Isn't the real issue with the increase in property taxes based on assessment rather than rate? If your home is reassessed at a 10% annual increase, even with a 1% cap, you'll still be paying 11% more year-over-year.
Or am I wrong on this?
I don't have an opinion on the numbers, as I am not versed enough in the situation to comment, but for the reporting: I do find it funny that Josh's posts on the rainy day fund (ie, a spending decision) show only opponents using language like "having [their] hands tied when doing the budgeting."
In this post, the issue is about taxation, and now Josh's reporting gets into language like "handcuffs local governments" and "stalling the ability to provide services" So mandates about how the government collects money are handcuffs, but spending isn't?
Josh, Just jumped out at me as I reviewed the last few days posts. Peace.
Doug, I think you're right, at least for some of the variations of this proposal. And that taps into the same source of anger that Eyman struck gold with in the car tabs debate: people don't like paying more taxes, but they really hate being lied to. And they know what their house or car is worth, so when they see an assessment where the government is overvaluing their property to a ridiculous degree just to extract more taxes, it really pisses them off.
Capping property (and sales) taxes would be a good way to make a switch to an state income tax more palatable; if you're going to get into constitutional amendments anyway, you might as well go go for the whole package and try to get the state on a more progressive base. Many of the people who oppose a state income tax do so because the (rightly) suspect that it would be in addition to all the existing taxes; establishing it as part of a mechanism that freezes or repeals some of the other taxes is the only way it would get enough support.
What a crappy idea.
We need a state income tax. It seems that if you don't own real estate, you're completely disenfranchised from the political process. I'm sick of our state (and city's) dependence on a regressive sales tax, and the disproportionate attention paid to the needs of the property-owning class.
Wow, someone in Olympia reads SLOG!
dmolator @5, it isn't just the "property-owning class".
Renters pay property tax too. They are just unaware of it (mostly).
Landlords pay property tax, just like everyone else. When the property taxes go up, do you think they just absorb the added costs? No. They use it as an excuse (completely justifiably) to raise the rents to cover the increase in taxes. So renters pay property tax indirectly through higher rents.
"Taxes are the price we pay for civilized society" Oliver Wendal Holmes (US Supreme Court early 1900's)
Right. What I meant was that renters don't have the ability to elect their landlords. The state doesn't pay attention to renters in the same way that it does to property owners. It's just a fact.
I don't get this idea that houses are overvalued by the tax assessors to increase revenue. The assessed value of my house (assessed by King County) is far below what houses are going for in our overheated market. It actually looks on par with what the real value increase of the house would be minus the housing bubble. That seems about right to me.
I do wish it were politically possible to shift property tax burdens onto wealthy homeowners by giving each person a property tax deduction equal to the median value home in their area, and then adjusting the tax upwards for all real estate value above the median. That would protect the largest asset of many middle class homeowners, even during a runup in prices or for seniors on a fixed income, while maintaining revenue and ensuring that multi-property landlords paid their fair share.
But with tax politics as they are in this state, with even the estate tax under assault, it's probably futile to ever hope for this kind of sanity on property taxes.
I should add that one drawback of the system I just mentioned is that it could potentially screw renters who would end up paying the additional costs for their multi-property landlords. But arguably the lower cost of home ownership at the entry level might draw more renters to buy, offsetting the problem.
I can also see this encouraging lower-cost condos, because condos below median value would not be taxed on their value alone. This would also discourage people from speculating on flipping condos for a profit, as buying more than one would eventually incur taxes that are avoided with a single property.
The ideal that the government should encourage is one-property ownership of moderately sized homes or condos that increase urban density. Better property tax policy, drafted by someone smarter than me, could help do this.
Sounds great! Cap property tax to dry up funding for schools and social services, then watch as your neighborhood slowly goes to hell, which in turn will lower your property value, thereby lowering your property tax. It's win-win!
OK, so I'm exaggerating a bit. Maybe.
When Josh says he "misunderstood," he trying to avoid admitting that he misquoted someone.
Josh is a doofus. It's part of his little guy charm.
While we're at it, the federal tax code should have the mortgage interest tax deduction for second homes removed. Joe sixpack may have a cabin out at the lake, but he doesn't have a mortgage on it. That's a tax break for the rich if I ever saw one.
Hunter is on Drugs.
That said, he probably thinks RTID will pass too.
Sad, very sad.
home manufactured mortgage lenders
manufactured mortgage lenders home
fargo home wells mortgage
mortgage commerical gmac
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).