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

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.

lolcatnip ,

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.

ikidd ,
@ikidd@lemmy.world avatar

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.

bluGill ,

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.

Illuminostro ,

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

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Hint: They're likely not under 40.

rdyoung ,

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.

rdyoung ,

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 ,

That's what I said...

rdyoung , (edited )

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.

Illuminostro ,

It's not my problem if you don't understand inference, and need everything spelled out for you. Real estate investment firms and businesses will benefit the most from this, hence my blatantly obvious sarcastic first question. I don't give two shits how it affects residences. Again, not my problem, or concern. I'm done with this. Find your attention elsewhere.

rdyoung ,

Your comment definitely sounded like you were hinting at this being helpful to retail investors, if you had read the article or at least the summary you would see that's its only going to cap the increase in taxes for primary residences and not rentals.

It might also behoove you to learn what inference actually means. You sound like a teenager shrugging and groaning and that means they had a bad day and so so said this and the teacher said that, etc. For your readers to infer anything accurately you need to provide way more words than you actually did.

You have a nice day now and I'm sure I'll see you around and I'm sure I'll be correcting you on something else in the not to distant future.

Mamertine ,

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 ,

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.

PugJesus ,
@PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

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 ,
@KoboldCoterie@pawb.social avatar

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.

PugJesus ,
@PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

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 ,
@cosmic_slate@dmv.social avatar

…who hurt you?

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

PugJesus ,
@PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

…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 , (edited )
@cosmic_slate@dmv.social avatar

Value only matters if you sell.

Nobody is going to be able to sell for a long while without taking a financial hit somewhere. Any homeowner now is more or less stuck.

I get it, you’re upset over rent increases. It’s understandable. Not every homeowner is some asshole wanting to oppress renters.

If you’re anywhere in the middle class, you’re in a very unfortunate spot right now. Rent, own, whatever.

PugJesus ,
@PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

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 ,
@KoboldCoterie@pawb.social avatar

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 ,
@PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

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 ,
@KoboldCoterie@pawb.social avatar

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 ,
@PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

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 ,
@KoboldCoterie@pawb.social avatar

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 ,
@PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

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.

cosmic_slate ,
@cosmic_slate@dmv.social avatar

No, I do get it. I rent in an expensive market — my location isn’t even hidden. I just choose to familiarize myself with the financial issues of owning right now.

My area had the hype of Amazon HQ2 pushing up values for no good reason.

There's a number of reasons to be against this that hold a lot more weight. I'm skeptical that this is going to be wise with the future of the state's budget and it'll be a political nightmare to remove. But hey, pros and cons.

KoboldCoterie ,
@KoboldCoterie@pawb.social avatar

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.

Tremble , (edited )

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.

PugJesus ,
@PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

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

KoboldCoterie ,
@KoboldCoterie@pawb.social avatar

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.

cosmic_slate ,
@cosmic_slate@dmv.social avatar

Reminder: not everyone living in homes that grew in value can afford to sell their house and move. If you’ve owned your house, had the area around redeveloped, have fun with getting priced out.

If property values bias towards the house itself and most of your neighbors renovate, have fun potentially paying more just for the privilege of looking at your neighbor's pretty house.

PugJesus ,
@PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

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 ,

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 ,
@PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

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 ,

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.

Zikeji ,
@Zikeji@programming.dev avatar

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

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • news@lemmy.world
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •