moobycow wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:

Thanks for the english lesson. By the way its privileged not privileges.

Dt will be subsidizing rest of the city soon. People whining about paying taxes too high could appeal them now

Meh, that's how society functions. People who have more pay more. Such is life. I say this as someone who is likely to see his bill double.

Frankly, the idea that there is someone Greenville are paying an extra $2k so I can save $10k disgusts me.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
People whining about paying taxes too high could appeal them now

Yes, they could get them reduced...to only twice what you're paying.

thor800 wrote:

Thanks for the english lesson. By the way its privileged not privileges.

Dt will be subsidizing rest of the city soon. People whining about paying taxes too high could appeal them now

thor800 wrote:
People whining about paying taxes too high could appeal them now

papadage wrote:
Some people are paying double what they should to subsidize wealthier people.

You do sound privileges and whiny.

And the word is moot.. not mute.. moot.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
Should someone that bought a house 10 years ago for $750K now worth $1.5M with taxes at $10K have to pay an increase in $20K after the reval ? I disagree that this is worth lowering someone in Greenville's taxes $2k as a measure of "fairness" if both are using the same resources.

Value can be extremely subjective indicator and I personally (taxes set to double after the reval depending on assessment) feel that dtjc will be subsidizing other areas JC way more than they are subsidizing us now.

The "resource use" argument is a nonstarter, as already pointed out. Do you really not have any idea how privileged and whiney you sound? You want your high value but don't want to be taxed on it.

Since you apparently value low taxes more than high equity and are probably under 62, you're the perfect customer for the city run lien bonding I propose that would be like reverse mortgage in it's effect.

thor800 wrote:
Should someone that bought a house 10 years ago for $750K now worth $1.5M with taxes at $10K have to pay an increase in $20K after the reval ? I disagree that this is worth lowering someone in Greenville's taxes $2k as a measure of "fairness" if both are using the same resources.

Value can be extremely subjective indicator and I personally (taxes set to double after the reval depending on assessment) feel that dtjc will be subsidizing other areas JC way more than they are subsidizing us now.

thor800 wrote:
Having a valuable house is good if you want to sell but very unhelpful otherwise

Should someone that bought a house 10 years ago for $750K now worth $1.5M with taxes at $10K have to pay an increase in $20K after the reval ?

I disagree that this is worth lowering someone in Greenville's taxes $2k as a measure of "fairness" if both are using the same resources.

Value can be extremely subjective indicator and I personally (taxes set to double after the reval depending on assessment) feel that dtjc will be subsidizing other areas JC way more than they are subsidizing us now.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
[quote]
Taking on a reverse mortgage is a big commitment though depending on the interest rate.

The better thing to do would take an adjusted average of the current market value and a tiered increasing of property taxes so that a scenario where taxes would double or triple is avoided. Simply adding more leverage to the equation isn't necessarily the best answer though it might be the only option if the city has little leeway for the reval terms.

Yes, of course you're right. It WOULD be much better for those homeowners to continue to be subsidized rather than have the bother of borrowing against their large equity. But that's not the way this works.

And what's so scary about the mortgage? you pay it off at sale, or sooner if you decide you no longer need it. The free lunch is over. I'm a little daunted too, I expect my tax to go up $10-15k, but this is inevitable, and I've done very well owning my DT property.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
[quote]
Taking on a reverse mortgage is a big commitment though depending on the interest rate.

The better thing to do would take an adjusted average of the current market value and a tiered increasing of property taxes so that a scenario where taxes would double or triple is avoided. Simply adding more leverage to the equation isn't necessarily the best answer though it might be the only option if the city has little leeway for the reval terms.

Yes, of course you're right. It WOULD be much better for those homeowners to continue to be subsidized rather than have the bother of borrowing against their large equity. But that's not the way this works.

And what's so scary about the mortgage? you pay it off at sale, or sooner if you decide you no longer need it. The free lunch is over. I'm a little daunted too, I expect my tax to go up $10-15k, but this is inevitable, and I've done very well owning my DT property.

thor800 wrote:
[quote]
Taking on a reverse mortgage is a big commitment though depending on the interest rate.

The better thing to do would take an adjusted average of the current market value and a tiered increasing of property taxes so that a scenario where taxes would double or triple is avoided. Simply adding more leverage to the equation isn't necessarily the best answer though it might be the only option if the city has little leeway for the reval terms.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Exactly! I have a friend who purchased a brownstone in 1978 downtown on 3rd and Erie for $38k. Once the reval happens he will no longer be able to afford the tax bill because he is now retired but I don't fell bad for him a bit, because he house is worth 1.7 million its a two family brownstone. He has been looking for a smaller house to buy up the hill (Bergen Lafayette and Greenville) and sell before the reval happens.

I know I sound like a broken record on this, but it bears repeating, NO ONE WITH MASSIVE EQUITY AND LOW INCOME SHOULD LOSE THEIR HOME!! All your friend would need to do to stay is do a reverse mortgage, where the bank loans him the tax money every year to be paid back upon sale, plus interest. His house will likely continue to appreciate every year far more than the tax he is asked to pay out of his house's value. Does anyone seriously think a Downtown home will not appreciate at least 3% annually on average for the next 20 years? There's your tax and interest.

The only people who might have to sell are those who bought recently and stretched themselves thin to do it, and have no reserves to pay more tax, and neither have the equity for a reverse mortgage or do not meet the 62 age requirement. The latter is one reason I advocate the city create a lien bond system more citizen friendly than simply selling off delinquent liens.

user1111 wrote:
Exactly! I have a friend who purchased a brownstone in 1978 downtown on 3rd and Erie for $38k. Once the reval happens he will no longer be able to afford the tax bill because he is now retired but I don't fell bad for him a bit, because he house is worth 1.7 million its a two family brownstone. He has been looking for a smaller house to buy up the hill (Bergen Lafayette and Greenville) and sell before the reval happens.

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
One question I have, is how much does an increase in property tax really hurt the affluent?

Let's say a homeowner earns $200k/year - paying NJ State and federal taxes on that. Their property tax bill doubles from $10k to $20k. Isn't most or all of that deductible on their tax returns?

Any tax experts out there?

The only people it "hurts" are those who are middle & lower class who have owned homes for many years/decades (bought at cheaper values, passed down through families) in areas that have boomed, like dtjc, and now will get a much higher tax bill. These are the people who may face issues of not being able to afford to keep their homes. The flip side of that is that they could chose to sell and reap the profit of the higher value (but yes, that is a version of people losing their homes, though they would get money for that, not a total lose at all.)

Not saying these people don't matter, just answering the question.

thor800 wrote:
I don't believe property taxes are completely deductible - only mortgage interest.

dtjcview wrote:
One question I have, is how much does an increase in property tax really hurt the affluent?

Let's say a homeowner earns $200k/year - paying NJ State and federal taxes on that. Their property tax bill doubles from $10k to $20k. Isn't most or all of that deductible on their tax returns?

Any tax experts out there?

dtjcview wrote:
One question I have, is how much does an increase in property tax really hurt the affluent?

Let's say a homeowner earns $200k/year - paying NJ State and federal taxes on that. Their property tax bill doubles from $10k to $20k. Isn't most or all of that deductible on their tax returns?

Any tax experts out there?

dtjcview wrote:
One question I have, is how much does an increase in property tax really hurt the affluent?

Let's say a homeowner earns $200k/year - paying NJ State and federal taxes on that. Their property tax bill doubles from $10k to $20k. Isn't most or all of that deductible on their tax returns?

Any tax experts out there?

thor800 wrote:
In regards to the CivicJC article the reason why there should be a reval is to promote tax fairness and alleviate higher burdens currently being paid by residents in areas such as Greenville.

My point was that there are other ways of accomplishing this without making up for lost revenues by shifting the burden to dtjc which has seem arguably bubble RE conditions.

If the market corrects after the reval then those areas which will see drops in taxes now will be pissed next time because they will most likely see a corresponding increase.

thor800 wrote:
downtown shouldn't bear the tax burden for the whole city.

how many public schools are there compared to the rest of the city ? how much of the city's efforts go towards roads / maintenance / parks etc whatever the city uses the tax revenues for.

a small section compared to the rest of the city has experienced massive appreciation due to foreign investment and speculation yet doesn't use nearly the same public resources. waterfront PILOTS being excluded have helped drive prices up also in brownstone areas yet aren't being included in the total market value.

if the city really wants to promote fairness, it should allow homeowners with over assessed properties a fair appeal process to lower taxes, rather than making certain owner's taxes double. This in itself has the potential for a ripple affect that could drive prices down even further in those areas already complaining.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
$2.8 billion in assessment is missing from this map, that is the tax abated properties that are getting a free ride from taxpayers. $2.8 billion is nearly 1/3 of JC.

Why don't you shut up and code up a better map yourself then? Someone devoted time to put together a valuable tool to try and help educate others. If you don't like it, come up with something better yourself.

Yvonne wrote:
$2.8 billion in assessment is missing from this map, that is the tax abated properties that are getting a free ride from taxpayers. $2.8 billion is nearly 1/3 of JC.