Property taxes

[smith point boater]

Anyone know (not speculation) why the Alton tax rate jumped 11.5% ($13.95 vs $12.51). Certainly the approved town budget didn't increase that much. FYI - Property values do not appear to have changed

Just askin'

[AC2717]

you can have Laconia's 19.22 rate if you want it?

joking aside, its either the rate or the value that goes up, sometimes both, I have never seen a reason other than wasted tax payer dollars.

[pondguy]

Have the Meredith Tax bills gone out yet ?

[MotorHead]

Ask your Friend Mr. Ben Dover at the city/town hall.

He may introduce you to his close friend Ky Jelly.

[garysanfran]

Originally Posted by pondguy

Have the Meredith Tax bills gone out yet ?

Mailed on Monday. Due Jan.6th I think.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by pondguy

Have the Meredith Tax bills gone out yet ?

I have not got mine but the 2020 rate is $14.02

The state has posted all the town rates here: https://www.revenue.nh.gov/mun-prop/...-tax-rates.pdf

[smith point boater]

Tax rate detail (TY vs LY):

Municipal $4.25 vs 3.21 +32.4%
School $6.41 vs 5.95 +7.7%
State $2.02 vs 2.07 - 2.4%
County $1.27 vs 1.28 -----

Assume Municipal is "town spending" - Not sure what we got for our money. And believe me I understand that this years revenue cannot be less than LY for the town to continue to run (nor do I not expect a rate or assessment increase annually but 11.5% total?) With all the new multiple multi million dollar homes that have been built or renovated (and I'm not begrudging anyone for building them) one could assume that if properly assessed and taxed these would have covered much of the needed increase without a rate increase

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

I have not got mine but the 2020 rate is $14.02

The state has posted all the town rates here: https://www.revenue.nh.gov/mun-prop/...-tax-rates.pdf

We got our Meredith bill yesterday. Our evaluation went up $83k on Bear.

[pondguy]

Originally Posted by codeman671

We got our Meredith bill yesterday. Our evaluation went up $83k on Bear.

Just got mine this morning it only went up 4K I can live with that, I think Meredith does a great job.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by pondguy

Just got mine this morning it only went up 4K I can live with that, I think Meredith does a great job.

I just found out based on a survey we have done that we have 20% less frontage and 25% less acreage than our purchase and sale agreement, deed and tax card all indicate. I'll be finding out how good they are when I have to get it all corrected soon.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I just found out based on a survey we have done that we have 20% less frontage and 25% less acreage than our purchase and sale agreement, deed and tax card all indicate. I'll be finding out how good they are when I have to get it all corrected soon.

Isn't your survey based off the deed? Tax maps are notoriously inaccurate but not your deed.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Isn't your survey based off the deed? Tax maps are notoriously inaccurate but not your deed.

They are both wrong. The points and measurements listed do not total the actual acreage and frontage that it measures out to be.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I just found out based on a survey we have done that we have 20% less frontage and 25% less acreage than our purchase and sale agreement, deed and tax card all indicate. I'll be finding out how good they are when I have to get it all corrected soon.

It's up to the landowner to look out for their own interests. The people who do the assessments are not paid to survey your property. They take available public documents and do a quick comparison, if the town actually pays them to visit the property. Most of the time they assume that the interior layout and descriptions are as listed on the existing property card. It would be an enormous cost to do a detailed assessment on all the property in a town so they just don't do it.

Further, even if you get the assessment corrected, I have seen errors creep in as they review over the years and somehow insert erroneous information, perhaps from some inaccurate public record.

I would like to see a law that says you can (owner's choice) get your assessment description "certified" by a survey and a full, on site review of your home. Once certified, no descriptive changes would be allowed until reviewed and approved by the homeowner or through owner approved documents like a building permit. Proposed changes would have to specifically called out.

[mswlogo]

Our evaluation went up ~$400k (33%). Total tax rate dropped $2.00 (10%) to $20.69 So our taxes went up around $4500.00/yr to $22.5K/yr

[garysanfran]

The increase in property tax will cause some people to sell their properties. I have seen this over the last 40 years to several (almost all) of my neighbors. Some bought a plot of land for $5k in 1960. Today the same land is worth over $1mm. Taxes went from a couple hundred to several (as in many) thou$and$.

The incentive for local municipalities is upside down. When an owner has to sell because of unaffordable property tax, the new buyer/owner will be wealthier... Will afford the municipal expansion... Eat at more restaurants... Shop more locally and probably can't vote locally...What a one-sided win for the towns.

California has a politician's nightmare - Prop. 13. In San Francisco I have a property worth three times that in Meredith. My taxes in SF are 1/4 of that in Meredith...Oh, here in SF I have a few things I don't have in Meredith...Paved road, city water, sewage system, trash pick-up, mail delivery I don't have to walk to. A driveway I can use in the winter. No snow plowing where I am in Meredith...We pay extra for that to have done privately.

I love The Lake life more than anything. If I did not enjoy a February afternoon sitting OUTSIDE on my deck in shorts, having a cold beer instead of the winter trauma of New Hampshire, I'd move back there in an instant.

My taxes in Meredith are now very close to my breaking point. This year's increase was beyond what I thought would be needed for that new municipal public works building with that gorgeous kitchen to make lunch in. In my opinion, Meredith is making me pay for the whole building!!!

[fatlazyless]

Is really good that Meredith is going for the gold with some more new town construction projects, happening; the Meredith DPW and the Meredith Public Library projects.

Both the new proposed Meredith DPW home building and the new Meredith Library expansion are totally super-duper, long term ..... like very one hundred year long term improvments for the town. While it may seem a wee bit pricey right now, both are wise investments, and long-term smooth moves!

What's next ..... maybe an indoor heated and climate controlled, 82-84-degree, 25-meter swim pool, out back behind the community center ..... today's expensive improvement is a smart investment for tomorrow ..... with a 3' shallow area that's perfect for a water zumba class ..... with a super sound system! Hey, the winter lasts for a long time, here in Meredith!

People live a lot longer today, than what they used to live, back there then the then there, in those there then olde days from the past, a while ago, ayup! ....

You know what ...... as each year goes by ...... you get a year older ...... did you know that! .....

[garysanfran]

No one should be "taxed" out of their home.

Probably one of the only things Calicornucopia has got right!

A town should "grow" according to affordability of it's voting residents...Not according to the vision of it's politicians.

The new public works building, I'm sure, will house snow plows that have never been on my street.

[fatlazyless]

My street, the asphalt paved Cattle Landing Rd is always the very first on the list for that big green Meredith town plow w/ a side-wing to get on it and clean that snow ....... yes ....... totally perfect snow removal on Cattle Landing Rd .......... cheers! .... !

[pondguy]

I think Meredith does a great job with my tax dollars with all that they provide.

[Mr. V]

No one should be "taxed" out of their home.

Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

Supply and demand in a capitalistic society sets both the price of property and the tax rate.

If people feel the property and services offered by the gov't aren't worth the asking price then they won't buy.

Sure, it might be nice to be immune from tax increases but I for one have no problem both paying higher taxes and understanding why things are the way they are, and if I did I'd sell to someone who didn't mind.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by garysanfran

No one should be "taxed" out of their home.

Probably one of the only things Calicornucopia has got right!

A town should "grow" according to affordability of it's voting residents...Not according to the vision of it's politicians.

The new public works building, I'm sure, will house snow plows that have never been on my street.

I agree that no one should be taxed out of their home. But it's hard to summon outrage when it's a second home that has appreciated hundreds of thousands (a million?) in value, and the town is asking for a piece of that appreciation back. People in this situation are WAY ahead financially.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

I agree that no one should be taxed out of their home. But it's hard to summon outrage when it's a second home that has appreciated hundreds of thousands (a million?) in value, and the town is asking for a piece of that appreciation back. People in this situation are WAY ahead financially.

Actually they are not. Most property owner end up on the loosing end, secondary properties are by far the worst.

Towns don't just take all the appreciation of a piece of property they actually take MORE than that. Example, my primary residence has a little more than doubled in value over the last 20 years. 100% increase in value means I'm a rich guy huh? Um NO! While my property value may have increased by 100% if I add up all the property taxes I have paid over the past 20 years I have forked out the equivalent of 137% meaning I am in the hole 37% JUST IN TAXES. Now if I were to sell I'd be out another about 9% off the top between RE transfer tax and real estate commission.

Secondary homes are far worse as using the same numbers... add in an additional 15% tax on cap gains. LOL yes the gains you have already paid the equivalent out to the town in the form of taxes.

Bottom line real-estate is a terrible investment to hold - in fact I wouldn't call it an investment at all - it's a way to park money that is relatively safe, and the town via property taxes gets all the interest earned and then some.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Actually they are not. Most property owner end up on the loosing end, secondary properties are by far the worst.

Towns don't just take all the appreciation of a piece of property they actually take MORE than that. Example, my primary residence has a little more than doubled in value over the last 20 years. 100% increase in value means I'm a rich guy huh? Um NO! While my property value may have increased by 100% if I add up all the property taxes I have paid over the past 20 years I have forked out the equivalent of 137% meaning I am in the hole 37% JUST IN TAXES. Now if I were to sell I'd be out another about 9% off the top between RE transfer tax and real estate commission.

Secondary homes are far worse as using the same numbers... add in an additional 15% tax on cap gains. LOL yes the gains you have already paid the equivalent out to the town in the form of taxes.

Bottom line real-estate is a terrible investment to hold - in fact I wouldn't call it an investment at all - it's a way to park money that is relatively safe, and the town via property taxes gets all the interest earned and then some.

A secondary home is usually a poor financial investment but your primary home, depending on what part of the country you live in, is usually a great investment as is most rental property.
You have to live somewhere so if you rent you have to deduct that from what ever your costs are from owning. I wouldn't have what I have today without my real estate investments.
I have 3 children , 48, 37, and 33. The two youngest have had multiple homes and made money selling all of them when they moved up. They both have over 1 million dollars in net worth. My oldest who is a RN and has always had a great income but has rented all her life has a negative net worth. We tried to convince her to buy many, many years ago and now she's priced out of the market unless we help.

[JEEPONLY]

Originally Posted by Biggd

A secondary home is usually a poor financial investment but your primary home, depending on what part of the country you live in, is usually a great investment as is most rental property.
You have to live somewhere so if you rent you have to deduct that from what ever your costs are from owning. I wouldn't have what I have today without my real estate investments.
I have 3 children , 48, 37, and 33. The two youngest have had multiple homes and made money selling all of them when they moved up. They both have over 1 million dollars in net worth. My oldest who is a RN and has always had a great income but has rented all her life has a negative net worth. We tried to convince her to buy many, many years ago and now she's priced out of the market unless we help.

Your points are well made.
The difference from Maxum is that one of his points is that "holding" a real estate investment is not advantageous.
Otherwise, your two youngest have followed Maxum's idea- and obviously done very well!!!

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Actually they are not. Most property owner end up on the loosing end, secondary properties are by far the worst.

Towns don't just take all the appreciation of a piece of property they actually take MORE than that. Example, my primary residence has a little more than doubled in value over the last 20 years. 100% increase in value means I'm a rich guy huh? Um NO! While my property value may have increased by 100% if I add up all the property taxes I have paid over the past 20 years I have forked out the equivalent of 137% meaning I am in the hole 37% JUST IN TAXES. Now if I were to sell I'd be out another about 9% off the top between RE transfer tax and real estate commission.

Secondary homes are far worse as using the same numbers... add in an additional 15% tax on cap gains. LOL yes the gains you have already paid the equivalent out to the town in the form of taxes.

Bottom line real-estate is a terrible investment to hold - in fact I wouldn't call it an investment at all - it's a way to park money that is relatively safe, and the town via property taxes gets all the interest earned and then some.

I bought five years ago, I'm pretty sure that if I sold now I would come out ahead financially after 5 unbelievably great years of enjoyment.

But I pretty much agree on all of this. I would not describe a second home as a good investment or even an investment at all. I would describe it as a magnificent luxury that a few lucky and/or hardworking people are able to afford, and just maybe, due to appreciation, might not cost very much in the end or might even make some money.

[Biggd]

I'm sorry but I would have to disagree. You did reduce your overall tax bill by deducting your property taxes.
In my 50 years of property ownership and investment I have only lost money on 2 pieces of property and I'm still collecting money in retirement. Of course a lot depends on when you buy and when you sell. Just like any investment, buy low and sell high.
There is a difference in mindset between a real estate investor and just a home owner. Most home owners spend way more on a property than it will ever be worth. Investors will only spend up to the value of the neighborhood.

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Actually they are not. Most property owner end up on the loosing end, secondary properties are by far the worst.

Towns don't just take all the appreciation of a piece of property they actually take MORE than that. Example, my primary residence has a little more than doubled in value over the last 20 years. 100% increase in value means I'm a rich guy huh? Um NO! While my property value may have increased by 100% if I add up all the property taxes I have paid over the past 20 years I have forked out the equivalent of 137% meaning I am in the hole 37% JUST IN TAXES. Now if I were to sell I'd be out another about 9% off the top between RE transfer tax and real estate commission.

Secondary homes are far worse as using the same numbers... add in an additional 15% tax on cap gains. LOL yes the gains you have already paid the equivalent out to the town in the form of taxes.

Bottom line real-estate is a terrible investment to hold - in fact I wouldn't call it an investment at all - it's a way to park money that is relatively safe, and the town via property taxes gets all the interest earned and then some.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Biggd

I'm sorry but I would have to disagree. You did reduce your overall tax bill by deducting your property taxes.
In my 50 years of property ownership and investment I have only lost money on 2 pieces of property and I'm still collecting money in retirement. Of course a lot depends on when you buy and when you sell. Just like any investment, buy low and sell high.
There is a difference in mindset between a real estate investor and just a home owner. Most home owners spend way more on a property than it will ever be worth. Investors will only spend up to the value of the neighborhood.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

True BUT deducting your property taxes only means you're not paying income tax on the money used to pay for property taxes.

[DickR]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

.....The state has posted all the town rates here: https://www.revenue.nh.gov/mun-prop/...-tax-rates.pdf

I don't see Wolfeboro's entry. Any ideas why? Not available yet?

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by DickR

I don't see Wolfeboro's entry. Any ideas why? Not available yet?

No clue, this time of year I usually peek at what the state has reported since it seems to be well ahead of any towns updating their web sites. Frankly I don't get why this is not made available as soon as it is known. I mean how much effort does it take to update a web site?

Guess you will either have to call the town or wait for your bill to arrive in the mail.

[MDoug]

Originally Posted by pondguy

Have the Meredith Tax bills gone out yet ?

I haven't received my tax bill yet. I called last week and Meredith clerk said they were to be mailed out November 30. I will call again today.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by MDoug

I haven't received my tax bill yet. I called last week and Meredith clerk said they were to be mailed out November 30. I will call again today.

You should be able to download a copy online. I know we can in Laconia

Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[MDoug]

Originally Posted by joey2665

You should be able to download a copy online. I know we can in Laconia

Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Thanks. I called Meredith and found they had mailed my notifications to Bear Island. So I just got the info from the tax clerk and mailed a check

[MDoug]

Originally Posted by joey2665

You should be able to download a copy online. I know we can in Laconia

Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Thanks. I called Meredith and found they had mailed my notifications to Bear Island. So I just got the info from the tax clerk and mailed a check. We're in south Georgia for the winter. Emailed my correct address to them.

[Biggd]

The same thing goes for business rentals. I was in business at 3 different locations for the past 33 years. The first location was privately held and the landlord kept the rent reasonable. The second location was a franchise and the rent went up 100% in ten years which no matter how good the location was the rent squashed any increase profits.
So after 20 years I finally bought my own property and spent the last 13 years with a fixed monthly mortgage.
March 1st I retired and leased the property out. Now I collect rent to subsidize my retirement.
My biggest mistake was not buying 30 years ago. The opportunities where there but I just didn't make the move.
I'm thankful I finally did because if I didn't I wouldn't have the extra income in retirement.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Biggd

The same thing goes for business rentals. I was in business at 3 different locations for the past 33 years. The first location was privately held and the landlord kept the rent reasonable. The second location was a franchise and the rent went up 100% in ten years which no matter how good the location was the rent squashed any increase profits.
So after 20 years I finally bought my own property and spent the last 13 years with a fixed monthly mortgage.
March 1st I retired and leased the property out. Now I collect rent to subsidize my retirement.
My biggest mistake was not buying 30 years ago. The opportunities where there but I just didn't make the move.
I'm thankful I finally did because if I didn't I wouldn't have the extra income in retirement.

The tough part is saving up for the huge down payments banks require for commercial or investment properties, while you are still young enough to take advantage of long term equity growth. One strategy is to buy an apartment building as your first home, and as owner occupied, you get favorable down payment/financing. If you get past image and drive a junker jalopy instead of leasing or financing a new car, you can be in a cash paying lifestyle very quickly. Wish I'd done that. I'm cash now, but didn't buy my first investment real estate until 1980. Sold that and bought a two family that now has no mortgage and makes a nice contribution to retirement cash flow.

[TiltonBB]

Those are some interesting theories posted above about renting out property as a landlord.

One thing that stood out to me is the statement that the landlord would raise the rent if something like a new roof or other expense were needed. That sounds good but really doesn't work in the real world. The rent can only be the fair market rent for the property, not what the landlord would like to get to make a profit. The tenant will not care what your expenses are and will move if they can get a better deal somewhere else.

The biggest source of negativity about being a landlord only comes from either tenant damage or non-payment. In those cases, the courts, especially Laconia District Court, will not help a landlord but will bend over backwards to help a tenant. That has been my experience.

As an investment, I have had several two families going back to 1978. In each case, after a down payment in the 20% range the rental income paid the principal, interest, taxes, and insurance. After about 5 to 10 years each one was making a significant profit every year, even after any necessary maintenance. Also, due to depreciation, my income taxes were reduced substantially. When I sold each one, after 25 to 30 years of ownership, the mortgage had been paid off and the selling price was approximately 15 times my original down payment.

Real estate as an investment, and even a personal residence, remains a good long term investment. That is especially true for waterfront properties because of a limited supply and a growing demand that will only drive prices up over the long term.

[iw8surf]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Those are some interesting theories posted above about renting out property as a landlord.

One thing that stood out to me is the statement that the landlord would raise the rent if something like a new roof or other expense were needed. That sounds good but really doesn't work in the real world. The rent can only be the fair market rent for the property, not what the landlord would like to get to make a profit. The tenant will not care what your expenses are and will move if they can get a better deal somewhere else.

The biggest source of negativity about being a landlord only comes from either tenant damage or non-payment. In those cases, the courts, especially Laconia District Court, will not help a landlord but will bend over backwards to help a tenant. That has been my experience.

As an investment, I have had several two families going back to 1978. In each case, after a down payment in the 20% range the rental income paid the principal, interest, taxes, and insurance. After about 5 to 10 years each one was making a significant profit every year, even after any necessary maintenance. Also, due to depreciation, my income taxes were reduced substantially. When I sold each one, after 25 to 30 years of ownership, the mortgage had been paid off and the selling price was approximately 15 times my original down payment.

Real estate as an investment, and even a personal residence, remains a good long term investment. That is especially true for waterfront properties because of a limited supply and a growing demand that will only drive prices up over the long term.

Use to have a cousin who owned multiple rental properties, he would go and physically throw out tenants for nonpayment. I use to tell him you’re going to get ya self arrested or in trouble and his rebuttle was always my court and lawyer fees for being arrested for this would be cheaper than spending 9 months fighting them in court to evict and then repair my destroyed house...

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

One thing that stood out to me is the statement that the landlord would raise the rent if something like a new roof or other expense were needed. That sounds good but really doesn't work in the real world. The rent can only be the fair market rent for the property, not what the landlord would like to get to make a profit. The tenant will not care what your expenses are and will move if they can get a better deal somewhere else.

I would argue that a landlord that does not plan for maintenance issues and adjust the rent to deal with it is a poor financial planner. I fully understand the financial constraints on the amount of rent. However, if the roof on a house is 15 years old and you are not setting aside some money to replace it sometime in the next ten years you are foolish. A well maintained rental property should draw a higher rent. That's why landlords paint their properties, if needed, between tenants. If a window pane cracks, they replace it. A $10,000 roof expensed over 20 years is about $40 a month. That shouldn't drive away most tenants, especially if they see the overall property is well maintained. Maybe the rent is set $80 per month higher to be ready for all maintenance issues.

Maybe a landlord who is only in it for a short term may minimize the rent to attract people, figuring he will be long gone by the time the roof needs replacement and the heating system goes dead. Eventually however, the work will have to be done and the owner at that time will have to pay for it and if renting the property will need to recoup his costs through rent.

Overall, it's a business and the landlord needs to make enough money to pay all his costs AND make a profit or it's not worth being in that business. Instead he would be better off investing in a nice 9.5% return growth fund with dollar cost averaging.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by jeffk

I would argue that a landlord that does not plan for maintenance issues and adjust the rent to deal with it is a poor financial planner.

I am not sure if you have any actual experience owning rental properties but I would tell you that is just not correct.

The tenant couldn't care less what your expenses are, or have any interest in helping you to make a profit. Tenants will stay as long as they think they have a good deal and like where they live. As soon as you raise the rent to cover YOUR expenses, if it does not reflect fair market value, they will move along. From a tenant perspective your costs of ownership and maintenance mean nothing.

For the last 42 years I have followed the rental market closely to establish fair rents. I have reviewed numerous ads both in print media and on many websites to determine the market value of a property and determine what amount I could charge. That determination is what works in the real world, not what my expenses are.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

I am not sure if you have any actual experience owning rental properties but I would tell you that is just not correct.

The tenant couldn't care less what your expenses are, or have any interest in helping you to make a profit. Tenants will stay as long as they think they have a good deal and like where they live. As soon as you raise the rent to cover YOUR expenses, if it does not reflect fair market value, they will move along. From a tenant perspective your costs of ownership and maintenance mean nothing.

For the last 42 years I have followed the rental market closely to establish fair rents. I have reviewed numerous ads both in print media and on many websites to determine the market value of a property and determine what amount I could charge. That determination is what works in the real world, not what my expenses are.

I absolutely agree. Tenants could care less about your expenses and expenses never determine rental charges. They are strictly what the market will dictate.

Before purchasing the buyer needs to do his due diligence and investigate market rates and his expenses to determine if the property will yield the desired cap rate for the property.

Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Descant]

Despite some published books, I wish I had read this thread 40 years ago. Could have made the learning curve a lot easier.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

I am not sure if you have any actual experience owning rental properties but I would tell you that is just not correct.

The tenant couldn't care less what your expenses are, or have any interest in helping you to make a profit. Tenants will stay as long as they think they have a good deal and like where they live. As soon as you raise the rent to cover YOUR expenses, if it does not reflect fair market value, they will move along. From a tenant perspective your costs of ownership and maintenance mean nothing.

For the last 42 years I have followed the rental market closely to establish fair rents. I have reviewed numerous ads both in print media and on many websites to determine the market value of a property and determine what amount I could charge. That determination is what works in the real world, not what my expenses are.

I agree if you raise the rent $150 a month to pay for a roof that had to be repaired the tenant is NOT going to be OK with it. What I am saying is that BEFORE you rent out a property you should be including a maintenance buffer into the rent. If you as the landlord have a mortgage on the property, wouldn't you make sure the rent covers that? You know you will have to do some cleanup (paint touch ups, etc.) between renters. Shouldn't the rent or damage deposit cover your costs? You should be able to estimate your required maintenance expenses using expected lifetimes of roof, heating system, appliances, flooring, etc and add that coverage to a planned monthly rent.

If you do not, do this, you are planning to subsidize your tenants and THAT is not smart business. Maybe in certain areas you can't get the rent you would need to cover your costs. IMO, if would be business foolish to rent out a property in that area. You would be far better off to sell the property and invest your money in the market where you can get a 9.5% return with a LOT less hassle.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by jeffk

I agree if you raise the rent $150 a month to pay for a roof that had to be repaired the tenant is NOT going to be OK with it. What I am saying is that BEFORE you rent out a property you should be including a maintenance buffer into the rent. If you as the landlord have a mortgage on the property, wouldn't you make sure the rent covers that? You know you will have to do some cleanup (paint touch ups, etc.) between renters. Shouldn't the rent or damage deposit cover your costs? You should be able to estimate your required maintenance expenses using expected lifetimes of roof, heating system, appliances, flooring, etc and add that coverage to a planned monthly rent.

If you do not, do this, you are planning to subsidize your tenants and THAT is not smart business. Maybe in certain areas you can't get the rent you would need to cover your costs. IMO, if would be business foolish to rent out a property in that area. You would be far better off to sell the property and invest your money in the market where you can get a 9.5% return with a LOT less hassle.

I agree with Tilton BB. You could buy a house in 2005, and get a fair rent. In 2008, the bottom falls out of the economy. Big loss if you sell, if you can even find a buyer. Banks are foreclosing even on performing loans. If you were getting $1500/mo, when the lease runs out, or maybe before, the tenant leaves. Nobody wants to pay, or can afford to pay, $1500, so you finally rent it for $1250 and swallow the losses. 2-3 months, no rent? Raising the rent because you might want to replace the roof in 15 years is out of the question. Yes, you want to make those calculations before you buy, but if your calculations plan on raising the rent 5% a year, you'll have a lot of turnover and fix ups that come out of pocket. And more vacant months where you collect no rent. BTW, landlords don't make lots of money on rents, at least in the beginning. Real estate can be a shelter of sorts, depreciation, leverage, deductible mortgage interest, maybe travel (to Orlando?) to inspect and maintain the property.

Sounds like the mutual fund is perfect for you. I hope you're not paying a financial planner 1.5% to tell you to buy a mutual fund. Remember, you'll pay taxes on the capital gains distribution and more taxes when you make withdrawal to pay the first tax, or to move to a different fund. 9.5% is just a raw number.

[Slickcraft]

Originally Posted by smith point boater

Anyone know (not speculation) why the Alton tax rate jumped 11.5% ($13.95 vs $12.51). Certainly the approved town budget didn't increase that much. FYI - Property values do not appear to have changed

Just askin'

The major part of the tax bill is the school budget, I don't know what happened there.

In a previous year, maybe last year, the BOS voted to use a large sum out of "undesignated reserves" to reduce taxes. In general this feel good action is not a good idea. The reserves, also know as "surplus", are both an emergency fund and also to keep the town from having to take short term loans to meet expenses between tax collections. The reserves are not unlimited so come the next year...............

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by smith point boater

Certainly the approved town budget didn't increase that much.

My guess would be the school district budget has increased.

[Bigstan]

Originally Posted by smith point boater

Anyone know (not speculation) why the Alton tax rate jumped 11.5% ($13.95 vs $12.51). Certainly the approved town budget didn't increase that much. FYI - Property values do not appear to have changed

Just askin'

That brings it back almost exactly to the 2018 rate (within a couple cents) - basically they negated the 2019 reduction. If I were in command I'd look around and figure some extra reserve $ would be nice to have right about now.

Tax rate doesn't mean too much in and of itself, however if they wildly raised your assessment then you have a real problem (that just got 11.5% worse)

[Biggd]

It is sad that long time residents get priced out. Many of the new wealthy home buyers don't have the feelings for the area that the long time property owners do but I guess that's the price of progress.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Biggd

It is sad that long time residents get priced out. Many of the new wealthy home buyers don't have the feelings for the area that the long time property owners do but I guess that's the price of progress.

I'm not sure if "progress is the right word, but it's as good as any other.
I think CA Prop 13 mentioned by Gary above provides some tax protection for long term residents in a primary home. I tease my friends who own a place on Lake Sagandaga, NY that their area is ripe for abusive development, same as the NH Lakes Region. The hang up is that, at least on that lake, NY retained ownership of most of the shorefront. Towns in NH won't let that happen, even allowing "current use" on small shorefront parcels that would help protect water quality. They just won't give up the high property taxes for shorefront.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Descant

I'm not sure if "progress is the right word, but it's as good as any other.
I think CA Prop 13 mentioned by Gary above provides some tax protection for long term residents in a primary home. I tease my friends who own a place on Lake Sagandaga, NY that their area is ripe for abusive development, same as the NH Lakes Region. The hang up is that, at least on that lake, NY retained ownership of most of the shorefront. Towns in NH won't let that happen, even allowing "current use" on small shorefront parcels that would help protect water quality. They just won't give up the high property taxes for shorefront.

Getting a new Library and a new DPW building is progress even though some may feel those facilities aren't needed.
No one likes taxes but NH residents don't want a sales tax so the revenue has to come from somewhere.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Descant

Towns in NH won't let that happen, even allowing "current use" on small shorefront parcels that would help protect water quality. They just won't give up the high property taxes for shorefront.

Individual New Hampshire towns don't have much say in the matter, as current use requirements and rules are spelled out in state law. It shouldn't be a surprise that "small shorefront parcels" don't qualify for current use designation, since the law requires that to be eligible for current use status, the parcel must either be at least 10 acres in size or provide $2500 in annual agriculture or horticultural products.

[Woody38]

I would not say California got it right. We pay $10,000 on our house there which we bought in 2009. My sister, having lived there since 1962 is paying $1,500 in taxes. Not a shabby house either. Elderly woman across the street pays $800 in taxes and her son and grandson live there also. So, when she passes her son will also be paying $800 in taxes. Nothing like screwing anyone new to the state. Might be good if there were an equitable tax. Offer an abatement for elderly and possibly disabled persons to keep them in their homes. Wouldn't it be something if there were a fire or medical emergency at my sisters house and since the tax is so low, the help wouldn't be able to
arrive .

____________________________________

I am a retired workaholic and continuing aquaholic

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Woody38

I would not say California got it right. We pay $10,000 on our house there which we bought in 2009. My sister, having lived there since 1962 is paying $1,500 in taxes. Not a shabby house either. Elderly woman across the street pays $800 in taxes and her son and grandson live there also. So, when she passes her son will also be paying $800 in taxes. Nothing like screwing anyone new to the state. Might be good if there were an equitable tax. Offer an abatement for elderly and possibly disabled persons to keep them in their homes. Wouldn't it be something if there were a fire or medical emergency at my sisters house and since the tax is so low, the help wouldn't be able to
arrive .

____________________________________

I am a retired workaholic and continuing aquaholic

Agreed--the California formula that allows full appraisals only when a house is sold is grossly unfair to those who have purchased more recently