[kspacewalk2]

If you publicly decide on your assessment criteria (sqft, pools, #bedrooms, garage size, etc. etc.), and then use software to help you assign the fair assessed value to each property, how is this a problem? Were some homeowners able to use inefficiencies in how assessments are done to fly under the radar with much lower assessments than their property warrants, and then cry foul when their assessments (and property taxes) double or triple in order to make them fair and consistent? If so, that's a tax loophole closed, not an injustice.

[Eumenes]

Assessments should be done when a home is sold, not based off speculative real estate market. This hurts everyone, esp those on fixed incomes.

[kspacewalk2]

Okay, maybe I'm making unwarranted assumptions that assessments are done the same everywhere, and property taxes are decided on the same way everywhere.

Here's how it's done in Ontario where I live:

1. Assessed value ≠ market value. Assessed value is determined by some criteria such that sqft, #rooms, desirability of neighbourhood, pools, etc correlate with the final value.

2. Actual value doesn't matter at all. If everyone's assessed values go up 10% in the municipality, property tax bills change by $0. What matters is the relative assessed values. They determine how much of a city's tax bill the household pays.

3. The actual process for determining the tax bill: city comes up with a total figure to be collected. City sums all assessed values of all properties. Divide former by latter to get a multiplier (e.g. 1.355%). That multiplier times assessed value is your property tax. (It's a bit more complicated because they collect slightly different amounts from different property types).

Is it different in California?

[larsiusprime]

In California Prop 13 makes it so people who bought their properties decades ago essentially have their assessments frozen whereas people who bought more recently get assessed closer to market value.

This means that two side by side buildings can have assessed values differing by orders of magnitude. This has all the inequitable downstream consequences you would expect.

[rented_mule]

Yep, and that's one of many parts of the supply issues in California. We bought our house 25 years ago. The house right next door is half the size of ours and just sold. Their property tax will be ~3x what ours is.

We might consider moving to a looser market, and therefore opening up one more house in a tight market, but we're retired and a large increase in property tax (plus potentially larger increases every year if it's outside California) is a serious disincentive for us.

Prop 13 is friction that resists the smoothing out of conditions across regions. It reduces market efficiency.

p.s. - It doesn't help the housing situation that we have access to incredible natural features all around us, but that's more about California's demand side.

[jjav]

> Is it different in California?

It is different in California on all three points listed.

In California the assessed value is the purchase price (thus, market value) on year zero (when you buy it). From there on assessed value goes up 2% every year.

The base tax is 1% of the assessed value. (Actual property tax is higher because they can tack on all kinds of fees).

So if you buy a $1M home, your taxes this year are $10K (plus other local fees). Next year it will be $10.2K and so on.

[rangestransform]

we already know what happens when assessed values are artificially capped, prop 13 has torpedoed funding for californian schools, among other catastrophic effects.

[Eumenes]

There are problems with prop 13 (being a bandaid solution to appease the senior/older tax base) but schools in the US are very well funded, when you look at per year/per student in k-12, usually up there with countries like Switzerland and Norway. Its how the money is used that is the problem.