Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › UT: Dip in property-tax defaults delights county’s collector
- This topic has 30 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 9 months ago by
propertysearchaddiction.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 6, 2009 at 9:34 AM #16146August 6, 2009 at 10:40 AM #441570
lookingagain
ParticipantPencil,
As I read this, the amount of taxes in default has tripled since 2005, not the total amount of property taxes collected. At $168 million, that is just a bit over $3000 per default.
August 6, 2009 at 10:40 AM #441767ParticipantPencil,
As I read this, the amount of taxes in default has tripled since 2005, not the total amount of property taxes collected. At $168 million, that is just a bit over $3000 per default.
August 6, 2009 at 10:40 AM #442100ParticipantPencil,
As I read this, the amount of taxes in default has tripled since 2005, not the total amount of property taxes collected. At $168 million, that is just a bit over $3000 per default.
August 6, 2009 at 10:40 AM #442169ParticipantPencil,
As I read this, the amount of taxes in default has tripled since 2005, not the total amount of property taxes collected. At $168 million, that is just a bit over $3000 per default.
August 6, 2009 at 10:40 AM #442345ParticipantPencil,
As I read this, the amount of taxes in default has tripled since 2005, not the total amount of property taxes collected. At $168 million, that is just a bit over $3000 per default.
August 6, 2009 at 11:04 AM #441590BGinRB
Participant[quote=pencilneck]UT: Dip in property-tax defaults delights county’s collector
http://tiny.cc/JbEClDid anyone see this article in today’s UT? I’m baffled by the increase in the amounts of tax due. I’m wondering if anyone could help explain how property taxes due more than tripled since 2005?
These figures don’t include outstanding dues from prior years which would have been my first guess.
Also, remember those blaming California’s budget woes on prop. 13? Farcical.
As of | Amount due | Percent | July 1 (in millions) late
2009: $168 |.43 | 3.7
2008: $168 |.63 | 3.8
2007: $112 | .9 | 2.8
2006: $71 | .3 | 2.0
2005: $50 | .8 | 1.6[/quote]
The chart is messed up.
It should look like this:
As of | Amount due | Percent
2009 | $168.4 | 3.7
2008 | $168.6 | 3.8
2007 | $112.9 | 2.8
2006 | $71.3 | 2.0
2005 | $50.8 | 1.6David Butler is one of my favorites. What was that thing about getting a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it?
In Butler’s case make it a double.August 6, 2009 at 11:04 AM #441787Participant[quote=pencilneck]UT: Dip in property-tax defaults delights county’s collector
http://tiny.cc/JbEClDid anyone see this article in today’s UT? I’m baffled by the increase in the amounts of tax due. I’m wondering if anyone could help explain how property taxes due more than tripled since 2005?
These figures don’t include outstanding dues from prior years which would have been my first guess.
Also, remember those blaming California’s budget woes on prop. 13? Farcical.
As of | Amount due | Percent | July 1 (in millions) late
2009: $168 |.43 | 3.7
2008: $168 |.63 | 3.8
2007: $112 | .9 | 2.8
2006: $71 | .3 | 2.0
2005: $50 | .8 | 1.6[/quote]
The chart is messed up.
It should look like this:
As of | Amount due | Percent
2009 | $168.4 | 3.7
2008 | $168.6 | 3.8
2007 | $112.9 | 2.8
2006 | $71.3 | 2.0
2005 | $50.8 | 1.6David Butler is one of my favorites. What was that thing about getting a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it?
In Butler’s case make it a double.August 6, 2009 at 11:04 AM #442120Participant[quote=pencilneck]UT: Dip in property-tax defaults delights county’s collector
http://tiny.cc/JbEClDid anyone see this article in today’s UT? I’m baffled by the increase in the amounts of tax due. I’m wondering if anyone could help explain how property taxes due more than tripled since 2005?
These figures don’t include outstanding dues from prior years which would have been my first guess.
Also, remember those blaming California’s budget woes on prop. 13? Farcical.
As of | Amount due | Percent | July 1 (in millions) late
2009: $168 |.43 | 3.7
2008: $168 |.63 | 3.8
2007: $112 | .9 | 2.8
2006: $71 | .3 | 2.0
2005: $50 | .8 | 1.6[/quote]
The chart is messed up.
It should look like this:
As of | Amount due | Percent
2009 | $168.4 | 3.7
2008 | $168.6 | 3.8
2007 | $112.9 | 2.8
2006 | $71.3 | 2.0
2005 | $50.8 | 1.6David Butler is one of my favorites. What was that thing about getting a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it?
In Butler’s case make it a double.August 6, 2009 at 11:04 AM #442189Participant[quote=pencilneck]UT: Dip in property-tax defaults delights county’s collector
http://tiny.cc/JbEClDid anyone see this article in today’s UT? I’m baffled by the increase in the amounts of tax due. I’m wondering if anyone could help explain how property taxes due more than tripled since 2005?
These figures don’t include outstanding dues from prior years which would have been my first guess.
Also, remember those blaming California’s budget woes on prop. 13? Farcical.
As of | Amount due | Percent | July 1 (in millions) late
2009: $168 |.43 | 3.7
2008: $168 |.63 | 3.8
2007: $112 | .9 | 2.8
2006: $71 | .3 | 2.0
2005: $50 | .8 | 1.6[/quote]
The chart is messed up.
It should look like this:
As of | Amount due | Percent
2009 | $168.4 | 3.7
2008 | $168.6 | 3.8
2007 | $112.9 | 2.8
2006 | $71.3 | 2.0
2005 | $50.8 | 1.6David Butler is one of my favorites. What was that thing about getting a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it?
In Butler’s case make it a double.August 6, 2009 at 11:04 AM #442365Participant[quote=pencilneck]UT: Dip in property-tax defaults delights county’s collector
http://tiny.cc/JbEClDid anyone see this article in today’s UT? I’m baffled by the increase in the amounts of tax due. I’m wondering if anyone could help explain how property taxes due more than tripled since 2005?
These figures don’t include outstanding dues from prior years which would have been my first guess.
Also, remember those blaming California’s budget woes on prop. 13? Farcical.
As of | Amount due | Percent | July 1 (in millions) late
2009: $168 |.43 | 3.7
2008: $168 |.63 | 3.8
2007: $112 | .9 | 2.8
2006: $71 | .3 | 2.0
2005: $50 | .8 | 1.6[/quote]
The chart is messed up.
It should look like this:
As of | Amount due | Percent
2009 | $168.4 | 3.7
2008 | $168.6 | 3.8
2007 | $112.9 | 2.8
2006 | $71.3 | 2.0
2005 | $50.8 | 1.6David Butler is one of my favorites. What was that thing about getting a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it?
In Butler’s case make it a double.August 6, 2009 at 2:25 PM #441656pencilneck
ParticipantThanks, I get it now.
Actual revenue is only up 43% over 5 years, not 300%.
August 6, 2009 at 2:25 PM #441854ParticipantThanks, I get it now.
Actual revenue is only up 43% over 5 years, not 300%.
August 6, 2009 at 2:25 PM #442187ParticipantThanks, I get it now.
Actual revenue is only up 43% over 5 years, not 300%.
August 6, 2009 at 2:25 PM #442257ParticipantThanks, I get it now.
Actual revenue is only up 43% over 5 years, not 300%.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.