patrick.net

Don't feel bad. Property taxes (county, town, village AND school) run between 4.0 and 4.5%.
Part of it is due to the fact that the full market values are elevated, relative to what they are in actuality. It's not uncommon to see $300k houses "valued" at $400k.
Although there is a process by which one can fight their assessment, you need to be the owner first, and there is no guarantee of success.

pkowen says

My argument on prop 13 has always been it would make more sense to make assessments fair and equal and lower taxes (if that is your goal) by LOWERING RATES.

PK, i agree with the first part of your statement. However lowering rates, to make taxes fair, for those who overpaid isnt a remedy. If you overpaid on the value of your home than your stuck with a higher tax bill. So be it.

Why should fools who made dreadfull mistakes get tax breaks ?

This is what happens when highly impressionable and ignorant people vote on various ballot measures created by a handful of wealthy people to benefit themselves at the expense of others all under the guise of democracy.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" -- Churchill

All the "special add-on assessments" brought my total tax rate in East San Jose up to 1.4% of assessment.

E-man says

believe you ECBB. Ducky, give up the fight. I remember when we were in HI several years ago and were sitting next to a couple from Chicago area at a Luau. They said their home was worth about $550k, and their property tax bill was close to $20k. Maybe Taputu can shed some light on this. I have relatives in TX and FL, and their property taxes are about 3% and 2.5% respectively.

I have relatives in the suburbs around Chicago and they pay ~$7K on a $500K house. $20K sounds awfully high to me. Not that it isn't possible.. Just not my experience.

E-man says

However, Prop 13 should have been applied to only owner-occupied properties. Talking about the laws of unintended consequences :o)

Nah, you misunderstand. The intended consequence, indeed the whole point of Prop 13, is evasion of commercial property tax by businesses and landlords. That's why it was started and why several rich backers funded it.

The benefit to ordinary owners was just the means used by the wealthy to get ordinary people to agree and not to read the fine print.

It's kind of like the Tea Party and income taxes. They're all being used to keep the capital gains rate at 15% so that billionaires can continue pay much lower rates than working people. Tea Party people don't ask who is funding them, or why.

Brilliant strategy, really.

E-man says

However, Prop 13 should have been applied to only owner-occupied properties. Talking about the laws of unintended consequences :o)

I see you know little of Howard Jarvis. There was absolutely nothing unintended about it. He was firmly in the pocket of Big Money, who cynically used the image of protecting retired teachers, as the sugar-coating on their plan to reduce commercial real estate taxes. Another of the ridiculous claims made by Jarvis was that NATURALLY it would reduce rents, however the decades since have proven that landlords simply pocketed the money. I doubt he cared that it created family dynasties either, that was unintended consequence. Here in Davis I know of a bunch of homes that in other states would be owned by young families as starter homes. Instead, as a result of Prop. 13 they are owned by grandchildren who haven't lived here in decades, who rent them out through property managers. Around here it looks a lot like a class system, your ancestors happened to buy in 1970's, you have a guaranteed easy ride. Otherwise, forget it.

The fact that the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Assocation endorses Meg Whitman, is enough to tell me what kind of crowd she attracts.

Prop 13 is definitely a great symbolic win. It is the only time where the state government lost on a tax increase issue.

imagine if there was a prop 13 = for sales tax and income tax. Sales tax in California was around 2-3% when it was created, now it is headed toward 10% and increasing the base of what is taxable.

On a separate note, where the heck is the state budget? wasn't it due June 15th? We're 3 months into the fiscal year and yet no talk. Organzations budget 2-3 years in advance not 3 months after. It's not really a budget when there is no plan 3 months in. Unacceptable policy.

E-man says

@ Vincente,
Yes, I don’t know much about Howard Jarvis, but I still believe Prop 13 was a great win for home owners.

I disagree. Let me give you an example. Let's say we have a Proposition 99 that establishes the day you buy a property, the tax is fixed on that day forever. A rational person would say this is idiotic, in the long run it will lead to separate landed classes and permanent rentiers. Proposition 13 is simply a less-obvious form of that. There is no benefit to SOCIETY, there is only benefit to the individuals who get to get to the slop trough first.

Other states somehow manage without it. Some allow that older retired people living in their home get some relief. But this business with handing down your preferred rate to your children is not building a meritocracy, it's enabling landed nobility! Other states handle the fact of sometimes an area shoots up in value, by well... we don't live on family farms any more, if taxes have gone up LARGE it's probably because your area is now popular with millionares, so you SELL THE HOUSE. Take the money and run.

Some of your posts indicate you believe in work and rising on merit. In what way does Prop 13 build a meritocracy? It doesn't. It makes each immigrant generation increasingly less likely to even be able to own a home. Prop 13 is generally called "screw the newcomers".

E-man says

I guess eating yam for lunch and dinner instead of rice taught me well.

You want some Angus or Charolais in your diet, too, E-man.

6% on landlords in Richland County, Columbia, SC. House assessed between 100% to 800% over market value. hasn't sold yet in 4 years of trying!

I feel a bit guilty to tell you all that the property tax on my Tokyo condo (purchase price: $150k) is Y24,000, or about $280, per year.

Well, I would, but actually city budgets here are funded through the municipal income tax, which is 10% of your income. So I'm actually paying another $200 per month or more to the Tokyo ward in which I live.

This is why you can often find surprisingly cheap rent even in crowded Japan -- you don't have to cover the landlord's property taxes. You'll be paying directly from your income instead.

Michinaga says

This is why you can often find surprisingly cheap rent even in crowded Japan — you don’t have to cover the landlord’s property taxes.

um, that's not how rents work. LLs charge whatever the market will bear, not their cost basis. That's theoretical of course, and lower cost bases do often result in LLs cutting deals to tenants if the LLs prefer them to the next tenant for some reason.

Rents can only be cheap via vacancy. I don't know how accurate this is, but Yahoo says there are 13,000 for-rent places in Nerima-ku alone, 4000 of which are "reikin-nashi" (no "key money" BS).

SW Tokyo has 66,000 listings on Yahoo. Of course, Tokyo is a big place, but that does strike me as a lot of supply.

If things go well this decade I might end up back in Minato-ku. I found it better living than West LA at least.

Michinaga says

I feel a bit guilty to tell you all that the property tax on my Tokyo condo (purchase price: $150k) is Y24,000, or about $280, per year.

Well, I would, but actually city budgets here are funded through the municipal income tax, which is 10% of your income. So I’m actually paying another $200 per month or more to the Tokyo ward in which I live.

It is not you that have to feel guilty about. It is them who can't manage shit, while Japanese can do it at way less.