brewster wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Going by the document, it looks like the increases in DTJC are anywhere from mid 50% to 75%, with the sole exception of the Van Leer neighborhood (WTF is that?) which is expected to go up by only 41%.

I believe Van Leer is the area by 18th & Coles, where a chocolate factory once stood.

As for AMo, you can't expect everyone to recall every detail of every thread, even if they read it. This is not a "true names" site, no one should be called out for anonymity, though civility would be nice (excepting extreme provocations like mealymouthed hypocrisy).

bodhipooh wrote:
Going by the document, it looks like the increases in DTJC are anywhere from mid 50% to 75%, with the sole exception of the Van Leer neighborhood (WTF is that?) which is expected to go up by only 41%.

jc201jc wrote:
http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/RevaluationUpdate

if you click "1-4 family neighborhood analysis" on the bottom of the page, it opens a PDF with average tax increases by neighborhood. Downtown JC taxes are looking to go up by 50% (unless I'm misinterpreting the table). But...tell me again how the housing prices won't be affected by this?

brewster wrote:
Quote:

AMo wrote:
So what I don't do is respond to attacks from people too cowardly to identify themselves.

You seem pretty anonymous to me, AMo. Plenty of people know who I am, but I can't claim to not be anonymous here.

AMo wrote:
So what I don't do is respond to attacks from people too cowardly to identify themselves.

AMo wrote:
So what I don't do is respond to attacks from people too cowardly to identify themselves.

AMo wrote:
The cost of the Mayor's purely political delay (the court called his claims "frivolous) is actually closer to five million dollars if you add the 1.2 million more charged by the second company. During the four years of this political stunt, a good part of the city (mostly the poorer parts) were over-taxed. That's what I call moving Jersey City forward. A true progressive.

Yvonne wrote:
The senior tax freeze does not benefit Jersey City homeowners, I had a next door neighbor who only had Social Security but she had two rentals in her building. The state requires a portion of the senior freeze or in her case one third. Her income with her rentals was probably $50,000 a year. Seniors in the suburban living in one family homes with a higher income receive the full tax freeze. Then the income was $75,000, it is probably higher now.

neverleft wrote:
.
Final tab for canceled Jersey City reval is $3.8M

Updated 12:36 PM; Posted 11:55 AM

By Terrence T. McDonald tmcdonald@jjournal.com
The Jersey Journal

JERSEY CITY -- The final tab for the property revaluation Jersey City halted in 2013, plus the city's legal fight to break its contract with the company conducting the long-delayed reval, is $3,784,198.

The amount became official last week when Jersey City finally issued payments to Realty Appraisal Co., the West New York firm hired to conduct the aborted 2011 reval. A judge in April 2016 ordered the city to pay the company, but the city appealed, lost the appeal and in September the New Jersey Supreme Court said it would not hear the case.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... m.html#incart_2box_hudson

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

07310 wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Does anyone know how NJ's property tax relief programs will impact the reval costs?

I know there is some sort of income-based rebate and a "senior freeze," but I don't know how that might impact some bills or rebates.

There are lots of hoops you have to jump through and you don't get any relief until many years have passed.

It doesn't look that bad. Over 65, NJ resident for 10 years, paid your property taxes, meet income limits, no 2nd homes etc.

Is JC exempt because of PILOT?

07310 wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Does anyone know how NJ's property tax relief programs will impact the reval costs?

I know there is some sort of income-based rebate and a "senior freeze," but I don't know how that might impact some bills or rebates.

There are lots of hoops you have to jump through and you don't get any relief until many years have passed.

Dolomiti wrote:
Does anyone know how NJ's property tax relief programs will impact the reval costs?

I know there is some sort of income-based rebate and a "senior freeze," but I don't know how that might impact some bills or rebates.

dcj wrote:
if you itemize, you can't use standard deduction. that increase is meaningless.

MDM wrote:
Quote:

Frinjc wrote:
In any case, the "reform" seems more profitable for investors who buy-to-rent since it looks like there won't be cap on SALT deduction. Imho though, any investment in this area should take into consideration the likelihood of a downward adjustment in rents with more units turning on the market.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the- ... hat-do-you-owe-2017-10-26

Rent income / loss has been treated as passive. Once your adjusted gross income goes over $100k, the tax advantage of owning investment property (ability to take losses against your active income) pretty much goes away.

So far I haven't found any articles on changes, if any, to the tax treatment of real estate income / loss.

https://investfourmore.com/2017/12/04/ ... x-law-affect-real-estate/

How will the new tax reform laws affect real estate investors?
The new tax laws aren?t doing any favors for homeowners, but the same cannot be said for real estate investors. The tax bills in the House and Senate are very business friendly. Right now, real estate investors pay much of their taxes as ordinary income. The highest tax bracket is 39.6% (which will also likely change), so on rental and flip income, most investors pay high tax rates based on how much income they make.

Most real estate investors use LLCs or S corporations to do business if they do not simply pay taxes as an individual. When you operate these types of businesses, the income passes through the corporation to the individual. In both the House and the Senate bills, pass-through tax rates would drastically change. If you were in the highest tax bracket, instead of paying 39.6%?or whatever the new highest rate will be (possibly 38)?you would pay 25% on pass-through income. The senate bill has some restrictions for those that make over $700,000, while the House bill does not. For those who have rentals or flip houses in a corporation, you will likely see big drops in your tax bill. I have 18 flips going at the moment, so this could literally save me hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes in the next couple of years. However, some of these rules may not take effect until 2019.

The new rules change the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%.

Here are some other changes that will benefit real estate investors if the changes make it into the final bill:

The depreciation schedule will decrease for rental property owners from 27.5 years to 25 years on residential properties and from 39 years to 25 years for nonresidential property.
Landlords will still be able to deduct their interest from mortgages in full on rentals they own.
Here is another article with more information on the changes with real estate.

Frinjc wrote:
In any case, the "reform" seems more profitable for investors who buy-to-rent since it looks like there won't be cap on SALT deduction. Imho though, any investment in this area should take into consideration the likelihood of a downward adjustment in rents with more units turning on the market.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the- ... hat-do-you-owe-2017-10-26

dcj wrote:
one thing being overlooked is the personal exemption. i think the plans call for its elimination. If that is eliminated (it's $4,050 a person/dependent) and you have a family of four, that's a $16,200 write off that disappears. that sucks.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

K-Lo2 wrote:
One other factor in the tax discussion...the proposed elimination of the AMT for individuals. For people who can afford to buy in the market, the cap on SALT may not matter that much for those who were previously subject to the AMT. I may be somewhat of a wash.

Are they killing individual AMT, or just raising the cap?

K-Lo2 wrote:
One other factor in the tax discussion...the proposed elimination of the AMT for individuals. For people who can afford to buy in the market, the cap on SALT may not matter that much for those who were previously subject to the AMT. I may be somewhat of a wash.