<p>What do people in other states consider “high property taxes”? I live in CA and my property taxes are about $6,000/year, which is based on 1% of the value of my home at the time I purchased it. Under Proposition 13, in CA everyone in the state pays the same property tax rate, except for special assessments, local bond issues, etc. But the rate is based on acquisition value plus a small annual adjustment that is limited. So my neighbor could have an identical house to mine, with the same value, same school district, same services, but if they owned their house for 20 years, they could be paying 1/4 of the property taxes that I pay. Property is only reassessed when it changes hands, so if my neighbor sold his house, the new owner would be paying property taxes based on the current value. There is also a parent to child transfer exclusion from reassessment, so if a parent dies and leaves his house to his child, the child inherits the parent’s old, low property tax base and the property is not reassessed. How does it work in other states? From this thread, it sounds like people complain a lot about high property taxes. But I don’t think the system here is fair at all. I would rather see everyone pay the same property tax amount for the same value house regardless how long you have owned it.</p>
<p>DG…in most other states, property taxes are set annually based on the revenue needed. The amount of time you have owned your house doesn’t play into the equation at all. neither does the purchase price when you bought it.</p>
<p>Where I live in CT, towns are required to do a property reevaluation minimally every ten years. Every property on town is reassessed. Property taxes are based on the most recent assessment.</p>
<p>Our taxes on a 3000 plus sq ft house on two acres in a lake community are about $7500 a year. In CT, each town sets their own tax rate annually.</p>
<p>Here in our neck of the woods properties haven’t been reassessed since the 1950s. People with older houses pay lower taxes. Ours are about $9000 a year 1923 house. Rates are much higher in other towns. I worked on one two bedroom house in an adjacent town - smaller than our house that was paying $20,000 five years ago.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That sounds like a fairer system to me than what we have in CA. Why should the owner of an identical house next door to me pay $1500/year when I pay $6000/year for the same services, school district, etc., just because they bought the house many years ago. In our system, young families moving into a neighborhood are in effect subsidizing the old-timers.</p>
<p>True. But that law was passed because as property values sky-rocketed old-timers were getting taxed out of their homes. Complicated subject.</p>
<p>It is complicated. The old timers also stand to benefit handsomely when they sell their houses–a home where I live that cost $75K in the 1980s is likely to be worth many times that today. </p>
<p>We have ridiculously high property taxes. A house valued at $230K has taxes of about $5600 a year (and this is likely to be a very modest house). And taxes increase even in years when property values decline. Every time our governor/legislators reduce state funding to municipalities (while giving generous tax breaks to businesses), the city has no choice but to pass on the costs to taxpayers.</p>
<p>Yes, I don’t have the answer that’s for sure. But, we have people in our neighborhood who bought their homes for 20-30K in the 70’s. Those homes are now worth at least ten times that. OTOH it’s not as though these elderly people can move anywhere else for 20-30K today and pocket the increased value… so, yeah.</p>
<p>Good point! Of course many older people retire to places with a lower cost of living for this very reason.</p>
<p>
I also live in CA. Note that assessed value can increase by up to 2.0% per year without external reassessment (home sale, refinance, …) under prop 13. Zillow shows that the max 2.0% increase was used in 5 of the past 7 years. Of course, historically actual property values have increased by more than 2% per year, so you still get into situations where people who have lived in the home a long time tend to have lower rates. Average property taxes of ~0.7% of actual value sounds low, until you consider how much property costs in some areas of CA. The average property tax paid in CA is higher the the national average even though the property tax rate is half of the US average.</p>
<p>I know a number of people here in CA that bought their investment properties 10-20 years ago. The property taxes on those are just as low as for anyone living in the house.</p>
<p>Taking a look at our house, the tax assessment on the previous owners was $917 on a $50,000 house. I was stunned the trustees actually decided to sell the house instead of renting it out. Home was completely paid off, they live fairly close, and property taxes for the entire year are about 1/3 of what the house could rent for each month. It was even doing fairly alright maintenance-wise.</p>
<p>Looking at the tax history of this house, I also find it hilarious the assessed value decreased in 2010. It went from $49,078 to $48,961. I dare you to find one inhabitable house in the entire county of Los Angeles which will sell for less than $50k, even at the bottom of the recession.</p>
<p>In NJ I pay $8,200. My house is assessed around $380,000 and would sell for between $360-400k so the assessment is in the ballpark.</p>
<p>We pay about $7500 a year in property taxes on a 2600 sq ft house with 1000 sq ft finished walkout on. 2 acres of land. Sounds comparable to what the above poster pays in NJ.</p>
<p>My home is 2000 square ft. on 1.10acres. You need at least an acre to build in my town.</p>
<p>I pay ~$10,000 in property taxes on a 4000 sqft home in CA on ~1/3 acre. However, some pay significantly less for a lot more due to CA property tax situation discussed earlier. For example, the home at [102</a> Emerald Bay, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 is For Sale - Zillow](<a href=“http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/102-Emerald-Bay-Laguna-Beach-CA-92651/25140113_zpid/]102”>http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/102-Emerald-Bay-Laguna-Beach-CA-92651/25140113_zpid/) is currently being sold for $30 million and paid $3,591 in property taxes last year. That’s a property tax rate of only 0.01% to 0.015%, depending on how value is estimated (Zillow estimates value of $25 million).</p>
<p>Portland, Oregon (just outside city limits). $7800/year for 2600 sq ft home on half an acre.</p>
<p>Our former house, inner east side of Portland, pays about the same rate but 1800 sq ft and 50x100’ lot.</p>
<p>Upstate NY $9800/yr - 1800 sq. ft 1/3 acre. House assessed at $260K.</p>
<p>In my hood, property tax on a $350K home goes for $8-$9,000 per year. A mile away in the next town, a similar home goes for about $450K but the property taxes run between $15-$20,000 per year.</p>
<p>The next town has a fire and police department, my town does not.</p>
<p>As far as businesses availing themselves of public works and infrastructure paying more taxes, that is just stupid. All people avail themselves of these things which is why people build infrastructure wherever they go. It’s part of human existence. If businesses built in the jungle, they would go broke and cease to exist. If people move to the jungle, they will usually die an early death or sooner or later form communities and build infrastructure so that businesses will come to them. Who benefits from infrastructure? Would you gladly live Ina community with no places of employment or no place within an hour or two to purchase goods? Or, would you gladly develop the infrastructure needed to attract jobs and supplies needed for daily living in the form of businesses? </p>
<p>I think people build infrastructure to attract business and shouldn’t then slam businesses for benefiting from the infrastructure since the infrastructure was selfishly built to benefit the community that built it.</p>
<p>Assessed value is meaning less unless toy know what the towns equalization ratio is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And teachers, garbage collectors, building inspectors and so on are part of the “infrastructure” too. My point is that all these services are there for the public good, whether or not individuals use them or not. That’s what we pay taxes for. Businesses can and should do the same. I get really tired of the public-worker bashing as if that is the sole reason our municipalities and states have financial troubles now.</p>
<p>Oh…you want to know about services too? For my $7500, I get an excellent school system. We have a volunteer fire department and a volunteer ambulance/EMT group. We have a nice landfill that we share with the next town over (no trash pick up). Our town has very good recreation activities for students, and a good enough senior center. Library receives some town funds, but is privately owned. High school is a regional one. No public transportation.</p>
<p>We live in a semi-rural sort of suburban community which has become a bedroom community for folks wanting to live outside the main urban/suburban areas near here.</p>
<p>95% of our local revenue is generated by RESIDENTIAL property taxes.</p>