Property tax equality....

Bob_Skurka · Jul 2, 2006

MossRoad said:
Taxes is tricky!

Someone filed a class action lawsuit in Indiana a few years ago because they thought the taxes were unfairly assesed. They won. Major tax reform went through. Taxes are now based soley on property value. So, if you live in a really nice house in a really dumpy area, you pay low taxes because even though your house is nice, you couldn't sell it for much. And, if you live in a really dumpy house in a really nice area, you pay high taxes because all of your neighbors' nice houses drive up your taxes.

So, try to find a nice house in a dumpy area. You will get it cheap, pay low taxes and be the king of the neighborhood.

The net effect of that lawsuit was that most people saw their taxes go UP in many of the communities around that one (the suit was filed by residents of St John, IN) The entire county is still in turmoil because of that ruling. In fact they are still behind in collecting the property taxes here (I live in an adjacent community). As it turned out, the people who were hurt the worst were property owners in Gary, Hammond, Whiting, Griffith, Cedar Lake and the other low to middle-income communities. The few people who saw their property taxes go down were the folks with the biggest/most expensive homes in the nicest communities (Munster, St John, Dyer, Schererville) because they were over-assessed and over-taxed for decades while the lower priced homes were under-assessed.

To put it into perspective, when I bought my first house 20 years ago, I got a property tax bill for an amount that was so small I called up my accountant and asked him if it was a MONTHLY bill??? Turned out it was an annual bill. The bill was so low that it would not have paid to patch a pothole in front of my house. When I sold that house the taxes were under $500 per year (11 years ago). When the lawsuit went through, the taxes on that home increased about 200% and people complained. In my eyes it would have been FAIR if the taxes went up MORE.

Dargo · Jul 2, 2006

Bob_Skurka said:
In my eyes it would have been FAIR if the taxes went up MORE.

I think that all depends on where you live. With two major sized mansions in my little rural township it seems to be difficult to get a grip on an "average" home value where I live. Personally, I think my stinking property taxes are about double what they should be!

Bob_Skurka · Jul 2, 2006

Dargo said:
I think that all depends on where you live.

Yup, I do agree. I was just talking about the issue in my county because that is where the lawsuit originated. In this area we had a very large % of the houses that were paying virtually nothing in property taxes (under a $250 per year) while other properties were paying far more than they should have been. Commercial properties were also being taxed unfairly (according to those of us who own commerical property and that was affirmed by the courts!). I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone who's property tax doubled from $250 per year up to $500 per year when I was clearly paying "too much" in taxes for decades, and while the court agreed with me, they did not order a repayment of the excesses I paid. And as I have been one of the "top 10" property taxpayers in my town, let me assure you that I have overpayed more in any given year than it costs to buy a small home! Nobody gave me any of that 'overpayment' back.

MotorSeven · Jul 2, 2006

I'm sorry (MikePA)if my explanation was confusing, and i left out(forgot) and important part....The taxes used to be set by county assessment, which was nowhere near market value, & had the 2% cap. Then the county jumped on the band wagon when housing prices skyrocketed 5 years ago, and now base the value by sale or by comp's, still with a 2% cap a year increase.

The inequality is the same as in RobertK's community. Due to the spike in house value- average home in 2000-$150K, same home in 2005-$400K, every new home owner here is taking a huge hit on taxes. The millage rate stayed the same, it should have been adjusted down to prevent such a in-equal gap. Zeuspaul, this applies to old beat up houses too, not just new construction or remodded houses. A 2bed 1bath 1200sq ft house with a carport and a vintage 1955 interior goes for $300K, taxes about 6K....it's scaaareeey!

Gatorboy, like you i have no idea how these folks pay for these houses, right now i am working in a new development looking at 67 new houses under construction...the starting price is $825K

, they are 3000 sq ft, and average 12' apart. I can't fathom this, even though i have been here and seen it happen....sheeze for that kind of money you could buy ONE THOUSAND acres in the country............to each his own

!

RD

midlf · Jul 2, 2006

MotorSeven - I'm thankful that the people who have $825K to blow on a house 12' from the neighbors, DON'T want a house in the country. Those are exactly the kind of people that cause all kinds of problems for country folk when they move to the country.

MotorSeven · Jul 3, 2006

midlf said:
MotorSeven - I'm thankful that the people who have $825K to blow on a house 12' from the neighbors, DON'T want a house in the country. Those are exactly the kind of people that cause all kinds of problems for country folk when they move to the country.

.................................Amen...............................!

MossRoad · Jul 3, 2006

Bob,

How's that song go??? Oh, yeah....

Back home agaaaaain, in Indiaaaaanaaaaa......

Come to South Bend. 40 percent of the homes are vacant. Yes, vacant. No one lives here anymore.

They can't afford the taxes after the increase.

Dargo · Jul 3, 2006

Yeah, Indiana is different. Why is South Bend in the north part of the state? Why is Siberia in the south part of the state? And, besides the obvious, why do we even have a town called French Lick?!

riptides · Jul 3, 2006

midlf said:
MotorSeven - I'm thankful that the people who have $825K to blow on a house 12' from the neighbors, DON'T want a house in the country. Those are exactly the kind of people that cause all kinds of problems for country folk when they move to the country.

Well maybe not. IF planned correctly those type of communities also bring new schools, fire, police and rescue departments, libraries and new shopping outlet.

IF PLANNED correctly, they can in fact stimulate the original communities around them.

Some of those people are actually tryng to preserve open space with their "clustered" , "Suburban", community.

-Mike Z.

meledward23 · Jul 5, 2006

riptides said:
Some of those people are actually tryng to preserve open space with their "clustered" , "Suburban", community.

-Mike Z.

Correct. Part of my area is plagued by the we have to have 4 acres mentality. People buy 4 acres+ and drop these big homes on them. Then they complain becuase the county doesnt provide them with fulll blown services. It costs everyone more to live in a sprawl like that.

A tight condensed community has less road, less sewer, less distance for the bus route.....

Not to mention if cities would go back to building communities where you can have offices and grocery stores near homes then traffic wouldn't be so bad in some places.

Remember when you were a kid walking up to the corner grocery store, becuase Mom wanted you to go buy XYZ? In today's world, there is no corner store... So in the car we pile....