....property taxes too high?

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

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]

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.

[Reilly]

Originally Posted by Shrimpbrain

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.

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

[MAXUM]

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]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

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.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Outdoorsman

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]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

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.

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]

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

[Outdoorsman]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

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]

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! 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?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

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! 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?

Hmmm, you forgot to put the lower tax rates into your calculations Less. I still chuckle when I remember the Boston Tea Party happened because of a 3 penny duty...… how compliant we have become.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Out of State property owners love to lament NH's tax structure... but it is out of state property owners that drive up the property values thus increasing thier own tax burden.

The median household income for towns around the lake is approximately $60 - $65K....
The average waterfront/water access property on the lake is well over $400 - $500K. These waterfront properties are priced completely out of reach for the residents of lakeside communities. The reason for that is they are bought up by wealthier out of state people, primarily as 2nd homes. It is the out of state people that drive up the pricing of the properties... not NH residents. If you don't like paying the property taxes... sell out to a wealthier out of state person and buy a 2nd property in a state with lower property taxes, but an overall higher tax burden. Woodsy

On a walk, I happened by a new Washington, DC, lakefront neighbor, who'd put out a row of black garbage bags for collection the next morning. What should poke out of one bag, but a copy of Power magazine!

.

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

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! 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?

1) As a Wolfeboro taxpayer, this new law affects me and the neighbors.

2) I'd expect real estate prices to start sliding down. (As owners and buyers discover the non-deductibility of their property taxes >$10,000—vis-à-vis their new tax bracket).

I'd welcome the counsel of a CPA.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Outdoorsman

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.

No you are interpreting what I said that way. I specifically used the words "vested interest" which as defined means "a person or group having a personal stake or involvement" You do not have to be a voter per say to have either a personal stake or involvement in what goes on in a place where you do not reside.

Voting is just one way to be involved but not the only one. For example the newly formed Meredith Island Assoc is engaging Meredith town officials over a number of issues and these folks are not all full time town residents. They are lobbying the town on the behalf of all Meredith island residents and if successful there likely will be some return on the tax dollars that are paid by the folks they are representing in the way of expenditures by the town for various things. For disclosure purposes I am not a member of this association just using it for illustrative purposes.

[tummyman]

Remember the Boston Tea Party was about Taxation without Representation. Non resident property taxpayers are totally disenfranchised from voting on how their local tax dollars are spent, yet they depend on some local services over which they have no real say. There is no real reason (other than state laws) why towns cannot maintain a voting list for use ONLY in Town elections and for voting at town meeting. You can bet there will be no move to change the state laws!

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by Outdoorsman

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.

It should be. I’d love to know how much of the tax base is out of state resident owned property for the towns around the lake.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Woodsy]

Out of State property owners love to lament NH's tax structure... but it is out of state property owners that drive up the property values thus increasing thier own tax burden.

The median household income for towns around the lake is approximately $60 - $65K.... The average waterfront/water access property on the lake is well over $400 - $500K. These waterfront properties are priced completely out of reach for the residents of lakeside communities.

The reason for that is they are bought up by wealthier out of state people, primarily as 2nd homes. It is the out of state people that drive up the pricing of the properties... not NH residents.

If you don't like paying the property taxes... sell out to a wealthier out of state person and buy a 2nd property in a state with lower property taxes, but an overall higher tax burden.

Woodsy

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Out of State property owners love to lament NH's tax structure... but it is out of state property owners that drive up the property values thus increasing thier own tax burden.

The median household income for towns around the lake is approximately $60 - $65K.... The average waterfront/water access property on the lake is well over $400 - $500K. These waterfront properties are priced completely out of reach for the residents of lakeside communities.

The reason for that is they are bought up by wealthier out of state people, primarily as 2nd homes. It is the out of state people that drive up the pricing of the properties... not NH residents.

If you don't like paying the property taxes... sell out to a wealthier out of state person and buy a 2nd property in a state with lower property taxes, but an overall higher tax burden.

Woodsy

I'm not sure most lakefront owners really worry or care about the taxes. I said most, there are some who scrape to afford a lakefront home and maybe didn't plan for the inevitable taxes. In reality the tax payment should be close to in the noise for any property owner. If it is not, then the owner may have too much home and should consider downsizing.


Just one caveat in my comment: I'm just considering this from a financial point of view, do not construe the above comment as support for unjust taxation.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

It should be. I’d love to know how much of the tax base is out of state resident owned property for the towns around the lake.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Just keep in mind that this applies to a number of things. Take for instance those that live in one state and work in another and have to pay income tax. Should they be allowed to vote in that state where income tax is paid? It's taxation w/o representation. Since those that do have no place of "non-residency" where should they vote and for what?

Intriguing question isn't it? Same can be said for sales tax, gas tax, liquor tax, tobacco tax, and the list goes on and on far as broad based taxes that are paid.

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

It should be. I’d love to know how much of the tax base is out of state resident owned property for the towns around the lake.

In Wolfeboro and New Durham, it's between 60 and 70 percent, ND on the lower end of that scale, Wolfeboro on the higher side.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by AC2717

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

It doesn't work. Either the less desirable piece of land pays too much, the more desirable not enough, or the town doesn't generate enough money to provide services.

Think of it this way - would we want to work somewhere where everyone started at the same pay and received the same the percent increase in pay each year? My guess is no - we want the ability to be judged on our merit and receive our pay accordingly. Shouldn't the same standard be applied to our property? If I chose to spend my money and improve the value of my property, what's wrong with my taxes being assessed on what it is worth - just like my salary being based on the quality of my work? The grey area is the valuation - I know in my case my property is worth WAY less than the assessor thinks it is - until I go to sell it when suddenly it's worth a lot more!

As to the original post, if someone wants to give me the property I am more than happy to figure out how to pay the tax bill on it!

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Garcia

It doesn't work. Either the less desirable piece of land pays too much, the more desirable not enough, or the town doesn't generate enough money to provide services.

Think of it this way - would we want to work somewhere where everyone started at the same pay and received the same the percent increase in pay each year? My guess is no - we want the ability to be judged on our merit and receive our pay accordingly. Shouldn't the same standard be applied to our property? If I chose to spend my money and improve the value of my property, what's wrong with my taxes being assessed on what it is worth - just like my salary being based on the quality of my work? The grey area is the valuation - I know in my case my property is worth WAY less than the assessor thinks it is - until I go to sell it when suddenly it's worth a lot more!

As to the original post, if someone wants to give me the property I am more than happy to figure out how to pay the tax bill on it!

polite-fully disagree and do not think you can compare it to earning a wage for yourself. And also this is on a spending side of a debate vs a earning side which is for individual merit and reward, but an acre and sqft are finite things that you can put a set rate and non market value. Insurance companies do it on every single homeowners and business policy they write. for example, I insure a property on one side of Laconia and then insure one on the other side the base rate for the property and Liability are set, aside from the personal exposures of the individual, but the base rates are the same in every equation in the town of Laconia or anywhere else for that matter.

Have to get away from the argument of Market value, and as it is said time and time again market value is only what someone is willing to pay for it and this is where all the disagrements, asessing, abatements comes from and sitrs the proverbial pot of rich vs poor. Takes away well im not getting permits cause they will hit me with more taxes, and blah blah blah.
Let the market dictate selling price, but set the tax. But at the end of the an acre in a town is an acre in the town. There is no argument of the less desirable vs desirable. It is you want to buy or own property in this town the taxes per acre is this and the price for sqft is this, period. The town sets the rates, adjusts as needed (we know that story)

[Woodsy]

AC2717...

So it is your opinion that property should be taxed at a flat rate regardless of value?

Your argument that "That's how Insurance Co's do it" is silly. They are only insuring the building and its contents. They are not insuring the land those buildings are on. A property can be worth $600K because of its location, but the cost to rebuild the home on that property might only be $200K.

Property values are market driven... the more desirable the property.. the more people are willing to pay for it. Do you want to live on Beacon Hill? Or do you want to live Dorchester? If you have the $$$ to purchase the property, you have $$$ to pay the taxes on it. If people don't like the taxes, then sell it, make a tidy profit (this America and we are a "for Profit" country) and go buy elsewhere with a lower property tax burden. If enough people did that, the market prices of property on the Lake should fall. The reality is, a wealthier person will scarf up the property and the cycle continues.

And lets not forget... owning a 2nd home is a luxury. Any and all taxes paid on something like that amount to a Luxury Tax.

If you don't like the way the town/state is spending your tax money... show up to the meetings and let your voice be heard. You cannot vote, but your opinion will certainly be heard and noted.


Woodsy

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

AC2717...

So it is your opinion that property should be taxed at a flat rate regardless of value?

Your argument that "That's how Insurance Co's do it" is silly. They are only insuring the building and its contents. They are not insuring the land those buildings are on. A property can be worth $600K because of its location, but the cost to rebuild the home on that property might only be $200K.

Property values are market driven... the more desirable the property.. the more people are willing to pay for it. Do you want to live on Beacon Hill? Or do you want to live Dorchester? If you have the $$$ to purchase the property, you have $$$ to pay the taxes on it. If people don't like the taxes, then sell it, make a tidy profit (this America and we are a "for Profit" country) and go buy elsewhere with a lower property tax burden. If enough people did that, the market prices of property on the Lake should fall. The reality is, a wealthier person will scarf up the property and the cycle continues.

And lets not forget... owning a 2nd home is a luxury. Any and all taxes paid on something like that amount to a Luxury Tax.

If you don't like the way the town/state is spending your tax money... show up to the meetings and let your voice be heard. You cannot vote, but your opinion will certainly be heard and noted.


Woodsy

I'm not using that as a reason, I am using it as an example. My argument is an acre in the town is an acre in the town. I am removing Market value from the equation. If I own a acre in the town and you own an acre in the same town, why should our taxes be anything different. Fully agree when purchasing desirability is driving costs.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by AC2717

I'm not using that as a reason, I am using it as an example. My argument is an acre in the town is an acre in the town. I am removing Market value from the equation. If I own a acre in the town and you own an acre in the same town, why should our taxes be anything different. Fully agree when purchasing desirability is driving costs.

This is such a ridiculous example. I could see how you would enjoy that scenario as I would also. If that was the case I would have bought many acres on the water years ago and just held on to it. The main reason I didn't was because of taxes. Although in if I knew what I know now I still should have. Percentage of taxes on everything are based on value.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Biggd

This is such a ridiculous example. I could see how you would enjoy that scenario as I would also. If that was the case I would have bought many acres on the water years ago and just held on to it. The main reason I didn't was because of taxes. Although in if I knew what I know now I still should have. Percentage of taxes on everything are based on value.

Serious side note:
i am enjoying this debate, and everyone keeping it civil, this is what the forum is all about!

back to my soap box:

when the state sets a sales tax, does it adjust tax rates based on desirability of an item? on a meal tax, does it adjust tax rate based on where and what type of restaurant it is? on a hotel tax, does it adjust tax rate based on where it is? You can argue that i bought a more expensive meal so I am paying more tax so I chose that meal like i chose the property. But I might be buying a bigger meal a la McDonalds vs a 16oz steak

A market value flaw is that if my property is not up for sale, how does anyone know what I am willing to sell it for and what is someone willing to pay for that particular item, you do not, which is often the same counter argument of: they valued my property at 500k but I just bought it last year at 450k or i just bought it three months ago for 400k so why do they think its worth 500k now.

Yes if you went to a flat real estate tax, those in less desirable areas of a town will go up and those in more desirable areas will go down, at the end of the day the the land tax would be the same and if I have a 2000sqft home and the other was a 1500sqft home, there would still be more taxes coming from the extra 500sqft at the same rate, not market value

[Garcia]

Let me me clear, I would love to have both my properties taxed at the same rate as all the others in town, regardless of location, as this would certainly benefit me! After all, it doesn't make sense to bring all value UP to take into account waterfront vs. non waterfront property, so therefore my waterfront property will be taxed at a lower rate.

But a serious question: assuming that towns need at least a significant portion of the taxes currently being collected (even if people say there is tremendous waste, there is no way you can cut more than 25% out of the existing budget and still provide the services people ask for - and I think 25% is already too high), aren't those people with land of lower value going to pay more to balance out the lesser amount higher valued properties will be taxed at? How would it work?

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by AC2717

Serious side note:
i am enjoying this debate, and everyone keeping it civil, this is what the forum is all about!

back to my soap box:

when the state sets a sales tax, does it adjust tax rates based on desirability of an item? on a meal tax, does it adjust tax rate based on where and what type of restaurant it is? on a hotel tax, does it adjust tax rate based on where it is? You can argue that i bought a more expensive meal so I am paying more tax so I chose that meal like i chose the property. But I might be buying a bigger meal a la McDonalds vs a 16oz steak

A market value flaw is that if my property is not up for sale, how does anyone know what I am willing to sell it for and what is someone willing to pay for that particular item, you do not, which is often the same counter argument of: they valued my property at 500k but I just bought it last year at 450k or i just bought it three months ago for 400k so why do they think its worth 500k now.

Yes if you went to a flat real estate tax, those in less desirable areas of a town will go up and those in more desirable areas will go down, at the end of the day the the land tax would be the same and if I have a 2000sqft home and the other was a 1500sqft home, there would still be more taxes coming from the extra 500sqft at the same rate, not market value

Everyone that owns waterfront property would love your proposal but everyone else would be paying more and hate it. Because no matter what they still have to collect the same amount. It would just be divided up differently.
What you're willing to sell it for has no bearing on value. I sold my house to my son at a discounted price but he is still paying taxes on it's assessed value and if he went to sell it he would get a much higher price than what he paid for it. That's why when you go to sell a house it is appraised by looking at comparable properties that have recently sold. It's not a perfect science but it's pretty close .

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Biggd

What you're willing to sell it for has no bearing on value. I sold my house to my son at a discounted price but he is still paying taxes on it's assessed value and if he went to sell it he would get a much higher price than what he paid for it.

yes correct, tax based on values on a market assessed value. What I am saying is that market assessed value should not be apart of it

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by AC2717

yes correct, tax based on values on a market assessed value. What I am saying is that market assessed value should not be apart of it

I have a home in Ma and a home in NH. What I have noticed is the assessed value of my home in NH is pretty close to the price that I believe it would sell for. My realtor has confirmed that most homes in, Meredith, the town I'm in are selling very close to assessed value.
My home in Ma is assessed far below what I could sell it for but I'm not calling the town and telling them to tax me on it's real value.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Biggd

I have a home in Ma and a home in NH. What I have noticed is the assessed value of my home in NH is pretty close to the price that I believe it would sell for. My realtor has confirmed that most homes in, Meredith, the town I'm in are selling very close to assessed value.
My home in Ma is assessed far below what I could sell it for but I'm not calling the town and telling them to tax me on it's real value.

I suspect your home in MA is assessed at a level comparable to others in town. If your assessment were abnormally low, all your neighbors would be going to the assessors looking for abatements using your home as an example of why their rate should be reduced.
There are a variety of professions where the job is to look at all the assessments and try to get a better deal for the owner, or a group of owners. Big industry does this all the time in part because you may have a unique plant and there are no comparable sales to look at (they may use an income method). If I can get you an abatement, I get a commission.

For those who talk about living there but not being able to vote, that's the situation for businesses. They pay property tax but can't vote. They do negotiate with the town--we'd like this intersection redesigned, we need this sort of skilled worker, could you add that to the school curriculum?

Second Homeowners may not vote (you don't have to be from out of state, just out of town) but they can form organizations to work with the Selectmen. The Gilford Island Association has done well by its members, good Glendale docks, and parking, fire boat, an officer on duty,(See that Meredith), a special "Island Dump Day", etc.

[Woody38]

You should have a vote where your second home is located. It is possible for you or your wife to become a resident. When we lived on Cape Cod the dealer where we bought the boat was telling everyone they should have one member be a resident in order to vote in the community. As he said you have expensive property and should have a vote.

----------------------------------------------

I am a retired workaholic and continuing aquaholic

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by AC2717

yes correct, tax based on values on a market assessed value. What I am saying is that market assessed value should not be apart of it

So if market value should not be any part of it, what differentiating factors should be considered? What are your taxes paying for? Roads, schools, bridges, police fire?

Why shouldn't your taxes be based on what government services you could potentially use and need to have available?

No kids in the school system? Lower the tax. Part time resident? Lower that tax. Only one or two people living in your property? Lower the tax.

Why is the family with 5 kids paying less property and federal tax then you? Aren't you, the single homeowner, using a lot less in government services than that large family?

Is the tax structure completely backward?

In an ideal situation shouldn't taxes be to support services that you need?

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

So if market value should not be any part of it, what differentiating factors should be considered? What are your taxes paying for? Roads, schools, bridges, police fire?

Why shouldn't your taxes be based on what government services you could potentially use and need to have available?

No kids in the school system? Lower the tax. Part time resident? Lower that tax. Only one or two people living in your property? Lower the tax.

Why is the family with 5 kids paying less property and federal tax then you? Aren't you, the single homeowner, using a lot less in government services than that large family?

Is the tax structure completely backward?

In an ideal situation shouldn't taxes be to support services that you need?

I assume, and hope!, this is written in jest!

[swnoel]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

So if market value should not be any part of it, what differentiating factors should be considered? What are your taxes paying for? Roads, schools, bridges, police fire?

Why shouldn't your taxes be based on what government services you could potentially use and need to have available?

No kids in the school system? Lower the tax. Part time resident? Lower that tax. Only one or two people living in your property? Lower the tax.

Why is the family with 5 kids paying less property and federal tax then you? Aren't you, the single homeowner, using a lot less in government services than that large family?

Is the tax structure completely backward?

In an ideal situation shouldn't taxes be to support services that you need?

I agree with some of your points... most communities 60% or more of your property taxes are for our broken public schools! They need a better way to pay for schools... tying a noose around property owners necks isn't going to solve the money issue.. or lack of it.

[swnoel]

Originally Posted by swnoel

I agree with some of your points... most communities 60% or more of your property taxes are for our broken public schools! They need a better way to pay for schools... tying a noose around property owners necks isn't going to solve the money issue.. or lack of it.

I just read in an article recently in Manchester NH , 72% of the taxpayers don't even have children! https://www.nhbr.com/November-9-2018...ublic-schools/

[lagoon]

Originally Posted by AC2717

yes correct, tax based on values on a market assessed value. What I am saying is that market assessed value should not be apart of it

All of that is correct but, many lake front homes are not new and year round and are from the age of true cottages. They are owned by folks who love the lake area and have long been the backbone of taxes in the area. I have contested tax rates appraisals several times and the explanation is never as clear as I have seen in these posts.

The fact is they are much more likely to tax you on the frontage, the view and not the value of the place at all. Most of use with cottages are considered tear downs if the place is ever sold. We strive to maintain the lake life of old and value the area, the friends and the towns that surround the lake areas.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by lagoon

The fact is they are much more likely to tax you on the frontage, the view and not the value of the place at all.

If you are on the lake, the value of the place IS the frontage and the view. If you disagree, and you are on the lake, I recommend selling your current place, moving to a nicer house just a few hundred yards away, and pocketing $500K or so.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Biggd

Everyone that owns waterfront property would love your proposal but everyone else would be paying more and hate it. Because no matter what they still have to collect the same amount. It would just be divided up differently.
What you're willing to sell it for has no bearing on value. I sold my house to my son at a discounted price but he is still paying taxes on it's assessed value and if he went to sell it he would get a much higher price than what he paid for it. That's why when you go to sell a house it is appraised by looking at comparable properties that have recently sold. It's not a perfect science but it's pretty close .

That just proves the old adage that the only good tax is one that someone else has to pay.

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by AC2717

I'm not using that as a reason, I am using it as an example. My argument is an acre in the town is an acre in the town. I am removing Market value from the equation. If I own a acre in the town and you own an acre in the same town, why should our taxes be anything different. Fully agree when purchasing desirability is driving costs.

I own approximately 1.5 acres of land, not waterfront. I have a brook that runs through my land right behind the house and detached garage. The other side of the brook is perpetually wet, except in the driest of seasons. When the land values went up in Alton as few years back, the value of my land went up by over $14,000. I called the assessor and got an appointment to discuss the increase. He came out and agreed that the increase was too high; the problem with my land is that less than 1/3 of the lot is usable due to the wet nature of the lot. My increase was decreased to around over $3700.

If my lot was for all intents and purposes fully usable, and I could build anywhere on my lot, keeping within required setbacks, I would not have bothered with the appeal.

Value does have a place in property tax, just the same as value is important in determining what our vehicles and boats cost to register.

JMHO

Dave

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by AC2717

I'm not using that as a reason, I am using it as an example. My argument is an acre in the town is an acre in the town. I am removing Market value from the equation. If I own a acre in the town and you own an acre in the same town, why should our taxes be anything different. Fully agree when purchasing desirability is driving costs.

I own 4 acres of vacant land in town. It has no road access, and has wetlands. Either way, it is not build able and there are no structures on the land. No residents, no burden on town services, etc. It is valued at $8k, so my current property tax is very low. I also own 1 acre on which my house is built. The land alone is valued at $55k, not including the house.

So you think that I should pay the same property tax on both parcels?

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I own 4 acres of vacant land in town. It has no road access, and has wetlands. Either way, it is not build able and there are no structures on the land. No residents, no burden on town services, etc. It is valued at $8k, so my current property tax is very low. I also own 1 acre on which my house is built. The land alone is valued at $55k, not including the house.

So you think that I should pay the same property tax on both parcels?

1 acre one rate, if acre is in the same town yes, could you have a rate for buildable acre vs un-buildable acre, absolutely. My argument was originally based on a acre of buildable lot and sqft of building on it

[Descant]

Most people don't vote in local elections or at Town Meeting when the budget is approved. If you're not active in your hometown, why do you think you will attend Town Meeting in March where you have to be there in person, all evening, to vote by raising your hand?

[tis]

LOL, Bigg, I say the same thing to my accountant and he says the same thing. But I also say I don't want to get audited so won't take any risky deductions.

It's true unfortunately that most people don't vote and many of those that do, don't know what they are voting for.

I also agree it is true, there is so much more paperwork and rules and regulations today. The government doesn't realize how much it costs us in time and money. I think Washington needs to get rid of some of these people that just sit and think up regulations.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by AC2717

I'm not using that as a reason, I am using it as an example. My argument is an acre in the town is an acre in the town. I am removing Market value from the equation. If I own a acre in the town and you own an acre in the same town, why should our taxes be anything different. Fully agree when purchasing desirability is driving costs.

I love this reasoning and would like to see if we could extend it to federal income taxes as well. I am a citizen and have a job in this country and you are a citizen and have a job in this country so we should both pay the same federal tax. That I make $250,000 and you make $50,000 shouldn't make any difference. Send each of us a $5000 tax bill and we wouldn't need an IRS and employers wouldn't have to figure out W2s or any other wage paperwork for the government. Investments and their return wouldn't matter. Charitable, mortgage, or medical deductions won't matter. Everybody would know what they owe well ahead of time and wouldn't have to spend days collecting paperwork and filling out tax forms or worry about audits. You wouldn't need to buy tax software or go to a tax firm to do your taxes. There would be massive cost savings and life would be MUCH simpler.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by AC2717

polite-fully disagree and do not think you can compare it to earning a wage for yourself. And also this is on a spending side of a debate vs a earning side which is for individual merit and reward, but an acre and sqft are finite things that you can put a set rate and non market value. Insurance companies do it on every single homeowners and business policy they write. for example, I insure a property on one side of Laconia and then insure one on the other side the base rate for the property and Liability are set, aside from the personal exposures of the individual, but the base rates are the same in every equation in the town of Laconia or anywhere else for that matter.

Have to get away from the argument of Market value, and as it is said time and time again market value is only what someone is willing to pay for it and this is where all the disagrements, asessing, abatements comes from and sitrs the proverbial pot of rich vs poor. Takes away well im not getting permits cause they will hit me with more taxes, and blah blah blah.
Let the market dictate selling price, but set the tax. But at the end of the an acre in a town is an acre in the town. There is no argument of the less desirable vs desirable. It is you want to buy or own property in this town the taxes per acre is this and the price for sqft is this, period. The town sets the rates, adjusts as needed (we know that story)

When you're insuring a property it's mostly for the cost of rebuilding the structure on the property so that's not an apples to apples comparison. An acre of Winni waterfront should be taxed more than an acre of land in an obscure part of town. Just as an acre of commercial property should be taxed more than an acre of residential property. I think the big question is, how much more.

[fatlazyless]

Maybe Bob can donate it to the https://pinetreebsa.org in southern MAINE (Raymond, Maine) or some such organization for use as a weekend get-a-way and go-to spot. Bob gets a tax deduction off his federal taxes, and the Boy Scouts are property tax exempt so's all they need to do is to hire a local caretaker for mowing the lawn, doing the snow, and watching that it don't run out of heating oil.

Possibly a volunteer caretaker will step forward?

Run it as a summer camp with two week stays for kids from MAINE? Right now, it seems to be pretty much an unoccupied property with the service people who do maintenance the only ones who actually get any benefit out of it. "Ya you know, I just love to come over here and mow the lawn ..... so quiet, so peaceful, so beautiful, and I'm the only person here today ..... and just look at that view down the lake! .....so nice to be here .... seems a wee bit crazy to me there's never anyone here?"

For 55-years, from 1937-1992, it was home to about 300-people, campers and staff, every summer, year after year after year ..... it was Camp Alton ... www.campalton.com

[Biggd]

I have a friend that had a similar situation with a house he bought and lived in in Bristle Conn. Although not quite as impressive as this estate, he bought this 6000 sq ft home in one of the best neighborhoods in Bristle, which there aren't many. He paid 1.5 mil for this home back before the recession when prices were at their peak. He raised his family there and now they were gone and this home was just too big for the 2 of them.

They bought a condo in another town and put the house on the market for 1.2 mil. After a year of price drops and no sale he told me the taxes, utilities and upkeep on the house, 25K a month, were killing him and they were the biggest stumbling block of the sale. He had a couple of break in's also because the place was vacant for so long. He finally accepted an offer of 600K.

He took quite a bath on the home but couldn't justify keeping it any longer.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Biggd

When you're insuring a property it's mostly for the cost of rebuilding the structure on the property so that's not an apples to apples comparison. An acre of Winni waterfront should be taxed more than an acre of land in an obscure part of town. Just as an acre of commercial property should be taxed more than an acre of residential property. I think the big question is, how much more.

why? taking out Market value residential V residential? same can go commercial to commercial

[ITD]

Originally Posted by AC2717

why? taking out Market value residential V residential? same can go commercial to commercial

A fair tax would be taking the total tax levy, dividing it by the number of properties in the town and apportioning the tax EQUALLY amongst the properties.