What share of property taxes does the city get? Any? I got reassessed recently, and was shocked....at how low my assessment is. It sat stagnant for 5 years, and now it's gone up $2,000 in value, which means about $40 added to my annual tax bill!?? Am i the only one who has been so lucky? My house is easily worth 40% more than they assess it at....Is the city missing out on funding here?
They're making up for it with my assessment. Went up about $200 even though the assessed value barely rose. Probably because they are limited in how much they can raise it each year.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
What share of property taxes does the city get? Any? I got reassessed recently, and was shocked....at how low my assessment is. It sat stagnant for 5 years, and now it's gone up $2,000 in value, which means about $40 added to my annual tax bill!?? Am i the only one who has been so lucky? My house is easily worth 40% more than they assess it at....Is the city missing out on funding here?
The City of Tulsa gets only a tiny fraction of property taxes. The majority goes to the County, Tulsa Public Schools, and TCC. There is a line item for cities, but it's all the cities in Tulsa County and Tulsa gets a smaller percentage than some of the suburbs.
Read pages 41-43 of the following report from the City Council:
http://tulsacouncil.org/pdfs/website%20embedded/Complete%20Our%20Streets.pdf
Tulsa/Oklahoma has some of the lowest prop. taxes in the nation. In Texas the prop. taxes are thru the roof. A $60,000 home can have $2,000 in prop taxes, a rule of thumb is the prop. taxes in Texas is about 3 percent of the homes value. But Texas has no income taxes and Texas has a better climate than Oklahoma and the milder weather in Texas means less need of heaters and high heating bills. I lived in Texas thru the 1980's. I loved the weather, it's mild & Sunny much of the year and winters are short with little snow and small heating bills. Texas also has no sales tax on food items if I remember correctly. Alot of it balances out.[:P]
As for OK/Tulsa, most folks are stuck in the 5%/year increase in Ad Valorem due to increases in values exceeding the voted cap.
Ad Valorem, in Rule of Thumb, is 1% of the home's value each year. 11% of 10% of the Market Value.
So, a $100,000 house, by 10% is $10,000 and 11% of that is $1,100. It's really 1.1%/year.
If that homes' value increased by $20,000 in a year, such that its Market Value became $120,000, Ad Valorem would become $1,320/year.
BUT, $1,320 represents a 20% increase. The 5% Cap would require it to be only $1,155 that year. But, would continue to increase an additional 5% each year until the Market Value rate is achieved.
Unfortunately, over that time, the Market Value of the house continues to climb (in most cases. In Recession years, it could reduce)
IAC, one usually never gets caught up, so one can expect a 5% increase in Ad Valorem every year. The exception to this is if the place is sold, at which time the Market Value becomes the launching point again, and the new owner's taxes jump accordingly, then increase 5% each year.
The only time taxes may reduce is if a recession lasted more than 5 years and property values declined more than they went up. Or, a fire.
As for the City's share....formally it's zero. It's currently illegal for a municipality to collect Ad Valorem tax.
Voters can approve Ad Valorem to pay for City Bond issues, however. So, any we do currently receive is associated with Bond issues approved by voters. And, the City also does currently receive a small portion of proceeds from the County, which raised the funds via Ad Valorem. These funds are to pay the City's shared costs of City/County endevors, such as the Jail/Library.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
Tulsa/Oklahoma has some of the lowest prop. taxes in the nation. In Texas the prop. taxes are thru the roof. A $60,000 home can have $2,000 in prop taxes, a rule of thumb is the prop. taxes in Texas is about 3 percent of the homes value. But Texas has no income taxes and Texas has a better climate than Oklahoma and the milder weather in Texas means less need of heaters and high heating bills. I lived in Texas thru the 1980's. I loved the weather, it's mild & Sunny much of the year and winters are short with little snow and small heating bills. Texas also has no sales tax on food items if I remember correctly. Alot of it balances out.[:P]
Not much though; I lived in Houston for three years and everything is more expensive, even if there is no sales tax on groceries and no state income tax (there wasn't when I lived there), you pay more for things like insurance, housing and the aforementioned property taxes.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
As for OK/Tulsa, most folks are stuck in the 5%/year increase in Ad Valorem due to increases in values exceeding the voted cap.
Ad Valorem, in Rule of Thumb, is 1% of the home's value each year. 11% of 10% of the Market Value.
So, a $100,000 house, by 10% is $10,000 and 11% of that is $1,100. It's really 1.1%/year.
If that homes' value increased by $20,000 in a year, such that its Market Value became $120,000, Ad Valorem would become $1,320/year.
BUT, $1,320 represents a 20% increase. The 5% Cap would require it to be only $1,155 that year. But, would continue to increase an additional 5% each year until the Market Value rate is achieved.
Unfortunately, over that time, the Market Value of the house continues to climb (in most cases. In Recession years, it could reduce)
IAC, one usually never gets caught up, so one can expect a 5% increase in Ad Valorem every year. The exception to this is if the place is sold, at which time the Market Value becomes the launching point again, and the new owner's taxes jump accordingly, then increase 5% each year.
The only time taxes may reduce is if a recession lasted more than 5 years and property values declined more than they went up. Or, a fire.
As for the City's share....formally it's zero. It's currently illegal for a municipality to collect Ad Valorem tax.
Voters can approve Ad Valorem to pay for City Bond issues, however. So, any we do currently receive is associated with Bond issues approved by voters. And, the City also does currently receive a small portion of proceeds from the County, which raised the funds via Ad Valorem. These funds are to pay the City's shared costs of City/County endevors, such as the Jail/Library.
I don't see how this can be practical for OKC, which takes up almost all of Oklahoma County. There needs to be exemptions to all of this pro county BS for Tulsa and Oklahoma County. It just creates redundant governments.
I received my home property tax reassessment statement in the mail 2 days ago. The market value of my property, according to Mr. Yazel Tulsa County Assessor, went up 11%, thereby increasing my property taxes for 2008 another $100. I thought real estate values across the nation, Tulsa included to a lesser extent, for 2007 were declining.
It seems the assessed market value of my property always increases just enough for the taxable value to increase every year the statutory maximum. Not surprising. Since I first bought my house in 1987, the property taxes have increased 150% No one really owns their home, we just rent it from the government, the rent being property taxes. I bought by home and paid the mortgage off 17 years early, due to my thrift and economic efficiency. But my responsibility is increasingly offset by rising property taxes.
I think property taxes should be fixed, based on the purchase price paid for the property, and not reassessed until the property is sold. I think this is most fair, based on the purchaser's ability to pay at time of sale. All the increases in tax assessment is based on paper, assumed market value and does not take into account the owner's ability to pay. Basing property tax on so called "market value" only will eventually force long term owners out of their homes.
Tulsa's average property values went up in 2007, which bucked the national trend.
Tulsa didn't have the crazy real-estate bubble that other areas of the country had. Tulsa experienced more modest and steady increases in property values, which in hindsight was a good thing.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Tulsa's average property values went up in 2007, which bucked the national trend.
Tulsa didn't have the crazy real-estate bubble that other areas of the country had. Tulsa experienced more modest and steady increases in property values, which in hindsight was a good thing.
No we didn't have the real estate bubble and bust that other areas have experienced. And that is a good thing. But we, and by that I mean Tulsa county (city), have had constant rising real estate taxes, due to increased property values or tax rate assessments. All in all, it makes for higher tax bills, and makes it harder for responsible people like myself, that have paid off their mortgage and pay their bills, to remain in their homes. Real estate taxes should not be tied to inflationary property values, but to the price originally paid for the property.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
No we didn't have the real estate bubble and bust that other areas have experienced. And that is a good thing. But we, and by that I mean Tulsa county (city), have had constant rising real estate taxes, due to increased property values or tax rate assessments. All in all, it makes for higher tax bills, and makes it harder for responsible people like myself, that have paid off their mortgage and pay their bills, to remain in their homes. Real estate taxes should not be tied to inflationary property values, but to the price originally paid for the property.
You have such a sad story, I'm playing the world's smallest violin for you.
Steve, if you've paid off a mortgage, you shouldn't have trouble paying property taxes. Taxes are a fraction of what a typical monthly mortgage payment is.
If you're having that much trouble in an area that has low property taxes compared to many other areas and keeps a cap on the yearly increases, maybe you ought to apply for food stamps.
There remains a couple of flaws in this system, at least as I see things:
1.) As municipalities grow, more Ad Valorem is collected by the County, yet the County's domain is reduced. So, they get more money for having to provide services to less area.
2.) The policy currently punishes property owners who improve their properties. If an owner puts $10,000 worth of improvements into his property, Ad Valorem can be adjusted in the same way as if the property sold. IOW, it jumps not only by whatever escalation factor, but also the new improvements all at once, bypassing the 5% cap. This is a major reason some properties are never improved, and leads to decline of entire neighborhoods.
3.) It is problematic (I started to say unfair) for fixed-income owners who continue to see their taxes increase at a faster rate than their income. Forces many to sell out. I would tend to agree with whomever said Ad Valorem should be fixed at the sale price whenever it is sold. Improvements, then, could be added at market value when the property is sold again. This would greatly encourage property improvements, rather than the condition described in #2 above, and create a turn-around market for those speculating on such.
My suggestion is to protest it, especially if you have not made any major improvements. 9 times out of 10 it will be reduced.
OK, so you paid your mortgage off early.
That means you paid far MORE than the usual monthly payment, no?
Therefore, your property taxes would be even LESS of a proportion from what you were paying extra to retire the note early.
And those values set by the assessor aren't arbitrary; there's a system, and it's not on a whim.
If you had the ability to pay off your mortgage 17 years early, you shouldn't complain about something as relatively trivial as annual property taxes.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
OK, so you paid your mortgage off early.
That means you paid far MORE than the usual monthly payment, no?
Therefore, your property taxes would be even LESS of a proportion from what you were paying extra to retire the note early.
And those values set by the assessor aren't arbitrary; there's a system, and it's not on a whim.
If you had the ability to pay off your mortgage 17 years early, you shouldn't complain about something as relatively trivial as annual property taxes.
I think Steve can afford it, but that doesn't mean that its OK. The fixed income scenario troubles me. How about if Steve had an accident at work and wound up on disability. It sure wouldn't be right to price him out of his own home over time with property taxes. I've seen a few young folks inherit their parents homes (in these cases the same home they grew up in) and lose hard fought battles to keep up with the property taxes. They were either not ready for the responsibility or busy trying to get an education. I'd play a full size violin for some scenarios...
Property Taxes are unique in that they constantly re-rate annually based upon some percieved market value (by formula and sometimes inspection) which is unrealized by the owner.
IMO, real property should be handled similarly to automobiles Excise Tax where the value diminishes over time based upon depreciation.
If one were to improve the property, even inject some needed maintenance, then the value might increase, that's is, regain some of the lost value. Or, actually increase from the purchase price if tangable improvements are made.
But, beyond that, it should fix at the purchase price, and never be more than that until sold.
And, at the time an owner has not provided proper maintenance and upkeep, it would eventually diminish in value to zero (fully depreciated), at which time the City/County could claim it a "hazard" or "derilected" property and demolish it for better use.
Just a thought. Doubt there's a snowball's chance of anything like this unless it initially revenue-neutral.
btw, seems a refinance might need to qualify as a "sell" in this situation, since they are market-value appraisal based transactions. But, not necessarily a 2nd mortgage or home-improvement loan, at least until the tangable results appear.
Wrinkle, that is kind of the way it is. They can only raise your assessment so much in an allotted time, often that rate is less than inflation. So in essence the assessed value can not change much without a sale.
Mine went up because I refinanced my house (with a new super low ARM that only goes to 46% after 6 months, j/k), so it was assessed with a new (and more accurate) market value.
Though, of course, there are examples of communities and situations were property was appreciated for no decent reason but to raise taxes. Purchase price is the best indicator of market value, then follow area trends (if my neighbors house sold for 10% more than it did 2 years ago, and his neighbors sold for 10% more...), or adjust nominally for inflation.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Wrinkle, that is kind of the way it is. They can only raise your assessment so much in an allotted time, often that rate is less than inflation. So in essence the assessed value can not change much without a sale.
Mine went up because I refinanced my house (with a new super low ARM that only goes to 46% after 6 months, j/k), so it was assessed with a new (and more accurate) market value.
Though, of course, there are examples of communities and situations were property was appreciated for no decent reason but to raise taxes. Purchase price is the best indicator of market value, then follow area trends (if my neighbors house sold for 10% more than it did 2 years ago, and his neighbors sold for 10% more...), or adjust nominally for inflation.
Yeah, close, except for the depreciation part.
And, imagine your taxes going down each year instead of up, at least until you paint the place, then it gets close to sale price again.
The 5% cap now is only in amount paid, not in Market Value. So one appraisal puts you in a 5%/year mode for five years before the next appraisal, or some other significant change/improvement.
Remember when they used to come inside your house, look around and appraise your assets? Man, glad that's gone.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
OK, so you paid your mortgage off early.
That means you paid far MORE than the usual monthly payment, no?
Therefore, your property taxes would be even LESS of a proportion from what you were paying extra to retire the note early.
And those values set by the assessor aren't arbitrary; there's a system, and it's not on a whim.
If you had the ability to pay off your mortgage 17 years early, you shouldn't complain about something as relatively trivial as annual property taxes.
So stop b$#ching and pay your taxes Steve. Working hard to pay off that mortgage early with perhaps the notion of saving for retirement or other purchases, or just to be debt free is no accomplishment.
Like I said before, protest it. It's a bit of a pain in the a**, but it will likely be reduced.
My parents actually moved from a neighborhood they built a home in during their peak income years because it had appreciated so much that when they retired and began living on fixed income, they no longer could afford the increasing taxes. Of course they couldn't afford the maintenance, improvement and repairs either. It was just time to move.
However, the idea that you propose Wrinkle, of adjusting the tax at time of sale, has its own problems. It caused much controversy in California a decade or so back. Seems no one could/would sell their homes once the bubble started to grow in real estate values there because the property tax would skyrocket making the effective price even higher. That stifled tax collections when they were needed most for growing communities and effectively froze new buyers out of established neighborhoods. It fed suburban sprawl and artificially affected the real estate market. Some properties were vacated by the owner who allowed their heirs to move into the property with agreements for transfer after their death thereby delaying needed taxes. People will do a lot of dumb things to avoid taxes.
I can't comment specifically to any post on this thread, because it seems to me that the notion of hard work, savings, thrift, and financial responsibility seems lost on most of you. Perhaps the comments were made in jest or sarcastically, and if so, then this is not directed to you.
Since when did the concept of thrift, financial responsibility and paying off one's debts become an object of ridicule? I purchased my home not as an investment, but as a place to live out my life contently, and therefore paid off my mortgage debt as soon as I was able too. I paid off my mortgage with the idea that I would have less expense in the future. I saved and sacrificed for 13 years, put every extra $ I made towards paying off the mortgage, and succeeded in paying off my home 17 years early. I am proud of that and I don't think I should be penalized by rising property taxes, based on fleeting market values.
All you that have critisized and mocked my comments, do as I have done. Pay off your own home mortgage, live thriftly, expect your expenses to decline, experience the opposite, and then we will talk.
Steve,
Maybe I missed something here. First, congratulations on paying off your house early. If it wasn't for the tax advantages I get from paying a mortgage, I would be scrambling trying to pay mine off instead of investing on the side.
Unfortunately the Federal government has actually given the American consumer a valid (and economically advantageous) reason to incur and continue to keep debt. Other than not having to worry about a house payment, you actually don't get any value from paying off your house early.
As for property taxes, as long as they know how to make them go down when the values go down, they can adjust them all they want.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
Unfortunately the Federal government has actually given the American consumer a valid (and economically advantageous) reason to incur and continue to keep debt. Other than not having to worry about a house payment, you actually don't get any value from paying off your house early.
You make make some valid points, from the real estate investor's point of view. I bought my home back in 1987, not as an investment, but because I loved the architecture (Lortondale neighborhood) and intended this to be my permanant residence in Tulsa. And so it has been to this day. This 8400 sq. ft. plot of former Creek (Muscogee) Indian land (Frances Perryman allotment) is mine for as long as I can afford to pay the taxes.
I have never viewed my home as an investment. My home is my security, the roof over my head, the one thing no one can ever deprive me of, God willing, now that I don't owe a mortgage. My home and my maintenance of it has always been an extension of myself and my expression of value to my neighborhood and the Tulsa community.
I will always maintain my property to the best of my ability. But I take issue with the ever increasing property tax bill, based on paper market values. Live in your home for 20+ years and then you will truly understand my opinion.
Can someone tell me if our situation is typical...
When our house was purchased five years ago, the market value set by the county was $71,700 (which was comparable to the purchase price). The assessor's office has raised our market value between 2 and 5% over the last four years.
This year, they've raised our market value 54%, fifty-four percent, to $118,000.
We are definitely protesting, and surely they will lower it because we've got an appraisal and comps to back our protest. However, I feel like whoever assessed our property is either incompetent or the assessor's office is trying to gouge homeowners who may get around to protesting in the very short 20 day window.
BTW, this house was built 1958, is under 1500 square feet, has never been remodeled (i.e., same old kitchen and bathrooms since 1958), nor had any square footage added. We are not in a particularly desirable neighborhood (close to the high crime area of 61st and Peoria).
Your value seems high but it may be tired to soem area property prices driving yours up. As I understand it, even if they double your home's assessed value, the amount your taxes goes up per year is still capped.
Yeah, but she can expect a 5% increase per year guaranteed for at least the next 11 years. No?
quote:
Originally posted by jne
Yeah, but she can expect a 5% increase per year guaranteed for at least the next 11 years. No?
Sounds like it.