If you pay 1% for one house, someone with 2 houses should pay 2%, and a company with 2000 homes should pay 2000%
That would make it increasingly difficult for mega companies to buy up everything and torture the housing market
If you pay 1% for one house, someone with 2 houses should pay 2%, and a company with 2000 homes should pay 2000%
That would make it increasingly difficult for mega companies to buy up everything and torture the housing market
What if, instead of that, property tax was based on the assessed value of the property when assessed for its current use? But also by “current” we mean like 5-10 years ago and when we assess we don’t look at recent neighborhood comps, we look at the previously assessed value.
That’s exactly how it works in a lot of places.
(I think that was the joke)
why not just based on purchase price provided it was bought at market value. Still that should only apply to one primary residence. Oh and if it changes hands for any reason. like inheritance. it needs to use the value when the hands changed.
Where I live (relatively upscale Philly suburb) the absolute magnitudes of the assessments are irrelevant – all that matters is what your assessment is relative to everybody else. For example, my house is assessed at $93K, but I bought it three years ago for $142K and its current sale estimate is about $215K. Everybody’s assessment is way below market value, but what happens is the school board decides what their budget is going to be every year and then they set the millage rate to whatever it needs to be in order to generate that much property tax revenue (the school tax is about 85% of our total property taxes). So it doesn’t really matter how up-to-date the assessments are since it won’t affect your tax bill.