|
B-Nasty posted:And $17.2K a year in taxes. I never would've thought of MN as a high-tax locale. If this anywhere near accurate, they're middle of the road-ish. $17k on a property assessed at $950k seems pretty sane to me. https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-property-taxes/11585/ And holy poo poo are HI, CO, AL really that cheap? My particular state is on the bottom 5 sadly, so that's what price I'm used to (~$6k on a $300k property, more or less)
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
empty baggie posted:That house would be around 300-400k here in NE TN. Yeah, what I mean is that for a major urban area the Twin Cities are relatively inexpensive. I saw a rating list once of 1-10 based on price, where 10 was SF and NYC, 9 was Seattle, etc. and the Twin Cities was a 5.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 19:34
|
|
|
falz posted:If this anywhere near accurate, they're middle of the road-ish. $17k on a property assessed at $950k seems pretty sane to me. AL does have a super low state property tax/regressive tax system because timber companies and farmers still run the state govt and they don’t care about education, but counties and cities can add their own property taxes for their own education budgets. Mountain Brook in Birmingham has fairly high property taxes (and values) but also a great public school system. I’m not even in mountain brook and I pay about 1.5x what that site says I should at the state rate. Still a whole lot cheaper than my brother in Connecticut!
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 19:52
|
|
|
lol at the DC median home value
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 19:56
|
|
|
falz posted:If this anywhere near accurate, they're middle of the road-ish. $17k on a property assessed at $950k seems pretty sane to me. I don't know... 17K on 950K is 1.8% RE tax, which even given your link is in the top 5. Not that I trust those percentages that much, because, at least in my area of PA, the rates are high, but the assessments are typically 50% of market, so it averages out. For comparison, I live in a reasonably expensive (tax and COL) area with well-performing schools, and my RE tax is $5100 on $500K. Certainly areas in NJ, outside NYC, Chicago, etc. are paying RE taxes that can end up being more than the P&I on the mortgage, I just didn't expect it in MN.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
States also like to gently caress around with sales tax/income tax/property tax knobs so states with high/low property taxes may (or may not) have lower/higher other taxes to compensate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 20:49
|
|
|
I have an attic fan on the roof (rather than a gable style) that's having some sort of balance issue. It's loud and frankly vibrating enough that I can feel it shaking the walls. Is the process of replacing an attic fan the same as a vent, where I have to pry up shingles for removing the flashing, pull the old unit out, and install a new one... or is it generally a two piece system where I can swap out just the fan+ motor itself? I'm seeing conflicting information about the utility of the fan itself, but before I can redo most of the sofit vents I want to get the fan problem sorted out. Should I do anything special or specific when I mount/install a new fan?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
I love living in California where all the entitled boomers think their property taxes are super high despite having owned their houses for decades and paying a fraction of what I do. And what I pay is still less as a percentage of my property value than people in most states pay. Blows my mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 04:13
|
|
|
Steve French posted:I love living in California where all the entitled boomers think their property taxes are super high despite having owned their houses for decades and paying a fraction of what I do. And what I pay is still less as a percentage of my property value than people in most states pay. Blows my mind. The concept of only ever updating property taxes when a house is sold is insane.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 08:51
|
|
|
wooger posted:The concept of only ever updating property taxes when a house is sold is
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 12:19
|
|
|
wooger posted:The concept of only ever updating property taxes when a house is sold is insane. The other side of that is that you steadily raise costs for people on fixed incomes who have otherwise owned the property outright for years, which has the effect of pricing people out of their homes. I'm not saying either way is the best, but there is a reasoning behind it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 12:22
|
|
|
You could also argue, debatably, that the value of a home is not truly known until it's sold, on account of that's how value works. You can definitely estimate values but it's a valid argument nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 14:14
|
|
|
Jaded Burnout posted:You could also argue, debatably, that the value of a home is not truly known until it's sold, on account of that's how value works. I don't really see much merit in that argument at all. Otherwise the whole lending industry would be turned upside-down if you couldn't use comps to ballpark the value of any given home. Sure it's always an estimate until someone actually pays up, but it'll get you close enough to market value.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:I don't really see much merit in that argument at all. Otherwise the whole lending industry would be turned upside-down if you couldn't use comps to ballpark the value of any given home. Well that's the thing, it's not that you can't get close, but that any estimate is going to be influenced by the intent of the estimator. Estimates for loans just need to be accurate enough that the sale of the house would cover the value of the loan less any deposit, i.e. the banks just want to make sure they can get most or all of their money back, and usually have a wide margin. Insurers need an estimate accurate enough that they can cover the rebuild cost. Estate agents want to estimate the home as high as possible to influence the price upwards and get the best commission. Owners would want their tax estimate to be as low as possible while the council would want it as high as possible. I'm not saying you can't do it, or that I even agree with the argument necessarily, but I think you've got to be careful with "close enough" when the estimate directly costs people money without them having seen the real gains from it yet, and any swing up or down is actual money in or out of their pocket even on a small scale.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 14:54
|
|
|
I mean, you're not wrong, but without some attempt at correcting the assessed property value then you're going to end up with two neighbors, who have nearly identical homes, paying wildly different amounts in taxes to receive identical government services. In my neighborhood for example, I'm paying about $3,500/year in property taxes. If the previous owners still lived here, they'd be paying $2,000/year in property taxes under a "tax value changes only at sale" scheme. So if they were my neighbors rather than the previous owners, they'd be getting a hell of a deal and I'd be getting screwed. I'd prefer being screwed out of $50/year due to an inaccurate assessment as opposed to being screwed out of $1,500/year. Again, this is all predicated on the basis of taxing people based on the value of their property. Not saying this is right or wrong, just that you can end up with some really screwy scenarios if you don't try to keep assessments up to date.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 15:13
|
|
|
Jaded Burnout posted:You could also argue, debatably, that the value of a home is not truly known until it's sold, on account of that's how value works. Estimates are fine, as long as the burden of paying for all public services is not placed in those least equipped to pay them then things might work out OK. So it’s totally fair for a young person buying their first small flat/apartment and living alone to pay more property taxes than a millionaire boomer, just because they’ve lived there a long time? OK.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 15:49
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:I don't really see much merit in that argument at all. Otherwise the whole lending industry would be turned upside-down if you couldn't use comps to ballpark the value of any given home. Comps are recently sold homes that are similar in size, style and location. What do you do when there isn't sufficient turnover? How do you fairly use this model for unique (at least to an area) homes? It's great for condo developments with a lot of turnover. Not so great anywhere else. Just "good enough for lending".
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 15:49
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Comps are recently sold homes that are similar in size, style and location. What do you do when there isn't sufficient turnover? How do you fairly use this model for unique (at least to an area) homes? I never claimed it was perfect, and with regards to tax assessments there are appeals processes and ways to assess value outside of just using comps. But my point here is that to say "a home is worth only what someone last bought it for, no more no less" is just burying your head in the sand and can result in massive disparities in taxes paid between people in similar situations. Remember we're talking about the difference between basing property taxes on periodic assessments versus "last sold" value. I feel like we're losing that context.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
I think a big hurdle (maybe the biggest) to re-assessing anytime other than at sale is that you need the homeowner's permission to enter the property, and any buildings on that property, and examine everything to get an accurate picture. People who have put big improvements into their home would refuse, and people whose roof is falling in would welcome it, and you'd end up with spotty data that is skewed towards reducing assessed values.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 16:25
|
|
|
Who were the geniuses that decided that property taxes should help fund schools, so the richer areas automatically get better schools?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 16:25
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:Remember we're talking about the difference between basing property taxes on periodic assessments versus "last sold" value. I feel like we're losing that context. I've not lost that context at all. I'm telling you why your proposed solution doesn't work. I have no better ones, but that one isn't it. This is a difficult unsolved problem that is both technical and political. It is unlikely to be solved on a comedy forum.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
Motronic posted:I've not lost that context at all. I'm telling you why your proposed solution doesn't work. I have no better ones, but that one isn't it. This is a difficult unsolved problem that is both technical and political. It is unlikely to be solved on a comedy forum. I don't follow. My "proposed solution" is exactly the solution that the vast majority of cities/counties use (at least the ones I'm familiar with). I was honestly completely unaware that ANY government that levied property taxes did it on a "last sold" basis. The county I'm in reassesses every 4 years on account of rapidly changing property values, and the state requires that property tax assessments are done no less frequently than every 8 years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 17:08
|
|
|
wooger posted:Estimates are fine, as long as the burden of paying for all public services is not placed in those least equipped to pay them then things might work out OK.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 17:10
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:Who were the geniuses that decided that property taxes should help fund schools, so the richer areas automatically get better schools? Rich people who don't want to pay for poor people's schools, basically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 17:11
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:... Orrrrr, and hear me out here, a little old lady who is on a fixed income but can afford to stay in her home because her property taxes haven't increased due to sick tech bros buying every property around her and tearing them down to make mcmansions... Owns an asset that is appreciating in value, and can take out a reverse mortgage?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:The other side of that is that you steadily raise costs for people on fixed incomes who have otherwise owned the property outright for years, which has the effect of pricing people out of their homes. I believe that this is a real problem. However, I think prop 13 is a poor solution, even for those folks on fixed incomes: for example, it dis-incentivizes downsizing if they have to suddenly pay more property tax because they are now paying based on the full value of the new property (some counties allow you to transfer your tax basis for this reason, I believe). The primary concern that I hear is that if property values increase significantly through no action of the owner (broader market changes, not improvements to the home), then this can really hurt older folks. Totally get it. What I don't understand though is why it seems like everyone debating the pros/cons of a policy like prop 13 assumes that there are only two options: what CA had before it, and what it has now. That ad-valorem tax assessed must always be a fixed (over time) percent of the assessed value of the home. That's a false dichotomy: there are plenty of areas of the country that don't work that way. Are local government expenses always proportional to total property values in the area? No? Then it doesn't seem to make much sense to make total tax levy proportional to total property values, either. The way it works where I grew up and my dad lives (roughly) is that the county legislature sets a budget, and determines a total tax levy from there. The amount each property owner pays is then a share of that total levy that is proportional to their property value. If the real estate market goes nuts and property values increase by 10%, tax paid would stay the same (except presumably to the extent that increased real estate costs increase the tax revenue required to cover costs). If your property value goes up significantly relative to others in your area, or if the overall tax levy increases, that's when taxes go up. http://www.ongov.net/rpts/explanation.html Even then, if those increases cause a hardship for a senior on fixed income, there are exemptions provided: https://www.townoflafayette.com/assessor.html I'm sure this approach has it's downsides (anger at county government for increasing spending, etc), and I have no direct experience with it personally as I've never owned property there, but it seems like a reasonable approach. At the least, it seems like it should be discussed in CA as an alternative to our current system, but I have not once seen that happen (maybe looking in the wrong places?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:... Orrrrr, and hear me out here, a little old lady who is on a fixed income but can afford to stay in her home because her property taxes haven't increased due to sick tech bros buying every property around her and tearing them down to make mcmansions... yeah and this is exactly why the system I described above seems better: this would seem likely to actually decrease little old lady's property taxes in that system, rather than increase them. But no, prop 13 yes or no is the only choice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 17:26
|
|
|
The only somewhat fair way to do it is to have 2 components to property tax: the basic mil rate, which increases linearly and everyone has to pay, and the assessed value of the house, where the difference from purchase price can be deferred by current occupants until the time of sale. That way, granny doesn't get RE taxed out of the home she has owned since the 70s just because idiots around her are paying $2MM for 1200sq/ft shacks. The total tax paid by granny and tech bro are equalized when her 70s shack sells for that same $2MM and the back taxes are made current from her proceeds. Any transfer/inheritance of the property would also trigger the taxes, so that you don't have a house dynasty paying 70s-level taxes on multi-million dollar property. The grandson that can't pay taxes due at transfer doesn't have any more right to live there at low taxes than anybody else. Of course, this means the taxman doesn't get paid right away on assessed increases, so they'd have to exercise fiscal responsibility and... hahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:Who were the geniuses that decided that property taxes should help fund schools, so the richer areas automatically get better schools? I think this episode talks about it: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/11/731867149/a-tale-of-two-school-districts At least part of it is rooted in segregation. Texas is especially lovely about public school funding, robinhood, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:Who were the geniuses that decided that property taxes should help fund schools, so the richer areas automatically get better schools? At what level would you try to equalize it, though? If you did it at the state level, you'd have dense, wealthy states like Maryland and NJ with much better schools than poor states like Mississippi, which, surprise, is exactly the case now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 17:47
|
|
|
I agree that there's lots of issues with either end of the spectrum.Motronic posted:It's great for condo developments with a lot of turnover. Not so great anywhere else. Just "good enough for lending". Lenders also have the benefit that the value pinned on the property during the mortgage negotiation is about to be immediately tested by the person taking out the mortgage, on account of them buying the thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 17:48
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:Rich people who don't want to pay for poor people's schools, basically. Beyond that, rich (and middle-class) white people who didn't want to pay for schools the minorities were going to. In Vermont, 20-ish years ago, the legislature passed Act 60, which, to an extent, tries to balance local taxes and school districts. People felt it was unfair that the rich ski towns had all this money, and yet a low residential tax rate, for their schools, meanwhile podunk towns had higher tax rate and struggling schools. As expected, the people who lived in those ski towns responded perfectly rationally, as anyone else would, and voted to succeed to New Hampshire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 17:54
|
|
|
B-Nasty posted:At what level would you try to equalize it, though? If you did it at the state level, you'd have dense, wealthy states like Maryland and NJ with much better schools than poor states like Mississippi, which, surprise, is exactly the case now. Well I suppose the federal government could provide funding to even out differences between states. I dunno what we have now definitely doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 18:05
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:I don't follow. My "proposed solution" is exactly the solution that the vast majority of cities/counties use (at least the ones I'm familiar with). I was honestly completely unaware that ANY government that levied property taxes did it on a "last sold" basis. And do you have appraisers running around doing this to individual houses? Or do you have a basic millage change? Because that's how a lot of places do it. Since actual appraisals of every house, even to the level of a lender appraisal, is simply too expensive and intrusive. Those same places typically have some triggers for individual properly valuation changes. We've discussed on transfer - this is trivially circumvented with a trust in a lot of places. There are also some that trigger on modification, either renovation or, like where I'm at, any change in square footage. Sometimes this will revalue the entire properly, and in places like where I'm at will only add the square footage proportionately.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 18:43
|
|
|
Besides this thread, any other forums that are good for diy questions? The questions I want to ask are pretty specific and might benefit from a larger audience. In the off chance anyone here would know, here's what I am looking for help with: - Looking for a place where I can buy curtains that are compatible with a track system that are at least 120'' long - What the hell do I do with this?  My basic googling shows that there are a couple of different things going on here: big blue is the nickname of the filter housing by pentek, and culligan makes the filters that go inside, but I haven't been able to confirm what I am supposed to do here, what filter to use, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
Motronic posted:And do you have appraisers running around doing this to individual houses? Or do you have a basic millage change? Because that's how a lot of places do it. Since actual appraisals of every house, even to the level of a lender appraisal, is simply too expensive and intrusive. Uh, computers? Millage rate is changed in between valuations to meet budgetary needs, and tax value is computed every 4 years using some hardcore statistical analysis. No need to individually appraise every single property. Computer spits out a number, I would presume it's smart enough to flag anything it thinks is weird (for manual analysis), and then the appeals process handle any mistakes that make it out to the wild.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 19:11
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:Uh, computers? Millage rate is changed in between valuations to meet budgetary needs, and tax value is computed every 4 years using some hardcore statistical analysis. Yes, a few counties around here tried exactly that. Their "computers" were about as accurate as a Zillow estimate. Which again, it great for condo complexes with high turnover, but has been a complete disaster in other situations, causing most homeowners to have to got through the appeal process, which means getting an actual appraisal. So yes, it's been tried. It's being tried. It is not a universally workable situation. Not even for an entire county at a time in the cases I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 19:18
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:- What the hell do I do with this? Change it every February joepinetree posted:Besides this thread, any other forums that are good for diy questions? The fix it fast thread is usually a good spot for general questions, but there's also a plumbing one. Have a look at the top of the forum index.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Besides this thread, any other forums that are good for diy questions? Have you opened it up to look at the filter? I would bet (hope) that it has a part number somewhere on it that you can then google to order the right thing. Beyond that you could probably measure some dimensions on it and compare to dimensions of products you can google. It's possible a Culligan rep would come to your house and try to sell you on a bunch of crap and you can get the part number from them also. Filter - https://www.homedepot.com/p/Culligan-SCWH-5-WTR-Water-Filter-Cartridge-CULLIGAN-SCWH-5/206755327 This kinda looks like what you have - https://www.allfilters.com/wholehousewaterfilters/housings/culligan-hf-150a tl:dr look for part numbers and measure things
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
tangy yet delightful posted:Have you opened it up to look at the filter? I would bet (hope) that it has a part number somewhere on it that you can then google to order the right thing. Beyond that you could probably measure some dimensions on it and compare to dimensions of products you can google. It's possible a Culligan rep would come to your house and try to sell you on a bunch of crap and you can get the part number from them also. That's the wrong size. It's literally a 20" Culligan Big Blue - it's all right there  https://www.waterfilters.net/20-inch-big-blue-replacement-filters.html Gonna want to get a wrench for that (or just a generic strap wrench) as well as some o rings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2020 21:00
|
|