[pencilneck]

I think part of this depends on the improvements.

It seems to me that the property should be assessed more or less as it was when the property changed hands. $80k in improvements shouldn’t be a part of the original assessment.

Unless the $80k in improvements were new construction (or of an extent that would trigger reassessment). If you added to the house, then yes the addition should be assessed at fair market value. $80k in construction could easily raise the fair market value more than $80k. Although it still seems unlikely that $80k in construction would add $350k in value.

Keep in mind that I know next to nothing about appraisals or tax law. Just enough to get myself into trouble.

[pencilneck]

I think part of this depends on the improvements.

It seems to me that the property should be assessed more or less as it was when the property changed hands. $80k in improvements shouldn’t be a part of the original assessment.

Unless the $80k in improvements were new construction (or of an extent that would trigger reassessment). If you added to the house, then yes the addition should be assessed at fair market value. $80k in construction could easily raise the fair market value more than $80k. Although it still seems unlikely that $80k in construction would add $350k in value.

Keep in mind that I know next to nothing about appraisals or tax law. Just enough to get myself into trouble.

[pencilneck]

I think part of this depends on the improvements.

It seems to me that the property should be assessed more or less as it was when the property changed hands. $80k in improvements shouldn’t be a part of the original assessment.

Unless the $80k in improvements were new construction (or of an extent that would trigger reassessment). If you added to the house, then yes the addition should be assessed at fair market value. $80k in construction could easily raise the fair market value more than $80k. Although it still seems unlikely that $80k in construction would add $350k in value.

Keep in mind that I know next to nothing about appraisals or tax law. Just enough to get myself into trouble.

[pencilneck]

I think part of this depends on the improvements.

It seems to me that the property should be assessed more or less as it was when the property changed hands. $80k in improvements shouldn’t be a part of the original assessment.

Unless the $80k in improvements were new construction (or of an extent that would trigger reassessment). If you added to the house, then yes the addition should be assessed at fair market value. $80k in construction could easily raise the fair market value more than $80k. Although it still seems unlikely that $80k in construction would add $350k in value.

Keep in mind that I know next to nothing about appraisals or tax law. Just enough to get myself into trouble.

[pencilneck]

http://www.downtownsandiegoproperties.com/property_tax.htm

County chart at bottom of link

City of Poway = 1.08567%

[pencilneck]

http://www.downtownsandiegoproperties.com/property_tax.htm

County chart at bottom of link

City of Poway = 1.08567%

[pencilneck]

http://www.downtownsandiegoproperties.com/property_tax.htm

County chart at bottom of link

City of Poway = 1.08567%

[pencilneck]

http://www.downtownsandiegoproperties.com/property_tax.htm

County chart at bottom of link

City of Poway = 1.08567%

[pencilneck]

http://www.downtownsandiegoproperties.com/property_tax.htm

County chart at bottom of link

City of Poway = 1.08567%

[pencilneck]

Doug Noland’s latest puts a good perspective on this inflation/deflation discussion:

“And I find myself increasingly frustrated by the ongoing “inflation vs. deflation debate.” With today’s low level of consumer price inflation, those arguing that deflationary forces are the paramount systemic risk now dominate policy dialogue. Most tend to be inflationists. Most argue for additional stimulus and see little risk in such activist policymaking.

I see risks altogether differently. We are in the late-phase of a multi-decade historic Credit Bubble. The greatest risk at this point is that massive issuance of non-productive governmental debt foments a crisis of confidence at the very heart of our monetary system. The top priority must be to ensure that such a devastating outcome is avoided – and at significant unavoidable cost. It is imperative that we as a nation come to the recognition that real financial and economic pain must be endured to protect the long-term viability of our monetary system. The inflation rate is not the key issue. And efforts to try to inflate our way out of structural debt problems are a lost cause. We must instead move forcefully to rein in our deficits and avoid further debt monetization in order to protect the soundness of our money and Credit – or else risk a financial crash.”

http://www.safehaven.com/article/17675/quantitative-easing-two

[pencilneck]

Doug Noland’s latest puts a good perspective on this inflation/deflation discussion:

“And I find myself increasingly frustrated by the ongoing “inflation vs. deflation debate.” With today’s low level of consumer price inflation, those arguing that deflationary forces are the paramount systemic risk now dominate policy dialogue. Most tend to be inflationists. Most argue for additional stimulus and see little risk in such activist policymaking.

I see risks altogether differently. We are in the late-phase of a multi-decade historic Credit Bubble. The greatest risk at this point is that massive issuance of non-productive governmental debt foments a crisis of confidence at the very heart of our monetary system. The top priority must be to ensure that such a devastating outcome is avoided – and at significant unavoidable cost. It is imperative that we as a nation come to the recognition that real financial and economic pain must be endured to protect the long-term viability of our monetary system. The inflation rate is not the key issue. And efforts to try to inflate our way out of structural debt problems are a lost cause. We must instead move forcefully to rein in our deficits and avoid further debt monetization in order to protect the soundness of our money and Credit – or else risk a financial crash.”

http://www.safehaven.com/article/17675/quantitative-easing-two

[pencilneck]

Doug Noland’s latest puts a good perspective on this inflation/deflation discussion:

“And I find myself increasingly frustrated by the ongoing “inflation vs. deflation debate.” With today’s low level of consumer price inflation, those arguing that deflationary forces are the paramount systemic risk now dominate policy dialogue. Most tend to be inflationists. Most argue for additional stimulus and see little risk in such activist policymaking.

I see risks altogether differently. We are in the late-phase of a multi-decade historic Credit Bubble. The greatest risk at this point is that massive issuance of non-productive governmental debt foments a crisis of confidence at the very heart of our monetary system. The top priority must be to ensure that such a devastating outcome is avoided – and at significant unavoidable cost. It is imperative that we as a nation come to the recognition that real financial and economic pain must be endured to protect the long-term viability of our monetary system. The inflation rate is not the key issue. And efforts to try to inflate our way out of structural debt problems are a lost cause. We must instead move forcefully to rein in our deficits and avoid further debt monetization in order to protect the soundness of our money and Credit – or else risk a financial crash.”

http://www.safehaven.com/article/17675/quantitative-easing-two

[pencilneck]

Doug Noland’s latest puts a good perspective on this inflation/deflation discussion:

“And I find myself increasingly frustrated by the ongoing “inflation vs. deflation debate.” With today’s low level of consumer price inflation, those arguing that deflationary forces are the paramount systemic risk now dominate policy dialogue. Most tend to be inflationists. Most argue for additional stimulus and see little risk in such activist policymaking.

I see risks altogether differently. We are in the late-phase of a multi-decade historic Credit Bubble. The greatest risk at this point is that massive issuance of non-productive governmental debt foments a crisis of confidence at the very heart of our monetary system. The top priority must be to ensure that such a devastating outcome is avoided – and at significant unavoidable cost. It is imperative that we as a nation come to the recognition that real financial and economic pain must be endured to protect the long-term viability of our monetary system. The inflation rate is not the key issue. And efforts to try to inflate our way out of structural debt problems are a lost cause. We must instead move forcefully to rein in our deficits and avoid further debt monetization in order to protect the soundness of our money and Credit – or else risk a financial crash.”

http://www.safehaven.com/article/17675/quantitative-easing-two

[pencilneck]

Doug Noland’s latest puts a good perspective on this inflation/deflation discussion:

“And I find myself increasingly frustrated by the ongoing “inflation vs. deflation debate.” With today’s low level of consumer price inflation, those arguing that deflationary forces are the paramount systemic risk now dominate policy dialogue. Most tend to be inflationists. Most argue for additional stimulus and see little risk in such activist policymaking.

I see risks altogether differently. We are in the late-phase of a multi-decade historic Credit Bubble. The greatest risk at this point is that massive issuance of non-productive governmental debt foments a crisis of confidence at the very heart of our monetary system. The top priority must be to ensure that such a devastating outcome is avoided – and at significant unavoidable cost. It is imperative that we as a nation come to the recognition that real financial and economic pain must be endured to protect the long-term viability of our monetary system. The inflation rate is not the key issue. And efforts to try to inflate our way out of structural debt problems are a lost cause. We must instead move forcefully to rein in our deficits and avoid further debt monetization in order to protect the soundness of our money and Credit – or else risk a financial crash.”

http://www.safehaven.com/article/17675/quantitative-easing-two

[pencilneck]

To the best of my knowledge, Jesus never condemned homosexuality.

In at least one passage he condemned marriage in general. He preached a lot of loving your neighbor and all that. We christians tend to ignore that silly old book when it suits us.

[Author]

Posts