Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The property tax on housing is a major component of local government revenues and of
consumers’ housing costs. This study uses newly available data from the 2001 Residential
Finance Survey to investigate the incidence of the residential property tax. Of particular interest
is the estimation and interpretation of differences in tax rates by location, property value,
structure type, and tenure form.
The study finds that multifamily rental housing bears an effective tax rate at least 25
percent higher than the rate on single-family owner-occupied housing for the nation overall. The
level of taxation, and the apartment/house differential, varies considerably from place to place.
Much, but not all, of the differential is associated with the lower property values per unit of
apartments compared to houses. The gap in tax rates appears to have arisen during the 1990s, as
tax rates of apartments and houses were nearly identical in 1991. The paper concludes that the
residential property tax, as implemented, promotes low density development, disproportionately
burdens lower valued properties, and may impose higher taxes on apartment residents than on
homeowners of identical incomes.

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/w05-2.pdf

Hey champ. Rents can only rise if the market will bear higher rents.

https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2026/02/housing-affordability-and-housing-demand/

Input cost models neglect the role of the overall market in setting rents. The studies you cite attribute rent increases to taxes without other evidence and without ruling out other drivers of rent increases.

Nobody is claiming that taxes are the only factor affecting rents. Arguing that taxes don’t affect rental prices is nuts.

+1 the article PP cited offers the following finding.related.to housing costs (not specific to rental housing): "We find that average income growth relates strongly to house price growth and that house prices generally keep pace with average income. " It does not find that rent increases are only due to increases in household incomes or that property taxes do not affect rents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The property tax on housing is a major component of local government revenues and of
consumers’ housing costs. This study uses newly available data from the 2001 Residential
Finance Survey to investigate the incidence of the residential property tax. Of particular interest
is the estimation and interpretation of differences in tax rates by location, property value,
structure type, and tenure form.
The study finds that multifamily rental housing bears an effective tax rate at least 25
percent higher than the rate on single-family owner-occupied housing for the nation overall. The
level of taxation, and the apartment/house differential, varies considerably from place to place.
Much, but not all, of the differential is associated with the lower property values per unit of
apartments compared to houses. The gap in tax rates appears to have arisen during the 1990s, as
tax rates of apartments and houses were nearly identical in 1991. The paper concludes that the
residential property tax, as implemented, promotes low density development, disproportionately
burdens lower valued properties, and may impose higher taxes on apartment residents than on
homeowners of identical incomes.

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/w05-2.pdf

Hey champ. Rents can only rise if the market will bear higher rents.

https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2026/02/housing-affordability-and-housing-demand/

Input cost models neglect the role of the overall market in setting rents. The studies you cite attribute rent increases to taxes without other evidence and without ruling out other drivers of rent increases.

Nobody is claiming that taxes are the only factor affecting rents. Arguing that taxes don’t affect rental prices is nuts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The property tax on housing is a major component of local government revenues and of
consumers’ housing costs. This study uses newly available data from the 2001 Residential
Finance Survey to investigate the incidence of the residential property tax. Of particular interest
is the estimation and interpretation of differences in tax rates by location, property value,
structure type, and tenure form.
The study finds that multifamily rental housing bears an effective tax rate at least 25
percent higher than the rate on single-family owner-occupied housing for the nation overall. The
level of taxation, and the apartment/house differential, varies considerably from place to place.
Much, but not all, of the differential is associated with the lower property values per unit of
apartments compared to houses. The gap in tax rates appears to have arisen during the 1990s, as
tax rates of apartments and houses were nearly identical in 1991. The paper concludes that the
residential property tax, as implemented, promotes low density development, disproportionately
burdens lower valued properties, and may impose higher taxes on apartment residents than on
homeowners of identical incomes.

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/w05-2.pdf

Hey champ. Rents can only rise if the market will bear higher rents.

https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2026/02/housing-affordability-and-housing-demand/

Input cost models neglect the role of the overall market in setting rents. The studies you cite attribute rent increases to taxes without other evidence and without ruling out other drivers of rent increases.

Those studies do look at other drivers of rent increases.

The article you linked to doesn't look at taxes at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The property tax on housing is a major component of local government revenues and of
consumers’ housing costs. This study uses newly available data from the 2001 Residential
Finance Survey to investigate the incidence of the residential property tax. Of particular interest
is the estimation and interpretation of differences in tax rates by location, property value,
structure type, and tenure form.
The study finds that multifamily rental housing bears an effective tax rate at least 25
percent higher than the rate on single-family owner-occupied housing for the nation overall. The
level of taxation, and the apartment/house differential, varies considerably from place to place.
Much, but not all, of the differential is associated with the lower property values per unit of
apartments compared to houses. The gap in tax rates appears to have arisen during the 1990s, as
tax rates of apartments and houses were nearly identical in 1991. The paper concludes that the
residential property tax, as implemented, promotes low density development, disproportionately
burdens lower valued properties, and may impose higher taxes on apartment residents than on
homeowners of identical incomes.

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/w05-2.pdf

Hey champ. Rents can only rise if the market will bear higher rents.

https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2026/02/housing-affordability-and-housing-demand/

Input cost models neglect the role of the overall market in setting rents. The studies you cite attribute rent increases to taxes without other evidence and without ruling out other drivers of rent increases.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The property tax on housing is a major component of local government revenues and of
consumers’ housing costs. This study uses newly available data from the 2001 Residential
Finance Survey to investigate the incidence of the residential property tax. Of particular interest
is the estimation and interpretation of differences in tax rates by location, property value,
structure type, and tenure form.
The study finds that multifamily rental housing bears an effective tax rate at least 25
percent higher than the rate on single-family owner-occupied housing for the nation overall. The
level of taxation, and the apartment/house differential, varies considerably from place to place.
Much, but not all, of the differential is associated with the lower property values per unit of
apartments compared to houses. The gap in tax rates appears to have arisen during the 1990s, as
tax rates of apartments and houses were nearly identical in 1991. The paper concludes that the
residential property tax, as implemented, promotes low density development, disproportionately
burdens lower valued properties, and may impose higher taxes on apartment residents than on
homeowners of identical incomes.

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/w05-2.pdf

Hey champ. Rents can only rise if the market will bear higher rents.

https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2026/02/housing-affordability-and-housing-demand/

Input cost models neglect the role of the overall market in setting rents. The studies you cite attribute rent increases to taxes without other evidence and without ruling out other drivers of rent increases.

Anonymous wrote:

The property tax on housing is a major component of local government revenues and of
consumers’ housing costs. This study uses newly available data from the 2001 Residential
Finance Survey to investigate the incidence of the residential property tax. Of particular interest
is the estimation and interpretation of differences in tax rates by location, property value,
structure type, and tenure form.
The study finds that multifamily rental housing bears an effective tax rate at least 25
percent higher than the rate on single-family owner-occupied housing for the nation overall. The
level of taxation, and the apartment/house differential, varies considerably from place to place.
Much, but not all, of the differential is associated with the lower property values per unit of
apartments compared to houses. The gap in tax rates appears to have arisen during the 1990s, as
tax rates of apartments and houses were nearly identical in 1991. The paper concludes that the
residential property tax, as implemented, promotes low density development, disproportionately
burdens lower valued properties, and may impose higher taxes on apartment residents than on
homeowners of identical incomes.

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/w05-2.pdf

The property tax on housing is a major component of local government revenues and of
consumers’ housing costs. This study uses newly available data from the 2001 Residential
Finance Survey to investigate the incidence of the residential property tax. Of particular interest
is the estimation and interpretation of differences in tax rates by location, property value,
structure type, and tenure form.
The study finds that multifamily rental housing bears an effective tax rate at least 25
percent higher than the rate on single-family owner-occupied housing for the nation overall. The
level of taxation, and the apartment/house differential, varies considerably from place to place.
Much, but not all, of the differential is associated with the lower property values per unit of
apartments compared to houses. The gap in tax rates appears to have arisen during the 1990s, as
tax rates of apartments and houses were nearly identical in 1991. The paper concludes that the
residential property tax, as implemented, promotes low density development, disproportionately
burdens lower valued properties, and may impose higher taxes on apartment residents than on
homeowners of identical incomes.

Using a novel, comprehensive dataset on new-tenant rents from the City of Berkeley, I find strong evidence that landlords faced with quasi-random, building-level property tax shocks pass through $0.50–$0.89 per $1 of the property tax shock to renters. The results are robust to the inclusion of landlord size, renovations around a sale, and a property’s purchase price.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTF $150K here is nothing. Is this $150K for single filers?

MoCo keeps increasing taxes rather than thinking about cutting the budget. And the kids are not doing any better year after year of giving MCPS more money.

So sick of this place.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/05/08/straw-vote-divided-county-council-supports-progressive-income-tax-structure/

This is funnier:

The ITOC is a $692 property tax credit for homeowners who claim their home as their principal residence. It used to be automatically applied to qualifying county property tax bills, but homeowners now have to fill out a one-time application to receive it.

Elrich has spoken out on multiple occasions against the proposed elimination of the ITOC, which he says will result in most homeowners paying more than they would under his proposal to raise the property tax rate.

Supporters of the proposed elimination of the ITOC emphasize that the credit does not benefit everyone, including people who qualify but may not be aware of it.

“Unfortunately, it doesn’t provide the credit equally to everyone,” Balcombe said on Friday. “Renters don’t get this credit, it is owner-occupied eligible only.”

Renters don't need the credit because they don't pay property taxes in the first place. Idiots.

Yes, landlords are definitely paying those property taxes out of the goodness of their hearts and not out of their rental revenue.

They can’t raise the rent just because taxes went up. Rents are set by the market. Just like we can’t ask for raises because taxes went up.

You don't understand how markets work. There is both supply and demand. Prices are not just based on demand. They are also based on supply, which is impacted by the costs that landlords have to pay.

So now you think landlords are going to take units off the market if taxes go up? Next you’re going to tell me that rents go down when landlords’ costs go down because they’re eager to pass along savings to their tenants.

For undeveloped land, the value goes down when taxes go up so that a buyer can make a reasonable profit by developing it. All the supply side policies do is prop up the value of land.

Of course rents go down when property costs are lower. Why else would Baltimore be offering $1 row homes for sale when those same homes used to be for people with good jobs and a steady income?

You really don’t understand how rent works. Some buildings in Montgomery County pay zero in county property taxes but those buildings are also some of the most expensive in the county. If your theory were correct, those units would be cheaper than comparable surrounding units.

The Baltimore row home prices reflect the substantial rehab that those units will need combined with low expected rents. The $1 deal is the most the city can do to see if those units can generate a decent cap rate.

Property prices go down when rents go down. Land prices go up when costs go down. The market rent is still the market rent. The median rent will usually work out to about 30 percent of median income. Rents over time and across geographies are highly correlated with incomes, not with zoning policy or property taxes.

Also, you should expect landlords to take a good portion of the savings that tenants see from the new income tax system. Rents are based first and foremost on tenants’ ability to pay. The flood of stimulus during the pandemic was one of the drivers of rent increases at the time because the stimulus increased tenants’ ability to pay. Be grateful for rent stabilization or the landlords would totally defeat the stated purpose of the income tax changes.

Without getting into detail about the actual econometrics of this research, the results showed conclusively that rents rise after tax changes sufficiently to fully absorb 80-90% of the change in landlord tax payments! This estimate is highly significant statistically.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTF $150K here is nothing. Is this $150K for single filers?

MoCo keeps increasing taxes rather than thinking about cutting the budget. And the kids are not doing any better year after year of giving MCPS more money.

So sick of this place.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/05/08/straw-vote-divided-county-council-supports-progressive-income-tax-structure/

This is funnier:

The ITOC is a $692 property tax credit for homeowners who claim their home as their principal residence. It used to be automatically applied to qualifying county property tax bills, but homeowners now have to fill out a one-time application to receive it.

Elrich has spoken out on multiple occasions against the proposed elimination of the ITOC, which he says will result in most homeowners paying more than they would under his proposal to raise the property tax rate.

Supporters of the proposed elimination of the ITOC emphasize that the credit does not benefit everyone, including people who qualify but may not be aware of it.

“Unfortunately, it doesn’t provide the credit equally to everyone,” Balcombe said on Friday. “Renters don’t get this credit, it is owner-occupied eligible only.”

Renters don't need the credit because they don't pay property taxes in the first place. Idiots.

Yes, landlords are definitely paying those property taxes out of the goodness of their hearts and not out of their rental revenue.

They can’t raise the rent just because taxes went up. Rents are set by the market. Just like we can’t ask for raises because taxes went up.

You don't understand how markets work. There is both supply and demand. Prices are not just based on demand. They are also based on supply, which is impacted by the costs that landlords have to pay.

So now you think landlords are going to take units off the market if taxes go up? Next you’re going to tell me that rents go down when landlords’ costs go down because they’re eager to pass along savings to their tenants.

For undeveloped land, the value goes down when taxes go up so that a buyer can make a reasonable profit by developing it. All the supply side policies do is prop up the value of land.

Of course rents go down when property costs are lower. Why else would Baltimore be offering $1 row homes for sale when those same homes used to be for people with good jobs and a steady income?

Anonymous wrote:This tax plan didn’t even survive this budget. They’re already talking about raising the rate: https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/05/12/modest-property-tax-rate-hike-back-on-table-moco-councilmembers/.

Anonymous wrote:Superintendent Taylor announced his specific. cuts if he doesn't get $180 million more for the MCPS budget. This, despite declining enrollment.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2026/05/12/taylor-to-council-please-dont-do-this/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTF $150K here is nothing. Is this $150K for single filers?

MoCo keeps increasing taxes rather than thinking about cutting the budget. And the kids are not doing any better year after year of giving MCPS more money.

So sick of this place.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/05/08/straw-vote-divided-county-council-supports-progressive-income-tax-structure/

This is funnier:

The ITOC is a $692 property tax credit for homeowners who claim their home as their principal residence. It used to be automatically applied to qualifying county property tax bills, but homeowners now have to fill out a one-time application to receive it.

Elrich has spoken out on multiple occasions against the proposed elimination of the ITOC, which he says will result in most homeowners paying more than they would under his proposal to raise the property tax rate.

Supporters of the proposed elimination of the ITOC emphasize that the credit does not benefit everyone, including people who qualify but may not be aware of it.

“Unfortunately, it doesn’t provide the credit equally to everyone,” Balcombe said on Friday. “Renters don’t get this credit, it is owner-occupied eligible only.”

Renters don't need the credit because they don't pay property taxes in the first place. Idiots.

Yes, landlords are definitely paying those property taxes out of the goodness of their hearts and not out of their rental revenue.

They can’t raise the rent just because taxes went up. Rents are set by the market. Just like we can’t ask for raises because taxes went up.

You don't understand how markets work. There is both supply and demand. Prices are not just based on demand. They are also based on supply, which is impacted by the costs that landlords have to pay.

So now you think landlords are going to take units off the market if taxes go up? Next you’re going to tell me that rents go down when landlords’ costs go down because they’re eager to pass along savings to their tenants.

For undeveloped land, the value goes down when taxes go up so that a buyer can make a reasonable profit by developing it. All the supply side policies do is prop up the value of land.