| Author |
Message |
    
Sayitaintso
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 1:57 pm: |     |
On a stock portfolio, you don't pay taxes on a gain until it is liquidated.
By using the peak of the Real Estate market, I'm being taxed on my un-realized gain.
I'm not saying that we wait until a property is sold to assign taxes, but the time that the revaluation was made, makes it unfair.
Since the data that was collected is not tied to a time, it can be used with any valuation. The whole process does not need to be repeated just the numbers applied for valuation... |
Mammabear
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 2:17 pm: | |
The point you're missing is that they need to find $xxx for the budget, etc. The reval is just a way of re-assigning people their fair share of the pie, based on their current property value. How else would you divide it up? Would it make you feel better if Certified had used 25% of your property value and then had the TC use a higher multiplier for your tax responsibility? |
Sayitaintso
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 2:37 pm: | |
No, you're missing the point. The use of a "current propety value" is not fair. It is taken at a single point in time. It does not consider the ebs and tides reflected in any supply/demand market. An average over a longer period would be more fair. I'm not the one who "drove up the price" in a bidding war. Nor am I the one who can benefit from this price increase, unless I move. But I will pay for it in a tax increase.
Sorry, but a > 30% increase is significant, and I'm only looking at a small house...10K for a 3brm/1.5bth???? |
Nicky
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 2:45 pm: | |
I think what he's questioning are the numbers used in the assessment. If what they're saying is true- the land value component is estimated at 1 million an acre for the westside(same as Old Summit)can certainly artificially inflate an assessment. |
Mammabear
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 3:47 pm: | |
From what I understand, they will be continually adjusting values going forward. Didn't Gerry say that in a previous thread? What happens right now, might change next year or the year after. (The will be tracking sales data, etc.)
What other ideas do you have for distributing our tax burden? What would be more "fair" in your eyes? Should we all be taxed the same amount?
In addition, please remember that it seems like the only people who have any "issue" with the reval are the ones with increases. You don't see people crying because they may have overpaid for the last 5 years do you? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Certified made some errors. But I'm also sure they will be corrected. The bottom line is that the town needs to collect xxx amount of dollars for the budget. I ask you again, how would you like that to be split up amongst the residents of Maplewood? |
Dave23
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 3:53 pm: | |
Mammabear:
I think those of us who are seeing a spike in taxes are not at all opposed to a fairer distribution of the taxes. I'm seeing a 50% increase of my "fair share."
The issues that I have are:
1) That this was done during an overinflated market.
2) That I'm seeing a 50% increase less than 6 months after buying my house.
3) That many elderly people on fixed incomes won't be able to afford the new taxes.
4) That this will place a downward pressure on an already softening market, prompting property values to drop.
In no way do I want others to pay my "fair share". However, I do think that, in my case, a 50% spike is unfair. What's the solution? Not sure. |
Mammabear
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 8:46 pm: | |
I still don't understand why it matters what kind of "housing market" was occuring when they did the reval. The bottom line is that they need to collect a certain amount of money, i.e. we are all going to be responsible for paying a OUR piece of the pie. So, in essense, it doesn't matter what your reval number is so much as it matters what tax rate they will apply to that value. See what I mean?
$400K x 2.66% = $10,640
$200K x 5.32% = $10,640 |
Loyo65
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 9:34 am: | |
This is what I have been asking all along! And who sets that tax rate? Why do I keep hearing 2.66? If the tax rate is set lower than 2.66 these enormous increases will disappear. Someone please answer the following questions: WHO SETS THE TAX RATE? Is is definitely going to be 2.66? |
Eliz
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 9:55 am: | |
Loyo65 - you need to revisit basic math - you can't just lower the tax rate - that's not the problem. The tax rate comes at looking at the total assessments for all properties and then how much money the town needs to operate = the tax rate. If they just lower the tax rate then they don't have enough money for the budget.
By the way if many of these homes that were incorrectly valued are valued down the tax rate will go up - not down - as the town has to make up for lost income. |
Sac
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 3:05 pm: | |
As I understand it, the quoted 2.66 rate is strictly a translation of last year's 10.21 rate based on the 384% increase in total ratables. (i.e. 10.21/3.84 = 2.66). So 2.66 is the rate that would have applied for 2000 if the assessments had already been in place. This is PAST HISTORY and cannot be changed. The 2.66 does not include any adjustment that may be applied to account for changes in budget needs for 2001, but it does allow you to compare your actual 2000 tax figure with what it would have been under the new assessments to understand the impact of the reval. |
Kayceecee
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 2:51 pm: | |
Yes, the re-eval was done at a time of inflated real estate values, but that means ALL of our houses are overvalued in that market. We were all re-evaluted at the same time. And how many bedrooms and baths a house has is only one aspect of the entire property value. And to those people who say their property value assessment went up dramatically right after they bought it, what I want to know is just what were you paying in taxes before! My guess is a lot less proportionately than a lot of others whose homes are valued at half of yours or less. |
Jfb
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 10:29 am: | |
Kayceecee,
Not true. I did not see bidding wars on east side homes.
As prices drop, as they are doing now, those on the east side should not drop much because they never reach the "artificial" highs that the west side experienced.
The market is softening now. Add in a recession and stock market woes and you have sliding prices. |
|