am not so sure... I believe essentially I would have to prove, that I couldn't sell it for the Assessed value.... when two recent sales say I could....

[Woodsy]

Who does Moultonboro use for the appraisal? No doubt they don't do it themselves. When was the last time your property was assessed?

Most likely your value was determined by that 6 month old sale, and the sale of similar properties in neighboring towns all fed into a silly computer that spits out the assessed value! UGH!


Woodsy

[Sue Doe-Nym]

The town, in its wisdom, got rid of Vision Appraisals and hired a new one, and the name escapes me. It appears that all the waterfront land appraisals have magically gone up 16.67%, which means that the new guys are considering the old assessments to be flawless, which is certainly not the case. Without going into detail, our next door neighbors have an extraordinarily high assessment, which they are appealing. If this is the procedure they are going to use, we don’t need to be paying big bucks for something so mediocre. JMO.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

So here is my delemia, based on some investigative work, I could sell my property for something close to the assessed value..... Unfortunately how long it may take me to do so is another question entirely....

On place in my area was for sale, for 2+ years off and on, and the other was on sale for now 1+ year, and may have sold.... and a third sold within I believe 18 months..... All places have about the same amount of land, and the land is all valued roughly the same.....

Now if I look at my appraisal done this year, his price is based on selling the property within 6 Months....

This all makes my head hurt.... I was thinking of fighting my assessment, but now I am not so sure... I believe essentially I would have to prove, that I couldn't sell it for the Assessed value.... when two recent sales say I could....

Or you can cherry pick sales that are favorable to your opinion while the assessor may do the opposite. Who's "opinion" is right?

Think about it this way.... let's say your place is worth 500K FMV. The house next door is identical. If the house next to you sells after several years on the market for 1 million does that make yours worth the same? The assessor may say yes. On the flip side if the house next door were to be foreclosed and sold at auction for 250K is your place worth 250K? You KNOW the assessor would say hell no.

Just sayin....

[robmac]

well I for one will look for an hearing,due to the fact I don't have a school aged child as I did in southern NH and FL to trim my burden

[winni83]

Not having children in a town’s school system in New Hampshire is totally irrelevant in terms of your assessment or ultimate tax. But let us know if that argument gets you any relief.

[tis]

Originally Posted by winni83

Not having children in a town’s school system in New Hampshire is totally irrelevant in terms of your assessment or ultimate tax. But let us know if that argument gets you any relief.

Of course it won't. It is totally about what they think the value of the property is nothing else. That doesn't mean some of it isn't opinion though. Comparison to other equal property is the only thing that could change their assessment unless something is wrong like size or something like that.

[longislander]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

The town, in its wisdom, got rid of Vision Appraisals and hired a new one, and the name escapes me. JMO.

From website:

“Whitney Consulting Group LLC (WCG) has been contracted by the Town to measure and list approximately 1,200 properties (20% of the town)"

About Whitney Consulting Group, LLC
President, Stephan Hamilton
Mr. Hamilton served as the Director of the Municipal and Property Division of the New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration for over ten years. In that role, he was responsible for the supervision of the collection of property taxes, organization and reporting of municipal finances within the state, the setting of local tax rates, supervision of local property assessments in the state, the equalization of local assessed values, the administration of timber and gravel taxation, and the administration of a state utility property tax.

Mr. Hamilton served for twelve years as a member on the NH Assessing Standards Board, …

He served for more than ten years on the NH Current Use Board and served as its chairman for the last four years.

Mr. Hamilton has worked in property taxation for the last twenty years in several roles: for five years as an assessor in Manchester, New Hampshire; for four years as an appraiser for the New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals; and as the assistant assessor for the Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire. Prior to these public positions, he was a Certified Commercial Real Estate Appraiser, and he helped run a family real estate appraisal company for 14 years

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Or you can cherry pick sales that are favorable to your opinion while the assessor may do the opposite. Who's "opinion" is right?

Think about it this way.... let's say your place is worth 500K FMV. The house next door is identical. If the house next to you sells after several years on the market for 1 million does that make yours worth the same? The assessor may say yes. On the flip side if the house next door were to be foreclosed and sold at auction for 250K is your place worth 250K? You KNOW the assessor would say hell no.

Just sayin....

Thats the issue, there is an amount of the worth of a piece of real estate that is personal opinion... The Appriaser I used, picked properties for comparison that he thought where similar.... but another appraiser may feel there where a different set "similar properties" I am far from done looking at this... but I am not so hung up on being ready to meet with the assessor.... Because I can see the argument from the other side, after looking at some data.....

Now, if other residents want to get together and go to a town meeting and object to the fact that everyone's land values went up an enormous amount, I will be there for that.

Bottom line, NH is a great minimal Tax state for people that live there, but the property tax season home owners have to deal with is unbelievably high.... I get that my property on the lake is something special.... but what about the person that just has a cabin in the woods....

[tis]

It IS a lot of opinion.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Bottom line, NH is a great minimal Tax state for people that live there, but the property tax season home owners have to deal with is unbelievably high.... I get that my property on the lake is something special.... but what about the person that just has a cabin in the woods....

The shoreline property of this lake and many others like it has long ago surpassed being affordable by a Regular Joe NH resident.

Almost every shore front owner complains about the property appraisals and the taxes... (its my 2nd home, I have no services blah blah blah) You can blame your neighbors.. the ones who sold out and cashed out... ultimately raising the value of your property to the point where it becomes unaffordable to you or your family. Then you too will sell out and cash out.

It sucks... but it has been that way for generations.

Woodsy

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The shoreline property of this lake and many others like it has long ago surpassed being affordable by a Regular Joe NH resident.

Almost every shore front owner complains about the property appraisals and the taxes... (its my 2nd home, I have no services blah blah blah) You can blame your neighbors.. the ones who sold out and cashed out... ultimately raising the value of your property to the point where it becomes unaffordable to you or your family. Then you too will sell out and cash out.

It sucks... but it has been that way for generations.

Woodsy

The point is being missed, what we are seeing in Moultonborough isn't just about the shore front property owners. I know who and what is to blame for lake front property values.

While the lake front property values went up the most, across the board the town just increased the taxable value of every piece of property. Even the guy in the woods.... Here is the thing that is wrong with that. Should every paracel of land be worth the same amount, as long as it is the same size?

I looked at the land values for every property on the road I am on, most of which are exactly the same size. Guess what they are all the same... Now mine has no landscaping, others are highly landscaped. (none anymore are wooded)... Some are easily build able, others like mine are not With the current set back laws building on my property become difficult, as it is pie shaped. But I have the same number of feet on the water as everyone else, so my property value is the same.....

Has it always been like this yes. I remember my father objecting to the Town, back in the nineties.... Bottom line in some regards these values are being derived based false metrics.

I completely agree with the structure values that a in the report. In fact i think they have undervalued everyone house.

Bottom line, is and still is, NH is willing to screw those that are willing to invest in their state. Eventually the lake is going to become the state of the Rich, and their servants because no-one else is going to be able to afford property Taxes.....

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Bottom line, is and still is, NH is willing to screw those that are willing to invest in their state. Eventually the lake is going to become the state of the Rich, and their servants because no-one else is going to be able to afford property Taxes.....

It already is... and has been for quite some time!

The question you should be asking is how much was the valuation jump last year? The year before?

If there has been a small percentage increase each year, then this is just the town catching up to the current real estate market that suffers from low supply & high demand.

If there has been double digit percentage increases the last few years as well then the problem bears a deeper look.

Woodsy

[tis]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

It already is... and has been for quite some time!

The question you should be asking is how much was the valuation jump last year? The year before?

If there has been a small percentage increase each year, then this is just the town catching up to the current real estate market that suffers from low supply & high demand.

If there has been double digit percentage increases the last few years as well then the problem bears a deeper look.

Woodsy

They only reassess every few years, not every year-I forget how many. But it is state law they must keep them at 100% valuation.

[jeffk]

It is more complex than just a physical reassessment. They are not only doing a reassessment of 20% of the properties but also a " Statistical Update of values".

Here is a link to the town's explanation. UPDATE.

Durham NH went through a Statistical Update of values in 2018 Durham UPDATE and their property assessments went up 16% as well. A statistical assessment assesses the whole town valuation and raises the overall assessment of town property valuation to match predicted current value. It is law that NH towns must make good efforts to keep assessed values as close to market as possible so they MUST do this. AGAIN, if the whole town is valued more and the budget does not increase, the tax rate will drop and your tax payment would not change.

Further, it is not clear to me that Vision has been "replaced" with Whitney Consulting Group LLC. I think they contracted with Whitney to do the specific visitation and measure portion of the physical reassessment. So there likely is no "plot" to get a new assessor to boost values.

If you have been reassessed, validate the details carefully for accuracy. Check how much the TOWN valuation increased. If your property increased by 15% but the whole town increased 17%, you actually LOST a little value, comparatively. Watch for the town, county, and school budgets to be set and check for increases. Then wait for the tax rate to be set before you panic.

[tummyman]

Wrong....Vision is totally out of the process except the town, under a contract, is still using their property record card for this year. But the whole deal is under a new consultant....NO Vision input. And watch out for your taxes as there is no indication that town spending will offset any increase. Moultonborough is on a spending spree....ever see the BOS apply any of the unassigned free cash balance to offset tax rate increase? No, me neither. The last approach was to spend, spend, spend and not rebate any prior year overcharges that resulted in unassigned money.

If you are a lakefront property owner, most everyone saw a blanket 16.67% increase in land values....everyone. No details are available as to how this rate increase was calculated. Lots of questions.

Wishing that the tax rate will offset the increased assessments is a stretch. Never going to happen.

[Islandbum]

I wonder if businesses got hit the same. They should probably be assessed higher than homeowners. Ie the marina at end of Long Island,that yahct club near Trexlers, Trexlers themselves, and that trailer park just past them. Can’t think of any others but probably there are more.They make money off the lake and should therefore be on the hook for higher taxes. JMHO

[Islandbum]

I should of been clearer in my earlier post....referring to businesses ON the lake.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by Islandbum

I wonder if businesses got hit the same. They should probably be assessed higher than homeowners. Ie the marina at end of Long Island,that yahct club near Trexlers, Trexlers themselves, and that trailer park just past them. Can’t think of any others but probably there are more.They make money off the lake and should therefore be on the hook for higher taxes. JMHO

Just curious as to why the commercial rate should be higher than residential. Where I'm from it's always a debate - some towns have different rates while others keep the rate the same for both.

As a homeowner, I say jack up the commercial rate, but as a business owner, I say keep them the same...

You can have different rates for residential and commercial use, but cannot simply change assessments.

[Descant]

Assessing databases are online.
http://gis.vgsi.com/moultonboroughnh/
No need to "wonder if"
Let us know what you find.

[winni83]

More detailed Moultonborough information, such as property tax cards, are also on line at:

https://www.axisgis.com/moultonboroughNH/

[Islandbum]

No horse in this race.....sold up there long ago. Hoping to return for good someday tho.
But shouldn’t an entity making revenues off their waterfront pay a little more? I know commercial assessments are higher where I live now. Then again taxes here are ridiculously high on everything including income.
Maybe the assessment are the the same up there, will look thanks to both previous posts with websites.
Thanks for the input folks.

[TiltonBB]

If you want assessments to be on anything other than fair market value you would open up a big can of worms.

If you think a waterfront business should be taxed more because they make money off the lake then what other things will people think of that should affect the tax rate?

I have no kids in the school system so I should be taxed less?

I have never called the police or fire department so I should be taxed less?

My house is on an island so I get a slow response from any town services and don't require plowing so I should be taxed less?

[Descant]

Tilton BB. In a sense you are taxed less. The market value of your island home reflects the seasonal occupancy and the lack of services. If you had the same house on the mainland with comparable shorefront the assessment and the taxes wuuld be much higher. You knew that, right?

[jeffk]

It seems that land that is developed as a commercial property is probably more valuable, to a point. But property tax is based on the estimated sales value of the property, not how successful the business is. We have a business profits tax for that.

[gwhite13]

I defer to the particulars but, not to long ago an estate in Moultonborough sold for several million, was only taxed for less than a single million. That may be where the crux of the issue may lay. Still love the town though.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by gwhite13

I defer to the particulars but, not to long ago an estate in Moultonborough sold for several million, was only taxed for less than a single million. That may be where the crux of the issue may lay. Still love the town though.

If there was significant land in current use, the property tax could have been low. The land could be very valuable on the market and the town will collect "Land Use Change Tax" when it comes out of current use. Alternatively, the house and a lot could have been assessed at a million and an adjacent but separate valuable parcel could have been part of the deal. Too many variables to draw conclusions.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Descant

Tilton BB. In a sense you are taxed less. The market value of your island home reflects the seasonal occupancy and the lack of services. If you had the same house on the mainland with comparable shorefront the assessment and the taxes wuuld be much higher. You knew that, right?

Yes, I do know that properties are taxed on fair market value and island properties are typically valued less than a similar property on the mainland.

A prior poster took the position that because people on certain properties made their living from the lake should be taxed more because of that.

My attempt was to point out that people could come up with any number of reasons why they should be taxed less (or more). The system that only takes into consideration the fair market value of the property seems the most equitable at this time.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

If you want assessments to be on anything other than fair market value you would open up a big can of worms.

If you think a waterfront business should be taxed more because they make money off the lake then what other things will people think of that should affect the tax rate?

I have no kids in the school system so I should be taxed less?

I have never called the police or fire department so I should be taxed less?

My house is on an island so I get a slow response from any town services and don't require plowing so I should be taxed less?

Tilton BB makes some good points. Fair market value and assessed value are supposed to be close. The assessor doesn’t care whether your ten kids are home schooled....or whether you only spend six months of the year here.....or any of that extraneous nonsense. Whether or not the homeowner rents his property out during the season should have no bearing on the assessment.....he will get nailed when he pays income taxes.

[tummyman]

Take a look at the video tape of the September 19th BOS meeting or the minutes from that meeting. NUMEROUS issues pointed out to the Select Board, but nothing came from it. Blind to all the issues.

[ITD]

Property tax should be eliminated and a head tax be instituted. People over 18 years old would pay the tax. Take the levy, divide it by the number of residents and that is your bill. For part time residents, cut the levy in half per person. Everyone would have the same amount of skin in the game and spending foolishness would stop.

[WinnisquamZ]

Originally Posted by ITD

Property tax should be eliminated and a head tax be instituted. People over 18 years old would pay the tax. Take the levy, divide it by the number of residents and that is your bill. For part time residents, cut the levy in half per person. Everyone would have the same amount of skin in the game and spending foolishness would stop.

With a RE tax you can take the property for non payment. With a individual head tax, what do you take?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[macbeth]

Originally Posted by ITD

Property tax should be eliminated and a head tax be instituted. People over 18 years old would pay the tax. Take the levy, divide it by the number of residents and that is your bill. For part time residents, cut the levy in half per person. Everyone would have the same amount of skin in the game and spending foolishness would stop.

That's kinda like how socialism works isn't it? Who in the right mind would want this other then people or are well off and want to save MORE money then the taxes that they seem to have atty's for to bury your money elsewhere. I can't see anyone in the REGULAR WORK FORCE wanting to pay so you can stay on your island with 3 boats and pay less for your property on the lake.

Once again this is Common Sense. Which a lot of people have none. Just as long as they are not inconvenienced, everything is OK.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by ITD

Property tax should be eliminated and a head tax be instituted. People over 18 years old would pay the tax. Take the levy, divide it by the number of residents and that is your bill. For part time residents, cut the levy in half per person. Everyone would have the same amount of skin in the game and spending foolishness would stop.

This would be a great way to transfer a big chunk of the burden from older, wealthier people to younger less wealthy people with kids.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by ITD

Property tax should be eliminated and a head tax be instituted. People over 18 years old would pay the tax. Take the levy, divide it by the number of residents and that is your bill. For part time residents, cut the levy in half per person. Everyone would have the same amount of skin in the game and spending foolishness would stop.

It’s unrealistic to expect the elimination of the property tax, BUT it’s unfair, in my opinion. I think that non-resident taxpayers should have some say in the local government since they’re paying a substantial amount of the expenses, and the locals capitalize on that when they’re making demands (gym, rec center, bus for rec dept., etc.). Our primary residence is here, although we are not here for almost half the year, but we don’t expect to have our taxes cut by half. Being here or not is a personal choice, and should not result in a 50% tax cut ( I would not turn it down, however! ��) Also, if you want to reduce non-resident taxes, why not apply that to part-time residents who own MA property on Cape Cod, Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard? After all, let’s be fair!

[JEEPONLY]

Originally Posted by ITD

Property tax should be eliminated and a head tax be instituted. People over 18 years old would pay the tax. Take the levy, divide it by the number of residents and that is your bill. For part time residents, cut the levy in half per person. Everyone would have the same amount of skin in the game and spending foolishness would stop.

Sounds like the Three-fifths Compromise in reverse- good to be less than a person!

Surprised FLL didn't pick up on this- being from the "down and out" side.

[tis]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. The principle refers to free access to and distribution of goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist system will be capable to produce.

[ITD]

I'm not seeing the socialism connection with the idea, but it does seem like a more equitable distribution of the burden. Progressive tax plans are more in line with socialism. Don't like the 1/2 payment for the seasonal residents, make it 1 1/2 times then. The point is everybody feels the effect of stupid spending.

[tbonies]

Originally Posted by ITD

Property tax should be eliminated and a head tax be instituted. People over 18 years old would pay the tax. Take the levy, divide it by the number of residents and that is your bill. For part time residents, cut the levy in half per person. Everyone would have the same amount of skin in the game and spending foolishness would stop.

Surprise surprise. A rich dude recommending a regressive tax. Such a lazy and tired post.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by ITD

I'm not seeing the socialism connection with the idea, but it does seem like a more equitable distribution of the burden. Progressive tax plans are more in line with socialism. Don't like the 1/2 payment for the seasonal residents, make it 1 1/2 times then. The point is everybody feels the effect of stupid spending.

I agree with you on your point that “everybody feels the effects of stupid spending.” After that, your argument falls apart. If you own property in NH, you need to pony up 12 months of taxes each year, whether or not you are here for 6 months, 1 month, or 1 day....even 0 days. If I owned property in MA, I would expect to do the same.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by tbonies

Surprise surprise. A rich dude recommending a regressive tax. Such a lazy and tired post.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Talk about a lazy tired post, make a point other than ad hominem.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

I agree with you on your point that “everybody feels the effects of stupid spending.” After that, your argument falls apart. If you own property in NH, you need to pony up 12 months of taxes each year, whether or not you are here for 6 months, 1 month, or 1 day....even 0 days. If I owned property in MA, I would expect to do the same.

My latest version changed it to 18 months of tax in a year for the part time residents.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by ITD

My latest version changed it to 18 months of tax in a year for the part time residents.

This discussion is going nowhere fast. Several facts: 1) if you own real estate, you pay property taxes; 2) if you’re a non-resident taxpayer, you cannot vote there, and this applies everywhere, to my knowledge ; 3) if you can prove personal income is not adequate to pay taxes, you might receive some relief from that town. Other than that, anyone owning property in any state needs to pay 100% of the tax bill. Owning property is a choice, and how many weeks or months you stay there is also a choice. We own property out of state, and we pay the taxes (also condo fees), and don’t vote. We also don’t complain about it because it was our choice to do what we did. This whole discussion is different from the wasteful town expenditure one, and the voters need to tackle that with town officials and at the voting booth.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

This discussion is going nowhere fast. Several facts: 1) if you own real estate, you pay property taxes; 2) if you’re a non-resident taxpayer, you cannot vote there, and this applies everywhere, to my knowledge ; 3) if you can prove personal income is not adequate to pay taxes, you might receive some relief from that town. Other than that, anyone owning property in any state needs to pay 100% of the tax bill. Owning property is a choice, and how many weeks or months you stay there is also a choice. We own property out of state, and we pay the taxes (also condo fees), and don’t vote. We also don’t complain about it because it was our choice to do what we did. This whole discussion is different from the wasteful town expenditure one, and the voters need to tackle that with town officials and at the voting booth.

Lighten up, you're preaching to the choir Sue.... I knew what I was getting into when I bought my property. I just shake my head and pay my taxes. It's fine with me until the day it isn't. On that day I will list my property and hopefully make a fat profit, fat enough to cover all the taxes I paid plus a nice increase in capital out laid to buy it in the first place. That's the issue with the assessment, properties undervalued, selling for 20% more than the assessed value consistently. The valuation is supposed to be 100%.

Moultonboro has a lot of pretty sensible people who are full time residents here and for the most part don't seem like wild spenders. The issue, I believe, are transplants, used to living in cities and they have blind trust in politicians. Their population is increasing.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

What has been erected at Playground Drive at a cost of $125k +/- , lovingly paid by our taxpayers, are basically expensive chemical toilets. Many of us thought this expenditure to be frivolous and unnecessary, but there it is, and it’s not as excessive as some of what the powers that be have in the works for us. ��
P.S. Many, not all, local residents like to stick it to waterfront and non-resident taxpayers, as evidenced by town meetings year after year, wailing for a new gym, community center, etc. Last year’s graduating class had 24 seniors! Most of us do not see the need for a 6.5 million dollar expenditure. See, ITD, we are trying to save your hard-earned money!

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

What has been erected at Playground Drive at a cost of $125k +/- , lovingly paid by our taxpayers, are basically expensive chemical toilets. Many of us thought this expenditure to be frivolous and unnecessary, but there it is, and it’s not as excessive as some of what the powers that be have in the works for us. ��
P.S. Many, not all, local residents like to stick it to waterfront and non-resident taxpayers, as evidenced by town meetings year after year, wailing for a new gym, community center, etc. Last year’s graduating class had 24 seniors! Most of us do not see the need for a 6.5 million dollar expenditure. See, ITD, we are trying to save your hard-earned money!

Fortunately the whiners seem to be in the minority, for now. Chemical toilets are nasty.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by ITD

Fortunately the whiners seem to be in the minority, for now. Chemical toilets are nasty.

Actually, the whiners won the simple majority for the big expenditure, but a super majority was necessary because financing was needed. Too close for comfort. We dodged a bullet in March.

[Wifi-1]

Majority of the selectmen are out of control. Such as signing that 16.66% property re-evaluation BEFORE listening to objections from the citizens. It was all pre-decided.

[fatlazyless]

Kraine Meadow Park has a new old rest rooms, now in re-construction. Looks like it had a former life as a lumber camp out-house, supposedly from the north woods, somewhere in Stark, NH.

Is looking so very stark ....... will be a stark restrooms ...... from Stark, NH for very very short money.

Just don't anyone be complaining about the new stark, short money, rest rooms at the tennis courts.

Total town cost to purchase old outhouse from Town of Stark was one dollar ...... and worth every penny! Retrofitted with latest composting toilets ...... for a very happy non-flush!

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by Wifi-1

Majority of the selectmen are out of control. Such as signing that 16.66% property re-evaluation BEFORE listening to objections from the citizens. It was all pre-decided.

The proposed property re-evaluation is not a done deal. Real estate is currently selling above assessed value, in most cases. What we need to worry about is the millage rate, TBD. We are encouraged that 3 of the 5 BOD members are fiscally conservative and are holding the Town Administrator accountable, particularly Chuck McGee. BTW, the tax rate is set by the DRA. Stay tuned.

[Pineedles]

Did I read that right Sue, 24 graduating seniors in Moultonborough? Anyone know what the per pupil expense is for all Moultonborough students?


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app