|
|
|
|
|
|
by technofiend
1423 days ago
|
|
|
>Similarly, I'm not too sympathetic to those (often elderly) who claim they can no longer pay taxes due to fixed incomes while home prices increase. The amount their taxes have increased are a fraction of the equity they've gained Each time a house sells, property value jumps to the newly appraised value the following year. Sale prices are not public record in Texas, but oddly enough the amount borrowed can be found. So it's possible to impute sale price if you're willing to assume a given percentage down. Once you get the "homestead" exemption, appraised value may not go up more than 10% a year. And it does. Like clockwork. There are exemptions for over 65, disabled, etc, but they are flat dollar amounts instead of percentages or freezing annual tax increases. In short your assumption that gentrification drives valuation increases isn't wrong - any property sale regardless of the reason (in a rising market) does exactly that - but as a property owner in Texas I can personally state that every year I didn't protest my valuation always went up the maximum allowed by law, not matter what was happening. Including during the 2008 crash! And thanks to the rule of 7, this means that every 7.2 years taxes double. Realistically has the cost of supplying services from the state, county and city doubled over seven years? No, arguably not. We're only now seeing inflation that somewhat mirrors those cost increases. The assumption that taxes increase only as needed and required by the taxing entities is flawed. They will always find a use for any increase. The elderly are already allowed to defer taxes to when their estate is settled, no need for a reverse mortgage. But should they have to for arbitrary and capricious tax increases? |
|
|
Is this a Texas-specific thing? If it is, I really think more states ought to roll it out, though it would increase complexity for the state who (I assume) becomes partial owners on the title of the home homeowners begin deferring their taxes.