Property tax confusion for houses that sell for much less than what owner paid

[dharmagirl]

If a homeowner paid $750,000 for a Temecula tract home in 2005, and the taxes are $9,000/year (1.2%based on the home’s appraised value in 2005), will the tax rate adjust down to $4560 to reflect the lower selling price of $380K in 2008?

I’m sorry if this seems like a stupid question. In my last two home ownership situations, the taxes went UP because I paid more than the seller had paid for it. I dont think that is happening much in So CA these days…

DG

[SD Realtor]

Your property taxes will be based on the assessed value of your home. When a home sells it gets reassessed. In the past we are all used to that assessment going up and thus property taxes going up. That trend is over. In your example above you posted some sample numbers that could indeed represent the new assessed value but the county assessor makes the assessment. If the assessor thinks the home sold for well below market then the assessor will value the home higher then the sales price. In this market I am not sure if that will happen. Your quote above seems reasonable but is not gauranteed.

SD Realtor

[dharmagirl]

Thanks, SDR!

It does seem conter-intuitive that the tax rate would go DOWN. Hopefully, that will be the case when I eventually buy a home.

[csr_sd]

Hi-

The tax rate does not necessarily decline- in your example it is 1.2%. It will still be 1.2%, the total tax bill will decline as prices decline(e.g 1.2%@300k or 1.2%@600k). That is unless the tax rate declines based on the value of the property (e.g 1.2%@300k; 1.6%@600k). Now it would be great if the tax rate also declined!, but I think it is essentially fixed, no?

cheers

csr_sd

[jpinpb]

When I owned my home and the value went down, I requested the county reassess the value of my house and they lowered my property tax. Of course, when the value of the house went back up, they re-assessed it again higher.

I would think they would assess the value based on other homes in the area, not necessarily what you paid for it, if you got a screaming deal. But in Temecula, since so many places have gone down, I imagine that’s not going to be a big factor and the assessment will be lower, hence so your property tax bill.

[barnaby33]

Doesn’t prop 13 require that if the taxes are re-assessed lower that they are recaptured quite quickly? As in no 3% a year maximum increase?

Josh

[jpinpb]

I am not sure about the Prop 13. I sold shortly thereafter when the housing market improved. I would like to know if that’s true, for future info. I’m sure it’s different when buying a house at a lower price. I would think they assess the value of the house at time of sale and it wouldn’t seem accurate to appraise it at the old much higher price.

[jpinpb]

I am not sure about the Prop 13. I sold shortly thereafter when the housing market improved. I would like to know if that’s true, for future info. I’m sure it’s different when buying a house at a lower price. I would think they assess the value of the house at time of sale and it wouldn’t seem accurate to appraise it at the old much higher price.

[jpinpb]

I am not sure about the Prop 13. I sold shortly thereafter when the housing market improved. I would like to know if that’s true, for future info. I’m sure it’s different when buying a house at a lower price. I would think they assess the value of the house at time of sale and it wouldn’t seem accurate to appraise it at the old much higher price.

[jpinpb]

I am not sure about the Prop 13. I sold shortly thereafter when the housing market improved. I would like to know if that’s true, for future info. I’m sure it’s different when buying a house at a lower price. I would think they assess the value of the house at time of sale and it wouldn’t seem accurate to appraise it at the old much higher price.

[jpinpb]

I am not sure about the Prop 13. I sold shortly thereafter when the housing market improved. I would like to know if that’s true, for future info. I’m sure it’s different when buying a house at a lower price. I would think they assess the value of the house at time of sale and it wouldn’t seem accurate to appraise it at the old much higher price.

[barnaby33]

Doesn’t prop 13 require that if the taxes are re-assessed lower that they are recaptured quite quickly? As in no 3% a year maximum increase?

Josh

[barnaby33]

Doesn’t prop 13 require that if the taxes are re-assessed lower that they are recaptured quite quickly? As in no 3% a year maximum increase?

Josh

[barnaby33]

Doesn’t prop 13 require that if the taxes are re-assessed lower that they are recaptured quite quickly? As in no 3% a year maximum increase?

Josh

[barnaby33]

Doesn’t prop 13 require that if the taxes are re-assessed lower that they are recaptured quite quickly? As in no 3% a year maximum increase?

Josh

[jpinpb]

When I owned my home and the value went down, I requested the county reassess the value of my house and they lowered my property tax. Of course, when the value of the house went back up, they re-assessed it again higher.

I would think they would assess the value based on other homes in the area, not necessarily what you paid for it, if you got a screaming deal. But in Temecula, since so many places have gone down, I imagine that’s not going to be a big factor and the assessment will be lower, hence so your property tax bill.

[jpinpb]

When I owned my home and the value went down, I requested the county reassess the value of my house and they lowered my property tax. Of course, when the value of the house went back up, they re-assessed it again higher.

I would think they would assess the value based on other homes in the area, not necessarily what you paid for it, if you got a screaming deal. But in Temecula, since so many places have gone down, I imagine that’s not going to be a big factor and the assessment will be lower, hence so your property tax bill.

[jpinpb]

When I owned my home and the value went down, I requested the county reassess the value of my house and they lowered my property tax. Of course, when the value of the house went back up, they re-assessed it again higher.

I would think they would assess the value based on other homes in the area, not necessarily what you paid for it, if you got a screaming deal. But in Temecula, since so many places have gone down, I imagine that’s not going to be a big factor and the assessment will be lower, hence so your property tax bill.

[jpinpb]

When I owned my home and the value went down, I requested the county reassess the value of my house and they lowered my property tax. Of course, when the value of the house went back up, they re-assessed it again higher.

I would think they would assess the value based on other homes in the area, not necessarily what you paid for it, if you got a screaming deal. But in Temecula, since so many places have gone down, I imagine that’s not going to be a big factor and the assessment will be lower, hence so your property tax bill.

[csr_sd]

Hi-

The tax rate does not necessarily decline- in your example it is 1.2%. It will still be 1.2%, the total tax bill will decline as prices decline(e.g 1.2%@300k or 1.2%@600k). That is unless the tax rate declines based on the value of the property (e.g 1.2%@300k; 1.6%@600k). Now it would be great if the tax rate also declined!, but I think it is essentially fixed, no?

cheers

csr_sd

[csr_sd]

Hi-

The tax rate does not necessarily decline- in your example it is 1.2%. It will still be 1.2%, the total tax bill will decline as prices decline(e.g 1.2%@300k or 1.2%@600k). That is unless the tax rate declines based on the value of the property (e.g 1.2%@300k; 1.6%@600k). Now it would be great if the tax rate also declined!, but I think it is essentially fixed, no?

cheers

csr_sd

[csr_sd]

Hi-

The tax rate does not necessarily decline- in your example it is 1.2%. It will still be 1.2%, the total tax bill will decline as prices decline(e.g 1.2%@300k or 1.2%@600k). That is unless the tax rate declines based on the value of the property (e.g 1.2%@300k; 1.6%@600k). Now it would be great if the tax rate also declined!, but I think it is essentially fixed, no?

cheers

csr_sd

[csr_sd]

Hi-

The tax rate does not necessarily decline- in your example it is 1.2%. It will still be 1.2%, the total tax bill will decline as prices decline(e.g 1.2%@300k or 1.2%@600k). That is unless the tax rate declines based on the value of the property (e.g 1.2%@300k; 1.6%@600k). Now it would be great if the tax rate also declined!, but I think it is essentially fixed, no?

cheers

csr_sd

[dharmagirl]

Thanks, SDR!

It does seem conter-intuitive that the tax rate would go DOWN. Hopefully, that will be the case when I eventually buy a home.

[dharmagirl]

Thanks, SDR!

It does seem conter-intuitive that the tax rate would go DOWN. Hopefully, that will be the case when I eventually buy a home.

[dharmagirl]

Thanks, SDR!

It does seem conter-intuitive that the tax rate would go DOWN. Hopefully, that will be the case when I eventually buy a home.

[dharmagirl]

Thanks, SDR!

It does seem conter-intuitive that the tax rate would go DOWN. Hopefully, that will be the case when I eventually buy a home.

[jonnycsd]

Typically the assessed value is the purchase price – no guarantee, but this is typical. If value drops within the first year after you buy, you can get a permanent reduction in the assessment from the County.

Additionally, if comps in your area are much lower than what you paid, even if you bought years ago, you can request (and will usually get) a one year reduction in assessed value. You can make this request every year so long as the current market value is less than your current assessed value.

I believe that Prop 13 prevents increases in your initial assessment so long as you are the owner. I do not believe you even have to live in the property for this protection.

County tax receipts are going to follow the market down. Our schools are already in budget trouble now, what about when property tax receiepts are off 20% or 30% from current? THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ACCROSS SOCAL but does not appear to be on anyone’s radar.

[34f3f3f]

County tax receipts are going to follow the market down. Our schools are already in budget trouble now, what about when property tax receiepts are off 20% or 30% from current? THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ACCROSS SOCAL but does not appear to be on anyone’s radar.

You may remember Mr I’ll-Be-Back addressing the issue of house price declines. Apparently, notwithstanding the windfall from house price hyper-inflation, public spending has been way in excess of tax receipts anyway. What percentage a 20-30% reduction is in relation to those excesses would be interesting to know.

[34f3f3f]

County tax receipts are going to follow the market down. Our schools are already in budget trouble now, what about when property tax receiepts are off 20% or 30% from current? THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ACCROSS SOCAL but does not appear to be on anyone’s radar.

You may remember Mr I’ll-Be-Back addressing the issue of house price declines. Apparently, notwithstanding the windfall from house price hyper-inflation, public spending has been way in excess of tax receipts anyway. What percentage a 20-30% reduction is in relation to those excesses would be interesting to know.

[34f3f3f]

County tax receipts are going to follow the market down. Our schools are already in budget trouble now, what about when property tax receiepts are off 20% or 30% from current? THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ACCROSS SOCAL but does not appear to be on anyone’s radar.

You may remember Mr I’ll-Be-Back addressing the issue of house price declines. Apparently, notwithstanding the windfall from house price hyper-inflation, public spending has been way in excess of tax receipts anyway. What percentage a 20-30% reduction is in relation to those excesses would be interesting to know.

[34f3f3f]

County tax receipts are going to follow the market down. Our schools are already in budget trouble now, what about when property tax receiepts are off 20% or 30% from current? THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ACCROSS SOCAL but does not appear to be on anyone’s radar.

You may remember Mr I’ll-Be-Back addressing the issue of house price declines. Apparently, notwithstanding the windfall from house price hyper-inflation, public spending has been way in excess of tax receipts anyway. What percentage a 20-30% reduction is in relation to those excesses would be interesting to know.

[34f3f3f]

County tax receipts are going to follow the market down. Our schools are already in budget trouble now, what about when property tax receiepts are off 20% or 30% from current? THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ACCROSS SOCAL but does not appear to be on anyone’s radar.

You may remember Mr I’ll-Be-Back addressing the issue of house price declines. Apparently, notwithstanding the windfall from house price hyper-inflation, public spending has been way in excess of tax receipts anyway. What percentage a 20-30% reduction is in relation to those excesses would be interesting to know.

[jonnycsd]

Typically the assessed value is the purchase price – no guarantee, but this is typical. If value drops within the first year after you buy, you can get a permanent reduction in the assessment from the County.

Additionally, if comps in your area are much lower than what you paid, even if you bought years ago, you can request (and will usually get) a one year reduction in assessed value. You can make this request every year so long as the current market value is less than your current assessed value.

I believe that Prop 13 prevents increases in your initial assessment so long as you are the owner. I do not believe you even have to live in the property for this protection.

County tax receipts are going to follow the market down. Our schools are already in budget trouble now, what about when property tax receiepts are off 20% or 30% from current? THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ACCROSS SOCAL but does not appear to be on anyone’s radar.

[jonnycsd]

Typically the assessed value is the purchase price – no guarantee, but this is typical. If value drops within the first year after you buy, you can get a permanent reduction in the assessment from the County.

Additionally, if comps in your area are much lower than what you paid, even if you bought years ago, you can request (and will usually get) a one year reduction in assessed value. You can make this request every year so long as the current market value is less than your current assessed value.

I believe that Prop 13 prevents increases in your initial assessment so long as you are the owner. I do not believe you even have to live in the property for this protection.

County tax receipts are going to follow the market down. Our schools are already in budget trouble now, what about when property tax receiepts are off 20% or 30% from current? THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ACCROSS SOCAL but does not appear to be on anyone’s radar.

[jonnycsd]

Typically the assessed value is the purchase price – no guarantee, but this is typical. If value drops within the first year after you buy, you can get a permanent reduction in the assessment from the County.

Additionally, if comps in your area are much lower than what you paid, even if you bought years ago, you can request (and will usually get) a one year reduction in assessed value. You can make this request every year so long as the current market value is less than your current assessed value.

I believe that Prop 13 prevents increases in your initial assessment so long as you are the owner. I do not believe you even have to live in the property for this protection.

County tax receipts are going to follow the market down. Our schools are already in budget trouble now, what about when property tax receiepts are off 20% or 30% from current? THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ACCROSS SOCAL but does not appear to be on anyone’s radar.

[jonnycsd]

Typically the assessed value is the purchase price – no guarantee, but this is typical. If value drops within the first year after you buy, you can get a permanent reduction in the assessment from the County.

Additionally, if comps in your area are much lower than what you paid, even if you bought years ago, you can request (and will usually get) a one year reduction in assessed value. You can make this request every year so long as the current market value is less than your current assessed value.

I believe that Prop 13 prevents increases in your initial assessment so long as you are the owner. I do not believe you even have to live in the property for this protection.

County tax receipts are going to follow the market down. Our schools are already in budget trouble now, what about when property tax receiepts are off 20% or 30% from current? THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ACCROSS SOCAL but does not appear to be on anyone’s radar.

[SD Realtor]

Your property taxes will be based on the assessed value of your home. When a home sells it gets reassessed. In the past we are all used to that assessment going up and thus property taxes going up. That trend is over. In your example above you posted some sample numbers that could indeed represent the new assessed value but the county assessor makes the assessment. If the assessor thinks the home sold for well below market then the assessor will value the home higher then the sales price. In this market I am not sure if that will happen. Your quote above seems reasonable but is not gauranteed.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Your property taxes will be based on the assessed value of your home. When a home sells it gets reassessed. In the past we are all used to that assessment going up and thus property taxes going up. That trend is over. In your example above you posted some sample numbers that could indeed represent the new assessed value but the county assessor makes the assessment. If the assessor thinks the home sold for well below market then the assessor will value the home higher then the sales price. In this market I am not sure if that will happen. Your quote above seems reasonable but is not gauranteed.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Your property taxes will be based on the assessed value of your home. When a home sells it gets reassessed. In the past we are all used to that assessment going up and thus property taxes going up. That trend is over. In your example above you posted some sample numbers that could indeed represent the new assessed value but the county assessor makes the assessment. If the assessor thinks the home sold for well below market then the assessor will value the home higher then the sales price. In this market I am not sure if that will happen. Your quote above seems reasonable but is not gauranteed.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Your property taxes will be based on the assessed value of your home. When a home sells it gets reassessed. In the past we are all used to that assessment going up and thus property taxes going up. That trend is over. In your example above you posted some sample numbers that could indeed represent the new assessed value but the county assessor makes the assessment. If the assessor thinks the home sold for well below market then the assessor will value the home higher then the sales price. In this market I am not sure if that will happen. Your quote above seems reasonable but is not gauranteed.

SD Realtor

[SHILOH]

“I believe that Prop 13 prevents increases in your initial assessment so long as you are the owner. I do not believe you even have to live in the property for this protection.”

Can someone comment more on this…does this mean your taxes are only on the amount you payed — and stays the same every year as long as you own the property? How would the city make any money with inflation?

[patientlywaiting]

Here is an example.

Rate 1.20%

Year Assess P13_Max Market Tax
1 500,000 500,000 500,000 6,000
2 510,000 510,000 600,000 6,120
3 500,000 520,200 500,000 6,000
4 400,000 530,604 400,000 4,800
5 450,000 541,216 450,000 5,400
6 500,000 552,040 500,000 6,000
7 550,000 563,081 550,000 6,600
8 574,343 574,343 600,000 6,892
9 570,000 585,830 570,000 6,840
10 597,546 597,546 600,000 7,171

Maximum increase in tax assessment is 2% compounded annually.

You can appeal to market. And assessor can reassess to market or maximum assessment. In reality it’s not always that automatic.

For example, in years 3, 4, and 9, you need to appeal to get a reduction in taxes.

It’s always better to start with the lowest tax basis because that affects your maximum tax assessment.

Edit: It didn’t come out right. The 3rd column is the maximum Prop 13 max.

[jonnycsd]

Apparently nothing in Sacramento can be simple. Here is the text of 13A:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A

The 2% cap on increases is in Section 2(b). As worded, assessment increases are based on CPI rather than house prices.

Clearly CPI inflation will be more than 2% a year for quite a while. I guess if the politicians get backed into a budget corner they could try raise every property’s assessment 2% per year even though asset valuations are going down.

[patientlywaiting]

jonnycsd, thanks for the link. I didn’t know that the assessment increase were based on the CPI.

I guess that if the CPI were 2% but property values were stagnant the Assessor could increase assessed values. But that would conflict with Prop 8 which allows homeowners to appeal their assessed value back to market.

Do you want to take a crack at reading the language of Prop 8?

[patientlywaiting]

jonnycsd, thanks for the link. I didn’t know that the assessment increase were based on the CPI.

I guess that if the CPI were 2% but property values were stagnant the Assessor could increase assessed values. But that would conflict with Prop 8 which allows homeowners to appeal their assessed value back to market.

Do you want to take a crack at reading the language of Prop 8?

[patientlywaiting]

jonnycsd, thanks for the link. I didn’t know that the assessment increase were based on the CPI.

I guess that if the CPI were 2% but property values were stagnant the Assessor could increase assessed values. But that would conflict with Prop 8 which allows homeowners to appeal their assessed value back to market.

Do you want to take a crack at reading the language of Prop 8?

[patientlywaiting]

jonnycsd, thanks for the link. I didn’t know that the assessment increase were based on the CPI.

I guess that if the CPI were 2% but property values were stagnant the Assessor could increase assessed values. But that would conflict with Prop 8 which allows homeowners to appeal their assessed value back to market.

Do you want to take a crack at reading the language of Prop 8?

[patientlywaiting]

jonnycsd, thanks for the link. I didn’t know that the assessment increase were based on the CPI.

I guess that if the CPI were 2% but property values were stagnant the Assessor could increase assessed values. But that would conflict with Prop 8 which allows homeowners to appeal their assessed value back to market.

Do you want to take a crack at reading the language of Prop 8?

[jonnycsd]

Apparently nothing in Sacramento can be simple. Here is the text of 13A:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A

The 2% cap on increases is in Section 2(b). As worded, assessment increases are based on CPI rather than house prices.

Clearly CPI inflation will be more than 2% a year for quite a while. I guess if the politicians get backed into a budget corner they could try raise every property’s assessment 2% per year even though asset valuations are going down.

[jonnycsd]

Apparently nothing in Sacramento can be simple. Here is the text of 13A:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A

The 2% cap on increases is in Section 2(b). As worded, assessment increases are based on CPI rather than house prices.

Clearly CPI inflation will be more than 2% a year for quite a while. I guess if the politicians get backed into a budget corner they could try raise every property’s assessment 2% per year even though asset valuations are going down.

[jonnycsd]

Apparently nothing in Sacramento can be simple. Here is the text of 13A:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A

The 2% cap on increases is in Section 2(b). As worded, assessment increases are based on CPI rather than house prices.

Clearly CPI inflation will be more than 2% a year for quite a while. I guess if the politicians get backed into a budget corner they could try raise every property’s assessment 2% per year even though asset valuations are going down.

[jonnycsd]

Apparently nothing in Sacramento can be simple. Here is the text of 13A:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A

The 2% cap on increases is in Section 2(b). As worded, assessment increases are based on CPI rather than house prices.

Clearly CPI inflation will be more than 2% a year for quite a while. I guess if the politicians get backed into a budget corner they could try raise every property’s assessment 2% per year even though asset valuations are going down.

[patientlywaiting]

Here is an example.

Rate 1.20%

Year Assess P13_Max Market Tax
1 500,000 500,000 500,000 6,000
2 510,000 510,000 600,000 6,120
3 500,000 520,200 500,000 6,000
4 400,000 530,604 400,000 4,800
5 450,000 541,216 450,000 5,400
6 500,000 552,040 500,000 6,000
7 550,000 563,081 550,000 6,600
8 574,343 574,343 600,000 6,892
9 570,000 585,830 570,000 6,840
10 597,546 597,546 600,000 7,171

Maximum increase in tax assessment is 2% compounded annually.

You can appeal to market. And assessor can reassess to market or maximum assessment. In reality it’s not always that automatic.

For example, in years 3, 4, and 9, you need to appeal to get a reduction in taxes.

It’s always better to start with the lowest tax basis because that affects your maximum tax assessment.

Edit: It didn’t come out right. The 3rd column is the maximum Prop 13 max.

[patientlywaiting]

Here is an example.

Rate 1.20%

Year Assess P13_Max Market Tax
1 500,000 500,000 500,000 6,000
2 510,000 510,000 600,000 6,120
3 500,000 520,200 500,000 6,000
4 400,000 530,604 400,000 4,800
5 450,000 541,216 450,000 5,400
6 500,000 552,040 500,000 6,000
7 550,000 563,081 550,000 6,600
8 574,343 574,343 600,000 6,892
9 570,000 585,830 570,000 6,840
10 597,546 597,546 600,000 7,171

Maximum increase in tax assessment is 2% compounded annually.

You can appeal to market. And assessor can reassess to market or maximum assessment. In reality it’s not always that automatic.

For example, in years 3, 4, and 9, you need to appeal to get a reduction in taxes.

It’s always better to start with the lowest tax basis because that affects your maximum tax assessment.

Edit: It didn’t come out right. The 3rd column is the maximum Prop 13 max.

[patientlywaiting]

Here is an example.

Rate 1.20%

Year Assess P13_Max Market Tax
1 500,000 500,000 500,000 6,000
2 510,000 510,000 600,000 6,120
3 500,000 520,200 500,000 6,000
4 400,000 530,604 400,000 4,800
5 450,000 541,216 450,000 5,400
6 500,000 552,040 500,000 6,000
7 550,000 563,081 550,000 6,600
8 574,343 574,343 600,000 6,892
9 570,000 585,830 570,000 6,840
10 597,546 597,546 600,000 7,171

Maximum increase in tax assessment is 2% compounded annually.

You can appeal to market. And assessor can reassess to market or maximum assessment. In reality it’s not always that automatic.

For example, in years 3, 4, and 9, you need to appeal to get a reduction in taxes.

It’s always better to start with the lowest tax basis because that affects your maximum tax assessment.

Edit: It didn’t come out right. The 3rd column is the maximum Prop 13 max.

[patientlywaiting]

Here is an example.

Rate 1.20%

Year Assess P13_Max Market Tax
1 500,000 500,000 500,000 6,000
2 510,000 510,000 600,000 6,120
3 500,000 520,200 500,000 6,000
4 400,000 530,604 400,000 4,800
5 450,000 541,216 450,000 5,400
6 500,000 552,040 500,000 6,000
7 550,000 563,081 550,000 6,600
8 574,343 574,343 600,000 6,892
9 570,000 585,830 570,000 6,840
10 597,546 597,546 600,000 7,171

Maximum increase in tax assessment is 2% compounded annually.

You can appeal to market. And assessor can reassess to market or maximum assessment. In reality it’s not always that automatic.

For example, in years 3, 4, and 9, you need to appeal to get a reduction in taxes.

It’s always better to start with the lowest tax basis because that affects your maximum tax assessment.

Edit: It didn’t come out right. The 3rd column is the maximum Prop 13 max.

[SHILOH]

“I believe that Prop 13 prevents increases in your initial assessment so long as you are the owner. I do not believe you even have to live in the property for this protection.”

Can someone comment more on this…does this mean your taxes are only on the amount you payed — and stays the same every year as long as you own the property? How would the city make any money with inflation?

[SHILOH]

“I believe that Prop 13 prevents increases in your initial assessment so long as you are the owner. I do not believe you even have to live in the property for this protection.”

Can someone comment more on this…does this mean your taxes are only on the amount you payed — and stays the same every year as long as you own the property? How would the city make any money with inflation?

[SHILOH]

“I believe that Prop 13 prevents increases in your initial assessment so long as you are the owner. I do not believe you even have to live in the property for this protection.”

Can someone comment more on this…does this mean your taxes are only on the amount you payed — and stays the same every year as long as you own the property? How would the city make any money with inflation?

[SHILOH]

“I believe that Prop 13 prevents increases in your initial assessment so long as you are the owner. I do not believe you even have to live in the property for this protection.”

Can someone comment more on this…does this mean your taxes are only on the amount you payed — and stays the same every year as long as you own the property? How would the city make any money with inflation?

[noone]

dharmagirl, I’m glad you asked this. I was wondering the same thing a few weeks ago. I found a thread from last year (http://piggington.com/taxes_re_assessed_or_not_after_buying_below_assessed_value) where it was stated pretty matter-of-factly that it would be re-assessed at the new sale price. So I thought I had my answer. But the answers on this thread seem to indicate that the assessor may not necessarily use the new sale price as the new assessed value. I guess that’s why the answers on blogs always require further research.

Maybe a “Steak of the Month” subscription for the assessor will push them in the right direction.

Unless they are vegan…

[CA renter]

From what I understand, Prop 13 limits the assessment to the full cash value of the property when purchased. After purchase, the assessment can go up no more than 2% each and every year (compounded, if I understand correctly).

In addition to the basic property tax, the voters can vote for additional bonds, etc. to be used for local services. Theoretically, this puts revenues for expenditures in the taxpayers’ hands — which I think is 100% correct. If the public can be convinced that there is a REAL need for additional money for schools, infrastructure, etc., they can always vote that in.

FWIW, the confusion about Prop 13 might explain why so many people complain about it. In reality, Prop 13 is one of the best things that could have happened in CA. The history behind it is informative. For those who are new to California, price volatility is the norm here, and Prop 13 was overwhelmingly voted into law to protect people from being “taxed out of their homes” by speculators and housing bubbles.

I’ve always said that buyers should consider total PITI payments when buying. If enough buyers were smart enough to refrain from buying when prices were too high, they could stop complaining about the disparity between what old-timers pay and what new buyers pay. The buyers have no one to blame but themselves — for over-paying in the first place, IMHO.
——————–

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 13A [TAX LIMITATION]

SEC. 2. (a) The “full cash value” means the county assessor’s
valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 tax bill under
“full cash value” or, thereafter, the appraised value of real
property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership
has occurred after the 1975 assessment.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A

more background info:

http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/htTaxSpendLimits2003.html

[CA renter]

From what I understand, Prop 13 limits the assessment to the full cash value of the property when purchased. After purchase, the assessment can go up no more than 2% each and every year (compounded, if I understand correctly).

In addition to the basic property tax, the voters can vote for additional bonds, etc. to be used for local services. Theoretically, this puts revenues for expenditures in the taxpayers’ hands — which I think is 100% correct. If the public can be convinced that there is a REAL need for additional money for schools, infrastructure, etc., they can always vote that in.

FWIW, the confusion about Prop 13 might explain why so many people complain about it. In reality, Prop 13 is one of the best things that could have happened in CA. The history behind it is informative. For those who are new to California, price volatility is the norm here, and Prop 13 was overwhelmingly voted into law to protect people from being “taxed out of their homes” by speculators and housing bubbles.

I’ve always said that buyers should consider total PITI payments when buying. If enough buyers were smart enough to refrain from buying when prices were too high, they could stop complaining about the disparity between what old-timers pay and what new buyers pay. The buyers have no one to blame but themselves — for over-paying in the first place, IMHO.
——————–

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 13A [TAX LIMITATION]

SEC. 2. (a) The “full cash value” means the county assessor’s
valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 tax bill under
“full cash value” or, thereafter, the appraised value of real
property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership
has occurred after the 1975 assessment.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A

more background info:

http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/htTaxSpendLimits2003.html

[CA renter]

From what I understand, Prop 13 limits the assessment to the full cash value of the property when purchased. After purchase, the assessment can go up no more than 2% each and every year (compounded, if I understand correctly).

In addition to the basic property tax, the voters can vote for additional bonds, etc. to be used for local services. Theoretically, this puts revenues for expenditures in the taxpayers’ hands — which I think is 100% correct. If the public can be convinced that there is a REAL need for additional money for schools, infrastructure, etc., they can always vote that in.

FWIW, the confusion about Prop 13 might explain why so many people complain about it. In reality, Prop 13 is one of the best things that could have happened in CA. The history behind it is informative. For those who are new to California, price volatility is the norm here, and Prop 13 was overwhelmingly voted into law to protect people from being “taxed out of their homes” by speculators and housing bubbles.

I’ve always said that buyers should consider total PITI payments when buying. If enough buyers were smart enough to refrain from buying when prices were too high, they could stop complaining about the disparity between what old-timers pay and what new buyers pay. The buyers have no one to blame but themselves — for over-paying in the first place, IMHO.
——————–

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 13A [TAX LIMITATION]

SEC. 2. (a) The “full cash value” means the county assessor’s
valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 tax bill under
“full cash value” or, thereafter, the appraised value of real
property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership
has occurred after the 1975 assessment.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A

more background info:

http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/htTaxSpendLimits2003.html

[CA renter]

From what I understand, Prop 13 limits the assessment to the full cash value of the property when purchased. After purchase, the assessment can go up no more than 2% each and every year (compounded, if I understand correctly).

In addition to the basic property tax, the voters can vote for additional bonds, etc. to be used for local services. Theoretically, this puts revenues for expenditures in the taxpayers’ hands — which I think is 100% correct. If the public can be convinced that there is a REAL need for additional money for schools, infrastructure, etc., they can always vote that in.

FWIW, the confusion about Prop 13 might explain why so many people complain about it. In reality, Prop 13 is one of the best things that could have happened in CA. The history behind it is informative. For those who are new to California, price volatility is the norm here, and Prop 13 was overwhelmingly voted into law to protect people from being “taxed out of their homes” by speculators and housing bubbles.

I’ve always said that buyers should consider total PITI payments when buying. If enough buyers were smart enough to refrain from buying when prices were too high, they could stop complaining about the disparity between what old-timers pay and what new buyers pay. The buyers have no one to blame but themselves — for over-paying in the first place, IMHO.
——————–

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 13A [TAX LIMITATION]

SEC. 2. (a) The “full cash value” means the county assessor’s
valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 tax bill under
“full cash value” or, thereafter, the appraised value of real
property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership
has occurred after the 1975 assessment.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A

more background info:

http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/htTaxSpendLimits2003.html

[CA renter]

From what I understand, Prop 13 limits the assessment to the full cash value of the property when purchased. After purchase, the assessment can go up no more than 2% each and every year (compounded, if I understand correctly).

In addition to the basic property tax, the voters can vote for additional bonds, etc. to be used for local services. Theoretically, this puts revenues for expenditures in the taxpayers’ hands — which I think is 100% correct. If the public can be convinced that there is a REAL need for additional money for schools, infrastructure, etc., they can always vote that in.

FWIW, the confusion about Prop 13 might explain why so many people complain about it. In reality, Prop 13 is one of the best things that could have happened in CA. The history behind it is informative. For those who are new to California, price volatility is the norm here, and Prop 13 was overwhelmingly voted into law to protect people from being “taxed out of their homes” by speculators and housing bubbles.

I’ve always said that buyers should consider total PITI payments when buying. If enough buyers were smart enough to refrain from buying when prices were too high, they could stop complaining about the disparity between what old-timers pay and what new buyers pay. The buyers have no one to blame but themselves — for over-paying in the first place, IMHO.
——————–

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 13A [TAX LIMITATION]

SEC. 2. (a) The “full cash value” means the county assessor’s
valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 tax bill under
“full cash value” or, thereafter, the appraised value of real
property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership
has occurred after the 1975 assessment.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A

more background info:

http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/htTaxSpendLimits2003.html

[temeculaguy]

Only the 1% is based on value, the .2 can be a fixed amount per lot so the tax rate can actually be a higher percentage while still being a lower bill with a lower purchace price.

200k home 1.8 rate=3600 yr (2k for value per prop 13 and 1600 total in voter approved bonds, csa, etc.)

same home sells for 400k a few years later, tax goes up to 4000 for value (1%) but 1600 stays the same for the bonds, etc. so the rate is now less than 1.8 (5600 tax on 400k home more like 1.4)

when it sells for 600k, tax is 7600, guess what 1.2 tax rate, so if it sells as a repo for 300k you want to use the 1.2 to figure the tax at 3600 but that wont be what it ends up, it will be 4600 (3000 for value plus 1600 fixed) so the rate isn’t always constant. prop 13 held taxed to 1% of the value plus any voter approved taxes (by 2/3 vote) above that and mello roos if applicable but they are not always value based, often based per dwelling. In my area, trash is included in property taxes but it is a fixed bill per house not value based, that is one example of fixed additions to the tax bill that can throw off the percentage theory, street lights can be another ($50 a year per house if they have them, free if it is an area that doesn’t have them). It is actually a more fair way to pay, just because you bought your house for more doesn’t mean you should pay more for trash, your share of the street lights or your cut of a school or sewer bond, especially if you don’t have sewer or street lights where you are.

You need to see the actual tax bill itemized to determine how much is value based and how much is fixed, assessor websites can sometime provide that info very easily.

[donaldduckmoore]

Do we have to fill out a form to request the assessor to re-evaluate a home at a new and lower purchase price? If so, what form(s)? What are the procedures? Thanks.

[donaldduckmoore]

Do we have to fill out a form to request the assessor to re-evaluate a home at a new and lower purchase price? If so, what form(s)? What are the procedures? Thanks.

[donaldduckmoore]

Do we have to fill out a form to request the assessor to re-evaluate a home at a new and lower purchase price? If so, what form(s)? What are the procedures? Thanks.

[donaldduckmoore]

Do we have to fill out a form to request the assessor to re-evaluate a home at a new and lower purchase price? If so, what form(s)? What are the procedures? Thanks.

[donaldduckmoore]

Do we have to fill out a form to request the assessor to re-evaluate a home at a new and lower purchase price? If so, what form(s)? What are the procedures? Thanks.

[temeculaguy]

Only the 1% is based on value, the .2 can be a fixed amount per lot so the tax rate can actually be a higher percentage while still being a lower bill with a lower purchace price.

200k home 1.8 rate=3600 yr (2k for value per prop 13 and 1600 total in voter approved bonds, csa, etc.)

same home sells for 400k a few years later, tax goes up to 4000 for value (1%) but 1600 stays the same for the bonds, etc. so the rate is now less than 1.8 (5600 tax on 400k home more like 1.4)

when it sells for 600k, tax is 7600, guess what 1.2 tax rate, so if it sells as a repo for 300k you want to use the 1.2 to figure the tax at 3600 but that wont be what it ends up, it will be 4600 (3000 for value plus 1600 fixed) so the rate isn’t always constant. prop 13 held taxed to 1% of the value plus any voter approved taxes (by 2/3 vote) above that and mello roos if applicable but they are not always value based, often based per dwelling. In my area, trash is included in property taxes but it is a fixed bill per house not value based, that is one example of fixed additions to the tax bill that can throw off the percentage theory, street lights can be another ($50 a year per house if they have them, free if it is an area that doesn’t have them). It is actually a more fair way to pay, just because you bought your house for more doesn’t mean you should pay more for trash, your share of the street lights or your cut of a school or sewer bond, especially if you don’t have sewer or street lights where you are.

You need to see the actual tax bill itemized to determine how much is value based and how much is fixed, assessor websites can sometime provide that info very easily.

[temeculaguy]

Only the 1% is based on value, the .2 can be a fixed amount per lot so the tax rate can actually be a higher percentage while still being a lower bill with a lower purchace price.

200k home 1.8 rate=3600 yr (2k for value per prop 13 and 1600 total in voter approved bonds, csa, etc.)

same home sells for 400k a few years later, tax goes up to 4000 for value (1%) but 1600 stays the same for the bonds, etc. so the rate is now less than 1.8 (5600 tax on 400k home more like 1.4)

when it sells for 600k, tax is 7600, guess what 1.2 tax rate, so if it sells as a repo for 300k you want to use the 1.2 to figure the tax at 3600 but that wont be what it ends up, it will be 4600 (3000 for value plus 1600 fixed) so the rate isn’t always constant. prop 13 held taxed to 1% of the value plus any voter approved taxes (by 2/3 vote) above that and mello roos if applicable but they are not always value based, often based per dwelling. In my area, trash is included in property taxes but it is a fixed bill per house not value based, that is one example of fixed additions to the tax bill that can throw off the percentage theory, street lights can be another ($50 a year per house if they have them, free if it is an area that doesn’t have them). It is actually a more fair way to pay, just because you bought your house for more doesn’t mean you should pay more for trash, your share of the street lights or your cut of a school or sewer bond, especially if you don’t have sewer or street lights where you are.

You need to see the actual tax bill itemized to determine how much is value based and how much is fixed, assessor websites can sometime provide that info very easily.

[temeculaguy]

Only the 1% is based on value, the .2 can be a fixed amount per lot so the tax rate can actually be a higher percentage while still being a lower bill with a lower purchace price.

200k home 1.8 rate=3600 yr (2k for value per prop 13 and 1600 total in voter approved bonds, csa, etc.)

same home sells for 400k a few years later, tax goes up to 4000 for value (1%) but 1600 stays the same for the bonds, etc. so the rate is now less than 1.8 (5600 tax on 400k home more like 1.4)

when it sells for 600k, tax is 7600, guess what 1.2 tax rate, so if it sells as a repo for 300k you want to use the 1.2 to figure the tax at 3600 but that wont be what it ends up, it will be 4600 (3000 for value plus 1600 fixed) so the rate isn’t always constant. prop 13 held taxed to 1% of the value plus any voter approved taxes (by 2/3 vote) above that and mello roos if applicable but they are not always value based, often based per dwelling. In my area, trash is included in property taxes but it is a fixed bill per house not value based, that is one example of fixed additions to the tax bill that can throw off the percentage theory, street lights can be another ($50 a year per house if they have them, free if it is an area that doesn’t have them). It is actually a more fair way to pay, just because you bought your house for more doesn’t mean you should pay more for trash, your share of the street lights or your cut of a school or sewer bond, especially if you don’t have sewer or street lights where you are.

You need to see the actual tax bill itemized to determine how much is value based and how much is fixed, assessor websites can sometime provide that info very easily.

[temeculaguy]

Only the 1% is based on value, the .2 can be a fixed amount per lot so the tax rate can actually be a higher percentage while still being a lower bill with a lower purchace price.

200k home 1.8 rate=3600 yr (2k for value per prop 13 and 1600 total in voter approved bonds, csa, etc.)

same home sells for 400k a few years later, tax goes up to 4000 for value (1%) but 1600 stays the same for the bonds, etc. so the rate is now less than 1.8 (5600 tax on 400k home more like 1.4)

when it sells for 600k, tax is 7600, guess what 1.2 tax rate, so if it sells as a repo for 300k you want to use the 1.2 to figure the tax at 3600 but that wont be what it ends up, it will be 4600 (3000 for value plus 1600 fixed) so the rate isn’t always constant. prop 13 held taxed to 1% of the value plus any voter approved taxes (by 2/3 vote) above that and mello roos if applicable but they are not always value based, often based per dwelling. In my area, trash is included in property taxes but it is a fixed bill per house not value based, that is one example of fixed additions to the tax bill that can throw off the percentage theory, street lights can be another ($50 a year per house if they have them, free if it is an area that doesn’t have them). It is actually a more fair way to pay, just because you bought your house for more doesn’t mean you should pay more for trash, your share of the street lights or your cut of a school or sewer bond, especially if you don’t have sewer or street lights where you are.

You need to see the actual tax bill itemized to determine how much is value based and how much is fixed, assessor websites can sometime provide that info very easily.

[noone]

dharmagirl, I’m glad you asked this. I was wondering the same thing a few weeks ago. I found a thread from last year (http://piggington.com/taxes_re_assessed_or_not_after_buying_below_assessed_value) where it was stated pretty matter-of-factly that it would be re-assessed at the new sale price. So I thought I had my answer. But the answers on this thread seem to indicate that the assessor may not necessarily use the new sale price as the new assessed value. I guess that’s why the answers on blogs always require further research.

Maybe a “Steak of the Month” subscription for the assessor will push them in the right direction.

Unless they are vegan…

[noone]

dharmagirl, I’m glad you asked this. I was wondering the same thing a few weeks ago. I found a thread from last year (http://piggington.com/taxes_re_assessed_or_not_after_buying_below_assessed_value) where it was stated pretty matter-of-factly that it would be re-assessed at the new sale price. So I thought I had my answer. But the answers on this thread seem to indicate that the assessor may not necessarily use the new sale price as the new assessed value. I guess that’s why the answers on blogs always require further research.

Maybe a “Steak of the Month” subscription for the assessor will push them in the right direction.

Unless they are vegan…

[noone]

dharmagirl, I’m glad you asked this. I was wondering the same thing a few weeks ago. I found a thread from last year (http://piggington.com/taxes_re_assessed_or_not_after_buying_below_assessed_value) where it was stated pretty matter-of-factly that it would be re-assessed at the new sale price. So I thought I had my answer. But the answers on this thread seem to indicate that the assessor may not necessarily use the new sale price as the new assessed value. I guess that’s why the answers on blogs always require further research.

Maybe a “Steak of the Month” subscription for the assessor will push them in the right direction.

Unless they are vegan…

[noone]

dharmagirl, I’m glad you asked this. I was wondering the same thing a few weeks ago. I found a thread from last year (http://piggington.com/taxes_re_assessed_or_not_after_buying_below_assessed_value) where it was stated pretty matter-of-factly that it would be re-assessed at the new sale price. So I thought I had my answer. But the answers on this thread seem to indicate that the assessor may not necessarily use the new sale price as the new assessed value. I guess that’s why the answers on blogs always require further research.

Maybe a “Steak of the Month” subscription for the assessor will push them in the right direction.

Unless they are vegan…

[noone]

dharmagirl, I’m glad you asked this. I was wondering the same thing a few weeks ago. I found a thread from last year (http://piggington.com/taxes_re_assessed_or_not_after_buying_below_assessed_value) where it was stated pretty matter-of-factly that it would be re-assessed at the new sale price. So I thought I had my answer. But the answers on this thread seem to indicate that the assessor may not necessarily use the new sale price as the new assessed value. I guess that’s why the answers on blogs always require further research.

Maybe a “Steak of the Month” subscription for the assessor will push them in the right direction.

Unless they are vegan…

[Author]

Posts