Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems from what I've read that homes in many other parts of the country are reassessed each time they are sold, do you think this would be a good thing or a bad thing if this were the case on LI?
I know it'd be a logistical nightmare because those other places are usually taxed at a larger level, meaning by the county rather than each town like we do, so for it to work on LI every township would have to switch over, but I'm curious whether people favor the concept or not.
No. They do it in CA, IIRC, and it causes immense distortions because people who have owned their houses for 30 years pay much lower taxes than new buyers. It's effectively an enormous subsidy from the young to the old.
But isn't it the same way here, if the person who has owned the house for 30 years has never made any permit/CO-required additions or alterations to it?
I've owned my house for 9 years (Town of Islip) and looking back on my tax returns since buying it, the Assessed Valuations have not changed at all.
The various tax RATES by each entity, the school district, the county depts, all down the long list, have gone up each year, so my tax bill's bottom line has gone up tremendously, but my assessed valuation hasn't changed because I haven't made any changes to the house or property. I'm just paying more per dollar of assessed valuation now than I did 9 years ago. Doesn't it work the same way on those other states?
So technically if I were to live here for another 20 years, hypothetically, my house's assessed valuation would still be the same it is today, which is the same as it was back in 2000 when I bought it.
I think it all evens out in the end. I wouldn't want my taxes to increase because property values have risen. Works well on the low side, not so good on the high side.
California's probably not the best example, because they have Proposition 13 which caps yearly increases:
"Under Proposition 13, the annual real estate tax on a parcel of property is limited to 1% of its assessed value. This "assessed value," however, may only be increased by a maximum of 2% per year, until and unless the property undergoes a change in ownership. At the time of the change in ownership the low assessed value may be reassessed to full current market value which will produce a new base year value for the property, but future assessments are likewise restricted to the 2% annual maximum increase of the new base year value.
If the property's market value increases rapidly (values of many detached dwellings in California have appreciated at annual rates averaging more than 10% over the course of several years) or if inflation exceeds 2% (common), the differential between the owner's taxes and the taxes a new owner would have to pay can become quite large. If a property is reassessed to full market value, the increase in taxes can also be quite large.
The property may be reassessed under certain conditions other than a change in ownership, such as when additions or new construction occur. The assessed value is also subject to reduction if the market value of the property declines below its assessed value, for example, during a real estate slump."
There must be a whole lotta reassessments going on out there nowadays!!!!
Prop 13 is one of the reasons that California is in such dire financial condition.
Prop 13 is the one saving grace the taxpaying property owner has in California..
The property tax has proven to be a stable revenue source for local governments, growing almost 10 percent per year between 1980 and 1992; even in 1992, a recession year, the annual increase was 7.9 percent.
The numbers attest the problem today is not due to Prop 13... and the US Supreme Court upheld Prop 13 by ruling it did not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Prop 13 eliminated much of the graft and corruption that was all too common place in California's Property Tax Structure... several country Tax Assessor were sentenced to prison for giving sweetheart deals to the influential while the middle class suffered not knowing what misery opening the yearly tax bill would bring.
Prop 13 is not one sided... it's not a all-or-nothing proposition...
The voters can and often choose to increase taxes above Prop 13 limits... seems we have a stellar record in passing these increases... everything from midnight basketball to street lighting and fire prevention and new sports stadiums, etc... and yes, I have even voted yes several times when I could see a real benefit... like the Mosquito Abatement District.
The problem is the State spends more than it has revenue to support...
My city, Oakland CA, spends nearly 16k per student per year... and education is supported largely by property tax... just how much more money should we spend on education to the detriment of Property Owners?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
California property taxes
