....property taxes too high?

[fatlazyless]

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


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


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

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

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

Bob is suing the town over his assessment value.

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

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

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

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

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


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


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


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

Rich peoples problems.

[MAXUM]

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

[Patofnaud]

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

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

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

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Patofnaud

That and taxing farmers for what the property 'could be worth if we put 30 condo's on it, is another sin.

That is inaccurate.

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

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

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

[Patofnaud]

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

I should have stated that.

[MAXUM]

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

[Rusty]

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

[jeffk]

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

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

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by jeffk

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

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

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

[tbonies]

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

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

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


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


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

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

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

Bob is suing the town over his assessment value.

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

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

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

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by jeffk

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

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

[loonguy]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

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

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

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

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

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

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

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

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by jeffk

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

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

Wolfeboro's tax rate $12.64

New Durham's tax rate $22.96

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

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

[mcdude]

Here is the actual property listing....


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


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


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

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by mcdude

Here is the actual property listing....


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


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


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

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

[LIforrelaxin]

Please note somethings in this discussion.....

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

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

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

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

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Please note somethings in this discussion.....

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

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

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

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

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

[AC2717]

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

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

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

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

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

(soap box stepped off of)

[iw8surf]

Originally Posted by AC2717

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

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

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

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

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

(soap box stepped off of)

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

[fatlazyless]

www.campalton.com/annuals/199-1956-annual

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by AC2717

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

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

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

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

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

(soap box stepped off of)

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

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

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by jeffk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by AC2717

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

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

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

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

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

(soap box stepped off of)

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

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

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

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by iw8surf

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

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

[tis]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

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

Wolfeboro's tax rate $12.64

New Durham's tax rate $22.96

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



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

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

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Biggd

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

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

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

[AC2717]

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.

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by tis

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

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

[MAXUM]

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?

[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!

[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!

[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

[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.

[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

[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 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.

[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)

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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?

[fatlazyless]

This Bahre mansions's $309,230 annual property tax divided by 365 days/year equals $847/day in property tax, so for 2018 starting with January 11 every day accrues a property tax of $847 that is above the $10,000 limit and totally not deductible from the federal income tax.

It has to be paid with real money.

Considering this is a single family home that has a big long list of expenses such as electricity, insurance, fuel, maintenance, tv/internet, landscaping/snowplowing, and other stuff plus the $847/day prop tax effective January 11, that's a lot of expenses with absolutely no income generated by this residence.

E-gard ..... and yikes ...... so, maybe it can be rented out as a bnb party house ..... and bring in some cash ..... to pay the expenses?

You cannot eat the view.

So if someone has two or three homes, the total property tax amount deductible from federal tax for all two or three homes total is $10,000.

I wonder for the Town of Meredith, what assessed value produces a $10,000 property tax bill. With a rate of 15.23/thousand is it an assessment of $850,000 that creates a ten thousand dollar annual bill?

[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!

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

This Bahre mansions's $309,230 annual property tax divided by 365 days/year equals $847/day in property tax, so for 2018 starting with January 11 every day accrues a property tax of $847 that is above the $10,000 limit and totally not deductible from the federal income tax.

It has to be paid with real money.

Considering this is a single family home that has a big long list of expenses such as electricity, insurance, fuel, maintenance, tv/internet, landscaping/snowplowing, and other stuff plus the $847/day prop tax effective January 11, that's a lot of expenses with absolutely no income generated by this residence.

E-gard ..... and yikes ...... so, maybe it can be rented out as a bnb party house ..... and bring in some cash ..... to pay the expenses?

You cannot eat the view.

So if someone has two or three homes, the total property tax amount deductible from federal tax for all two or three homes total is $10,000.

Please. Enough with the 10,000 property tax limit. It is irrelevant for this conversation. For someone in his income category there are several ways to legally get around part of the new tax law and I am sure his tax and legal advisors are taking care of this for him.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[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.

[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.

[tis]

Originally Posted by joey2665

Please. Enough with the 10,000 property tax limit. It is irrelevant for this conversation. For someone in his income category there are several ways to legally get around part of the new tax law and I am sure his tax and legal advisors are taking care of this for him.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Joey, will you be my accountant? I don't seem to have any ways around anything! just pay, pay, pay!

[tis]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PZ_...eis-tA2cy/view

I think the biggest reason the schools cost so much is they have too many administrators. Take a look at this for Governor Wentworth School District.

[Lakegeezer]

Be happy the tax rules of Park City, UT aren't adopted here. Those claiming primary residence in Park City, or renting to a single tenant year round, get a 55% break on their assessment. Those with second homes in Park City pay the full rate. A clear case of taxation without representation, yet it is not stopping people from buying second homes there.

[Woodsy]

NH subscribes to the principle "One person One vote" and you have to be a resident. It is not taxation without representation. Nobody forced you to buy a 2nd home.

There are some "Home Rule Charter" movements around the country, but here in NH those type of rules are controlled solely by the legislature. See my link below.

If you don't like the way your city/town is being run up here.... then show up for the meetings and let your voice be heard. Write letters to the paper, emails etc. If its a REAL problem for you, change your residency and vote.

https://www.nh.gov/osi/resource-libr...-rule-nhma.pdf

Woodsy

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by tis

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PZ_...eis-tA2cy/view

I think the biggest reason the schools cost so much is they have too many administrators. Take a look at this for Governor Wentworth School District.

As a school administrator I agree but only somewhat. In my 30 year career the number of unfunded mandates, amount of paperwork, documentation, requirements around supervision, standardized testing, need to work with various state and federal agencies, etc. has increased exponentially. How I spend my day has changed dramatically as now I spend far more time doing paperwork and less time interacting in meaningful ways with staff and students.

I did not ask for these changes and in fact campaign against them as much as possible. But the reality is that the nature of my job has changed and what one person could do now requires multiple people - despite a shrinking student population. Long time primary care doctors report similar things - more time is spent doing things other than interacting with patients.

I am not complaining and absolutely love what I do. However, decisions are made at the town, district, state, and federal level that have brought about unintended consequences. What's the answer? That is a topic for a different discussion and perhaps different forum.

Back to the issue of property tax in NH. What one thinks of as wasteful, unnecessary spending is someone else's essential program.

[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?

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Garcia

As a school administrator I agree but only somewhat. In my 30 year career the number of unfunded mandates, amount of paperwork, documentation, requirements around supervision, standardized testing, need to work with various state and federal agencies, etc. has increased exponentially. How I spend my day has changed dramatically as now I spend far more time doing paperwork and less time interacting in meaningful ways with staff and students.

I did not ask for these changes and in fact campaign against them as much as possible. But the reality is that the nature of my job has changed and what one person could do now requires multiple people - despite a shrinking student population. Long time primary care doctors report similar things - more time is spent doing things other than interacting with patients.

I am not complaining and absolutely love what I do. However, decisions are made at the town, district, state, and federal level that have brought about unintended consequences. What's the answer? That is a topic for a different discussion and perhaps different forum.

Back to the issue of property tax in NH. What one thinks of as wasteful, unnecessary spending is someone else's essential program.

My daughter is a RN and she complains of the same thing in her profession. More paper work means less time caring for patients.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

NH subscribes to the principle "One person One vote" and you have to be a resident. It is not taxation without representation. Nobody forced you to buy a 2nd home.

There are some "Home Rule Charter" movements around the country, but here in NH those type of rules are controlled solely by the legislature. See my link below.

If you don't like the way your city/town is being run up here.... then show up for the meetings and let your voice be heard. Write letters to the paper, emails etc. If its a REAL problem for you, change your residency and vote.

https://www.nh.gov/osi/resource-libr...-rule-nhma.pdf

Woodsy

I understand that purpose and do not necessarily disagree with it, but i do think that you should be able to vote in towns you own property in at a town level elections, but NOT at state or federal level, you own the land in that town you should have a voting say because it is a form of taxation without representation.
Colonists had a say in their areas representatives but not at the governor or higher levels

[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

[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.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by tis

Joey, will you be my accountant? I don't seem to have any ways around anything! just pay, pay, pay!

.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by tis

Joey, will you be my accountant? I don't seem to have any ways around anything! just pay, pay, pay!

You can't hide anything from you're accountant. He never wanted to listen to me when I complained about how much I was paying in taxes. "If you weren't making it you wouldn't have to pay it".
Now that I'm almost retired and not making nearly as much money, he's not saying that anymore, but he still charges me like I was.

[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.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by Biggd

You can't hide anything from you're accountant. He never wanted to listen to me when I complained about how much I was paying in taxes. "If you weren't making it you wouldn't have to pay it".
Now that I'm almost retired and not making nearly as much money, he's not saying that anymore, but he still charges me like I was.

A major part of your job as a CPA is to seek out ways “legally “ to mitigate your clients taxes as much as possible. You don’t just take their info and input it into s program and spit out the results. That is a lazy accountant. Often it is what it is but you at least need to research and do your homework for each client.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Garcia

As a school administrator I agree but only somewhat. In my 30 year career the number of unfunded mandates, amount of paperwork, documentation, requirements around supervision, standardized testing, need to work with various state and federal agencies, etc. has increased exponentially. How I spend my day has changed dramatically as now I spend far more time doing paperwork and less time interacting in meaningful ways with staff and students.

Just curious: I hear your complaint. It is valid. Did you vote for a President who campaigned and pledged to reduce government regulations, and is doing so?

Or did your vote go the other way which is the way most in the education field voted?

If you are unhappy with the amount of government interference in education and business maybe you could speak to your fellow educators about the way most of them vote?

Just sayin'

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by jeffk

The valuation is supposed to approximate actual market value as determined by uniform (across the state) methods.

This is an very interesting point with respect to this home. Typically, the market value of the property would reflect the value of the land plus the building cost plugged into some reasonable formula. But what happens when the owner spends so much on the building, that no one else can afford to buy it? This seems to be the case here. Should the town suffer because he built a property that is not marketable? Or should the tax assessment reflect the value of the land plus the building cost plugged into some reasonable formula?

[Descant]

Building cost is often not related to market value. Spend $40K to install a swimming pool and you may not have increased the market value at all. Spend $40K on a new kitchen and you may have increased market value by $60K.

[fatlazyless]

Bob is from southern Maine ..... he grew up there ..... he raced cars there .... and, he's left this mansion known as Longview behind to go back to Maine. His family and friends are all in Maine.

At age-91 with more than 300-million dollars in the bank, selling this Longview property for the reduced price of 9-million dollars will probably not make any difference to him. He probably just wants to sell it because with his race track in Loudon sold, he's gone back to Maine, and he has no use for the big house on Winnipesaukee. http://theautoblonde.com/bob-bahre-car-collection/ ……. Bob likes Maine!

Maybe he would actually prefer to donate the 19-waterfront acre mansion to the southern Maine Scouts http://pinetreebsa.org via a 100-year, one dollar/year lease to be used for a Maine young scouts, organized weekend get-a-way, go-to spot used by many different young people from Maine for the next hundred years and beyond.

Maybe, all things considered, he would feel better about donating the property as opposed to selling it? Is this a doable way out?

[Shrimpbrain]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Bob is from southern Maine ..... he grew up there ..... he raced cars there .... and, he's left this mansion known as Longview behind to go back to Maine. His family and friends are all in Maine.

At age-91 with more than 300-million dollars in the bank, selling this Longview property for the reduced price of 9-million dollars will probably not make any difference to him. He probably just wants to sell it because with the race track in Loudon sold, he's gone back to Maine, and he has no use for the big house on the lake. He likes Maine.

Maybe he would actually prefer to donate it to the southern Maine Boy Scouts http://pinetreebsa.org via a 100-year, one dollar/year lease to be used for a Boy Scout weekend get-a-way, go-to spot used by many different young people from Maine.

Maybe, all things considered, he would feel better about donating the property as opposed to selling it? Is this a doable way out?

We have to be correct in our wording. The Boy Scouts I believe are not called Boy Scouts now. They are just called SCOUTS ever since they allowed girls into the BOYS SCOUT. And NOPE I will not donate a Dime to this SCAM now. It's terrible how the millennials can't except this Country . Just another great cause going down the drain due to politics...

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Shrimpbrain

We have to be correct in our wording. The Boy Scouts I believe are not called Boy Scouts now. They are just called SCOUTS ever since they allowed girls into the BOYS SCOUT. And NOPE I will not donate a Dime to this SCAM now. It's terrible how the millennials can't except this Country . Just another great cause going down the drain due to politics...

"can't except"..or..can't accept?

IMO "millennials" love this country just as much as other generations have.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Descant

Building cost is often not related to market value. Spend $40K to install a swimming pool and you may not have increased the market value at all. Spend $40K on a new kitchen and you may have increased market value by $60K.

Yes, that's exactly my point. If the owner has "over-improved" the property to the point where it is not marketable, or additional improvements are not longer increasing market value, isn't that his fault? Shouldn't he still pay taxes on the improvements?

[Descant]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Yes, that's exactly my point. If the owner has "over-improved" the property to the point where it is not marketable, or additional improvements are not longer increasing market value, isn't that his fault? Shouldn't he still pay taxes on the improvements?

"Improvements" are only improvements if somebody wants to buy them. (Willing buyer, willing seller) No market, no value, no tax. If I put on an addition, and nobody wants to buy my indoor movie theater, it still has added value in the square footage because it can be used for other purposes.

[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.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Descant

"Improvements" are only improvements if somebody wants to buy them. (Willing buyer, willing seller) No market, no value, no tax. If I put on an addition, and nobody wants to buy my indoor movie theater, it still has added value in the square footage because it can be used for other purposes.

Normally that would be true. But let's say you have a house that is already so expensive that it can only be sold at a fraction of its cost. The market value is capped way below replacement value because virtually nobody but you can afford to buy it.

Now let's say you put on a new wing to house a movie theatre. In this case, you have not increased the market value of the home (its already at its cap), but you would still expect an increase in taxes.

More reading here. Note that in the case I describe there is a sharp split between the sales comparison approach and the cost approach, both of which are valid. https://www.iaao.org/Media/Pubs/Property_Owner.pdf

[ushaggerb]

Originally Posted by Biggd

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

Go to Southeast LA. Go to East Cleveland. Go to South Chicago. Ask those people what they make of your financial problems. They'd be throwing stones at you. You have financial problems they only wish they could have. You probably complain about the fact you got overcharged for a burger yesterday. They didn't eat yesterday. You complain about your car having engine problems. They don't own one. You've created a whole forum on targeting some guy regarding his "lucky" problems. Why?

[fatlazyless]

Well ...... the Town of Alton gets $847/day, paid by Bob, everyday of the year, regardless the weather, and with the new tax change, none of it is deductible off his federal taxes starting January 11, 2019, on a day by day basis.

January 11 to December 31, day after day after day after day ..... $847/day paid to the Town of Alton ...... this money should be well spent and do a lot of good things for the people of the Town of Alton.

Bob has hired an experienced attorney and filed suit against the town in Belknap Superior Court to try to get his property tax bill lowered to what it should be, so's he can sell Longview to a buyer. Apparently, no one wants to be paying $847/day in real non-deductible money from Jan 11- Dec 31 for Longview. The $10,000 deductible limit goes into effect starting on January 11 for Bob because his Alton property tax is $309,230/year.

After all, when one gets hungry for lunch, you cannot eat the view.

Back in the day, a big view like this at a state park would have a pedestal mounted binocular on a swivel, somewhat similar to a rangefinder on a navy warship, and you would drop a dime into the slot to turn on the big view ...... yo-ho-ho!

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by ushaggerb

Go to Southeast LA. Go to East Cleveland. Go to South Chicago. Ask those people what they make of your financial problems. They'd be throwing stones at you. You have financial problems they only wish they could have. You probably complain about the fact you got overcharged for a burger yesterday. They didn't eat yesterday. You complain about your car having engine problems. They don't own one. You've created a whole forum on targeting some guy regarding his "lucky" problems. Why?

Hmmm...the places you mention in your own rant are all bastions of democratic control...places that have, through poor management, and extremely, liberal policies have degraded to third world conditions while the “leaders” of these ****-holes walk by human feces, vomit and drugged out bodies to get to their subways and home to their gated mansions. Why?