This is really in response to Al's old post (quoted at the bottom here) and may be a stupid question -- but is there any reason not to have a system which would base people's property taxes on the market value of the house the last time it was sold (plus, perhaps, a modest allowance for inflation, say 3% a year, although I just made that number up?)
That way property taxes would remain relatively stable for people who are staying in the same house, and they wouldn't be exposed to the ups and downs of the housing market (not being exposed to those presumably being a big part of their motivation for having bought a house and paid off the mortgage!) and the people who are buying houses would know what they're getting into. The reason I say to base things on the market value of the house at the time of sale is to avoid the obvious things that happen when people sell their houses to family members for $1 (although one might want to make some sort of exceptions to the rules for people who are, say, moving into and assuming ownership of their parents' houses). And yes, I know that the "market value" is whatever someone will pay, but the reality is that there are sometimes special circumstances surrounding a sale and one would have to find a way to fairly determine what the house could sell for if those circumstances didn't exist. (Of course, then what if prices start falling? Then the people who bought in before prices started to fall would complain...) Isabel On 8/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Of course some of our local real estate professionals would simply say its > time for such people to move on so we can save these homes through their > sales to new urban not-so-pioneers. And, of course the sellers can find > somewhere else to live and die in poverty. > > Perhaps one reason some of the current list-posting-upstarts don't like > SpecialK is because he embodies the compounding of independence with real > social responsibility, not hide the problem elsewhere. > > Has Wendell yet addressed the issue of ethnic and financial community > makeover, or is that something his masters have not authorized in light of > the recent spate of development for $2K to $3K per month housing units? > > Ciao, > > Craig > > > ________________________________ > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:57:52 EST > Subject: Re: [UC] I Guess Breadlines Were "Fair", Too (was Thank God For > Alan Butkovi... > > > > In a message dated 3/13/2006 2:16:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Where are the people supposed to get the money from to pay this > "fair" tax? > > It may be true that taxes on homes in our part of West Philadelphia are low > by some standards -- especially when they're viewed in terms of what real > estate prices have been in the area for the past few years. Someone buying a > $450,000 home on Pine Street or Osage Avenue, for instance, not only gets a > good price relative to comparable amenities in Gladwyne or Jenkintown, but > pays less in total property taxes as well. And individuals like that may be > figuring taxes will go up but still be able to pay them without getting into > a financial bind. If so, God bless them. > > But there are still a lot of people in this area, I'd say they're in the > majority but have no data to back this up, for whom this isn't the case. > They're people who bought here long ago when prices were cheap (in part > because the folks in the socio-economic-education category of those now > moving here were then following the head lemming into the 'burbs), or who > got their parents house, etc. Many in this category sweated to pay off their > mortgages long ago so don't have that worry to add to things like heating > and other utility bills, taxes, insurance, etc. > > The fact that their $10,000 or $25,000 or $40,000 bought-and-paid-for house > is now worth $250,000 as-is or maybe $450,000 with a little upgrading > doesn't help them. Notwithstanding an insensitive (or naive) comment by the > Usurper (Lewis Wendell if I'm being too cryptic) at the first or second Dog > & Pony Show (NID public meeting run by UCD if I'm again being too cryptic), > it may not be an option for folks in this category to take out home equity > loans on their increased property values. Because those loans have to be > paid back -- adding to the monthly burden on someone who may be struggling > on fixed or modest incomes to make ends meet already. > > Al Krigman > Left of Ivan Grozny > > PS: And, yes, it's true that as a housing provider I can pass increased > costs on to my tenants. At least to the point where I lose them to other > neighborhoods. But don't assume that the money just rolls in so people like > me who try to make a living this way, and who support not only our own > households but those of our direct employees and our contractors this way, > are in a position to pay whatever freight happens to come along. If you > think that it isn't a struggle for some of us to make ends meet, or you > disbelieve that many of us don't make personal sacrifices to meet our > obligations to those who depend on us, you're mistaken. > ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
