Reading The Reading Eagle, and The Sperm Walentis Blog, I have had it up to here with all of these people who are crying about not being able to afford their houses because of property tax assessment. You will take notice that the people who are crying are the ones that took out these interest only, and A.R.M. mortgages. With The Federal Reserve raising rates, and most of the interest only terms coming to an end, these people are adding over $1,000.00 a month on thier mortgage payment.
These same reassesment crybabies are lashing out most recently with Jim Cramer from CNBC with his yelling rant to the fed to cut rates for the sake of these people. While Jim Cramer is correct that we are on the verge of an economic disaster, we also have to blame this whole issue on just the lack of common sense with the reassessment crybabies.
I was always brought up to be modest with my lifestyle, regardless of how much you make in life. Being raised by a single mother, the first value that was taught to me was to live within my means. Like most kids being brought up by single mothers, I never had all the expensive toys like the other kids in my neighborhood had, or the cool looking swingsets. I had a rope to swing off of a pear tree in my backyard, and a two seat swing set that my grandfather made out of scrap pipes from when he used to be a pipe fitter. Naturally the other kids would make fun of me, and insult my mother because my father was never around for me as he left before I was even born. Naturally as a kid it would upset me, and when I would go to my mother about it, I was always taught to be modest in how you go about life. You can spend all the money in the world on a game system, a plasma tv, but at some point you will hit a bump in the road of life where you will need money and don’t have it, because you decided to spend it all on your wants rather then invest into your future needs.
I continue to carry that approach in my life. Even to this day, I would have people talk about their $200,000.00 - $300,000.00 home, how they are living the high life, while my wife and I are renting out a $125,000.00 rancher out west. Now naturally I’m a grown man, and those types of childish things don’t hurt me, but what is amazing is how very little people mature these days. Just like in my childhood, those very same people who call me poor and behind the times are now hitting the end of thier interest only mortgages on thier lavish homes, and they can’t afford them. Now what they want is to have people like you and me who live modestly and still use our brains, to pay higher taxes to these reassesment crybabies in the name of “fairness”, because they know The Federal Reserve will not cut rates. Diana Olick from CNBC said it best with her latest blog entry, and I quote.
Happiness and respect are not gained through who has the good toys, or the bigger house, it is gained by something that we as a society have lacked over the past few years, and that’s character, and integerity.
August 6, 2007 at 11:11 pm
“and that’s character, and integerity.”
And you should use it to admit that reassessments are long overdue. Even longer than the housing bubble you are complaining about. The way to make things right is not to continue to fail to do something that should have been done long ago.
I live within my means, and quite honestly I am willing to continue to pay it. On the other hand people who live in similar size homes built over a decade ago who can turn around and sell their homes for 3, 4, or 5 times what they paid for it (and many are selling) are still paying taxes based on their initial purchase price. Something it not right here.
You regularly speak of making sure everyone pays their fair share. I would think you would agree with ensuring that everyone pays taxes on current assessments instead of outdated ones.
“while my wife and I are renting out a $125,000.00 rancher out west.”
Just a thought. Renting is a waste of money. By purchasing a home you are putting your money into an investement that you can one day hope to see a return on. I had purchased a home about 10 years ago for a little under $100,000 and sold in the past year or so for $200,000. I had considered renting before buying that first time, and would have paid the same in rent each month that I instead paid in my mortgage. The rent would have lined someone elses pockets and I would not have been able to save enough to purchase a home like the one I have today. My investement and the increased value allowed me to purchase a larger home, which had also increased in value quite a bit since I took ownership.
I assume that renting is all you are capable of financially, but if at all possible please consider what I said about pissing money away when you could be putting it into an investment much like people do with cars. It is always nice to be able to trade up each time you get a new car, if you play your cards right.
August 7, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Well thank you for your advise. You are correct regarding my reason for renting. I’m still recovering from a damaged credit issue because of a bankruptcy and would like to get my score in better shape before buying. I do plan on buying in the next 2 or 3 years when the real estate market will be completly in the shitter and can buy cheep.
Now for the reassessment issue. You have to realise that reassessment will benefit the NYC commuter crowd more then anything. We both know that one of the big goals of The Berks County Commissioners is to have a commuter farm to rely on any future tax revenue while Tom McMahon tends to the Illegal Alien livestock within his city.
You have to admit all this reassessment talk came right at the same time Jim Cramer from CNBC warned of the disaster involving the real estate market. That Sperm Al Walentis continues to decline my comments about this, but you can’t deny they are both connected. You also can’t deny that greed played a big factor in this. You just can’t buy a $300,000 house with an interest only loan and expect to pay those amounts forever.
Interest only loan are ment for investors buying real estate to turn a profit like you see on those house flipping shows on TLC. They were never intended to be used by a person who plans on living in the house or adding very little to no value to it. New construction is funny that way. The only direction in value it can go at the peak of a market is down. That’s what happened here, all in while the Fed is raising interest rates in the process.
Another reason they want to reasses right now is mainly because they know the market is going down, and these people want this assessment to take place on the values today before they fall like a dead weight within the next your or two.
I’m sure we can agree these are serious factors for the pro reassessment crowd.
August 7, 2007 at 12:56 pm
While I agree to a point with the inequities in Real Estate Taxes I take no pity on the people who have high taxes. I was in Real Estate and saw how out of wack taxes could be. I think it is crazy that the people who buy new homes that have high taxes then want to complain about the inequities.
If these people did not want to pay high taxes they should have bought other homes. It is not right to punish the whole county because of a few cry babies!
August 7, 2007 at 3:53 pm
There should be regular reassessments, period. After every reassessment, the tax rate DROPS, because all those properties that were undervalued are now pulling their own weight [paying more] while others don’t have to pay as much. Only those who are currently leeching off of others are punished by reassessments!
August 7, 2007 at 8:46 pm
“There should be regular reassessments, period.”
I agree. The first time homes are reassessed there will definately be some complaining. Even now my home would increase in value, and I would pay more. On the other hand the county should have already had a plan in place to do regular reassessments instead of letting it get as out of control as it was.
I knew someone in Lancaster county that was paying taxes on a home be bought dirt cheap that the assessing office had on record as having no full bathrooms! The house had been remodeled 50 years earlier when they did away with the outhouse. I forget the actual assessment vaule prior ro the adjustment but I believe it was under $5000. It was a beautiful old home on a huge tract of land that could have sold for a pretty price if he did not love it so much. The fact is, someone like my friend was cheating all of the others around him including people who had lived there for 20 years, not just new arrivals. Yes, you hear the outcry from new homeowners, but you also hear it from others who know that things could improve if everyone was paying based on the current market values. Realtors can figure them out quickly, why can we not do it as a county and keep the numbers up to date yearly or at least within a decades time?
“You just can’t buy a $300,000 house with an interest only loan and expect to pay those amounts forever.”
This it too true. I actually bought my home from someone who had actually gotten themselves into pre-foreclosure because of an interest only loan. They had actually seen their home rise in value since it was built, but ended up walking away in the red because of all of the penalties for early pay off and all of the fees for defaulting on the loan.
“Another reason they want to reasses right now is mainly because they know the market is going down”
Given the amount of time it would take to reassess the entire county, the market will be in the gutter before they even get halfway done. I think in truth this is a non-issue.
August 7, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Just for fun I bet a small bucket of Bojangles Chicken that Matt grew up on Raymond St and his mothers name was Maryanne.
Someone else should guess Susan and Main St.
Where is out west? West Lawn, West Reading?
The one thing I learned from Jane Delong, 40+ secretary of the Republican party in Berks is that there is no “Fair Tax”.
My husband and I have a home assessed at $149,000. We got the lot for $14,500 and spent about $35,000 in materials mostly from 84 lumber. We built the home ourselves, with some help from family. It is only 1800 sq ft.
What makes it unique is the walls are foot thick stone. So are the basement walls, only they are two feet thick. We picked stone and it took us 4 years to finish this home.
Some of the lumber is from trees we cut down and took to the sawmill.
We raised 4 children and put them all thru college.
My husband is retired and not very able. I still work and can for some years.
If reassement goes thru we will probably not be able to live here and I don’t think that’s fair.
But it is what it is.
The probably to be elected Christian Leinbach will go for reassement. He is closely associated with the Home Builders Assoc.
I have heard the the Home builders are screaming that they can’t build because taxes are too high.
More later.
August 8, 2007 at 11:06 am
One of the things I get sick and tired of with the reassessment crybaby crowd is that they all think homeowners with older homes have it easy. I can tell firsthand that’s bull shit. If you factor in the upkeep costs to maintain a home on top of the current property taxes, they are paying far more then the average homeowner of a new property that does not require any work.
Reassessment will make it that if you own an older home you will be paying far more then somebody with a new home. This is nothing but more corporate welfare for the home builders assoc to continue to pump out a product of high supply to meet a false demand to make it cheeper in the long run to buy new construction rather then invest into an older home, all in the process of them to justify more development. In the process people like Judy Skank, Al Boscov, Tom McMahon and all the rest will chase out the old “dutch hicks” as their minions so proudly admit on The Sperm Walentis Blog, to make way for that tax revenue gold mine of NYC commuters.
Bottom line these same reassessment crybabies that complain about their taxes with their new homes will be the first ones to bitch in about 10 years when they have to factor in a new hot water heater, furance, roof, etc.
August 8, 2007 at 11:11 am
“Just for fun I bet a small bucket of Bojangles Chicken that Matt grew up on Raymond St and his mothers name was Maryanne.
Someone else should guess Susan and Main St.”
You are correct to a point, however my mothers name is Mary and her middle name is Ann, but she goes by Mary Ann. Now give me my chicken
Just wondering how do you know my mother?
“Where is out west? West Lawn, West Reading?”
While I can’t reveal where I moved to due to the fact that the fringe kooks that worship the ground Tom McMahon walks on would attempt to seek me out, I can tell you it’s not in your time zone.
August 8, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I have to agree with Heckman on this one. Keeping up a house is not as inexpensive as it used to be. We should not punish a person for somebody elses mistake.
August 8, 2007 at 8:22 pm
If you factor in the upkeep costs to maintain a home on top of the current property taxes, they are paying far more then the average homeowner of a new property that does not require any work.
** Excellent counter-argument.
I am 100% in favor of eliminating all HOMESTEAD taxes, but not all property taxes. If you own 10 homes, you deserve the break on your domicile, but the other properties are a luxury. Landlords are not going to lower their rents after they get their property taxes cut !!!
August 9, 2007 at 7:32 am
** Excellent counter-argument.
Indeed Andy, the sad part is that Sperm Al Walentis won’t even allow comments like this. I guess we know where The Reading Eagle stands on reassessment.
August 9, 2007 at 7:46 am
Oh and Andy another thing to remember with The Established Elite and I know The Sperm won’t allow this type of comment is that if you go to the commissioners, any school board, or city council for that matter and ask for property tax relief, they will laugh in your face, but if Al Boscov walks in asking for property tax relief for his tax pimping projects, then they give him the sun the moon and the stars.
We can give breaks to that strip mall development in Exeter, we can give breaks to The Goggle Works, and it’s condo development, we can give tax breaks for a movie complex in Reading, we can give tax breaks to the Target development in Muhlenberg Township, we can give tax breaks to Steve Geras’s investment properties while he is sitting in federal prision for extorting people, but god forbid we can’t give a break to people so they can keep their homes.
Bottom line is The Established Elite continue to see the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow with these NYC, NJ, and Philadelphia commuters, and they also know that the more of us “dutchies” that are chased from our homes the more tax revenue they bring in. The problem is most of the sheeple will continue to vote for the status quo, and by the time they catch on, it will be too late.
August 9, 2007 at 11:12 am
“We can give breaks to that strip mall development in Exeter, we can give breaks to The Goggle Works, and it’s condo development, we can give tax breaks for a movie complex in Reading, we can give tax breaks to the Target development in Muhlenberg Township, we can give tax breaks to Steve Geras’s investment properties while he is sitting in federal prision for extorting people, but god forbid we can’t give a break to people so they can keep their homes.”
And unlike homeowners, business that build up through pork rather then the free market will leave the area the first second the gravy train leaves.
August 13, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Did you hear about your main man Keith? Heard he fell off a 15 foot ladder and is hurt pretty badly! Heard he has some broken ribs and a punctured lung and is still in the hospital!
August 14, 2007 at 11:43 am
Great blog Matt.
My favs over on the Walentis blog are the ones who think every city property is a multi unit filled with hispanic criminals who own pit bulls and guns. They assume that every city resident is poor.
I’m battling with some joker who feels he is superior to city dwellers because his house in the burbs is worth more than ours. A city dweller posted something about their $700 tax bill and the suburbanite bragged that $700 is what he spends on a camera and he asked if the city dweller also gets free cheese. According to him/her city properties are 100 year old pieces of @#$. New is better apparently….(except when it’s a new tax increase). Do you think that person would think new is better when it’s he/she being traded in by their spouse for a newer shinier model that needs less maintenance?!
August 15, 2007 at 8:11 pm
“One of the things I get sick and tired of with the reassessment crybaby crowd is that they all think homeowners with older homes have it easy. I can tell firsthand that’s bull shit. If you factor in the upkeep costs to maintain a home on top of the current property taxes, they are paying far more then the average homeowner of a new property that does not require any work.”
I just sold a 22-year old house and moved to Berks Co. to a new house. Based on experience, I know that many of the major components (HVAC, water heater, carpeting, major appliances) have a 10-15 year lifespan at which point they will need replacement. Am I going to get an automatic tax reduction on my current house in 10 - 15 years to compensate for the increased upkeep cost?
Ain’t gonna happen.
As the new kid on the block, I’m paying taxes on a new house sitting on 6 acres. Next to me is a 47 acre lot with a house, barn, two ponds, and two outbuildings. That 47 acre lot alone is easily worth twice as much as my 6 acres with the new house. So why am I paying 5 times the taxes that my neighbor is paying? She moved into her home 10 years ago and is paying taxes based on the 1994 assessment. My assessment is based on what I paid for my house in 2006, not what I theoretically would have paid for the same house in 1994.
Anyone asking for reassessment is asking for fairness in the amount of taxes assessed on their homes. Taxes pay for public services and government operations. If the cost of government and schools is going up because of inflation, the cost should be borne equally by everyone. If the senior citizens get whacked by reassessment, then these same folks should get off their duffs and complain that the cost of government services should be better controlled. Which in turn would mean that taxes should be under control.
I know what you are thinking. “Gee, I’ll bet the local school district had to add more seats for his kids, and he doesn’t want to pay for it.” Sorry to bust your bubble, but I’m retired and have no kids in school.
So where’s the equality?
August 16, 2007 at 1:24 pm
“I know what you are thinking. “Gee, I’ll bet the local school district had to add more seats for his kids, and he doesn’t want to pay for it.” Sorry to bust your bubble, but I’m retired and have no kids in school.
So where’s the equality?”
The equality might not exist in your case since you have no kids. However, I’d be willing to bet the majority of people building new houses today are younger couples with kids. It’s largely because of them that new schools need to be built. It’s been said that a new house costs the community more than it generates in taxes - especially if it’s a new house that houses numerous kids. For that reason alone I have no problem with higher taxes on new houses (that and the fact my house is over 80 years old and is taxed at a lower assessment). A parcel of land left undeveloped costs the community NOTHING in services while the owner pays taxes on the land generating a “profit” for said parcel.
Build a development on the same parcel and now we have kids that need educating and new roads that need maintaining. Add to that sewer, water, police and fire protection. All older houses have already been factored into the equation; it’s the new houses that throw things out of whack, hence the higher tax bill. Another point to consider is the fact that most new houses today are rather large and try to make very bold statements. Big bold houses have big bold mortgage payments and deserve big bold tax bills. It’s the cost of riding with the big boys and everyone buying a new house SHOULD know that going in to the transaction. Then the choice exists to buy the “Garage-Majal” or buy something more modest.
August 16, 2007 at 6:42 pm
OK, let’s try this again.
By the way, you are spewing a lot of generalities here.
“I’d be willing to bet the majority of people building new houses today are younger couples with kids. …. It’s been said that a new house costs the community more than it generates in taxes - especially if it’s a new house that houses numerous kids.” Can you back this up? What about retirement communities?
“Add to that sewer, water, police and fire protection.” Hmm. I have my own septic system and water. There is no local police. My fire protection is a pond across the road. Where should I request a tax discount?
“Big bold houses have big bold mortgage payments and deserve big bold tax bills.” What do mortgage payments have to do with tax bills? Since I carry a minimal mortgage , I presume you are saying I should get a discount? Are you going to testify before the assessment board on my behalf for the discount?
“Build a development on the same parcel and now we have kids that need educating and new roads that need maintaining. ” The road I live on has been there since the early 1800’s. I don’t recall seeing anyone doing any work on the road prior to my moving in. The little car I drive does a lot less damage than the dump trucks from the local excavating business.
Let’s get away from the presumptions and look at the facts.
According to the Tax assessment board for Berks County, the assessed value of a house is based on its market value.
Not on how big it is.
Not on how many kids are in the house.
Not on the potential requirements for public services (schools, roads, etc).
Not on the age of the house, or how much it costs to maintain.
The size and age do influence the market value of your home. So if your home gets reassessed, it will be valued based on the market value of similar homes in the area.
I do have a house that is new and a little bit bigger than average, therefore I accept that I’ll get a higher assessment. I am not complaining about that.
My beef is that anyone else on my street (and in the county) that has a house that was built 10, 15 or more years ago, or was assessed in 1994 is still assumed to be worth the same as what it was when it was built (or sold). So I am subsidizing the taxes for everyone on the street (and in the county) just because I am the last one in. I am paying a disproportionate share of what it costs for today’s government and the services that everyone else is getting.
Bottom line - I am paying more than my fair share of taxes. I believe it is entirely fair that all taxable properties should be assessed in a consistent manner so that everyone pays their fair share of today’s government operating costs and public services. What’s so wrong with that?
August 17, 2007 at 3:22 pm
“I’d be willing to bet the majority of people building new houses today are younger couples with kids. …. It’s been said that a new house costs the community more than it generates in taxes - especially if it’s a new house that houses numerous kids.” Can you back this up? What about retirement communities?
** Yes, I am spewing generalities. That’s why I said the “majority” of houses. Generally if you drive through a development of new homes the owners tend to be younger and with kids. As far as backing up what a house generates and what it costs. Assume a homeowner with 2 kids paying a $7,000 tax bill. Do you think it costs more than $7,000 or less than $7,000 to educate those kids per year? I’d be willing to bet it costs the school district more. While I don’t have the figures, don’t school districts list the “cost per pupil” somewhere? Multiply that number by the number of kids in a given house and you’ll be able to gauge whether that house costs more than it generates. Now figure on a development of 200 houses. We’re running into some red ink here. Keep the land as farmland or whatever and it costs the school district NOTHING; all the land does is generate revenue. Your point about retirement communities is valid but may I point out that homes in retirement communities aren’t going to be large homes with large yards. They’re going to lean towards the smaller side so as to cut down on maintenance.
“Add to that sewer, water, police and fire protection.” Hmm. I have my own septic system and water. There is no local police. My fire protection is a pond across the road. Where should I request a tax discount?
** Point taken. But I DID say at the beginning of my first post that the equality might not exist in your case.
“Big bold houses have big bold mortgage payments and deserve big bold tax bills.” What do mortgage payments have to do with tax bills?
** Must be another one of my generalizations. If someone has a big $2000 mortgage payment it’s a pretty safe bet the house is no old city row home and is probably newer. Therefore it gets assessed at a higher figure.
“Build a development on the same parcel and now we have kids that need educating and new roads that need maintaining. ” The road I live on has been there since the early 1800’s. I don’t recall seeing anyone doing any work on the road prior to my moving in. The little car I drive does a lot less damage than the dump trucks from the local excavating business.
** New developments = new roads. If you’re just building houses along an existing road I hardly consider that a “development”. Develop a 200-acre farm and you’ll have new roads left and right - all named after the developer’s kids.
According to the Tax assessment board for Berks County, the assessed value of a house is based on its market value.
Not on how big it is.
Not on how many kids are in the house.
Not on the potential requirements for public services (schools, roads, etc).
Not on the age of the house, or how much it costs to maintain.
The size and age do influence the market value of your home. So if your home gets reassessed, it will be valued based on the market value of similar homes in the area.
** Yes, based on market value. My house is over 80 years old and is assessed low. Good for me. BUT, my house is drafty, has small rooms, small closets and small bathrooms. It’s still heated with coal. I have water in the basement when it rains hard. My basement itself has a low ceiling and is useless to use since it’s dirty with coal ash dust and wet. Does anyone want to hear me complain? No, of course not. The correct answer to any complaints from me would be: “If you don’t want to deal with that then buy a new house.” All buyers of new houses have large, modern everything. Efficient gas furnaces, large rooms, plenty of closet space. All that comes with a price. Luxury comes with a price. You might be looking over the fence and complaining thinking your neighbor has it so good because his tax bill is half yours. But your neighbor’s roof might be leaking and the windows might need replacing. Meanwhile yours are going to be fine for a long time assuming the builders these days can still build a quality house. I accept my house’s shortcomings along with the low tax bill. You pay more than I do but you’ve got a slick modern house. Your shortcomoings lie in the tax bill. Lacking maintenance you might end up paying LESS than many of these people with lower tax bills.
Bottom line - I am paying more than my fair share of taxes. I believe it is entirely fair that all taxable properties should be assessed in a consistent manner so that everyone pays their fair share of today’s government operating costs and public services. What’s so wrong with that?
** Nothing’s wrong with it but all I can say is you knew the situation going in to your construction. If you want a lower tax bill then buy your neighbor’s house or another one assessed at 1994 levels. Until the system changes your choices are to use the system to your advantage or not. If you choose to not use the system to your advantage then why bother complaining?
August 17, 2007 at 8:11 pm
“** Nothing’s wrong with it but all I can say is you knew the situation going in to your construction. ”
Read his post more carefully. His home was not something he constructed. It was something he bought. If he constructed it then his neighbors houses who were last assessed in 1994 would be the same value as his. He bought his home at current market values which are higher than the vaules currently assessed to his neighbors. All homes are assessed when you buy them at this point for taxing purposes and usually also demanded by the mortgage company whether you realize it or not, and that is also part of the inequity of the current situation.
You are right that per pupil cost is not covered by one home if there are more than two students in the household. I personally feel that developments are to blame for much of the increase in school costs with constant renovations being necessary. On the other hand this whole reassessment thing is not all about the new homes, it is also about people who buy older homes and get reassessed as they buy them, and that you need to realize too.
August 21, 2007 at 2:54 pm
“Happiness and respect are not gained through who has the good toys, or the bigger house, it is gained by something that we as a society have lacked over the past few years, and that’s character, and integerity.”
What do you expect from society, when our leaders lie to us, but tell us they are Christians?
Bush
Government has become a tool for the rich and powerful to take whatever they want, the rest of us are jealous, we want our’s too!
When you can’t count on government to help you, people tend to become a greedy little pigs, hording everything they can.
Until we begin to have leaders with character and integrity, things will only get worse.