dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

avinandre wrote:
...

Most people are ranting about a 1 million dollar home should pay 16K. No problem but if 100K home is 1M in 15 years, wages should have also gone up by same proportion and that is totally nuts.. If I have to pay local taxes as percent of my income I will do that and that is better way to tax and provide local services IMHO.

If you think property taxes are unfair - move to Delaware, Louisiana or Alabama.

https://taxfoundation.org/how-high-are-property-taxes-your-state/

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

avinandre wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

avinandre wrote:
A person living in 1M is not rich by any means and 16K may be 10% of his annual salary so it hurts..

Translation: I want to buy too much house regardless of the financial implications.

Prices have inflated a lot in last 3 years so I don't think that equate well here and reval is happening at the peak.

Your response just proves that you just do not understand how the reval works. The reval happening at peak does not matter one bit! The municipal budget has to be funded, and the tax receipts AFTER the reval will remain the same as BEFORE the reval. If the reval had been completed four years ago, as originally intended, then we would have ended up with lower aggregate valuations, which would have resulted in a higher rate.

Aggregate Value * Tax Rate = Tax Revenue

The value on the right is (essentially) fixed so the values on the left go up or down as necessary.

There is one aspect of the market being at a peak, that actually matters, and it is beneficial to DTJC homeowners: the past fours years have seen values in areas outside of DTJC starting to really heat up. In other words, the gap in valuation has narrowed somewhat, which means that the burden on DTJC homeowners was actually lessened as to compared to what would have happened in the reval had been completed in 2013-2014. In others, DTJC homeowners got a benefit (perhaps unintended) when the mayor cancelled the reval and sought delay after delay.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

papadage wrote:
I don't feel bad for a person sitting on a multimillion dollar pot of equity.

You see it as equity, others see it as a home.

There is your problem: the two premises are NOT mutually exclusive.

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

avinandre wrote:
Quote:

jc201jc wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
well, maybe its time for fulop and team to stop handing out tax abatements as if they're halloween candy

FWIW I looked into 10 Provost Square (new building near Grove St PATH) a few weeks ago and they have no tax abatement...so maybe the tide is starting to turn.

Condos with tax abatement still pays fair taxes..

All the rental buildings are still getting 30 year tax abatements. T

But precisely ZERO of that PILOT money goes towards JC schools. The state makes up the difference.

What is so hard for you guys to understand about abuses and overused of abatements? Yes they're useful. But downtown hasn't needed to give them out for the last 10 years, but they have. Like candy.

jc201jc wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
well, maybe its time for fulop and team to stop handing out tax abatements as if they're halloween candy

FWIW I looked into 10 Provost Square (new building near Grove St PATH) a few weeks ago and they have no tax abatement...so maybe the tide is starting to turn.

Bike_Lane wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
At every council meeting the public officials are saying we need affordable housing, ignoring the fact that affordable housing will not pay the same taxes as everyone else. Those taxes are pushed off to the homeowners I mentioned. It is wrong to say one group should have affordable housing and another group is not paying their fair share of taxes.

This post makes no sense. Affordable housing means housing that is affordable for people who earn x% of the area median income, not tax-free housing. If that housing is less valuable than other housing then it would, of course, be taxed based on a lower assessed value. Do you confuse affordable housing with public housing?

Yvonne wrote:
At every council meeting the public officials are saying we need affordable housing, ignoring the fact that affordable housing will not pay the same taxes as everyone else. Those taxes are pushed off to the homeowners I mentioned. It is wrong to say one group should have affordable housing and another group is not paying their fair share of taxes.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

avinandre wrote:
A person living in 1M is not rich by any means and 16K may be 10% of his annual salary so it hurts..

Translation: I want to buy too much house regardless of the financial implications.

I can think of many people who paid $40,000 to $70,000 for their homes and got $30,000 or more tax bill. In the meanwhile the city has been handing out tax abatements for newer developments at every chance they get. "Make JC Yours" was all about selling JC cheap with those tax abatements.

papadage wrote:
Quote:

avinandre wrote:
The tax payment should be similar for all. While builders like lefrak get big tax abatement on rental properties in Newport ? Does tax system treat everyone similarly ? A person living in 1M is not rich by any means and 16K may be 10% of his annual salary so it hurts..


Quote:

DouglasReynholm wrote:
Property taxes should be fair. If your house (living in downtown is worth 1,000,000 - you should pay 16,000 and if you live in a poorer area of our city, say Greenville, and your house is worth 200,000, you should pay 3200. That's fair and equal. If a lawyer, living in a brownstone, worth 1,000,000 cannot afford to pay another 6,000 (and with new tax law, exempt it from his taxes beyond 10,000), he or she needs to reconsider what to do with the property. I have a feeling the lawyer will be able to afford the 60 percent increase. I know it sucks, but fair is fair and other parts of the city should not be taxed unequally and disadvantaged.

The mortgage alone, without taxes, on a $1MM property, assuming a 20% down payment, totals to more than the entire median household income of the US. An average family could not afford to live in a place like that, even if they did not need to eat, or have any electricity usage, or any other expenses at all. Not even any federal taxes.

Translation:

Yes.. only rich people can afford million dollar properties.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

avinandre wrote:
A person living in 1M is not rich by any means and 16K may be 10% of his annual salary so it hurts..

Translation: I want to buy too much house regardless of the financial implications.

DouglasReynholm wrote:
Property taxes should be fair. If your house (living in downtown is worth 1,000,000 - you should pay 16,000 and if you live in a poorer area of our city, say Greenville, and your house is worth 200,000, you should pay 3200. That's fair and equal. If a lawyer, living in a brownstone, worth 1,000,000 cannot afford to pay another 6,000 (and with new tax law, exempt it from his taxes beyond 10,000), he or she needs to reconsider what to do with the property. I have a feeling the lawyer will be able to afford the 60 percent increase. I know it sucks, but fair is fair and other parts of the city should not be taxed unequally and disadvantaged.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I just heard from 3 former neighbors in the Van Vorst neighborhood. New taxes, $31,000, $35,000, and $41,000.

If they got whacked with a big increase in taxes, then that means they spent years (if not decades) paying lower taxes... and forcing others to pay more than their fair share.

Request for sympathy: DENIED.

No, they got whacked because tax abated properties are not ratables. By comparison, those tax abated properties are paying very little and receive the same services as those being whacked.