T1B

BSmack wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see a property tax cap artificially inflating the market value of property. Not around here, anyway.

You just said that you estimated that your local assessors would have to jack up the assessed value of your home by 5x to raise the same revenue they are getting from you now. That, by definition, will raise the value of your property.

Ahh, but now you're talking assessed value. As you know full well, actual value is something quite a bit different. Regardless of where the house is assessed, in actuality it will never be worth more than I could get for it on the market.

Is it possible that actual value will increase the actual property values somewhat? I suppose so, but nowhere near the 5x or so I mentioned. And working against that is the fact that the real property market here is clearly a buyer's market. For example, in the town where I live, I have lived here 11 years. In some places, that would make me one of the longer-tenured residents. Here? Well, most people who live here live here because their parents, grandparents, and in some cases, great-grandparents and so on, lived here. I'm probably the most recent addition to the community over the age of, oh I dunno, 11 or so.

We have citizens who pay state, county, town, school and village taxes.

I'd be one of them. Of course, I could vote with my feet, and eliminate at least the village tax aspect. But there's a non-monetary quid pro quo there as well.

In my case, being in the village means that there are kids for my kids to play with within walking distance. I don't have to drive them somewhere everytime they want to play with a friend. That's not always practical, let alone economical.

Also, moving out of the village and into the outlying town, mostly rural in character, would necessitate the acquisition of a large dog, given the population of coyotes out in the rural areas (they generally leave the village alone, since that was pretty densely populated by the time they moved in). My wife and kids are cat lovers, so we have a few. I'd also want a dog to protect my 3-year-old just in case (I'm pretty sure the coyotes would leave the 10-year-old alone).

But your solution of streamlining government is the best bet, imho.

BSmack wrote:We also lose a lot of old folks (wassup Big O?) to southern climates with lower tax rates.

Please don’t tell me you really believe retirees move from NY because of the tax rates?

It’s the climate, stupid.

Goober McTuber wrote:

BSmack wrote:We also lose a lot of old folks (wassup Big O?) to southern climates with lower tax rates.

Please don’t tell me you really believe retirees move from NY because of the tax rates?

It’s the climate, stupid.

And if you lowered the tax rates, you would have more retirees keeping and maintaining their homes for use in the summer months. Where would you rather be in July? Up north? Or in Florida?

BSmack wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

BSmack wrote:We also lose a lot of old folks (wassup Big O?) to southern climates with lower tax rates.

Please don’t tell me you really believe retirees move from NY because of the tax rates?

It’s the climate, stupid.

And if you lowered the tax rates, you would have more retirees keeping and maintaining their homes for use in the summer months. Where would you rather be in July? Up north? Or in Florida?

Of course, you do have a fair share of snowbirds, who leave here in late fall and return around May, already. That share of the population will always be there, no matter what you do.

BSmack wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

BSmack wrote:We also lose a lot of old folks (wassup Big O?) to southern climates with lower tax rates.

Please don’t tell me you really believe retirees move from NY because of the tax rates?

It’s the climate, stupid.

And if you lowered the tax rates, you would have more retirees keeping and maintaining their homes for use in the summer months. Where would you rather be in July? Up north? Or in Florida?

Do you honestly believe that there are many retirees who could afford to maintain two homes, just because they’d paying a few thousand less in taxes? You’re just being argumentative, right? You’re not really this stupid.

Goober McTuber wrote:BTW, the deal around here is that assessed value cannot exceed 100% of market value (it typically runs around 95%), and they do look at comparable recent property sales to help determine market value. So for the first time in memory, my assessment remained the same, as did many others. I fully expect an increase to the mill rate, something we have not seen in many, many moons.

To coin a phrase: When The Man decides he's taking your money, voters' will be damned -- they're taking it.

Same here. Assessed value will be determined on sales, not some estimate the local government deems for their own needs.

Derron wrote:I still cannot understand why you would pay those high taxes...those have to be 50% or more of your mortgage payment...and that goes for Dallas, or any of those other high tax areas....you simply cannot get enough government services to justify that...if you did get a sweet deal....great....I mean there are people in million dollar homes here paying less than 5K a year in property taxes....

And from what I've posted here, by next year probably go into effect in 2010), legislation should be passed to where I will be paying around $6k/year which isn't too bad. I've got more equity in my home than pricipal on mortgage so yeah, this year and most of next kinda suck. That is what I knew going in that the first year adn a half I'd get plungered, but after than it will be much more reasonable.

Goober McTuber wrote:Do you honestly believe that there are many retirees who could afford to maintain two homes, just because they’d paying a few thousand less in taxes? You’re just being argumentative, right? You’re not really this stupid.

I didn't say that. So I'll leave it to you to define "many".

And back to your original point, yes, there are a lot of New Yorkers for whom the taxes are too onerous as they approach their golden years. Sure, the sunny weather is a draw. But if sunny weather was the only factor, they would do like my in-laws do and simply take long vacations down south during the winter months only to come back when the weather is warm again.

BSmack wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:Do you honestly believe that there are many retirees who could afford to maintain two homes, just because they’d paying a few thousand less in taxes? You’re just being argumentative, right? You’re not really this stupid.

I didn't say that. So I'll leave it to you to define "many".

And back to your original point, yes, there are a lot of New Yorkers for whom the taxes are too onerous as they approach their golden years. Sure, the sunny weather is a draw. But if sunny weather was the only factor, they would do like my in-laws do and simply take long vacations down south during the winter months only to come back when the weather is warm again.

The number of people who would choose to keep or not keep their homes based on a couple thousand dollars in taxes would be miniscule. My parents live in a gated community in Florida. They do what most people down there do in the summer when they want to get out of Florida. They visit their kids up north.

^^^^^^
gets it !

I first thought of keeping my place back in CNY, tried to no avail to get my younger son to live there free and commute to his work in Ithaca. I finally realized it was stupid to have two places, so I sold the old home, We travel north every year and visit our kids and other people usually in the summer. This year we went up in early October as I wanted to see the fall which is about the only thing CNY has to offer that I really miss.
My kids visit us here too--I pay for their travel. If they have the time---we have the place for them to come and get away from winter for a while. Got a nice pool and we are 15 minutes away from the beaches at Sanibel Island. Life is good !