Wow! If I didn't know any better, I'd swear you were my husband writing this post. I'm always on his butt with it's time to move before the drug turf wars and shooting starts. And I live in one of the better areas of the city. I understand the city wanting to collect more taxes for these over-inflated properties. But what about the owners that didn't buy at those prices and have lived in the neighborhood before the gentrification began. It may sound great that they can now sell their home for mega bucks (much more than they paid for it). But what if they had no intentions of selling - that this was the home they had planned on spending the rest of their lives in? They may have bought the house because it's what they could afford at the time. But now they can't afford to stay there because of the taxes. Yeah, they will have to put the house up for sale and make those big bucks from said sale. But now any profits they made have to go into paying back taxes they may owe, moving expenses, and another place to live. And, even for what you get for some of these properties, it still might not be enough to buy a decent home in a decent neighborhood. Remember, housing prices are shooting up all over the country. Also, what happens when the property values come tumbling down? Is the city going to lower our taxes? Seriously doubt it!

Completely agreed. And, even if you can afford to pay 2% of what your house would really sell for, would any potential buyer? I live in an expanded trinity that occupies 551 square feet of land with a building square footage of 912 (per city records). The three most recent sales on the street are in the $350k range.

Is it realistic to expect anyone to pay SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS in taxes on such a small space, even if that's what market value dictates? People would look at that house and that tax bill, and laugh. The $350k market value would become $140k overnight. And, guess what, then my tax bill would be back to exactly what it is now! ($2,800.)

I would really like to see building and land square footage built into tax assessments. Use market value as a base and make adjustments based on building and land square footage. IMO, someone in the far northeast with a 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom, 2300 s.f. house worth $350k deserves to pay more taxes than someone in Center City with a 2 bedroom, 1 bathroom house worth $350k. The person with the larger house and more land is more likely to use the school system and more likely to require additional city services (trash, etc.).

As an upper-middle income professional, I understand that I need to bear more of the burden, despite being a single person with no kids who puts out one tiny bag of trash per week. But how much of the burden does the city want me to carry? I challenge anyone to say that my 900 s.f. trinity is a "luxury" home or that $7,000 would be a "fair" tax burden.

It's funny, just today I had to take a drive out to Skippack and ended up spending an hour drinving around the burbs. In the daytime, it really is pretty nice out there. At night, it's still a little dull. The wifey took the day off so when I got back I had to tell her again that the burbs are starting to sing that siren song. If there was only a way I could afford to dip my toe in the burbs, keep the city house and try the burbs, I'd already likely be long gone. I tried that long ago when I was single and ended up fleeing the boredom of the burbs like a bat out of hell, but now it's very different. Anyway . . .

I agree with your thought about long time residents, but I have identical concerns about short timers. There are plenty of young couples and families in my neighborhood that paid a pretty penny for their homes, but that doesn't mean they have piles of cash laying around with which to pay a huge property tax increase.

Lots of people have suggested that getting a home equity loan is somehow an answer. Great idea, except a home equity loan is no different from any other type of loan, i.e., you actually do have to make the payments. A loan is a loan and just 'cause some can borrow a ton of money using equity as collateral, it's still just a loan that has to be paid every month.

Lots of people have suggested that long term residents can cash out -- and as you point out -- then what, die so they don't need another place to live? All homes cost more. Sell one and buy another is zero sum unless you move to a crappier neighborhood or a crappier house. Not a solution in my book.

Somebody even talked about reverse mortgages -- only appropriate when you are at least 62. By that time, the tax relief for seniors that is sure to be enacted will already protect.

Bottom line is if you are a typical middle class family or couple making a "fixed income" paycheck, you are in for a world of hurt unless we all get together and tell city government in no uncertain terms that we will not stand for more outrageous tax increases. Anyone can manage a city when you view its residents and (dwindling) businesses as a way to just print more money. Tough choices have to be made and tough choices have to be implemented.

Write your councilperson; let him/her know that fiscal responsibility is a criticial issue and your vote is riding on it. If enough people do that and really do follow through on election day, they will listen. Or else their successor will.

Excellant! Great observation...I mean..there will be many affected by the tac increase.....so we shold just tell them to sell and look elsewhere It's just not fair..

__________________


Obama for President
Biden for VP

You're ignoring the fact that revenue from the wage tax has been increasing, even as the rate decreases, because more people with higher incomes are paying it. You're also ignoring the fact that, according to the city's budget in brief statement, only about 9% of the city's total revenue comes from the BPT. If the city is able to attract more businesses through a comprehensive program to make doing business in the city easier which, in turn, create more jobs, I think it should be possible to drastically reduce, or even eliminate, the BPT while continuing the current ongoing wage tax reductions.

I'm very much in agreement with the other people who have said that taxing income more and assets with unrealized gains less is the way to go. I think there are also areas in the budget where the city can reduce spending in order to increase spending on things like education.

If I remember correctly, properties are supposed to be assessed at 80% of market value, and that value is supposed to be taxed at whatever the rate is. The only changes the BRT is making is to actually reassess properties like it's supposed to (the fact that it hasn't been doing so has lead to the current situation where many people pay much more or less than they're supposed to), and, once properties are reassessed, tax at 100% of market value instead of 80%.

What the BRT is doing really isn't all that complicated. What city council needs to do deserves more thought.

According to the budget I liked to above, about $394 million of the city's revenue comes from RE taxes, with an additional $148 million from the transfer tax. However, keep in mind that Baltimore's wage tax is about half of what our's is.

Finally, I'm in favor of what the BRT is doing. I think that one of the reasons real estate is as expensive as it is, is that properties haven't been getting reassessed. People see how low the tax burden is before buying and are often willing to pay more than they would otherwise. People are willing to pay a certain amount every month for housing and, if done consistently, real estate reassessements for tax purposes merely change what percentage of that monthly expenditure goes to the city and how much goes to the mortgage company (at least to a certain extent. There is, of course, a certain stigma attached to taxes that isn't attached to mortgage payments).

__________________
Welcome to Philadelphia. Here's how you can help us make our great city even better:

• Write to your state and local elected officials
• Report suspicious activity to the police department

Also, support candidate who advocate reforming real estate taxation. Vern Anastasio (who's running against Frank DiCicco in the 1st district) is a large advocate of land value taxation, which should lower the tax burden of most homeowners and, at least to a certain extent depending on whether structures are still taxed at all, stop penalizing people for doing repairs and making improvements to their homes (or when their neighbors repair or improve their homes). It should also encourage land owners to build on their property rather than leaving it vacant, since building won't increase their tax burden, or at least won't do so as much as it does now. This, in theory, should also help decrease rents (both commercial and residential).

__________________
Welcome to Philadelphia. Here's how you can help us make our great city even better:

• Write to your state and local elected officials
• Report suspicious activity to the police department