this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024

63 points (100.0% liked)

News

23320 readers

3562 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

dezmd@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

Hearing complaints over property taxes, some Georgia lawmakers look to limit rising values (apnews.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

With a runup in home values sparking higher property taxes for many Georgia homeowners, there is a groundswell among state lawmakers in this election year to provide relief.

Georgia’s Senate Finance Committee plans a hearing on Monday on a bill limiting increases in a home’s value, as assessed for property tax purposes, to 3% per year. The limit would last as long as the owner maintained a homestead exemption. Voters would have to approve the plan in a November referendum.

Meanwhile, Republican House Speaker Jon Burns of Newington proposes doubling the state’s homestead tax exemption, a measure likely to cut tax bills by nearly $100 million statewide.

all 49 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Mamertine@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If they cap the rate the house can be assessed for at 3% growth per year, they won't have enough money to keep the state running if the actual rate of inflation is consistently around 5%.

Generally, the state is the biggest employer in any given state. If they don't have the money to give it raises that match the rate of inflation, the state employees have less purchasing power than they did a year ago.

Any social programs would have that same obstacle.

This is treating a symptom, and it's going to have repercussions.

Each state taxes differently. I'm not familiar with Georgia's specifics. I live in MN. School funding is done via property tax and supplemented with a per student amount from the state. If the property tax is capped to 3% a year, if property tax is the primary funding for schools, teacher raises would be have to be capped to 3% a year.

New developments or places with higher turnover (tax assessed value resets when the house is sold) could be able to pay significantly more for teachers than older stable neighborhoods. That excentuates the suburban flight.

[–] IamSparticles@lemmy.zip 6 points 10 months ago

If the property tax is capped to 3% a year, if property tax is the primary funding for schools, teacher raises would be have to be capped to 3% a year.

Probably less, since there are other costs that will continue to go up faster than levies can account for.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's like these lawmakers don't know what a mill rate is or something. Property assessments are just to determine that people with more real estate wealth pay more of the share of taxes. Remarkably, it's a progressive tax.

I understand that people that have had their houses for decades in a gentrified area get fucked, but that's a problem for a different solution. Most houses change hands often enough that you know you're going to be in a high tax neighborhood or not.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago

It’s like these lawmakers don’t know what a mill rate is or something.

Oh, no, they know. But no one swing-votes like middle class suburbanites, and no measure is so certain to gain their support as cheapening their tax burden at the expense of the financial health of the general polity.

[–] Illuminostro@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (3 children)

And who owns the most properties? Who will benefit most from this?

[–] rdyoung@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Why does that matter? There are plenty of individuals with 1 property that are being squeezed by the massive increase in property value, especially those who bought a house for say 100k and now it's worth 300k or more, some are even worse, buying a house 30 years ago for 50k and now it's worth 500k.

What we need is higher tax for those who own multiple properties as a business and stable, possibly lower taxes for primary residence. Not unlike the sales tax not being owed on up to $x as long it's being used to buy another house/property.

[–] Illuminostro@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's what I said...

[–] rdyoung@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

No that's not what you said at all. Maybe you thought it but you definitely didn't type it out, at least not in the comment I responded to.

The article says something similar to what I suggested but not quite the same though functionally equivalent because (if it passes) the tax increase will be capped year over year so long as it's a primary residence and not being rented out.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Hint: They're likely not under 40.

[–] rdyoung@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

I was under 40 when we bought our house. The big cities are pricing out a lot of people but there are plenty of places with lcol that also happens to be close to hcol areas where you can make more money while spending less on your mortgage.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So they want to require the assessed "value" of houses to be less than the actual market value? Sounds like just denying reality to me.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

It's already assessed at 40%, with a 2000$ deduction from the final tax burden. They want to reduce it further.

[–] bluGill@kbin.social -1 points 10 months ago

The right solution to this is relax building rules everywhere. Zoning should be harmful effects on neighbors only. Shade is not harmful (if you want a garden buy more land so it can't be shaded by a sky scrapper) . Go a head and build a hog barn downtown if you want to - so long as you control the smell it is legal (there are other pollutants a hog farm can cause to also control). Building should generally be by right (I think it mostly is in Georgia already if you fit in the zoning rules, but those rules are too strict everywhere in the US)

A building is not historical just because it is old. That means kids should have to learn in school about the thing that happened there, and the building should regularly have tours for interested people.

[+] PugJesus@kbin.social -6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

So sad that people who have high-value property have to pay more than $7.79 in taxes. Who will lift this terrible burden from them?

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

That's not really fair.

First off, we're talking thousands of dollars per year, not $7.79. Secondly, the value of the property doesn't matter unless they're selling (or getting a reverse mortgage or something else). If it's someone who bought a house to live in and they aren't planning to sell, it doesn't matter if it's valued at $50k or $500k or $5M... except where property taxes are concerned.

And if some family in Georgia is used to paying, and has budgeted for, $5000-$7500 per year in taxes, and suddenly that rises to $7000-$10500 because of something they have no control over and aren't benefitting from for the above reasons, that is bad.

[–] Tremble@sh.itjust.works -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

They can move and start renting like other poors have to do.

I know it sounds cynical, but poors can’t afford the increase in cost of living either. Do you know what a household who rents could do with an extra 3-5 thousand dollars per year?

And I’m not against the middle class. But when you see someone with literally millions of dollars in equity complaining about an extra few hundred dollars per month, I see how it can be a little infuriating.

Millions might be an exaggeration in some places. But the equity is going up ten times the increase cost for property taxes.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 3 points 10 months ago

They can move and start renting like other poors have to do.

Ah, yes. Let's consolidate wealth even more heavily among the already-rich. Good suggestion.

But when you see someone with literally millions of dollars in equity complaining about an extra few hundred dollars per month, I see how it can be a little infuriating.

Yeah, I'm sure they'd have no problem paying that.

What about the people with $400k in equity, who are on fixed incomes, who were paying $2.5k in taxes, and are now paying $4k and can't afford it? Oh, yeah. Fuck them, right?

Again, equity is meaningless if you aren't selling the property (or otherwise leveraging it), which most people claiming a homestead exemption are not doing. For them, it's just less money they have each month.

This attitude that anyone who managed to buy a home is part of the 1% and fuck those people is just toxic.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

As it stands now, Georgia assesses property tax at 40% of market rate, with a $2000 tax exemption for primary homes. Highest property tax rate in Georgia is 1.66%.

So if you own a million-dollar property, you'll have to shell out a whopping [checks notes] $4640 per year, or under 400$ per month.

But I'm sure plenty of ordinary people are being priced onto the streets. /s

[–] rdyoung@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

That's fine and dandy if you bought the house for half a mill or more. Where it's fucking people over along side home owners insurance is when the house was bought for 75k decades ago and is now worth a million or more. Those people are are likely retired and on a fixed income or have kids in college and other expenses that go along with raising a family.

You seem extremely out of touch if you think that $400/month going to local property taxes is not make or break for some families. My wife and I make well into 6 figures between us and even where we live it's getting tougher to budget for everything and include the odd night out or weekend getaway so that we aren't only working. For example, my wife is now on ozempic and because it's the beginning of the year most of the cost ($700/month after manufacturer discount) is 100%/on us until we hit our deductible. Not to mention the shit you can't plan for like a pet needing a vet visit NOW and having to find $1k+ for that visit.

In short. I don't think you have ever lived on your own or with someone other than parents or other guardians. You have no idea what it's actually like trying to stay afloat nor do you have any idea what an unexpected increase of even few hundred a month in property taxes can do to a budget that has been meticulously planned.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

That’s fine and dandy if you bought the house for half a mill or more. Where it’s fucking people over along side home owners insurance is when the house was bought for 75k decades ago and is now worth a million or more. Those people are are likely retired and on a fixed income or have kids in college and other expenses that go along with raising a family.

They have a house that has appreciated in value by 925k.

I think the obvious fucking solution is apparent.

You seem extremely out of touch if you think that $400/month going to local property taxes is not make or break for some families. My wife and I make well into 6 figures between us and even where we live it’s getting tougher to budget for everything and include the odd night out or weekend getaway so that we aren’t only working. For example, my wife is now on ozempic and because it’s the beginning of the year most of the cost ($700 after manufacturer discount) is 100%/on us until we hit our deductible. Not to mention the shit you can’t plan for like a pet needing a vet visit NOW and having to find $1k+ for that visit.

Yes, of course, all those things only home owners know. /s

In short. I don’t think you have ever lived on your own or with someone other than parents or other guardians. You have no idea what it’s actually like trying to stay afloat nor do you have any idea what an unexpected increase of even few hundred a month in property taxes can do to a budget that has been meticulously planned.

Are you fucking kidding me.

You're sitting here saying that someone with a million dollar home paying 400$ a month in "I can live here a little longer" bills is the ultimate in needing a fucking pity party and relief as the value of their property that they own continues to increase?

You do fucking realize that most of us out here fucking renting are renting at well over that price, right? 400$ won't get you a leaky fucking apartment in the backwoods. I should know, I fucking live in one.

[+] PugJesus@kbin.social -8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

From the article

Suzanne Widenhouse, chief appraiser of the Muscogee County Board of Assessors, told a House committee in October that one Columbus homeowner paid $7.79 in property taxes last year, while a more recently arrived neighbor in a similar house paid $3,236.19. That owner would have paid more except for a $950 million property tax rebate championed by Gov. Brian Kemp.

If it’s someone who bought a house to live in and they aren’t planning to sell, it doesn’t matter if it’s valued at $50k or $500k or $5M… except where property taxes are concerned.

Oh, okay, so them owning a significantly more valuable piece of property to pass down to their kids is okay if they aren't planning on selling it. And, I mean, if they decide to sell it anyway, we should be understanding that that wasn't their plan. They can keep paying that $7.79, so sorry.

[+] cosmic_slate@dmv.social 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[+] PugJesus@kbin.social -7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

…who hurt you?

Literally no one? Sorry for thinking that home ownership shouldn't result in ever-increasing value for ever-reduced tax rates?

This was exactly one example with no indication of this being a common issue.

You do realize the point of an example given by an appraiser to a state fucking legislature is to demonstrate an issue, right?

[+] cosmic_slate@dmv.social 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social -4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I get it, you’re upset over rent increases.

Clearly, you don't get it. The rest of us are expected to move with the change of property values and the shifting market, but the argument being made here is that the people who are best suited to weather such a change, those with property that they can sell and actually returns value to them, should be insulated from the horrific offense of having to pay [checks notes] a tax of 1% of its value to the government that sustains their community.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Maybe you should redirect this irritation and channel it into lobbying for legislation that would cap rent increases, too, to also insulate the other half of the population from the effects of increased property values? It doesn't have to be a matter of "It's bad for me therefore it must be bad for everyone else, too" unless you make it one.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's also not viable. Property values aren't just some abstract that don't matter. As long as we're living in a market economy, the idea of "Just implement price freezes!" doesn't work so long as the increase of valuation is driven by actual value factors and not just greed.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Again, to someone who is not selling their home, there is no "actual value" being increased. It's not like someone is coming around and saying "Hey, your house is pretty run down... would you like $40k in free renovations? Please note that this will increase your property taxes due to the improvements." It's because of supply and demand, and low mortgage rates driving an increase in people buying homes, and the real thing you should be railing against are the habitual landlords buying tons of properties to rent, not the families who own a home that they live in. They are not the problem.

Edit: To add some context to this, there are currently ~28 vacant homes in the US for every homeless person. It's not a matter of there not being enough homes out there - there would be plenty, if every home was owned by one family. Far more than enough. It's folks buying up swaths of land to rent out, and price fixing those rentals, that are causing the problems, both for families who can afford to buy homes, and for people who are renting.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social -4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

there is no “actual value” being increased.

It’s because of supply and demand, and low mortgage rates driving an increase in people buying homes,

Do you not understand how that involves an increase in value?

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's a value increase on paper only; there's no material value being created. Again, it's only benefitting people who are selling their home.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social -2 points 10 months ago

there’s no material value being created.

There's also no material value being created when the price of a stored commodity goes up because of fluctuations in supply and demand, but that doesn't make the change in value any less real. There's no material value being created in a specific property when a business moves in across the town, but that doesn't make the increase any less real. I don't know how this issue is supposed to be discussed if we're disregarding the notion of property value outside of material improvements to the property itself.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 4 points 10 months ago

Sure, and railing against those property tax rebates is one thing, but as what you quoted says, that's not the norm. Property taxes are a problem across the country right now, not just in Georgia (as the article notes), and other states are also passing measures to help.

This also is part of a homestead exemption, so it's not stopping people who own multiple properties from paying higher taxes.

A family owning a home and passing it on to their kids is not a problem, and I'm not sure why you're framing it as one. It's also not like it's just one family's home that's rising in value while everything else stagnates; that hypothetical family who chooses to sell is not getting rich from the decision. Either they're moving to renting, and paying high rental rates, or they're buying elsewhere and paying the current market value of that property.

[+] cosmic_slate@dmv.social 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] Zikeji@programming.dev 3 points 10 months ago

I bought my house back in 2021, and despite no renovations for myself or my neighborhood the property tax I've paid had gone up by just under 25% each year these last two years. I haven't checked the change in assessed value but I think this bill would make it sting less lol

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Reminder: not everyone living in homes that grew in value can afford to sell their house and move.

not everyone... can afford to sell their house and move.

not everyone... can afford to sell their house

...

Maybe it's because I'm a lowly rentoid and don't understand these complex, home-owner things, but the rest of us have to 'live within our means', and don't even get reimbursed for it by selling a piece of property significantly above what we paid for it when we get priced out of an area.

[–] bluGill@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Those who own a house can have our budget changed by things outside of our control. If my neighbor builds a mansion that makes my house more valueable and thus worth more and so I have to pay more taxes - nothing has changed about my house though. This means I have less money in my budget to do my own remodeling, go on vacation or whatever.

I know as a homeowner I will have expenses, but most are somewhat predictable - I replaced my furnace this fall but I started budgeting for it 2 years ago. My roof is getting old and so I'm already starting to budget for replacing it. However if my house goes up in value by more than inflation that is hard to budget for.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Those who own a house can have our budget changed by things outside of our control. If my neighbor builds a mansion that makes my house more valueable and thus worth more and so I have to pay more taxes - nothing has changed about my house though. This means I have less money in my budget to do my own remodeling, go on vacation or whatever.

... okay? Join the rest of us? Do you think that doesn't happen to people who don't own homes? The only difference is that we don't own the property, and thus we not only pay more, but we have no equity gain from it in addition.

[–] bluGill@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

It is easier to move if you rent (it still isn't easy). In fact if you rent the ease of moving is one way to control rent increases. One consideration on the rent vs buy choice is do you want to stay in the same place for many more years. The advantages of buying generally only happen after 5-10 years in the same location. Thus I expect this to hurt owners more than renters because I expect renters to move more often anyway.

The above is in general. I know renters who have been in the same place for years, that is okay so long as your landlord isn't taking advantage of you. I know homeowners who move every couple years - though I'm not sure I'd call that a good decision.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Crab mentality.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

lmao, least bougie tankie.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Communism is not a poverty cult. You're just describing crabs dragging each other back into the bucket.

We should be housing everyone, not dropping more people into the rental market to be exploited by landlords.

Instead of just raising taxes evenly, tax the fuck out of landlords and real estate investors. They're the problem.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Communism is not a poverty cult. You’re just describing crabs dragging each other back into the bucket.

"Poverty cult is when you suggest people who own a literal million dollars worth of property should pay taxes that equate to less than the most bottom-of-the-barrel studio apartment"

Critical support for rugged individualism, huh?

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"Join the rest of us" is, in fact, a poverty cult. You're demanding that people who have been priced out of their homes be thrown to the wolves like we have been. I don't want more people to be victimized by landlords. The goal isn't to drag lucky people into the mud with the rest of us and fight over scraps. The goal is to target the people who are causing the problem and remove them from society.

That's landlords and real estate investors. They're the ones driving up costs and they're the ones exploiting people without property. A home owner losing their home because prices rose in their area due to gentrification is just the crabs dragging them back into the bucket.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

You’re demanding that people who have been priced out of their homes be thrown to the wolves like we have been.

I still love that you're calling a price far, far below rent for a studio apartment for a million dollar home as some kind of cruelty to the proletariat. But I guess 'join the rest of us' is a scary thought to middle class tankie larpers, who fear that they might not be 'more equal' than others someday.

I don’t want more people to be victimized by landlords.

Okay. They don't have to be. A home half that price would have under half of that property tax. A home a quarter of that value would have no property tax. Sorry that you believe in the untaxed and unlimited accumulation of value by market forces without input of labor?

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

. But I guess ‘join the rest of us’ is a scary thought to middle class tankie larpers

I live in a trailer in the middle of nowhere and operate a welding press, fuck off.

A home half that price would have under half of that property tax. A home a quarter of that value would have no property tax.

Have you not been paying attention to the housing market? Due to real estate speculation they're not going to find cheaper housing, at least not within a reasonable commute distance to the jobs these people have. So if they're forced to suffer like the rest of us then they're uprooting their lives, destroying communities, forcing them down the social ladder, and making them even more dependent on the car-based transportation infrastructure with all the personal and social costs that entails.

Sorry that you believe in the untaxed and unlimited accumulation of value by market forces without input of labor?

I believe in attacking the problem from the other end, by attacking investors and landlords. The problem isn't that they have personal property, the problem is that the value of that property is going up. Fix that, and then no one gets priced out of their homes or accumulates wealth.