Property Tax Question
I think SALT did go up from $10,000 to $15,000. $20,000 would be better.
jamie said:
I think SALT did go up from $10,000 to $15,000. $20,000 would be better.
I'm searching but can't find it. Please post a link if you find something.
jamie said:
https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/njit35.shtml
OK, thanks but the appearance before Ways and Means was a plea for a Federal change. The mayor stated exactly what I was pointing out to real estate friends that it would hurt property values and that people in his town in Long Island were considering moving out.
Morganna said:
OK, thanks but the appearance before Ways and Means was a plea for a Federal change. The mayor stated exactly what I was pointing out to real estate friends that it would hurt property values and that people in his town in Long Island were considering moving out.
But isn't that exactly what the GOP wants? Punish towns with high property taxes? (because they will mostly be Democratic towns)
As someone who used to work in real estate, I attended a seminar where an appraiser talked about the deduction limit. His view was that the federal government was addressing a long-held complaint that the tax code unfairly favored homeowners. By lowering the tax rates and changing the brackets, more people who are renting would pay less in taxes and those with homes would pay more. He also said that a lot of home owners will pay less in taxes due to the tax bracket changes which makes up for the amount that they lose in the deduction. It’s a wash. The idea is that it’s more equitable. His take was that people felt that the rich should pay more in taxes. By limiting the deduction, those with the largest properties are paying more. He also pointed out that NJ has had that $10,000 limit for awhile and no one complained about NJ doing it. I’m not explaining it as well as he did. Here’s a link to an article that explains the issue a better. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/research/under-us-housing-policies-homeowners-mostly-win-while-renters-mostly-lose/amp/
I get that, but interest on rental properties is still fully deductible, encouraging the rich to buy more properties and making those same properties less appealing as primary residences.
GreenEyedChick said:
As someone who used to work in real estate, I attended a seminar where an appraiser talked about the deduction limit. His view was that the federal government was addressing a long-held complaint that the tax code unfairly favored homeowners. By lowering the tax rates and changing the brackets, more people who are renting would pay less in taxes and those with homes would pay more. He also said that a lot of home owners will pay less in taxes due to the tax bracket changes which makes up for the amount that they lose in the deduction. It’s a wash. The idea is that it’s more equitable. His take was that people felt that the rich should pay more in taxes. By limiting the deduction, those with the largest properties are paying more. He also pointed out that NJ has had that $10,000 limit for awhile and no one complained about NJ doing it. I’m not explaining it as well as he did. Here’s a link to an article that explains the issue a better. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/research/under-us-housing-policies-homeowners-mostly-win-while-renters-mostly-lose/amp/
I don't fully understand this position. Renters do pay real property taxes as a portion of their rent. Renters in states that have an income tax pay state income taxes at the same rate as homeowners.
Zoning change has been a contentious topic for discussion of suburbs since the ‘70s Mt. Holly legislation..
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/28/opinion/affordable-housing-zoning-golden-girls.html
joan_crystal said:
joan_crystal said:undefined
GreenEyedChick said:
As someone who used to work in real estate, I attended a seminar where an appraiser talked about the deduction limit. His view was that the federal government was addressing a long-held complaint that the tax code unfairly favored homeowners. By lowering the tax rates and changing the brackets, more people who are renting would pay less in taxes and those with homes would pay more. He also said that a lot of home owners will pay less in taxes due to the tax bracket changes which makes up for the amount that they lose in the deduction. It’s a wash. The idea is that it’s more equitable. His take was that people felt that the rich should pay more in taxes. By limiting the deduction, those with the largest properties are paying more. He also pointed out that NJ has had that $10,000 limit for awhile and no one complained about NJ doing it. I’m not explaining it as well as he did. Here’s a link to an article that explains the issue a better. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/research/under-us-housing-policies-homeowners-mostly-win-while-renters-mostly-lose/amp/
Joan, part of it as I see it is that renters can't deduct that portion of their rent that covers real estate taxes, while the landlord can deduct it as an expense.
FilmCarp said:
Joan, part of it as I see it is that renters can't deduct that portion of their rent that covers real estate taxes, while the landlord can deduct it as an expense.
If this is the case, perhaps it is time to change the law and designate a percentage of the rent as real property tax or require landlords to indicate which part of the rent goes to real property tax so that amount can become deductible. That way, everyone would be paying their fair share of the tax burden without disadvantaging renters or placing undue burden on residents of states with high real property taxes plus state income tax. Placing an unrealistic cap on SALT deductions still does not address the inequity cited above which places an undue hardship on renters.
For specifics on these programs, see my post below taken directly from the SOMA Two Towns For All Ages website.
GreenEyedChick said:
As someone who used to work in real estate, I attended a seminar where an appraiser talked about the deduction limit. His view was that the federal government was addressing a long-held complaint that the tax code unfairly favored homeowners. By lowering the tax rates and changing the brackets, more people who are renting would pay less in taxes and those with homes would pay more. He also said that a lot of home owners will pay less in taxes due to the tax bracket changes which makes up for the amount that they lose in the deduction. It’s a wash. The idea is that it’s more equitable. His take was that people felt that the rich should pay more in taxes. By limiting the deduction, those with the largest properties are paying more. He also pointed out that NJ has had that $10,000 limit for awhile and no one complained about NJ doing it. I’m not explaining it as well as he did. Here’s a link to an article that explains the issue a better. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/research/under-us-housing-policies-homeowners-mostly-win-while-renters-mostly-lose/amp/
The appraiser should stick to appraising. He doesn't understand what he's talking about when it comes to the new income tax laws.
yahooyahoo said:
How will this work with homeowners who have their property taxes paid out of escrow by their mortgage companies?
I imagine it will be paid as normal, then next February you'll have a larger than usual mortgage bill to cover the escrow deficit from the previous year. That appears to be what our ****** bank does every year now.
maplewood taxes are now available online. looks like an overall increase of 2.64%
Pretty dam good when you consider what it was looking like it was going to be. I had expected it to be around 3.5% - 4%.
This is one of those times when I am more than happy to be wrong.
I'm not 100% sure - but I think the 3.5-4% number was the increase to the municipal portion only - not including the education portion .
galileo said:
oots, where did you see the property taxes on line?
When do we see the tax increase from the ridonkulous school bonding boondoggle. a next year event I suppose. on top of another 2 + % base increase. next they’ll tax my dookies. the dookie tax.
jamie said:
https://wipp.edmundsassoc.com/Wipp/?wippid=0711
Also available on the town website under on-line pay of real property taxes.
jamie said:
I'm not 100% sure - but I think the 3.5-4% number was the increase to the municipal portion only - not including the education portion .
Municipal budget increase was in the range of 6-7%
After years of passing municipal budgets at, below or near the 2% state-mandated cap, Maplewood Township will be introducing a proposed $45.6M 2019 municipal budget on April 2 with a 6.8% tax levy increase.
yahooyahoo said:
jamie said:
I'm not 100% sure - but I think the 3.5-4% number was the increase to the municipal portion only - not including the education portion .
Municipal budget increase was in the range of 6-7%
After years of passing municipal budgets at, below or near the 2% state-mandated cap, Maplewood Township will be introducing a proposed $45.6M 2019 municipal budget on April 2 with a 6.8% tax levy increase.
I don't think that can be right. If the town raised by 6-7% what did the county and schools raise theirs by?.
Not being funny, but did you see the dates of the article and mayor's comments? This was back in late March.
The town never passes the budget that is introduced. They have to meet a state mandated deadline to introduce a budget. After they get the intial numbers they go back to CFO, BA, and all department heads and tell them they need to cut their budget by X%, and if they couldn't meet that number.... the BA would. Lol
GreenEyedChick said:
As someone who used to work in real estate, I attended a seminar where an appraiser talked about the deduction limit. His view was that the federal government was addressing a long-held complaint that the tax code unfairly favored homeowners. By lowering the tax rates and changing the brackets, more people who are renting would pay less in taxes and those with homes would pay more. He also said that a lot of home owners will pay less in taxes due to the tax bracket changes which makes up for the amount that they lose in the deduction. It’s a wash. The idea is that it’s more equitable. His take was that people felt that the rich should pay more in taxes. By limiting the deduction, those with the largest properties are paying more. He also pointed out that NJ has had that $10,000 limit for awhile and no one complained about NJ doing it. I’m not explaining it as well as he did. Here’s a link to an article that explains the issue a better. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/research/under-us-housing-policies-homeowners-mostly-win-while-renters-mostly-lose/amp/
I agree with having the wealthy pay more, but they should do that with higher income tax brackets not property tax-related deduction reductions. There are plenty of people who have high-value property (due to appreciation) but not so much income/cash flow to pay the extra taxes.
But, I am pretty sure that there was a lot of "stick it to the blue states" motivation in all of this.
galileo said:
oots, where did you see the property taxes on line?
town website ( online payments)
the taxes for the year 2019 are all posted as are the 1st 2 payments for 2020 ( based on half of 2019)
there is no breakdown by county etc-you will need the bill for that
The taxes may be posted, but we still have not received s bill in the mail or even an email notification that they are online. Shame on you Maplewood tax official and township's manager.
Featured Events
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
Multi Family Garage Sale Sale Date: Apr 20, 2024
More info
Free Items
Advertisement
Bit of a thread drift but I watched a hearing last night that had appeals to Ways and Means to reverse the limitations on SALT. Saw a mayor from Long Island testifying explaining that middle class families are typically paying over $20,000. Trying to locate the original hearing.