Winnipesaukee Forum

Winnipesaukee Forum (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Discussion (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   ....property taxes too high? (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23878)

fatlazyless 09-25-2018 11:04 AM

....property taxes too high?
 
Hey there Bunky …… got your local NH quarterly property tax bill in the mail recently … and you is feel'n like you is pay'n too much ….. you is assessed too high ….. and your town assessor don't have a clue …… well, friend ….. yo is not alone with your sentiment …… why, just read this article in today's Sept 25 http://www.unionleader.com/business/...state-20180925 ….. so's you see, yo is not alone!


Bob's little waterfront cabin is assessed for $24,045,900 by the Town of Alton, and his annual property tax bill is $309,230.


Back in 2014 it was listed for sale at $49-million, and is now listed for sale at $8,900,000 …… a much more down-to-earth type of a price ….. and this newspaper article reports the recent change in federal tax law, signed into law on Dec 22, 2017, that limits the local property tax deduction to a $10,000-limit deducted from your federal income tax, effective this tax year-2018 ….. is not very helpful for making this property S-O-L-D.

You know, I can recall a newspaper quote from year-2000 or so, when the house was under construction where Bob said something like " Well you know, we really didn't want anything too fancy, just something simple where we can share the amazing long view down the lake with a few friends, every now and then."

Back in July and August, 1964, I by myself, used to sit there on that high, steep embankment edge of the lake's very long view atop Clay Point there, and watch the Uncle Sam and the Mount Washington chug past, headed to Wolfeboro or someplace. It is very much, quite the view!

Bob is suing the town over his assessment value.

Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo- …… we really feel for you ……. poor Bob!:(

Will be interesting to see how this gets adjudicated in court for property owner verses the town?

From the Union Leader article: "According to the complaint filed in Belknap County Superior Court on the Bahres' behalf by Attorney Margaret H. Nelson of Sulloway & Hollis of Concord, the assessments on "Longview" are excessive, disproportionate and unjust."

Biggd 09-25-2018 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless (Post 302650)
Hey there Bunky got your local NH quarterly property tax bill in the mail recently and you is feel'n like you is pay'n too much .. you is assessed too high .. and your town assessor don't have a clue well, friend .. yo is not alone with your sentiment why, just read this article in today's http://www.unionleader.com/business/...state-20180925 .. so's you see, yo is not alone!


Bob's little waterfront cabin is assessed for $24,045,900 by the Town of Alton, and his annual property tax bill is $309,230.


Back in 2014 it was listed for sale at 49-mil, and is now listed for sale at $8,900,000 a much more down-to-earth type of a price .. and this newspaper article reports the recent change in federal tax law that limits the local property tax deduction to a $10,000-limit off your federal income tax, starting for tax year-2018 .. is not very helpful for making this property SOLD.


Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo- we really feel for you . poor Bob!:(

Rich peoples problems.

MAXUM 09-25-2018 12:24 PM

It doesn't matter if your house is worth 20 million or 200K if the town has it over assessed it certainly will catch the eye of a potential buyer and would effect overall interest in the place. Everything is relative.

Patofnaud 09-25-2018 02:09 PM

If assessed at $24M but he can't get $19M then yes, it is over assessed.

Assessed should be what it is worth now, not what it was worth 4 years ago, not what it is worth 10 years from now, what it is worth now.

The fact that the town gets over $300K (or any value from $1 to $300k) from someone who has minimal services provided by the town and no kids in school is another whole sin of a bad tax system. For another time. That and taxing farmers for what the property 'could be worth if we put 30 condo's on it, is another sin.

MAXUM 09-25-2018 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patofnaud (Post 302670)
That and taxing farmers for what the property 'could be worth if we put 30 condo's on it, is another sin.

That is inaccurate.

Read this and it explains what the current use property tax program is all about. Note that for anyone who is farming their property they can take advantage of the current use laws even if they have less than the currently required 10 acre minimum so long as they meet certain criteria.

https://extension.unh.edu/resources/...401_Rep423.pdf

Using this method to reduce annual property taxes is a choice.

Patofnaud 09-25-2018 02:59 PM

Correct Maxum, but IIRC Moultonboro residents (among others) are/were pushing hard to override that.

I should have stated that.

MAXUM 09-25-2018 04:16 PM

Right because developers are getting mad there are large swaths of undeveloped property in prime locations they want to get their hands on and the only way to do that is to change the current use law to make it more financially difficult to hang on to raw property.

Rusty 09-25-2018 06:16 PM

Should I start a gofundme for poor Bob?
I would start it off with a penny.:D

jeffk 09-25-2018 07:13 PM

I would wonder if one town could modify current use. It seems like there has to equity across NH towns to maintain fair taxation. That seems to make it a state issue?

As to Bob Bahre's property, it should be properly appraised for its current value. I don't feel sorry or anything for Bob's "problem" but he deserves equal treatment under the property laws. I appealed my tax bill and got an abatement years ago. Everyone has that right. It feels like a little jealousy over someone's success is coming out. Too bad.

Biggd 09-25-2018 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffk (Post 302702)
I would wonder if one town could modify current use. It seems like there has to equity across NH towns to maintain fair taxation. That seems to make it a state issue?

As to Bob Bahre's property, it should be properly appraised for its current value. I don't feel sorry or anything for Bob's "problem" but he deserves equal treatment under the property laws. I appealed my tax bill and got an abatement years ago. Everyone has that right. It feels like a little jealousy over someone's success is coming out. Too bad.

Not jealous but when you go big you're problems become bigger also. So he created his own problems by building something too big for the community and now it's the towns fault that he can't sell it?. I certainly don't feel bad for him but he's entitled to do what he has to do if he feels he's been singled out unfairly.

tbonies 09-25-2018 07:26 PM

Why do I think of Mr. Trump's "400 pound guy sitting in his underwear in his parents basement" every time I see one of your unintelligible essays?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless (Post 302650)
Hey there Bunky got your local NH quarterly property tax bill in the mail recently and you is feel'n like you is pay'n too much .. you is assessed too high .. and your town assessor don't have a clue well, friend .. yo is not alone with your sentiment why, just read this article in today's Sept 25 http://www.unionleader.com/business/...state-20180925 .. so's you see, yo is not alone!


Bob's little waterfront cabin is assessed for $24,045,900 by the Town of Alton, and his annual property tax bill is $309,230.


Back in 2014 it was listed for sale at $49-million, and is now listed for sale at $8,900,000 a much more down-to-earth type of a price .. and this newspaper article reports the recent change in federal tax law, signed into law on Dec 22, 2017, that limits the local property tax deduction to a $10,000-limit deducted from your federal income tax, effective this tax year-2018 .. is not very helpful for making this property S-O-L-D.

You know, I can recall a newspaper quote from year-2000 or so, when the house was under construction where Bob said something like " Well you know, we really didn't want anything too fancy, just something simple where we can share the amazing long view down the lake with a few friends, every now and then."

Back in July and August, 1964, I by myself, used to sit there on that high, steep embankment edge of the lake's very long view atop Clay Point there, and watch the Uncle Sam and the Mount Washington chug past, headed to Wolfeboro or someplace. It is very much, quite the view!

Bob is suing the town over his assessment value.

Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo- we really feel for you . poor Bob!:(

Will be interesting to see how this gets adjudicated in court for property owner verses the town?

From the Union Leader article: "According to the complaint filed in Belknap County Superior Court on the Bahres' behalf by Attorney Margaret H. Nelson of Sulloway & Hollis of Concord, the assessments on "Longview" are excessive, disproportionate and unjust."


MAXUM 09-25-2018 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffk (Post 302702)
I would wonder if one town could modify current use. It seems like there has to equity across NH towns to maintain fair taxation. That seems to make it a state issue?

Whoa hold on a sec, the towns are the ones that come up with the budgets, those are voted on and approved by the residents. How is that not fair?

loonguy 09-25-2018 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAXUM (Post 302711)
Whoa hold on a sec, the towns are the ones that come up with the budgets, those are voted on and approved by the residents. How is that not fair?

I agree. In addition, people are free to pick which town they live in, and low property taxes are a big reason why I chose to live in Moultonborough.

jeffk 09-26-2018 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAXUM (Post 302711)
Whoa hold on a sec, the towns are the ones that come up with the budgets, those are voted on and approved by the residents. How is that not fair?

My apologies for not being accurate. It is not the taxation that needs to be fair or equal, it is the appraisal process and valuation of individual properties. A town cannot say, "Hey, here's a rich guy's house. Let's triple the valuation so we can tax him more.". The valuation is supposed to approximate actual market value as determined by uniform (across the state) methods.

My point was that I believe putting a property into current use is a state policy and a town cannot deny a property owner that option. I think the adjustment to valuation is also set at the state level. The RSA says the appraisals shall be set at "at valuations based upon the current use values established by the {state} board".

The tax rate is based on the spending of the town spread over the available tax base of property. If a town wants to spend itself into high taxation, that is certainly the right of its residents to decide that.

Merrymeeting 09-26-2018 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffk (Post 302721)
The tax rate is based on the spending of the town spread over the available tax base of property. If a town wants to spend itself into high taxation, that is certainly the right of its residents to decide that.

Oh if only it was that simple. Here's an example. Wolfeboro and New Durham are both part of the Gov. Wentworth Regional School district. In the case of New Durham, the school portion of the tax bill is more than 70% of the total bill.

Wolfeboro's tax rate $12.64

New Durham's tax rate $22.96

What drives the difference is that Wolfeboro has fewer kids in the system and a many, many more highly assessed properties that don't send kids to the schools. Given the number of votes on the school board, New Durham is often outvoted when it comes to voting down school increases. So we often have little control over the yearly increase in taxes, even when town spending remains constant.

Yes, there is always the option of opting out of the district, but the contract penalties would offset any advantage.

mcdude 09-26-2018 07:54 AM

Here is the actual property listing....


https://www.beangroup.com/homes/142_...ex.html?cnt=16


The $309,230 tax bill is for two houses which includes the one that was built for the son. Between the two houses there are;
<label>12</label> BEDS
<label>14</label> FULL BATHS
<label>10</label> HALF BATHS
<label>2</label> 3/4 Baths


Does anyone know what the other five properties that are owned in Alton are? I'm guessing that one is the Hannaford property?



http://cdnparap140.paragonrels.com/P...c6/4489119.JPG

Biggd 09-26-2018 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcdude (Post 302725)
Here is the actual property listing....


https://www.beangroup.com/homes/142_...ex.html?cnt=16


The $309,230 tax bill is for two houses which includes the one that was built for the son. Between the two houses there are;
<label>12</label> BEDS
<label>14</label> FULL BATHS
<label>10</label> HALF BATHS
<label>2</label> 3/4 Baths


Does anyone know what the other five properties that are owned in Alton are? I'm guessing that one is the Hannaford property?



http://cdnparap140.paragonrels.com/P...c6/4489119.JPG

But it's the towns fault he can't sell it because the taxes are too high.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: I'm sure all his other bills are over the top also! How much do you think his landscaping bill is?
How many people need an estate that big? :confused:
The customer base for a property like that is pretty small.

LIforrelaxin 09-26-2018 09:51 AM

Please note somethings in this discussion.....

Long view as a whole was for sale for 49 Million... that included both houses....

reading the article it appears that the two house are now on the market independantly at 8.9M a piece....giving us 17.8M price tag for the hole thing....

Still an ineradicable price reduction... but not as big as it would seem if you didn't take the time to comprehend the article.

Bottom line is, there is a process to object to your property tax bill... as long as the Bahres are going through that process, who cares........

Biggd 09-26-2018 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin (Post 302736)
Please note somethings in this discussion.....

Long view as a whole was for sale for 49 Million... that included both houses....

reading the article it appears that the two house are now on the market independantly at 8.9M a piece....giving us 17.8M price tag for the hole thing....

Still an ineradicable price reduction... but not as big as it would seem if you didn't take the time to comprehend the article.

Bottom line is, there is a process to object to your property tax bill... as long as the Bahres are going through that process, who cares........

It doesn't really matter what you put it on the market for. In the end it's only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. That is yet to be determined.

AC2717 09-26-2018 10:41 AM

chaps my butt,
regardless of wealth taxes should be on a level playing field, If they feel it is not taxed right, as said above go through the process, I cannot say either way whether they were gut punched with it or not, nor could anyone except the assesor and even then they have different feelings.

lets discuss feelings and bills, two should never be mixed but for some reason the #1 bill, taxes, is. Why can't taxes be flat based: this per acre of land this per square feet. Why if someone improves the property more than someone else, and spending their already taxed money to due so (yes I say taxed because NH people sill have to pay Federal income tax) why are they then taxed again on what they spent their money on.
The same guy who does nothing to the same sqfeet and acerage is paying less taxes than this guy for the same amount of land and square feet.

Leaning most and more and more people to say why improve and why make my land make the town look better, they are only going to take money away from me.

again taxes should be based on per acre or size of land and how much square feet the building in, then you can vary from there on land use rates

not whether I have granite and marble and that guy has laminates and vinyl

(soap box stepped off of)

iw8surf 09-26-2018 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AC2717 (Post 302742)
chaps my butt,
regardless of wealth taxes should be on a level playing field, If they feel it is not taxed right, as said above go through the process, I cannot say either way whether they were gut punched with it or not, nor could anyone except the assesor and even then they have different feelings.

lets discuss feelings and bills, two should never be mixed but for some reason the #1 bill, taxes, is. Why can't taxes be flat based: this per acre of land this per square feet. Why if someone improves the property more than someone else, and spending their already taxed money to due so (yes I say taxed because NH people sill have to pay Federal income tax) why are they then taxed again on what they spent their money on.
The same guy who does nothing to the same sqfeet and acerage is paying less taxes than this guy for the same amount of land and square feet
.

Leaning most and more and more people to say why improve and why make my land make the town look better, they are only going to take money away from me.

again taxes should be based on per acre or size of land and how much square feet the building in, then you can vary from there on land use rates

not whether I have granite and marble and that guy has laminates and vinyl

(soap box stepped off of)


Isn't this one of the reasons why you see people making improvements or adding bedrooms, etc with out pulling proper permits so its basically a secret to the assessors so their taxes don't go up?

fatlazyless 09-26-2018 11:12 AM

Camp Alton 1937-1992, sold in '98
 
www.campalton.com/annuals/199-1956-annual

Camp Alton was a very happening summer camp for boys, in operation from 1937 to 1992. In 1998 or so, Bob Bahre was able to purchase this property, demolish almost all of the campy cabins and campy buildings, and subdivide it into six single house lots, as it is today.

Where his mansion is situated used to be the "second field", a baseball diamond and outfield mostly used for playing softball by the younger campers or lower camp. The bigger ball field situated in the center area was for the upper camp.

As a Camp Alton camper in 1964, I can recall hunting for the snipe, a snipe hunt, armed with a broom, stalking those wild snipes all along the top of the lake embankment about 7:30-8:30pm till sunset!!! That Clay Point location has inspiring sunsets ….. especially while hunting for snipes …… some things never change. :D:laugh:

Can also remember the Capture the Flag-Flag Rush event, Grey vs. Green, and receiving treatment from the camp nurse for road rash type abrasions on my chest from missing a diving tackle on the hard dirt surfaced sprinting track. Can also recall getting my butt whipped on the tennis court something like 6-0, 6-1 …… ouch!

Before the waterfront would allow you to go waterskiing, you had to swim for 1/2 mile behind a rowboat in deep water, from the beach to the canoe dock and back, without ever touching the rowboat handles on the transom. One touch, and you failed the test ….. you touch-a these handles …… you fail this test!

In the photo above, the canoe dock and outer dock where the Uncle Sam would stop to deliver the daily mail and packages is still here, along with the camp flag pole.

Biggd 09-26-2018 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AC2717 (Post 302742)
chaps my butt,
regardless of wealth taxes should be on a level playing field, If they feel it is not taxed right, as said above go through the process, I cannot say either way whether they were gut punched with it or not, nor could anyone except the assesor and even then they have different feelings.

lets discuss feelings and bills, two should never be mixed but for some reason the #1 bill, taxes, is. Why can't taxes be flat based: this per acre of land this per square feet. Why if someone improves the property more than someone else, and spending their already taxed money to due so (yes I say taxed because NH people sill have to pay Federal income tax) why are they then taxed again on what they spent their money on.
The same guy who does nothing to the same sqfeet and acerage is paying less taxes than this guy for the same amount of land and square feet.

Leaning most and more and more people to say why improve and why make my land make the town look better, they are only going to take money away from me.

again taxes should be based on per acre or size of land and how much square feet the building in, then you can vary from there on land use rates

not whether I have granite and marble and that guy has laminates and vinyl

(soap box stepped off of)

A certain amount of taxes and fees need to be collected to run the town. If they don't get it from income tax and sales tax then it has to come from other taxes which is property taxes. Everyone wants their property to be worth as much as possible but they don't want to pay taxes on that value.

If the town is using that money properly then everyone benefits by the value of their property rising. Some towns manage that better than others.

MAXUM 09-26-2018 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffk (Post 302721)
My apologies for not being accurate. It is not the taxation that needs to be fair or equal, it is the appraisal process and valuation of individual properties. A town cannot say, "Hey, here's a rich guy's house. Let's triple the valuation so we can tax him more.". The valuation is supposed to approximate actual market value as determined by uniform (across the state) methods.

My point was that I believe putting a property into current use is a state policy and a town cannot deny a property owner that option. I think the adjustment to valuation is also set at the state level. The RSA says the appraisals shall be set at "at valuations based upon the current use values established by the {state} board".

The tax rate is based on the spending of the town spread over the available tax base of property. If a town wants to spend itself into high taxation, that is certainly the right of its residents to decide that.

I'm not terribly familiar with the current use option other than knowing that it is an option and if I understand correctly it is not a no strings attached tax reduction.

First if I understand this correctly - the actual "real" value of the property is still part of the overall assessment just that what is actually paid out is a fraction of the actual current tax rate. At least that is what is indicated in the link I sent out previously.

Second you're not allowed to build on any property that is in a current use state, it is intended to give tax incentive to open and or green space with the caveat that it also has to remain open to public use. I think there may be some wiggle room far as posting the property for certain use such as no hunting but I'm fairly certain you cannot post it with no trespassing signs.

Third - there is a process to plow any property into current use, I am not aware of what that process is and whether or not the town or state has the ability to disapprove. I assume if you have to apply for it there is somebody making a yes or no decision?

The state does mandate all towns re-assess every year so that the valuations are somewhat real time. Before this was established some towns were apparently assessing more often then others and I believe this was pointed out when the whole Clairmont school funding case hit the courts. Some towns cried foul... and part of that was likely because of the redistribution of tax dollars from so called rich towns to so called poor towns.

I find it rather disgusting that some complain about so called "rich" people which is a very relative term trying to establish a fair assessment on their property. Just remember that whatever your worth, there is somebody out there who has less who would consider you to be "rich". The tax system needs to function independent, fair to all no matter what a person's net worth happens to be.

MAXUM 09-26-2018 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AC2717 (Post 302742)
chaps my butt,
regardless of wealth taxes should be on a level playing field, If they feel it is not taxed right, as said above go through the process, I cannot say either way whether they were gut punched with it or not, nor could anyone except the assesor and even then they have different feelings.

lets discuss feelings and bills, two should never be mixed but for some reason the #1 bill, taxes, is. Why can't taxes be flat based: this per acre of land this per square feet. Why if someone improves the property more than someone else, and spending their already taxed money to due so (yes I say taxed because NH people sill have to pay Federal income tax) why are they then taxed again on what they spent their money on.
The same guy who does nothing to the same sqfeet and acerage is paying less taxes than this guy for the same amount of land and square feet.

Leaning most and more and more people to say why improve and why make my land make the town look better, they are only going to take money away from me.

again taxes should be based on per acre or size of land and how much square feet the building in, then you can vary from there on land use rates

not whether I have granite and marble and that guy has laminates and vinyl

(soap box stepped off of)

Interesting concept however there are fundamental things that define a property value. As they say in real estate location location location right? If your method of valuation were used somebody that owns a piece of land, say one acre out in the middle of nowhere with say seasonal access via a class 6 road would be worth the same as a prime piece of water front on Governor's island. That in reality is simply comparing apples and oranges is it not? In the same way you cannot compare the SQFT value of a mobile home to the SQFT value of a modern day constructed house. They simply do not compare and in both examples there is a significant price difference as one is more desirable than the other.

There is no way to eliminate the opinion factor as to evaluating property values however that opinion needs to be based on some sort of acceptable and equitable metric. Hence the reason why there is an abatement process where if you do not agree with an assessment then you can challenge it's accuracy.

This is likely why most towns will hire an outside independent firm to establish assessments so there is no appearance of impropriety.

Biggd 09-26-2018 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAXUM (Post 302750)
I'm not terribly familiar with the current use option other than knowing that it is an option and if I understand correctly it is not a no strings attached tax reduction.

First if I understand this correctly - the actual "real" value of the property is still part of the overall assessment just that what is actually paid out is a fraction of the actual current tax rate. At least that is what is indicated in the link I sent out previously.

Second you're not allowed to build on any property that is in a current use state, it is intended to give tax incentive to open and or green space with the caveat that it also has to remain open to public use. I think there may be some wiggle room far as posting the property for certain use such as no hunting but I'm fairly certain you cannot post it with no trespassing signs.

Third - there is a process to plow any property into current use, I am not aware of what that process is and whether or not the town or state has the ability to disapprove. I assume if you have to apply for it there is somebody making a yes or no decision?

The state does mandate all towns re-assess every year so that the valuations are somewhat real time. Before this was established some towns were apparently assessing more often then others and I believe this was pointed out when the whole Clairmont school funding case hit the courts. Some towns cried foul... and part of that was likely because of the redistribution of tax dollars from so called rich towns to so called poor towns.

I find it rather disgusting that some complain about so called "rich" people which is a very relative term trying to establish a fair assessment on their property. Just remember that whatever your worth, there is somebody out there who has less who would consider you to be "rich". The tax system needs to function independent, fair to all no matter what a person's net worth happens to be.

In this case I think the word "rich" could be used in describing this property. There is a limited number of people "rich" enough to purchase and assume the costs of owning an estate like this.
I'm not complaining about "rich" people. I'm just commenting on a piece of property that was developed far beyond it's value and that's no ones fault except the owners. Now it's somehow the fault of the town that it won't sell because the taxes are too high.
Would it sell if the property tax bill was lower? Probably, but it's not the towns responsibility to see that this owner gets the money back that he foolishly spent.
That being said, I see no problem with him going through the proper channels to try and get his tax bill reduced but that doesn't change the fact that he massively over developed that property.

AC2717 09-26-2018 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iw8surf (Post 302745)
Isn't this one of the reasons why you see people making improvements or adding bedrooms, etc with out pulling proper permits so its basically a secret to the assessors so their taxes don't go up?

could be, could be same argument as to why people dump large trash on the side of the road or in the woods, cost money to have it removed or bring to the dump

tis 09-26-2018 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting (Post 302724)
Oh if only it was that simple. Here's an example. Wolfeboro and New Durham are both part of the Gov. Wentworth Regional School district. In the case of New Durham, the school portion of the tax bill is more than 70% of the total bill.

Wolfeboro's tax rate $12.64

New Durham's tax rate $22.96

What drives the difference is that Wolfeboro has fewer kids in the system and a many, many more highly assessed properties that don't send kids to the schools. Given the number of votes on the school board, New Durham is often outvoted when it comes to voting down school increases. So we often have little control over the yearly increase in taxes, even when town spending remains constant.



Yes, there is always the option of opting out of the district, but the contract penalties would offset any advantage.

Merrymeeting, did you know that Tuftonboro pays the most per student in the district at $22,000. per student? Wolfeboro is next at 19,000. New Durham pays 14,266, Brookfield 15,282, Ossipee 11,799. I don't know about Effingham. These were from 2015 the latest figure available. The average cost per student in the district is 15,900. I wonder how Alton does with the new school?

AC2717 09-26-2018 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggd (Post 302747)
A certain amount of taxes and fees need to be collected to run the town. If they don't get it from income tax and sales tax then it has to come from other taxes which is property taxes. Everyone wants their property to be worth as much as possible but they don't want to pay taxes on that value.

If the town is using that money properly then everyone benefits by the value of their property rising. Some towns manage that better than others.

i agree, also to the point that I would think that the per acreage and sqft for building would be set accordingly
the short argument i have is that materials of property is make the difference in tax

AC2717 09-26-2018 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAXUM (Post 302751)
Interesting concept however there are fundamental things that define a property value. As they say in real estate location location location right? If your method of valuation were used somebody that owns a piece of land, say one acre out in the middle of nowhere with say seasonal access via a class 6 road would be worth the same as a prime piece of water front on Governor's island. That in reality is simply comparing apples and oranges is it not? In the same way you cannot compare the SQFT value of a mobile home to the SQFT value of a modern day constructed house. They simply do not compare and in both examples there is a significant price difference as one is more desirable than the other.

There is no way to eliminate the opinion factor as to evaluating property values however that opinion needs to be based on some sort of acceptable and equitable metric. Hence the reason why there is an abatement process where if you do not agree with an assessment then you can challenge it's accuracy.

This is likely why most towns will hire an outside independent firm to establish assessments so there is no appearance of impropriety.

there's the crux, value (market), taxes are based on value, what I am saying taxes should be based on amount of land and sqft of the building, nothing to due with market value

1 acre in east overshoe in the center of town, vs one acre anywhere else in east overshoe should be taxed and the same amount, at the end of the day they are both still an acre in east overshoe

this also eliminates the need to abate, need to hire assesors, maybe even the need to have an assesors department and so on

Shrimpbrain 09-26-2018 01:09 PM

Damn, so easy to see who DOESN'T live up here full time. Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Complain Complain Complain Complain. Blah Blah Blah. Here's a tip...Don't like it MOVE. You will be much less stressed out where you live presently. :argue:

Reilly 09-26-2018 04:22 PM

Thank You
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shrimpbrain (Post 302762)
Damn, so easy to see who DOESN'T live up here full time. Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Complain Complain Complain Complain. Blah Blah Blah. Here's a tip...Don't like it MOVE. You will be much less stressed out where you live presently. :argue:

If you don't like the heat get out of the FIRE, just stop complaning

MAXUM 09-26-2018 04:41 PM

WOW!

Anyone who owns property in the state has a vested interest in how taxes are assessed on their property and how their tax money is spent. Where one permanently resides is rather irrelevant to the subject matter in hand unless you are purposely just trying to stir the pot. Frankly I think it's good that there is interest in the subject only because so many will just bury their heads in the sand and just say it is what it is. Respectfully if you don't like the conversation then don't read it. For the rest of us that are having this discussion whether I agree with them or not still find it interesting.

That's from a NH native and resident BTW.

Outdoorsman 09-26-2018 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAXUM (Post 302772)
WOW!

Anyone who owns property in the state has a vested interest in how taxes are assessed on their property and how their tax money is spent. Where one permanently resides is rather irrelevant to the subject matter in hand unless you are purposely just trying to stir the pot. Frankly I think it's good that there is interest in the subject only because so many will just bury their heads in the sand and just say it is what it is. Respectfully if you don't like the conversation then don't read it. For the rest of us that are having this discussion whether I agree with them or not still find it interesting.

That's from a NH native and resident BTW.

I bet Mr. Bahre would disagree. His over 1/3 MILLION Dollar contribution does not give him a vote on how the money is wasted by the Town of Alton.

Merrymeeting 09-26-2018 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tis (Post 302756)
Merrymeeting, did you know that Tuftonboro pays the most per student in the district at $22,000. per student? Wolfeboro is next at 19,000. New Durham pays 14,266, Brookfield 15,282, Ossipee 11,799. I don't know about Effingham. These were from 2015 the latest figure available. The average cost per student in the district is 15,900. I wonder how Alton does with the new school?

Hi Tis, no I didn't know those figures and I've been trying to understand the GWSD funding model for some time. It doesn't make sense to me that the cost/student would vary by town. If you have a link or pointer to how all this works, I'd appreciate a PM. Continuing this here would sidetrack the original discussion.

MAXUM 09-26-2018 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outdoorsman (Post 302774)
I bet Mr. Bahre would disagree. His over 1/3 MILLION Dollar contribution does not give him a vote on how the money is wasted by the Town of Alton.

No it doesn't but he does have the right to contest the assessment especially if as he points out the place is not moving when the current asking price is below assessed value. I'd say he has a valid point to suggest it's to high. To point out that potential buyers are noticing this and stating that is not a matter of "complaining" it's a matter of fact isn't it?

Outdoorsman 09-26-2018 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAXUM (Post 302777)
No it doesn't but he does have the right to contest the assessment especially if as he points out the place is not moving when the current asking price is below assessed value. I'd say he has a valid point to suggest it's to high. To point out that potential buyers are noticing this and stating that is not a matter of "complaining" it's a matter of fact isn't it?

From the post of yours that I quoted above....

A vested interest, yes.... Any say in the matter NO!

Owning property in the state only gives you the right to pay property taxes. No right to say how it is spent.


Quote:

WOW!

Anyone who owns property in the state has a vested interest in how taxes are assessed on their property and how their tax money is spent. Where one permanently resides is rather irrelevant to the subject matter in hand unless you are purposely just trying to stir the pot. Frankly I think it's good that there is interest in the subject only because so many will just bury their heads in the sand and just say it is what it is. Respectfully if you don't like the conversation then don't read it. For the rest of us that are having this discussion whether I agree with them or not still find it interesting.

That's from a NH native and resident BTW.

MAXUM 09-26-2018 06:06 PM

Indeed but I never suggested a nonresident has the ability to vote.

Outdoorsman 09-26-2018 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAXUM (Post 302779)
Indeed but I never suggested a nonresident has the ability to vote.

Without the ability to vote, how do non-resident property owners have the ability to say how their tax money is spent? (see your own post above that states that they do). Being a permanent resident is not irrelevant in this situation.

fatlazyless 09-26-2018 06:59 PM

For tax year 2017 and going back to 1913 when federal personal income tax was first enacted, all local property taxes had been deductible against your income tax payment on a dollar to dollar basis.

Starting in tax year 2018, and due on April 15, 2019, the deduction is now limited to ten thousand dollars.

So, for people with property taxes higher than ten thousand dollars, it means paying that annual property tax bill with real money, as opposed to using it to reduce your federal tax from other various types of income, and that happens every year going forward, until this new tax rule gets changed ..... if and when it ever does.

It was signed into law by the President on Dec 22, 2017, at 11:30-am in the Oval Office just before he flew off to Mar-A-Lago for a family and golf stay-cation for Christmas and New Years.

By eliminating the property tax deduction, it makes owning the property more expensive, because there's no trade-off deduction for above the first ten thousand dollars of annual property tax.

We can all shed a tear for those who pay more than ten thousand dollars in property taxes and no longer have this deduction for the amount that is above ten thousand....... boo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo ....... crocodile tears ...... to you!:patriot::patriot::patriot: Making America Great Again! ...... one plus-$10,000 tax payer at a time ....... "thank you very much."

So, what will this new annual expense do to the value of these high value properties?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.