Yvonne wrote:
Every story is different, the woman who is 90 and now a widow paid $45,000 for her home and her husband worked two jobs to pay for the home. She has a disable adult son. Why should people sell when some were born here and others brought when the housing cost was cheap. Here is an example, when I married gold was $32.00 a troy ounce so I got a 18K gold wedding band. Today gold is $1,300 a troy ounce, so should I pay the sales tax based on gold now? It does not matter what they paid for their homes years ago, it is their homes. No one should be tax out of their homes especially since this city has been giving out sweetheart tax abatement deals for years.

Yvonne wrote:
The people I know brought their properties in their thirties and forties for less than $100,000. They do not have the income as retired for near retirement to pay $2 to $3 million value on their homes. This is nothing but robbery and I stress that because the city has been giving tax breaks to developers knowing they are not ratables and cannot stabilize the tax rate.

HeightsNative wrote:
You're completely missing the point of Current Market Value, i.e. what someone is willing to pay for it, today. Oh, nevermind. I've seen the pointlessness of trying to explain this.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

papadage wrote:
Please compare to comparable values. Homes downtown are not worth the "average" in the state.

Baloney, the people I know paid for their homes in the 1970s and 1980s at costs less than $100,000 and should not have taxes based on $2 to $3 million. That is just a way to legally steal someone's property. Taxes should be based on someone's income, it is the wealthy who do projects and avoid full taxes with their tax abatements that get away with not paying their fair share.

papadage wrote:
Please compare to comparable values. Homes downtown are not worth the "average" in the state.

Yvonne wrote:
By the way, according to the Federal government inflation is low so to suggest $90 million is equivalent to $588 million is insane, it is the reason Social Security recipients have not received an increase in years.

Yvonne wrote:
Taxes are services Brewster, it is wrong to penalize one group while giving a tax break to another. That should be simple to understand. It is wrong to keep hiring people as this mayor is doing while he ignoring his promise to do a desk audit on jobs. It is wrong to take MUA money (the $31.5 million belonging to ratepayers) and claim taxes are stable. It is wrong to give bulk water sales to other towns which are cheaper than our local rate, then not collect the money and then later place liens on property that do not pay their water bills because the rate is too high.

FringeJC wrote:
I feel that the issue for people who are 80+ and facing taxes increase is more cognitive in nature in understanding how they can extract equity if needed to supplement their taxes. I hope they can rely on Solomon or any attorney to guide them in this process as compared to being scared into selling and leaving.

Monroe wrote:
If it's almost half of what he should be paying-that's damn cheap! That means 13 homeowners in other wards are each supporting him to the tune of $1,000 each!

Yvonne wrote:
The people I know are paying between $10,000 to $16,000 the majority is paying $14,000 before this revaluation. That is not cheap taxes.

Yvonne wrote:
This is an example where you can use numbers to prove any point, let me say one thing. Income from the 1970s have not gone up. Plus the one thing that has bother me is the fact many are saying downtown is not paying their fair share. The people I know are paying between $10,000 to $16,000 the majority is paying $14,000 before this revaluation. That is not cheap taxes.

Yvonne wrote:
If I am wrong, then the county tax assessor who I call every year is also wrong. His office produces the numbers that I refer to. Amazing, even Mayor Fulop in one of his earlier tax letter to taxpayers said taxes did not go up due to higher ratable base, he was referring to the expired tax abatements from the 1990s. Once a tax abatement has expired it becomes a ratable and it stabilizes the tax base. It is the reason Hoboken with their million dollar homes did not have this upheaval because they rarely give out tax abatements. By the way, according to the Federal government inflation is low so to suggest $90 million is equivalent to $588 million is insane, it is the reason Social Security recipients have not received an increase in years.

o_crunk wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I have said this numerous times the problem is two fold, cheap tax abatements which are not ratables and the budget. My first budget hearing I attended in the 1970s, the city spending was $90 million and it took 300 years to get to that point. Healy's last budget was $485 million and Fulop 2017 budget is $588 million. All taxes are based on spending at city hall but no one notices. You need a strong ratable base which means no tax abatements because they are not ratables but contracts and you need to cut the spending.

$90M in 1970 is approximately $590M in 2018 dollars adjusted for inflation. So really, the budget, adjusted for inflation is not really all that different from 1970 in *real* terms.

Yvonne wrote:
I have said this numerous times the problem is two fold, cheap tax abatements which are not ratables and the budget. My first budget hearing I attended in the 1970s, the city spending was $90 million and it took 300 years to get to that point. Healy's last budget was $485 million and Fulop 2017 budget is $588 million. All taxes are based on spending at city hall but no one notices. You need a strong ratable base which means no tax abatements because they are not ratables but contracts and you need to cut the spending.