New real estate assessment rates are released from State of Maryland
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
+1 Maryland tax assessors are famously underpaid and under resourced, especially in Montgomery County (due to the high cost of living here). Nobody should assume their assessment is correct. Look at sales of comparable properties. If the comparables don't support the assessment, appeal it soon as there is a short window to do it and then you are stuck with the higher assessment. |
Anonymous
The county was in arrears for about 20 years before they created a new formula in 2022. At one point during the Great Recession the county just stopped reimbursing. The county never did make up the arrears but at least it’s fixed now (until the next time the budget gets tight I guess). |
Anonymous
This is a terrible idea. You'd be forcing young families buying homes at full market value to shoulder the lions' share of the property taxes. This is what happens in California because of Prop 13 property tax freezes; its absolutely killing young families and forcing them to move out of state to affordably raise a family while some 70-something retired couple with a paid off home pay only 1/10th the amount of taxes. |
Anonymous
You are vastly oversimplifying and distorting this issue https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/olo/resources/files/oloreport2013-6.pdf |
Anonymous
|
I went to the MD Real Property Data Search (SDAT, https://sdat.dat.maryland.gov/RealProperty/Pages/default.aspx) and found all comps within the last year within my neighborhood (as determined by the neighborhood code). Our house is being assessed at $60/sqft higher than identical houses sold at the peak of this year's spring market, and even higher than recent ($150/sqft higher than a house sold in December) sales on our street. The issue is our house is much smaller than other houses on our street: our neighbor sold their house for close to a million, but our house is significantly smaller (~1300-1400 sqft vs 2000-2200 sqft) and only has 3 bedrooms versus 4.
I requested the tax office's worksheet and the state's list of comps, but is there anything else we should consider in our appeal besides $$$/sqft for comps? Does it make a difference to go in-person, on the phone, or submit your appeal in writing? |
Anonymous
The argument here is: 1. Property taxes should stay the same even when property values of rental housing increase 2. Because otherwise landlords will pass the increase on to their tenants 3. And then the tenants will have to pay more rent 4. Which is a problem when the rent is already too damn high 5. Because demand exceeds supply 6. And so therefore the county should not implement any policies to increase the supply of rental housing. I guess it's more coherent than 1. collect underpants 2. ???? 3. profit but that's not saying much. |
Anonymous
Yes, it makes it completely unaffordable for young families since they pay the entire tax burden. Fixing the property taxes like that also makes people stay in their homes a lot longer than they otherwise would, since their housing costs would increase so much to move. So you end up with retired couples staying in large family homes and generally extremely expensive housing that is completely unaffordable for everyone. |
Anonymous
Actually it proves that renters do pay property taxes. |
Anonymous
| Arguments that property tax increases get passed on to tenants are silly. Landlords will charge what the market will bear -- it's as simple as that. Consider the past several years -- landlords have been dramatically increasing rents even before they had gotten the higher assessments. They weren't saying to themselves, "Let me keep the rent the same, even if I could charge more, because my property taxes haven't gone up." Landlords will always charge whatever they can, regardless of what their property taxes are. |
Anonymous
It’s pretty simple. The county was double taxing people who live in municipalities, not providing services, and keeping their money anyway. It was theft. |
Anonymous
Good for you. Is your assessment based on the revenue model? If so you’re probably making out big time because the revenue model consistently underestimates market value. |
Anonymous
|
NP. Far from complete and subject to rigorous debate, I'm sure, but...
Tax should be based on one's wealth -- a proxy for the benefit one achieves from a society given the particular rules of that society. In this sense, real estate tax is more just than income tax, as the one is based in an asset directly representing one's wealth while the other is based only in the change in one's wealth. Tax basis should allow for necessary expenditures, both current and anticipated -- assets only represent wealth when considered against liabilities. In this sense, real estate tax is less just than income tax, as the homestead exemption (as currently afforded) of the one is less well aligned to the concept than the exemptions/deductions of the other (though these certainly could use adjustment to better capture that which is truly necessary). Tax should be collected at times of asset liquidity -- it is incredibly inefficient to members of society to burden illiquid assets and destructive of societal wealth to encourage more frequent transaction (as might happen when there are not liquid assets enough to cover tax) due to the associated unproductive costs. In this sense, real estate tax is less just than income tax, as the one is relatively illiquid and the other is highly liquid, not to mention the rather high burden of disruption to an individual's life imposed by any move forced/encouraged by the tax burden. Society should finance its expenditures -- the economies of scale and scope in this realm are far greater for the collective than they are for individuals. In this sense, collection of real estate tax on an annual basis, given the above, and any suggestion of individual financing for such is less efficient (if not less just) than collection of income tax. We should move towards more wealth-based taxation vs. income-based taxation. To the extent that real estate represents wealth above that necessary for basic living (perhaps some formula based on household size, owner's equivalent rent, age, medical circumstance and the like), it is reasonable to have that taxed (though no more so, and probably less so, than more liquid assets, like market equities). To capture economies and minimize disruption, it would be reasonable to have a societal financing mechanism, (e.g., an accrual of tax liability bearing interest at the societal cost of capital and collected at the time of ownership transfer) rather than a yearly collection vs. the illiquid and necessary asset. |
Anonymous
They will, and because it’s a charade without accountability it’s “by right,” with no consideration as to impact on roads, schools, or quality of life. Like when they deregulate anything, the quality will decline. With that, your quiet enjoyment and property values (once the initial goldrush is over) will decline along with it. There are serious plans on the table to build housing, and yet here we are still discussing this mess, and without any real metrics or proof that what they propose will sufficiently address the issues without significant disruption. Remember, they don’t care if property values decline (many hope for it), they think that they are going to make up the difference in tax revenue in volume. Ask yourself how that affects the county. |
Anonymous
You keep telling yourself that |
Anonymous
Rising property values are bad, because then your taxes go up. Also, declining property values are bad, because ... well, because something. The zoning proposals won't result in new housing. Also, the new housing will reduce quality of life. The current situation is bad. Also, any change from the current situation is bad. |