I was right. It was James T. who tried to straighten you out on this subject a few weeks ago.

James T. wrote:

Russ wrote:

You are not hearing what I am saying.

(Assessed taxable value) X (Mill levy) = (Money raised)

A Mill levy is often voted on, discussed, public meetings are held, etc., etc.

In order to raise more, then, it becomes necessary to raise the assessed taxable value of the district, county, whatever. This is NOT voted upon, it is in the hands of the assessor, who sends out a notice AND may very well dance to the pressures from the government entity that is spending the money.


The taxing entity doesn't care what either the mill levy or the assessed values are, because their only variable is total revenue raised. The mill levy becomes whatever it needs to become to give them the revenue they want. The following is from the state's website on property taxes and truth in taxation:

http://propertytax.utah.gov/about/truth.html

The "Truth in Taxation" law imposed specific public notice and public hearing requirements that are triggered when a taxing entity proposes to increase its property tax revenues (not rates) above those collected in the previous year (tax revenues generated by "new growth" in an entity's tax base are exempt from the disclosure requirements). The public hearings are required to to allow elected officials to explain the reasons for the proposed increase and allow citizens to comment on any proposed increase.

Utah's "Truth in Taxation" laws are revenue-driven, not rate-driven. That means the requirement to hold a "Truth in Taxation" hearing is based upon the collections of a taxing entity, not the rate charged. Utah law requires "Truth in Taxation" hearings to be held when a taxing entity elects to collect more revenue than was collected the previous year, although the entities are permitted to keep revenues generated by "new growth" -- such as value added to the tax rolls from a new subdivision or a new business.

Because "Truth in Taxation" is revenue-based, a hearing may still be required if an entity's tax rate remains unchanged or even declines. For example, if property values increase 10 percent as the result of reappraisal, but a taxing entity does not lower its rate proportionately, it must advertise and hold a "Truth in Taxation" hearing. The hearing is required because the increase in value is not considered new growth.

I don't know what else to say...


For anyone reading this thread, please realize that Russ really has no idea what he's talking about or he is being deliberately misleading. I would urge caution when listening to what he has to say, especially regarding property taxes.

Are you willing to buy a piece of property based on the taxable value? I think not. BECAUSE you know that it is not worth that value.

How do you plan on doing your retirement planning, not having any idea what will happen in the next few years that might affect your taxable value? Or is it that you plan on doing as you have suggested, i.e. getting "relief" and letting the rest of us pay the taxes, while you get off without doing the same?

Yes, I have posted on this issue before. BECAUSE it is a better way. Or are you one of the auditors that would be out of a job if we chose to go that way?

I am really glad that you are so willing to discuss the merits of the issue!

Sheesh....

Does everyone that disagrees with you, or comes up with a different angle than you and actually believe would be more fair automatically get the treatment you are dishing out? I suspect so.

Tell you what, are you willing to make up the difference between the taxable value and the actual selling price on the next few purchases on real estate that happen in the county? Shouldn't be a problem for you, should it, seeing as you seem to believe that it is a realistic value.

Tell you what. I will knock $10,000 OFF the taxable price of my property if you will buy it for the taxable value, less the $10,000 of course. How can you lose on a deal like that? We BOTH will be tickled! How about that? You should be able to turn it around and make an easy profit on it! What a deal for you!

You won't of course, BECAUSE you know darn well that the taxable value, as manipulated by the politicans, IS NOT the real value of the property and in fact, may have no relation what so ever to the true value of the property. We don't need some guessing game for the value of property.

Yes, there are appeal processes in place. Yes there are abatements in place AND how are they fair? Why have them at all?

My question is why should all that be necessary? I KNOW for a fact what I paid. On the other hand, I HAVE NO IDEA what the next appraised value is going to be. Nor do you. Putting up with some guessing game in regard to the value of the property is just plain foolishness.

Russ wrote:

Are you willing to buy a piece of property based on the taxable value? I think not. BECAUSE you know that it is not worth that value.


Come on Russ. Stop with the red herrings and non sequiturs. Of course I'd be willing to buy a piece of property based on the taxable value . . . if I thought the taxable value was less than the current market value. I guarantee you there are probably just as many properties out there valued below their current market value as there are those that are valued too high.

How do you plan on doing your retirement planning, not having any idea what will happen in the next few years that might affect your taxable value? Or is it that you plan on doing as you have suggested, i.e. getting "relief" and letting the rest of us pay the taxes, while you get off without doing the same?

Another non sequitur. If your entire retirement plan can be thrown out of wack by even a 100% increase in property taxes over what they are today then you need to get a new plan(ner).

Tax relief is available as a safety net for those whose retirements don't go as planned. Nothing is guaranteed Russ. We need to have a plan in place so that people aren't forced out of their homes. I thought you cared about that. But apparently, you'd rather just use it as an issue when it serves your agenda. In reality, you'd have people suffer before allowing them to pay less than you, however, if you pay less than everyone else, that's okay.

Yes, I have posted on this issue before. BECAUSE it is a better way. Or are you one of the auditors that would be out of a job if we chose to go that way?

It is not a better way because it is not equitable. Nice try attacking me though . . . maybe you should try defending your logic since it is so obviously failing.

I am really glad that you are so willing to discuss the merits of the issue!

Sheesh....

Excuse me? I am discussing it. You have not refuted one point I have made. Am I wrong about how property taxes are currently calculated? Am I wrong that you already have a grievance process if you think your valuation is too high? Am I wrong in saying that it is not fair to tax one person a lot less than another on two houses that for all intents and purposes are worth the same amount? Am I wrong in inferring that you are selfish and only want a plan that suits you better?

Please Russ, stop with non sequiturs and personal attacks and tell me where I've been wrong in this thread.

Does everyone that disagrees with you, or comes up with a different angle than you and actually believe would be more fair automatically get the treatment you are dishing out? I suspect so.

If they clearly have no idea what they are talking about and won't listen to people when they tell them, then yes, they do. James T. tried to tell you how far off base you were about this topic, but you didn't listen and are still spewing the same misguided information. One might even say that since you have been informed before that you are now blatantly lying.

Tell you what, are you willing to make up the difference between the taxable value and the actual selling price on the next few purchases on real estate that happen in the county? Shouldn't be a problem for you, should it, seeing as you seem to believe that it is a realistic value.

That doesn't even make sense Russ. As I said before, there are plenty of properties selling for much more than the current taxable value. I guess you'd be willing to take the difference back on those, eh Russ?

Tell you what. I will knock $10,000 OFF the taxable price of my property if you will buy it for the taxable value, less the $10,000 of course. How can you lose on a deal like that? We BOTH will be tickled! How about that? You should be able to turn it around and make an easy profit on it! What a deal for you!

Russ, you're not listening. You have a way to appeal the valuation on your house. Stop being an idiot and appeal the f***ing valuation!

You won't of course, BECAUSE you know darn well that the taxable value, as manipulated by the politicans, IS NOT the real value of the property and in fact, may have no relation what so ever to the true value of the property. We don't need some guessing game for the value of property.

Russ, you're clearly not thinking straight. Are mistakes made? Of course they are. That's why we have a grievance process.

Yes, there are appeal processes in place. Yes there are abatements in place AND how are they fair? Why have them at all?

Because that is what is fair and just. Personally, I like living in a society that tries to do what is best for everyone, not just selfish individuals such as yourself.

My question is why should all that be necessary? I KNOW for a fact what I paid. On the other hand, I HAVE NO IDEA what the next appraised value is going to be. Nor do you. Putting up with some guessing game in regard to the value of the property is just plain foolishness.

You just don't get it, do you? Appraising property is not a guessing game. We hire professional people who have a variety of methods to hopefully come up with an accurate valuation.

And no, I am not in the appraisal business, I'm not an assessor or an "auditor" and I don't work for the county. I'm just a regular guy who's trying to figure out how another apparently regular guy could have so little clue about property taxes yet continues to think he's so g*d da*ned smart.

Russ wrote:


Does everyone that disagrees with you, or comes up with a different angle than you and actually believe would be more fair automatically get the treatment you are dishing out? I suspect so.



I'm sorry if you feel like I'm attacking you Russ. But property taxes are a hot button issue these days and people need to realize that your understanding of property tax assessments is incorrect and any opinion and analysis based upon that faulty information is just not credible.

Come on, you two. What difference does the process make? As long as it is equal across the board in the way property is evaluated for taxes and everyone gets the same treatment, then in the long run it won't matter. It will all come out in the end as being fair.

Russ seems to have one favorable point. We could save a fair bundle by eliminating a bunch of auditors. That makes some sense to me. I am all for less government costs.

WatchDog wrote:

Come on, you two. What difference does the process make? As long as it is equal across the board in the way property is evaluated for taxes and everyone gets the same treatment, then in the long run it won't matter. It will all come out in the end as being fair.

Russ seems to have one favorable point. We could save a fair bundle by eliminating a bunch of auditors. That makes some sense to me. I am all for less government costs.


Russ' "favorable point" is based on valuing property only when it is sold. Do you think that is being "equal across the board in the way property is evalutated for taxes?" I certainly don't.