5 ms·

> And then the increase in local taxes to try to compensate for the mass costs I don't know if it's like this everywhere, but our local taxes have gone up by a

> And then the increase in local taxes to try to compensate for the mass costs I don't know if it's like this everywhere, but our local taxes have gone up by a big percentage over the past several years. They say they haven't raised our taxes, but since valuations go up, our taxes go up... by thousands of dollars.

IncreasePosts 3y ago
If valuations are up across the board, and the revenue requirements remain fixed, then your mill levy should be lower and your tax burden should be the same as the past. It should be pretty clear that your municipality is collecting more taxes than they were previously from published reports. If they aren't, then that means your property valuation has gone up more than others in your region...that should be considered a good thing, even if you have a slightly higher tax burden because of it.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  In what conceivable reality could housing costs go up across the board but municipal revenues remain flat? Municipal employees need a place to sleep, so housing costs lead directly to new revenue needs.
  - IncreasePosts 3y ago
    If municipal revenue doesn't remain flat, then you can't say taxes haven't gone up.
nradov 3y ago
This was the main reason behind California's Proposition 13 in 1978. At the time, homeowners were seeing their taxes go up and up every year just based on valuation increases. Meanwhile their incomes weren't necessarily increasing at the same rate. Prop 13 has had some negative effects but the anger by voters at the time is entirely understandable.
- asdff 3y ago
  The biggest issue with prop 13 is they also rolled it out for commercial properties not just your primary residential home. So much prime land is squandered as a result by things like 1950s era single story retail at best or just a surface lot that sees minimal overhead but a lot of upside for the absentee owner.
- IncreasePosts 3y ago
  Deferring taxes until death or home sale seems like it would work better. Now, you just have a system where the newest members of a neighborhood pay way more for services than extant members of the neighborhood.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Deferring taxes does nothing to prevent wasteful over spending by local governments. For all of its faults, Prop 13 was effective in capping spending.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Well sure but its basically a system where you massivly, massivly benefit people already have property, and literally take a huge shit on everybody else. Its basically a "lets give property owners billion and billions in subsidies" and make everybody else pay.
tnel77 3y ago
Exactly. Our tax rates were cut (very slightly) this year, but valuations are still up so the tax bill is up as well. The city acts like we should be super grateful.
WalterBright 3y ago
Seattle keeps raising property taxes in order to reduce the housing shortage.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  My property taxes have gone down for the last few years, probably because King County has moved the equation to taxing land more than structures (and I live in a town home on a small piece of land).

IncreasePosts 3y ago

If valuations are up across the board, and the revenue requirements remain fixed, then your mill levy should be lower and your tax burden should be the same as the past. It should be pretty clear that your municipality is collecting more taxes than they were previously from published reports. If they aren't, then that means your property valuation has gone up more than others in your region...that should be considered a good thing, even if you have a slightly higher tax burden because of it.

jeffbee 3y ago
In what conceivable reality could housing costs go up across the board but municipal revenues remain flat? Municipal employees need a place to sleep, so housing costs lead directly to new revenue needs.
- IncreasePosts 3y ago
  If municipal revenue doesn't remain flat, then you can't say taxes haven't gone up.

nradov 3y ago

This was the main reason behind California's Proposition 13 in 1978. At the time, homeowners were seeing their taxes go up and up every year just based on valuation increases. Meanwhile their incomes weren't necessarily increasing at the same rate. Prop 13 has had some negative effects but the anger by voters at the time is entirely understandable.

asdff 3y ago
The biggest issue with prop 13 is they also rolled it out for commercial properties not just your primary residential home. So much prime land is squandered as a result by things like 1950s era single story retail at best or just a surface lot that sees minimal overhead but a lot of upside for the absentee owner.
IncreasePosts 3y ago
Deferring taxes until death or home sale seems like it would work better. Now, you just have a system where the newest members of a neighborhood pay way more for services than extant members of the neighborhood.
- nradov 3y ago
  Deferring taxes does nothing to prevent wasteful over spending by local governments. For all of its faults, Prop 13 was effective in capping spending.
panick21_ 3y ago
Well sure but its basically a system where you massivly, massivly benefit people already have property, and literally take a huge shit on everybody else. Its basically a "lets give property owners billion and billions in subsidies" and make everybody else pay.

tnel77 3y ago

Exactly. Our tax rates were cut (very slightly) this year, but valuations are still up so the tax bill is up as well. The city acts like we should be super grateful.

WalterBright 3y ago

Seattle keeps raising property taxes in order to reduce the housing shortage.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
My property taxes have gone down for the last few years, probably because King County has moved the equation to taxing land more than structures (and I live in a town home on a small piece of land).