View Tax???

[nj2nh]

Yesterday, Charles Osgood (of Sunday Morning fame on CBS-TV) did a piece on the CBS radio station in NYC (News Radio 880) about the view tax in NH. From what he stated, the tax bill for property owners in NH will now include a third valuation. The first is land, the second is improvement and the third is for the view.

Some man whom he quoted stated that he owns a home in the mountains. A modest place with a small piece of property and a medium size house, but his view valuation was $250,000!

I can only imagine what some of the taxes for lake property are going to look like now. I pity my parents. They have a view from Echo Point out towards Little Mark Island and the Broads. I think it is the most wonderful view on the lake, but then I am biased.

As my friends on another message board would say, "discuss."

I am curious to hear what you all think!

Jersey Girl

[camp guy]

I used to live at the end of Winter Harbor (near Carry Beach) and had what could only be described as a "million dollar" view. Fortunately, I 'used' to live there, and now I live inland. What if someone doesn't like their "view" ---can they get money back ? (Just a thought)

[secondcurve]

The value of a property has always, and will always, be comprised of the components you mention, land, structure, view, etc. Nothing has changed. The appraisers simply now break out the value amongst the components. However, I bet they wish they never went down this path!

While it is unfortunate that all of New Hampshire's tax burden falls on home owners, that is the way it is. If you can't afford to pay your taxes , sell and enjoy a nice gain!

[fatlazyless]

It just kills me that Tom Thompson of Orford is the major cheerleader for the 'ax the view tax' crowd. He recently got over 5000 people to sign a petition expressing their dislike.

If he wants to blame anyone for his view tax, he should blame his dad, Governor Meldrim Thompson, for thinking up the idiotic New Hampshire Advantage tax system back in 1976. No sales tax, no income tax, but just a local property tax.

It's all about local control.....yeah....sure....right....make that local out-of-control!
.................................................

Ok, that's a bit of an over statement, calling the NH Advantage idiotic, since after all, this campaign slogan has worked for years and years to keep the NH Republicans in office. As long as property taxes were relatively low, the NH Republicans were large and in charge. Now with higher property values and state-wide standardized assessments, many long time home owners are feeling over taxed because their income is not keeping up with their assessments.

Well, like the post above says, one can always sell out and move to Fryberg Maine, or somewhere.

[MJM]

It seems to me this is really a non-issue. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding here.

The valuation of a piece of property is relfective of its market value. View is one of the factors that affect market value. So view has always been part of the equation.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

The value of a property has always, and will always, be comprised of the components you mention, land, structure, view, etc. Nothing has changed. The appraisers simply now break out the value amongst the components. However, I bet they wish they never went down this path!

I agree. As I understand it, the purpose of an assessment is to approximate the market value of the property. This will never be a perfect process because the market value is extremely dynamic. The thing I look for in a "fair" assessment is a transparent assessment formula backed up by facts. The facts are the kinds of rooms, square footage, and trim levels and condition of your property. This should be combined with actual property sales of similar properties. It worries me when assessors make "adjustments" when people complain if there is no change in the underlying facts. That implies the original assessment was whimsical.

Higher assessments for "desirable" properties has always been part of the system. This is where the sales of "similar" properties comes in. On the lake I have a small 2 bedroom house. In Hudson my house is 3 times the size of the lake house. The lot sizes are approximately the same. The lake porperty is assessed at more than the Hudson house. Call it a view tax, great property tax, envy tax, or whatever, the reality is that I can probably sell the lake property for more than the Hudson property and the "assessment" reflects that.

A lot of the pain and complaining about property taxes is now coming about because the courts have said that if the property tax were to be considered a normalized tax across the whole state everyone would need to have frequent reassessments. There has been considerable pressure on towns to carry out these assessments, some of which have not been done in a LONG time. Long time property owners have often benefitted from this assessment neglect and now reality is setting in.

Like it or not, the people that are complaining about these taxes are wealthy. They have a valuable piece of property. If they sell it and move to a less "desired" piece of property they solve their problems in two ways; they no longer owe the taxes and they have pocketed a nice profit (which, if it is their primary residence, they pay no tax on). As an alternative they need to earn enough income to pay their taxes. Say their taxes are $15,000 on a property assessed at $1,500,000. What's so bad about that? If the property continues to appreciate at 2% a year (a conservative estimate) they make $30,000 a year on appreciated value. If they want to keep the property in the family, hit up the kids for some help with the taxes. How about a reverse mortgage? I understand that no one wants to be pushed out of their home but if it's that important there are options and in the worst case the sale of the property yields significant assets.

If I buy a stock or mutual fund and hang on to it for 30 years it will probably become quite valuable. However, I can't both keep the stock and reap the value at the same time. People don't live in stocks or mutual funds but many romanticize about their housing property, claiming some special rights of ownership because it's "their house". If they want to do that, great, but they need to understand what keeping that housing property under any and all conditions really requires and plan for it. How are we supposed to feel when they need to have their roof fixed and they can't afford that either? or a new well?, or a new septic system?

[ghfromaltonbay]

Here is a copy of Charles Osgood's report. I heard it too last Monday on his daily CBS report. (They run repeats on the weekend of the most popular segments.)


NEW HAMPSHIRE'S VIEW TAX

The state of New Hampshire, whose motto is Live Free or Die, has no state income tax or sales tax. But there is a property tax and John Chandler's has been going up sharply because of the beautiful view from his place.

"I don't own that view."

His property hasn't changed but the property tax has. It's jumped ten fold in the last 5 years.

"I own the house, I won the yard but I don't own the view." said Chandler.

There's something of a view tax revolt going on there. The story after this for Welch's.

David Bischoff has a hunting cabin with an outhouse and 40 acres with a view.

"A 200 thousand dollar view." said David Bischoff.

Tax assessors wanted to show people how their property was being appraised so on the forms they included a separate line for view value.

“What’s a view?" said Tom Thompson.

Tree Farmer Tom Thompson is leading the revolt.

"Tell me what the definition of a view that assessors in the state of New Hampshire use." said Thompson.

The company that assesses most of the property in New Hampshire is Avatar. CEO Gary Rober says people have always been willing to pay more for shorefront property. The Granite state only has 13 miles of seacoast.

"I'd say three levels of mountains probably worth more than the ocean." said Gary Rober, CEO Avatar.

That's a little subjective. Wouldn't you say?

"It is subjective but what part of buying or selling isn't subjective. It's human nature." said Rober.

Phil Blastos the Commissioner of New Hampshire's Department of Revenue denies there's any such thing as a view tax.

"There is no separate view tax, the view is rolled into the value of the property because it's what people are paying for the property." said Phil Blastos, NH Department of Revenue Administration.

Tom Thompson doesn't buy that for a minute.

"It's a gimmick that assessors have come up with to come through the back door and stick their hands deeper in your pockets and extract more tax dollars for the municipalities, that's what it is folks." said Thompson.

[fatlazyless]

Here is a short explanation. Property taxes used to be low, but now they are high. When their six month property tax bill is due, a lot of Granite Staters are short.

Nobody really knows how much of the last election's results were due to the war and/or due to the property tax. Both Dems and Repubs and Indy's will be doing everything they can do to win big in the Nov 2008 election.

"Come to New Hampshire, and win big!" How's that for a campaign slogan for either politics or gambling?

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Here is another short explanation.
I have a 1/4 acre lot with a 4 room cabin and a porch that looks at the road. Other guy next door has a 1/4 acre lot with a 4 room cabin and a porch that looks at the Ossipee mountains. When I sell, can I get the same price as the "other guy".

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by RI Swamp Yankee

Here is another short explanation.
I have a 1/4 acre lot with a 4 room cabin and a porch that looks at the road. Other guy next door has a 1/4 acre lot with a 4 room cabin and a porch that looks at the Ossipee mountains. When I sell, can I get the same price as the "other guy".

Simply paint the road blue, buy a boat and park it on the road. Everyone will think you have lakefront property. Offer to include the boat as a package deal for the property as a sweetner.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by ghfromaltonbay

....Here is a copy of Charles Osgood's report. I heard it too last Monday on his daily CBS report. (They run repeats on the weekend of the most popular segments.)...Tom Thompson doesn't buy that for a minute..." It's a gimmick that assessors have come up with to come through the back door and stick their hands deeper in your pockets and extract more tax dollars for the municipalities, that's what it is folks." said Thompson.

This quote from Thompson is one of the oft most repeated fallacies in this debate. The assessors do not stick their hands in anyone's pockets and no "new" money is raised when a town or municipality is re-assessed!

Property taxes go up when overall spending goes up. Property taxes go down when overall spending goes down. All the assessment does is to determine how much of that up or down you have to pay for your particular piece of property.

There are many good arguments to make on both sides of the issue when it comes to New Hampshire's methods of taxation. The property tax system is really not that hard to comprehend. It does no one on either side of the debate any good when folks like Thompson, who should know better, purposely misrepresent the issues to try to defend a position that is in their best interest by making false and misleading statements as the one attributed to him in the post cited.

FLL hit the nail right on the head in an earlier post. I too find it particularly ironic that Mr. Thompson is raising so much hell over a property tax system that his father pursued vigorously as the governor of New Hampshire and a system that Mr. Thompson & his family have embodied for decades....only to have a significant change of heart when the State ordered all communities in New Hampshire to level the playing field and the surviving Thompson's now balk when they are asked to pay their fair share!

[Windrider]

Skip.....well said and yes, I have a great view in Meredith but know it increases the value when and if I ever sell.

[jonr]

While Skip is right that it is spending that increases the total tax raised (assuming non-tax revenues are constant), increasing market values for one segment of property (lakefront, nice views, etc.) does have the effect at changing the distribution of taxes. If nice view properties double in value while regular residential properties go up 10%, then the view properties share of town taxes will indeed go up.

The other thing folks often seem to miss is that there are ways other than a sale to monetize a real increase in property values. If want you to stay in your now more valuable property despite a fixed income, then you can do an equity loan or a reverse mortgage. Since property taxes are a small percentage (say 1.2% to 2% of the assessment), you don't need to tap much equity to pay the property bills. You should easily be able to pay 30 to 50 years of that % increase with the property's value increase). So if my property increases $100k in value, I would be very happy to pay another $1500 or so in taxes every year. Even if I didn't have the income, I could tap some of my $100k in value to do so for a very long time. ($100k / $1500 = 66 years, reduce that for time value of money, fees etc.)

I think the real problems are that folks don't believe the assessments represent the real value of their property and that spending increases often increases such that everyone's tax bill increases even were property values to be stagnant.

[Windrider]

Perhaps the question we need to ask ourselves is if we would sell our property for it's taxed value were we forced to sell?

[jonr]

Originally Posted by Rayhunt

What if a blind person lived in a house with a million dollar view ? Seems a bit discriminatory to me. What constitutes the value of the view. One person may enjoy a certain view more than another.. Just another money hungry government travesty

I don't think that's a travesty. It isn't about what the owner enjoys, but rather what the asset is worth on the open market. And views do make the asset worth much more. I think views are probably less suggestive than one might think and that there is often data on properties that are the same except for the view (except for less controversial adjustments for living space/acreage, etc).

[Mee-n-Mac]

Some budget racing classes have a price limit on what's supposed to be spent. To enforce that there's a claim rule that mandates the sale of the winning vehicle at that price. I wonder if it might be a good idea to be applied to property taxes ? If you think the town has assessed your property at too high a value, then you get to force the town to buy it at the assessed value in, i dunno, 30 days after you make your claim. Of course if the town is being fair, there'll have no problem buying and reselling the property, perhaps even making a profit. The threat might rein in the more outrageous claims of how much a view is worth. Because in the end, that's what the problem is. People might complain about the amount of taxes they pay but if they could sell the house for what the assessor says it's worth, then they'd have to agree the valuation (including whatever the view contributes) is fair.

ps - Don't consider cell phone towers to be eyesores, think of them as reducing your view tax !

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Rayhunt

What if a blind person lived in a house with a million dollar view ? Seems a bit discriminatory to me. What constitutes the value of the view. One person may enjoy a certain view more than another.. Just another money hungry government travesty

Interesting postulation!

So, if we follow your logic and give a break to the vision impaired, what do we do with the landowner that has 20/10 vision.....increase his assessed value by, say, an additional 20% ?

[Pineedles]

One aspect of this discussion that has not been been discussed, and that is the property that has been inherited by not one but many descendants. The option of selling is not an option, too many agendas among multiple age and earnings groups precludes this. Taking out a home equity loan to pay taxes also precludes this option. When the tax and upkeep exceeds the level that one could rent, the multiple owners who are at the same economic level could sell the property but hence the problem. Some don't mind paying $3K a year for 2 weeks in June just because of the "memories that the summer homestead evokes", others could rent a decent place for $3K in July/August. The problem isn't that simple as selling or "get a loan". If NH isn't concerned with retaining its early summer residents (late 1800's), then continue to make it impossible to for them to survive. BTW, for the most part we have a greater respect for the lake and its environ then most McMansion owners today, because we were told by our grand and great grand parents what the lake used to be. We're trying to live up to the expectations of our heritage, are you (NH legislature)?

[fatlazyless]

Being blind does not exempt someone from paying the property tax on a property with a view because they could sell the property to someone who has good eyesight and would appreciate the view.

Ray Charles was one of a very few blind people, I believe, who was also very wealthy. Most blind people probably have very limited earning capability. So that means Ray had an unfair advantage here in New Hampshire because he could buy a home on a lot with no view an not be bothered about that.

Therefore, NH should tax the blind a double property tax since to them, no view is no problem. This would then become part of the New Hampshire Advantage, double-tax the blind,......yeah!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Windrider

Perhaps the question we need to ask ourselves is if we would sell our property for it's taxed value were we forced to sell?

I don't plan to sell: I'm going to transplant some great white pine trees to block my view—and then request a reduction in property tax.

Yup. That'll work.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

One aspect of this discussion that has not been been discussed, and that is the property that has been inherited by not one but many descendants.

While I personally have not had to deal with the issue of multiple family owners I know people who have had to and it can be a nightmare . However, why is it an excuse not to be responsible for the property tax. If a family has been given a valuable piece of property and all they need to do is handle the taxes and upkeep they are very fortunate to have received a valuable gift. What happens when the septic system needs to be replaced for 25 grand or the roof for 15 grand and they can't agree how to pay for that? The property tax is a bill, just like electricity, oil, plowing, and all sorts of other required expenses. All these bills get more expensive over time and you need to deal with that fact, family owned or individually owned. I know one person who ended up buying out their relatives share of the property because the relative didn't want to chip in. Very painful but he wanted the property badly enough that he was willing to pick up a mortgage to cover the buyout.

[chipj29]

For property taxes, aren't property values based upon a certain % of fair market value? So let's say you bought your house 10 years ago at say $300k, and it is now worth $450k. You still are paying a mortgage based on what you bought it for. Now you want to sell it, and you make a tidy little profit of over $150k, because that is what the market determined the value of your home to be. But for the past 10 years, you were paying taxes on the $300k value, not the $450k value, so you made out pretty well.
OK now same deal, same values, except the town caught up with you and reassessed your houses value. Isn't that what this is? An adjustment in property value?
My house value has triple since I bought it in 1996. I have been reassessed, and sure as hell my taxes went way up, but not because of a view. It is due to the value of the home. Who determined that value? The market did.

To me it seems that the towns were trying to help people understand why their property value may have jumped so much by itemizing the components of their land value. I think that calling it a "view tax" may have been their undoing.

[vrrooom]

An Excellent Case of the imact of the lag, is Chanticlaire in Gilford. A colony of water front second homes that for years was assessed at 150K, two years ago one sold (the first sale in 20 years) for almost 300K, and this year one has just sold (sale has not been completed) for 500K. I wonder how the assessors explane the inequity of this, 20+ years of assessments at less than 1/2 of market value. This inequity (Chanticlair) has been pointed out to the Gilford Selectmen many times thru the abatement process, but taxing the non voters is fun. That is why we need assessments based on replacement cost per sq ft, not sales which would address the disequity between property owners. No taxation without representation?

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by jeffk

Simply paint the road blue, buy a boat and park it on the road. Everyone will think you have lakefront property. Offer to include the boat as a package deal for the property as a sweetner.

Brilliant! Great idea.
Are you a real estate agent?

[SIKSUKR]

Every property has always had some form of "view" tax.It just was never called such.Property with views have always been worth more than ones without and the tax would be reflected in that value.

[Pineedles]

":However, why is it an excuse not to be responsible for the property."

I am not avoiding the tax or it's resposibility, I merely am saying that there are problems that the NH Leg. has not considered. Thank you jeffk for your sympathy. It is difficult when there is no 1 individual that can step up and buy out the others.

My point is that the monthly mortage amount, if we refinanced, would not equal the potential rent of today. In the recent past, it did! because of this inequality i believe that a reater burden is being put on the "shore and View dwellers" of winnipesaukee.

[fatlazyless]

Today's March 22 Laconia Daily Sun has an article that starts on the front page titled "Court rules view of Winnipesaukee is legitimate part of condo's value"

It's about a lawsuit between a Gilford condo owner vs. the Town of Gilford decided by Justice Larry Smuckler of Belknap Superior Court. It's appropriate to this thread and is a medium lengthy article.

I'm hoping someone with a scanner could post it here, or hey, maybe someone at the Laconia prison who has lots of time and needs something to do. (Hey Danny-boy, r u still in?) For me to type it out could take me, gosh, maybe an hour so that's a no-go.

The decision was for the town and against the condo owner plus the Judge agreed with the towns attorney and awarded.....well, here's the last paragraph.

"Spector (town attorney Laura Spector) characterized the suit as "oppressive, vexatious, arbitrary, capricious, frivolous and bad faith" and asked the court to dismiss it and award legal costs to the town. Smukler (Belknap County Superior Court Justice Larry Smukler) readily agreed and awarded court costs and attorney's fees to the town."
................................................
From the article's middle.

Rabinovitz further claimed that her assessment was disproportionate; in other words, that her property was assessed at a higher percentage of its fair market than that at which other properties were generally assessed. Her argument hinged on (town assessor) Corcoran's two methods to value properties. He values the view of single -family homes by measuring the property's linear feet of waterfront, but measures the degrees of view when appraising condominiums. Corcoran told the court that if the linear feet of waterfront were applied to condominiums, the appraisals would fall short of fair market value.

Rabinovitz maintained that Corcoran's use of two methodologies was contrary to an opinion of the New Hampshire Supreme Court stipulatng that "equality in the burden of taxation cannot exit without uniformity in the mode of assessments as well as in the rate of taxation." However, Smukler held that "a fair reading of the quoted language requires assessors to assess all properties at the same percentage of fair market value - it does not require a uniform methodology" and referred to another Supreme Court opinion where the justices ruled that a flawed methodology does not itself prove a disproportionate result.

Likewise, Smukler lent no credence to Rabinovitz's assertion that views cannot be considered in appraising the overall value of a
property. "The town is not taxing Ms. Rabinovitz's view," he wrote,"rather it is taxing Ms. Rabinovitz's property." Again citing case law, he explained that fair market value represented the price a seller and buyer would negotiate "taking into account all considerations that fairly might be brought forward and reasonably given substantial weight in such bargaining." View, Smukler said, is one factor sellers and buyers consider and assessors may weigh in appraising property and found that 'The town is not imposing a separate 'view tax'."

Thanks LaDaSun and reporter Michael Kitch ..................................

It would be interesting to hear what type of an argument the 'ax the view tax' crowd would make to counter this court's opinion. No doubt, they would come up with something and probably even believe it, themselves. But, what obviously is really driving the 'ax the view tax crowd' and myself is the increasing high price of their property tax. So, how come Tom Thompson and the 'ax the view tax' crowd does not suggest an alternative revenue system like a state income tax? No, that would be too even, fair, representative of ability-to-pay and uncomplicated and besides, gosh oh-no, it would be the end of the oh-so-wonderfull, NH Advantage.

May the NH Advantage rest in peace somewhere in a museum of bygone NH republicanisms!

And, here's hoping the current lawsuit before the State Supreme Court asking for the State of NH to refund the last three years of state education tax succeeds!

[secondcurve]

Pineneedles:

I think you have an old fashion, run of the mill family problem. It is nothing to do about taxes in my opinion. If taxes were low, there would likely be other issues amongst the various generations. It is difficult to own property with relatives due to the differing agendas you note. Good Luck and when negotiating remember that you only have one family, despite how wrong they are on the cottage issues!

[MJM]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

Pineneedles:

I think you have an old fashion, run of the mill family problem. It is nothing to do about taxes in my opinion. If taxes were low, there would likely be other issues amongst the various generations. It is difficult to own property with relatives due to the differing agendas you note. Good Luck and when negotiating remember that you only have one family, despite how wrong they are on the cottage issues!

I agree it's an old fashioned issue, but the degree of the inherent challenges has changed dramatically, because the property value have increased so dramatically.

In the past, it was possible for the average family members to be able to handle the maintenance costs, taxes, etc., and could also often offset much of those costs by renting the place for periods of time if need be. Now, with the values so high, and therefore the taxes so high, keeping up with the costs is out of reach for many.

Don't get me wrong - people should feel very fortunate to have this "problem", but it is indeed sad when a family place has to be sold due to this type of situation.

And I couldn't agree more on the note that there could be other issues anyway.

[jonr]

Originally Posted by Rayhunt

I just dont believe anything subjective should be used to calculate an assesment. If you own water front its "how many feet".. your structure is based on square footage etc..

I don't buy this argument. Even if sq feet of waterfront is usually objective (except when it curves!), the question is not how many feet, but rather what is it worth. The only way to figure that out is to look at comparable properties and try to account for other differences. That may not be exact but it's not just blind guessing.

The issue isn't what the assessor thinks of the view (which might well be subjective). It's what other properties with similar views have sold for adjusted for their other differences (sq feet, 1 garage vs 2 garages, age, etc). Nothing any more subject in that than any other value metric. The real issue is how does the market value that kind of view.

[jonr]

Originally Posted by chipj29

My house value has triple since I bought it in 1996. I have been reassessed, and sure as hell my taxes went way up, but not because of a view. It is due to the value of the home. Who determined that value? The market did.

Your taxes did not go up because your house value went up. That's not the way the system works.

Your taxes went up only because of one or more of these reasons:

1) you house value went up more than other houses in town, therefore you are effectively now paying a higher proportion of town taxes.

2) your town is now spending more money (and/or getting less in non-tax revenue) and so everyone in town is paying more

If every property in town suddenly was worth 10 times its current value, and town spending (and non-tax revenue) stayed the same, your taxes would not change at all! But if your house goes up 20% and another house goes up 10% you will be paying more and the other owner will be paying less (w/constant spending).

[fatlazyless]

My two-bed Meredith Winnipesaukee waterfront kozy-kottage has gone from $2800. to 10,000./year prop taxes in the last three years while the assessmment has gone from $240k to 801k. Thanks in part to our 'NH Advantage' system of taxation based on the local property tax! So, who has the advantage here?

[jonr]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

My two-bed Meredith Winnipesaukee waterfront kozy-kottage has gone from $2800. to 10,000./year prop taxes in the last three years while the assessmment has gone from $240k to 801k. Thanks in part to our NH Advantage tax! So, who has the advantage?

If your property really has increased by $561k and your taxes have increased by $7.2k then you are in a good position. $561k / $7.2k = 80 years of paying the taxes from the increase in equity. And that is ignoring the time value of money which would make things a lot better (160+ years perhaps?)

Put another way the newfound $561k of equity will continue to grow. If your property value continues to increase at more than 1.3% you will always be ahead of the game ( $7.2k / $561k = 1.3%, so all you need is a 1.3% return on the $561k a year to pay the increase in taxes).

And of course it's mostly the land value that drove your increase. It is amazing what waterfront land is worth today.

[fatlazyless]

Yes, the mortgage is paid off and I'm the sole owner and my numbers are correct. Your comments about the increase in equity are all well and good, but when the property tax bill is due one has to come up with a cash check. It's not like I can present the tax collector with a wheel barrow of waterfront rocks & soil and some old shingles and explain they represent 1.3% of the assessed value.

Probably, with the property tax assessment increases, a number of Meredith homeowners have this same problem. Hey, misery loves company!

[TomC]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Your comments about the increase in equity are all well and good, but when the property tax bill is due one has to come up with a cash check....

i think he is suggesting that you convert some of the equity into cash, by perhaps a reverse mortgage or home equity line...

[wehatetoquitit]

California answered the question of escallating property taxes long ago with proposition 13. This proposition locked in the assessed value on the date of passage and is only allowed to increase at the rate of 1 to 2 percent per year, unless the property is sold. Then the property is assessed at its full market value and the new value (for tax purposes) then escallates at 1-2%/yr. If a City needs additional funds to operate, it must find other means of increasing revenue. This usually means higher development fees, permit fees, or a special sales tax, etc.

The purpose of this bill was to insure that older, retired, or those on fixed income would not be forced from their homes do to increasing property taxes. Transfers between famly members is exempt from the re-assessment.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by wehatetoquitit

California answered the question of escallating property taxes long ago with proposition 13. This proposition locked in the assessed value on the date of passage and is only allowed to increase at the rate of 1 to 2 percent per year, unless the property is sold. Then the property is assessed at its full market value and the new value (for tax purposes) then escallates at 1-2%/yr.

The purpose of this bill was to insure that older, retired, or those on fixed income would not be forced from their homes do to increasing property taxes. Transfers between famly members is exempt from the re-assessment.

In California then, a 45 year old, at the peak of his earning ability, who has been in his house for twenty years has a great deal. He has property that is worth a LOT more than what he paid for it and super low property taxes. Meanwhile, a twenty five year old, just struggling to get started is going to have to pay a fortune for a house and get zapped with full current value property tax that will probably be a barrier to owning his own home. Part of the reason that property is so expensive in parts of California is because of laws like this. Only people with uber money can afford to live there and they bid up prices.

This may have helped some seniors but it's also a great example of the "I've got mine!!" philosophy. "I have my house and a great property tax shelter, nuts to everyone else!!" Also, its not a very discriminating solution. Why do seniors or actually long term California property owners, as a class of people, deserve blanket exemption from property tax? Many seniors (and long time property owners) are quite well off and can easily afford property taxes.

I recognize that our New Hampshire property tax system, and reliance on it as the primary source of state revenue, creates its share of problems. Others have pointed to various tax systems used by other states as the solution, but those states simply shift the tax burden around and in most cases are fiscally worse off than New Hampshire is. The most important control on the rate of any taxation system is spending control and spending control is far more difficult the further the government body is from the people. Federal government spending is out of control because it is almost impossible for people to exercise control of it. Yes, we constantly struggle with the paying our public bills in New Hampshire. It's painful to pay our taxes. Isn't that a good thing? Before we open our wallets to government don't we want to make sure that the spending is really needed? Doesn't tax pain cause us to look more closely at what the money is being used for. Most people pay as much or more in federal taxes than property tax. But the federal government plays a psychological trick on us and bleeds our money from us week by week in payroll taxes before we even get to see it. And think of all the wasted spending and fraud by the federal government. At least most of the property tax is used for education funding.

[Flylady]

Prop. 13 in general has allowed many family's to buy and KEEP their homes because they don't have to fear an escalating tax assessment for as long as they stay in their property. I too winter in Californa and summer in NH. I bought my NH lakefront 18 months ago. My parents inherated a wonderful lakefront from their family, however sadly they had to sell it because they could not afford the insurance and taxes. We alway had great memories as children on the lake and I hope my grandchildren will as well. What I have done to ensure the place stays in the family after I am gone is I have appointed a trustee to pay for taxes, insurance and certain type of up keep for 15 years after I am gone. Of course it takes a little financial planning to fund that type of a maintenance account. A life insurance policy will do most of it. I have faith that the good people of NH will keep our local officials in check with the power of the vote long after I have departed! However as others have pointed out....spending and cost of maintence will alway cause taxes to raise. Lets just hope at inflation level not faster than it.

[wehatetoquitit]

You have some good points, especially regarding spending. However, I have to take exception to the "I have mine" comment. Calif. has a sales tax, as well as an income tax to run state gov. In addition, each town, county has their own tax rate, as does the cities in NH. Therefore the people who consume pay a tax which helps pay for local gov. I also find it hard to believe that a high property tax "helps" a strugling 25 year old buy a home in NH. How does that work? Calif is about 4-5 times larger then NH and not all of Calif is LA or San Francisco, or Silicon Valley, where prices are greatly inflated.

I do agree that ownership longevity pays off. We have all seen our property values increase, no matter where we live, and when and if we deceide to sell we will all benefit.

[MJM]

Originally Posted by Flylady

What I have done to ensure the place stays in the family after I am gone is I have appointed a trustee to pay for taxes, insurance and certain type of up keep for 15 years after I am gone.

This is an honorable and well-intentioned goal, but if you're open to a little friendly advice...you may want to reconsider. We, as a family, had this discussion ahead of time (prior to the previous generation becoming very elderly or gone), and after a great deal of thought, discussions, and opionions from legal and financial experts, opted not to do it. (A somewhat heartbreaking, but "it's for the best" decision.) It of course varies with each particular situation, and I'm sure there are examples of it working, but I think it's a perilous road.

For the sake of discussion, let's say:
~ Mom and Dad have owned a decent place on the Lake for 50 years.
~ Because of the skyrocketing values, the place is now worth $1 miilion
~ They lived comfortably, not wealthily, and all other assets totalled $300k
~ They also left a trust to cover the cost of the place when they are gone.
~ Their grown children (Huey, Duey, and Luey), each deserve an equal share of their life savings.

A few possible scenarios to consider:
- Huey never really got his life in full swing, and hasn't ever owned a home. By being a 1/3 owner, he is entitled to all rights of ownership, so he moves in permanently. But Duey and Luey live hours away, and own their own homes. So they consider it a weekend/vacation place, and only get up there for those times. Is it someone's permanent home, or a vacation place?
- Although Duey loves the Lake, he really enjoys Maine better. He'd prefer, no disprespect intended, to buy a place there, but Huey and Louie only inherited $100k in cash, so they can't afford to buy him out of his 1/3.
- Luey's job forces him to move to the west coast, so he'll never (hardly) get to enjoy the place. Why would he want to own 1/3 of it?
- Duey hits a rough patch in life. He loses his job, and his son needs expensive medical care. On paper, he's worth $333,333, but he can't get at it to pay the bills.
- Luey can afford to send his quadruplet daughters to a decent college, but with his share ($333,333) of the house's worth, he could send them to a great school. Being a terrific father, that is his preference - he'd rather forego vacations/weekends on the lake to be able to do that for his daughters.

And there are numerous other issues like liability, general family issues of not getting along, etc etc.


Don't get me wrong, in a perfect world, it'd be fantastic to be able to hold onto the family place for generation after generation. It's just less and less feasible to do so, in my opinion.

[Parker Island Fun]

There can be no dumber way to raise taxes then what they have cooked up in CA. They are one of the most highly taxed citizens of our nation. and please never mention this state and our lakes to any one who likes to live in the Golden State, please!

[wehatetoquitit]

I agree, the CA way is not the way to go we are heavely taxed. I am only suggesting that CA long ago faced the issue of escalating RE taxes and fixed income home owners. The issue forced the City goverments to be more accountable for the dollars they collected. By reducing the ability to raise RE taxes any time someone on the board of supervisors (in NH case- selectmen) decieded that some project was needed, the expenditure had to be justified. In additions, other methods of raising fund were implemented, such as higher development fees for developers, sewer and water hookup fees, etc.. Therefore, only those applying for the additions paid the fees. In addition, any improvements needed by the local jurisdictions which were outside of their budget needed to be approved by the voters, such as bond measures for education, sewer treatment facilites, and so forth. I as a voter actually have a say in how my local money is spent by allowing the city gov. to "add" a special assessment to my tax rate.

[dpg]

My parents have neighbors that lay out on their porch every summer in their bikinis for hours. Wonder what that does to their tax bill? Worth the fee whatever it is.

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by dpg

.... Worth the fee whatever it is.

Maybe .....
.
.

[phoenix]

the issue of the view tax has surfaced not because of water front but the back land that has views. The waterfront people have always paid more but it was easier to relate to increased property value with other views it can be more difficult. I also lived in Cal for three years and saw the reason for prop 13. Many of the state mandates were funded by local taxes and towns focused on the rate not total spending and were increasing spending whenever they increased property values. I think you have a similar problem in Nh and could get worst depending on how the education problem gets solved. Jarvis felt the only way to get local taxes under control was a cap. It has allowed people on fixed incomes to manage their taxes by not selling their home. All spending in the end can't fall on one base. Sometimes one has to put constraints on the "pols"

[Skip]

The good folks in Concord did not buy the Tommy Thompson argument on the so called "view tax".

Read about it here in tonight's on-line UNION LEADER!

[fatlazyless]

Cutting the spending is just not going to happen. Too many teachers, police, fire, and municipal employees show up in strength at the local voting polls and vote, as is their right.

Good for the 'ax the view tax' crowd. At least they tried. Better to try and fail. With each and every subsequent six-month property tax bill, more and more property owners with views will get taxed and will be financially stressed. Eventually, the legislature will say:" we really do not want to do this but feel we have no choice, and find it necessary to pass a 3.33% income tax! Cheers for the 'ax the view tax' crowd.....at least they tried!

[Skip]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Cutting the spending is just not going to happen. Too many teachers, police, fire, and municipal employees show up in strength at the local voting polls and vote, as is their right.

Good for the 'ax the view tax crowd.' At least they tried. Better to try and fail. With each and every subsequent six-month property tax bill, more and more property owners with views will get taxed and will be financially stressed. Eventually, the legislature will say:" we really do not want to do this but feel we have no choice, and find it necessary to pass a 3.33% income tax! Cheers for the 'ax the view tax' crowd.....at least they tried!

Oh, I don't think you'll see an income tax any time soon. You see the majority of today's Democrats including our hugely popular Governor were elected on the new "Democratic Advantage" .....no sales or income tax!

Yep, these newly elected Democrats and their leader are keeping to the promise that got them elected to power this time around....no new broad based taxes. Yep, when it comes to the no new broad base tax issues in this State both parties have finally found an issue that they truly can be bipartisan in!

Ain't politics strange!!!!

[fatlazyless]

Yes, as a new source of income maybe Meredith should hire Judd Gregg to buy Powerball tickets for the town.

For years and years, the local NH property tax system worked well because the prop tax was relatively low. Well, it is not so low anymore and property tax payers are getting stressed. Witness the big Democratic win in the last election.

How about mandatory $33.33 purchases at the Rt 93 state liquor stores for all vehicles otherwise they get routed onto the old Daniel Webster highway or a tax on leaves that fall off trees. For every fallen leaf, you must pay the local town two cents. Yes, it's the two-cent leaf tax and it will bail out the whole state......just my opinion.......two-cents!

Question of the day. If a municipality like Meredith were to actually play the Powerball with municipal money with their intention to fund their local government, would their winning be exempt from federal taxes? I do not know the answer.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Yes, as a new source of income maybe Meredith should hire Judd Gregg to buy Powerball tickets for the town.

It's time to give the powerball thing a rest!

Originally Posted by FLL

For years and years, the local NH property tax system worked well because the prop tax was relatively low. Well, it is not so low anymore and property tax payers are getting stressed. Witness the big Democratic win in the last election.

So the Democrats won because NH has high property taxes?That's laughable.I think it had a lot more to do with a certain war in Iraq.

Originally Posted by FLL

Question of the day. If a municipality like Meredith were to actually play the Powerball with municipal money with their intention to fund their local government, would their winning be exempt from federal taxes? I do not know the answer.

I'm sure it would be exempt just like it would for you FLL.Oh,but that's right,if you won you would rather pay more tax on your winnings to the state right?Please,your arguments start to lose credibility after a while when you beat a dead horse with this lottery thing.

[ITD]

There must be a way, or maybe the new politicians should devise a way for citizens such as FLL who champion new taxes to VOLUNTARILY contribute money to the state coffers. I'm sure Less would willingly contribute 5.3% of his income to New Hampshire. Here in Massachusetts there is a place on the state tax return to pay extra. Not many people do so, although many do complain taxes need to be HIGHER. I call hypocrisy, what these people really mean is higher for other people.

Edit: Upon rereading this I want to make it clear, I'm not calling FLL a hypocrite, I'm talking about the vocal minority here in Mass. that cry for more taxes yet when presented with the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is they disappear.

I just don't know FLL well enough to determine anything other than he is colorful and persistent and perhaps travels a little (lot?) left of the beaten path.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by ITD

There must be a way, or maybe the new politicians should devise a way for citizens such as FLL who champion new taxes to VOLUNTARILY contribute money to the state coffers. I'm sure Less would willingly contribute 5.3% of his income to New Hampshire. Here in Massachusetts there is a place on the state tax return to pay extra. Not many people do so, although many do complain taxes need to be HIGHER. I call hypocrisy, what these people really mean is higher for other people.

Once again FLL's rant on former Governor Gregg reminds me of that old adage...

The only fair tax is the tax the other guy pays!

[vrrooom]

It always amazes me how uninfromed majority of taxpayers are, most of the people with 7 figure incomes pay little or no income tax. I remember a meeting I had in college with a alum from San Marino, Ca. With a 7 figure annual income, his total income tax was under 25K, everything else was diverted or sheltered. Most of the income tax burden falls on the "middle class" those of us who work for wages and don't have the ability to shift income to non taxable streams or sources (I just watched one $38M non taxable perk G-V fly into Laconia. The Chairman of course is not allowed to use commercial transportation for Security reasons HA HA).

Locally we really need a tax cap (limiting spending growth to inflation + new homes added to the tax roles) to control local spending.

My 2 centavos

[ITD]

Originally Posted by vrrooom

It always amazes me how uninfromed majority of taxpayers are, most of the people with 7 figure incomes pay little or no income tax. I remember a meeting I had in college with a alum from San Marino, Ca. With a 7 figure annual income, his total income tax was under 25K, everything else was diverted or sheltered. Most of the income tax burden falls on the "middle class" those of us who work for wages and don't have the ability to shift income to non taxable streams or sources (I just watched one $38M non taxable perk G-V fly into Laconia. The Chairman of course is not allowed to use commercial transportation for Security reasons HA HA).

Locally we really need a tax cap (limiting spending growth to inflation + new homes added to the tax roles) to control local spending.

My 2 centavos

Sorry Vrrooom, but your alum is either a liar or a cheat or both. If he is making a 7 figure income he is in at least the top 10% of earners and he should be paying at least an "effective" tax rate of 28% http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5...edTaxRates.pdf

which would amount to about $280,000 for $1,000,000 earned. I'm not an accountant but diverted means he hasn't been paid the money yet and will be taxed when he receives the money. This perception that higher income people don't pay taxes is bogus and it is very easy to find the numbers from the IRS if you are not convinced. Of course there are many crooks who think they can get away without paying taxes but eventually they get caught and end up in jail.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by vrrooom

It always amazes me how uninfromed majority of taxpayers are...most of the people with 7 figure incomes pay little or no income tax... Most of the income tax burden falls on the "middle class"...

Wow, you are probably going to take a beating for those statements. Of course there are litterally hundreds of easily accessible websites that will show over & over again that the very top wage earners in the country with extremely high incomes and still unbelievable cash at their fingertips after tax time pay the the bulk of the income tax base.

Take a few minutes and google income tax statistics.

One quick fact, the lower 50% of the income payers in the United States only contribute 3.3% of the total income tax base. I'll let you find the other interesting stats on your own, but I believe it may be a real eye opener for some of those "uninformed taxpayers".

[vrrooom]

Without saying much, lets ponder some points. Many large corporations have tax consutlants and departments, whose sole purpose is to minimimze the taxes paid by the corportation. Why then should we be surprised that very high income/net worth individuals have the same advisors with the same goal. Is their value, and compensation based on how much they get their clients to pay in taxes or how much they avoid using all the legal loop holes. I know how my alum did not pay much in taxes, it was all legal. We have all sorts of loopholes in the tax code. Personally I would prefer a flat tax, everone pays, no filing, no deductions, no tax preparers anon. Some simple examples: if you control a company, you can buy origional art with all your profits to decorate the offices. No profit is shown for taxation, the art is expensed and accumulates to be enjoyed. A very interesting place are the Jersey Isles, If you know about them, you know why.

[Resident 2B]

vrrooom,

With the Alternative Minimum Tax, the myth of those making a lot of money and paying nothing is long past. In addition, if you are a citizen of the US, you have to pay taxes on all your income, whereever it is made. Bermuda has no income tax, but even if you live there, if you are a US citizen, you file in the US.

With the lack of indexing, the AMT is now impacting more and more people. You really need to fill out both tax forms if you earn over $75K now days.

Skip is totally correct. If someone is earning 7 figures and is only paying $25K in taxes, they have to be breaking the law big time. Those in the upper 50% of income and paying over 95% of the nation's taxes.

R2B

[Merrymeeting]

Vrroom, some educational reading material for you.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf

I absolutely agree that it's time to dump this whole mess and go to a simple flat tax system.

[jeffk]

A flat tax is great
1) the rate is set as a constitutional value or at a minimum requires a super majority to be increased
2) the income tax is abolished (revoke the amendment)
3) a balanced federal budget is required
4) pigs are required to have wings

[Resident 2B]

Jeffk,

I agree!

Pigs will have wings and be supersonic, well before any of your items 1, 2 or 3get passed.

No one will push real tax reform. They love to push tax cuts, and they do this while fully realizing the cuts only push more people into the AMT. These folks think they have a cut, when in fact their real taxes will go up every year due to a lack of an AMT index.

I have given up!

R2B

[ITD]

Originally Posted by jeffk

A flat tax is great
1) the rate is set as a constitutional value or at a minimum requires a super majority to be increased
2) the income tax is abolished (revoke the amendment)
3) a balanced federal budget is required
4) pigs are required to have wings

Giving pigs wings is probably possible now, getting them to fly is quite another thing.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by ITD

Giving pigs wings is probably possible now, getting them to fly is quite another thing.

Geesh, you guys want to be very careful about the thought of letting your pigs get airborne!

Remember, this is the NH Legislature that wants to fine you $250 for letting a single balloon getting loose with a $500 fine for second offense.....I would imagine that letting even a single pig loose has the potential of being at least a Class B felony!!!!

[jeffk]

[Resident 2B]

Airborne porcine project puts perpetrators in pen

Easy for you to say!

R2B

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by vrrooom

It always amazes me how uninfromed majority of taxpayers are, most of the people with 7 figure incomes pay little or no income tax. I remember a meeting I had in college with a alum from San Marino, Ca. With a 7 figure annual income, his total income tax was under 25K, everything else was diverted or sheltered. Most of the income tax burden falls on the "middle class" those of us who work for wages and don't have the ability to shift income to non taxable streams or sources (I just watched one $38M non taxable perk G-V fly into Laconia. The Chairman of course is not allowed to use commercial transportation for Security reasons HA HA).

Locally we really need a tax cap (limiting spending growth to inflation + new homes added to the tax roles) to control local spending.

My 2 centavos

WOW,talk about uniformed.I guess I have to talk to my accountant.I'm paying waaay too much tax.Where do people come up with these theories?Most companies are not cheating when sheltering.It's called the tax laws.If you don't take advantage of the shelters,then you are cheating yourself.I'm sure you or your accountant use the simplest of deductions even if your in the lowest tax bracket.
Now as far controlling spending,I'm all with you on that one.

[fatlazyless]

From today's Union Leader.....a guest opinion ....'New Hampshire is being crushed by an 800-pound gorilla'

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...ell%3a+New+Ham...

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

From today's Union Leader.....a guest opinion ....'New Hampshire is being crushed by an 800-pound gorilla'

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...ell%3a+New+Ham...

Help me here FLL.I don't see the story on that link.

[wehatetoquitit]

You have to scroll down and it is a side bar on the right hand side

[Skip]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Help me here FLL.I don't see the story on that link.

Here is a DIRECT LINK to the guest editorial referred in FLL's post.

[SIKSUKR]

Thanks guys.Good story.

[vrrooom]

Great article on administrative costs and schools. One can't help but wonder how Gilford has a Superintendent who apparently earns more than the one in Manchester (who has 10X the number of students). But we pay for preformance, yes sir, we do. After Gilford schools were placed on the poor preformance list by the state, we gave the Superintendent a 5 year contract. Prehaps we need a article to abolish the Gilford SBU on the ballot for next year. I wonder if we can find 50 voters to do so.

[Lin]

Here is a link to why houses with views sell better than houses with not.
http://realestate.msn.com/Buying/Art...3195&GT1=35000 Found this today on MSN.