Austin tax burden up 25% in seven years (Detroit, Rule: taxi, high income)

[sojourner77]

Originally Posted by tom331

The low income home owners could not wait to 65!

Then I guess they will have to take the $400K profit they made, and go drink away their sorrows with it.

[Trainwreck20]

Financial realities have always been a key ingredient in American development, both socially and geographically. The number of people 'forced' (i.e. cannot re-arrange their finances to afford to stay) is probably very small when you look at the population of that state. And maybe the tax burden is up 25% over the last 7 years? Over the last 15, ours is up about 35%. Higher and lower at any given time in between, but pretty flat for many years.

If you want guaranteed housing, look at what you got in E. Berlin or Cuba. They keep it all fair. Nothing guarantees that you will be able to move to place 'x' and be able to stay there forever. Nothing.

[scm53]

Ok, I'm sure all the really smart people here can explain this to me.

Any governmental body has a tax base. They also have services they need to provide. In year 1, tax base X rate yields XXX dollars. Next year, city (let's just assume it is a city) doesn't grow in size, but inflation means costs more to deliver same services. But tax base grows by inflation so the same rate produces more real dollars, but the same purchasing power.

Scenario two. City is growing in population. More citizens means more services. But more citizens means more tax base. So again, why does the rate need to increase? You delivered adequate services at rate X. Why can't you deliver the same services at the same rate to a tax base that expanded due to new residents?

Scenario three. City isn't growing that much. Service demand don't really grow from year to year. But due to many factors, value of the tax base is growing faster than inflation - meaning the same rate yields more dollars. Why wouldn't you keep the rate at a point to deliver the same dollars (adjusted for inflation)? In that scenario, the rate should actually go down - while the bill only increases by the amount of inflation.

Seems like Austin (and the budget charts that started this prove it) is in a weird blend of all three. Value of the tax base is growing - due to higher appraisals and more property being built to accommodate more residents. Then why does the rate need to go up? Why doesn't the same rate produce more than enough revenue to meet the required services, adjusted for the population growth?

I think it is because council needs their wanter fixed. But that's just me. It seems like we are a family that buys a house at 3X household income. Salary goes up - but we decide that old standard is hopelessly outdated and we really need a 4X house. But the 3X house was good enough - maybe didn't meet our newly found self image, but it worked. But that simplistic mindset doesn't exist at 2nd and Lavaca. There is never a want that is turned away. So the values, growing faster than inflation, are taxed at an ever higher rate.

It isn't that anyone has a "right" to stay in their house forever. But any taxing body has a responsibility to their citizens to behave responsibly to their taxpayers. Call me a curmudgeon, but responsible to the taxpayer isn't the first thing I think of when it comes to most taxing entities in Austin/Travis County.

[124c41]

My neighbor calls the Tax Assessors " legal thieves." Hard to argue.....

[tom331]

Originally Posted by 124c41

My neighbor calls the Tax Assessors " legal thieves." Hard to argue.....

It is called "landlord". The property owners will be kicked out if they don't pay the "rent".

[ericsami]

Originally Posted by 124c41

My neighbor calls the Tax Assessors " legal thieves." Hard to argue.....

yes I am sure he still likes his fire services that lets him have home insurance in the first place.

and I am sure he likes the law enforcement that let's him sleep in peace at night.


people just like to b**tch and moan about the tax man.

but they still like all the services that a government must provide.

Austin and TriCounty area does not have perfect government by any means.

but compared to the rest of the country we are relatively safe, relative corruption free.

one has to keep things in perspective.

[ericsami]

Originally Posted by sojourner77

The biggest single aspect that ticks me off is that the people who MOST benefit from the increased value from gentrification are usually the ones who did the LEAST to make it happen.

How to make money in Austin RE:

step 1: Buy a cheap house

step 2: crack open a beer and sit on the porch, watching your neighbors give blood, sweat and tears to repair houses, and open thriving businesses over the next 10 years

step 3: complain about your tax bill

step 4: sell for a profit that far exceeds what you've earned the last 10 years at your day job.

step 5: Repeat



It takes a HUGE sense of entitlement to be angry about gentrification.

well it is not entirely without pain.

They have to put up with degraded service from the city.
Put up with more crime.

but kidding aside. there are a lot of people who are on fixed income or families with many kids.

my beef is mostly with people who constantly complain about why they would have to pay ACC taxes since they got no kids or school taxes and blah blah.

[ericsami]

Originally Posted by scm53

Ok, I'm sure all the really smart people here can explain this to me.

Any governmental body has a tax base. They also have services they need to provide. In year 1, tax base X rate yields XXX dollars. Next year, city (let's just assume it is a city) doesn't grow in size, but inflation means costs more to deliver same services. But tax base grows by inflation so the same rate produces more real dollars, but the same purchasing power.

Scenario two. City is growing in population. More citizens means more services. But more citizens means more tax base. So again, why does the rate need to increase? You delivered adequate services at rate X. Why can't you deliver the same services at the same rate to a tax base that expanded due to new residents?

Scenario three. City isn't growing that much. Service demand don't really grow from year to year. But due to many factors, value of the tax base is growing faster than inflation - meaning the same rate yields more dollars. Why wouldn't you keep the rate at a point to deliver the same dollars (adjusted for inflation)? In that scenario, the rate should actually go down - while the bill only increases by the amount of inflation.

Seems like Austin (and the budget charts that started this prove it) is in a weird blend of all three. Value of the tax base is growing - due to higher appraisals and more property being built to accommodate more residents. Then why does the rate need to go up? Why doesn't the same rate produce more than enough revenue to meet the required services, adjusted for the population growth?

I think it is because council needs their wanter fixed. But that's just me. It seems like we are a family that buys a house at 3X household income. Salary goes up - but we decide that old standard is hopelessly outdated and we really need a 4X house. But the 3X house was good enough - maybe didn't meet our newly found self image, but it worked. But that simplistic mindset doesn't exist at 2nd and Lavaca. There is never a want that is turned away. So the values, growing faster than inflation, are taxed at an ever higher rate.

It isn't that anyone has a "right" to stay in their house forever. But any taxing body has a responsibility to their citizens to behave responsibly to their taxpayers. Call me a curmudgeon, but responsible to the taxpayer isn't the first thing I think of when it comes to most taxing entities in Austin/Travis County.

Austin has to raise revenues ( usually means higher tax rates) for the same reason that U.S Federal Revenues have to go up (usually means higher tax rates).

Our infrastructure is old and we have got away for a long time not doing the required maintenance and upgrades.

baby boom generation is getting older and gradually not paying into the system but rather benefiting from it.

resources such as water are more expensive than ever because generation unwisely considered it as infinite resource.

Our Students no longer just need to know how to read and write to compete. They will have to compete with Korean students who have dedicated parents holding their hand through the entire process.

There is whole slew of reasons why the country/city needs to raise revenues.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by ericsami

well it is not entirely without pain.

They have to put up with degraded service from the city.
Put up with more crime.

but kidding aside. there are a lot of people who are on fixed income or families with many kids.

my beef is mostly with people who constantly complain about why they would have to pay ACC taxes since they got no kids or school taxes and blah blah.

That was voted on a long time ago and if that upset them so much they could have just moved to where ACC tax was not collected like Pflugerville who also said no to Cap Metro back in the day.

And then you have the pitiful showings at elections where the vocal minority get their say and get laws passed that the majority are against.

There are cheaper places to live further away from Austin.
If you can't afford it anymore then sell for that profit and move further out.

[Biscuits]

Originally Posted by ericsami

yes I am sure he still likes his fire services that lets him have home insurance in the first place.

and I am sure he likes the law enforcement that let's him sleep in peace at night.


people just like to b**tch and moan about the tax man.

but they still like all the services that a government must provide.

Austin and TriCounty area does not have perfect government by any means.

but compared to the rest of the country we are relatively safe, relative corruption free.

one has to keep things in perspective.

If taxes only went towards the essentials that you mentioned, then I could accept it. They don't.

I'm curious, who do you think is the bigger drain on public resources between the relatively modest Central Austin household paying $15,000 in property taxes or you? That household sends approximately $7,500 -- and rising -- to AISD annually. You don't think they might have a gripe concerning the sustainability of this system? Do you not see how this unsustainable system is eventually bad for everyone -- including renters -- who cares about an affordable Austin?