|
Author
|
Topic: Philadelphia Inquirer Series on Property Tax
|
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 12-11-2001 03:33 AM
   
I just read the second article in a series on property tax assessments. In this part, the Inquirer discusses the recent reappraisal of every home in Delaware County. This project, by the way, cost $20.4 million. The Inquirer found that at the high end of the housing market, homes were routinely undervalued, giving owners of expensive houses a significant tax break. On the other hand, appraisers often overvalued the low end of the scale, meaning that owners of inexpensive, not-in-demand housing are overcharged on their taxes.Why the Bowl Championship Series rating system is covered in exhausting detail in just about every newspaper, magazine and web site around and this has to be the subject of a special series is beyond me. Kudos to the Inquirer, at least, for taking the time to cover it. |
Pattie Gillett
True Believer
|
posted 12-12-2001 07:19 AM
Been following the series as well. I like that it's not just about individual property taxes. Tuesday's part was about the various reasons certain organizations are exempt, such as the University of Pennsylvania and many area hospitals.The headline was a bit sensational - something like "They pay none, but you pay more" - but the piece itself did mention that there were various reasons why an organization might be exempt. A hospital gives back to the community and is an invaluable resource (when properly run) UPENN provides thousands of jobs and small business opportunities for the city, etc. etc. This series is a good way for people to look at the whole property tax picture, not just complain about their own. But, as the first article showed, there's still room for that. |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 03-19-2003 12:57 AM
We're in the process of looking for a house, and one valuable resource has been the City of Philadelphia Board of Revision of Taxes' website. It lets you look up the current assessment for just about any property within the city limits. Looking at the houses in my neighborhood, I was amazed at how much lower the assessments were than the market prices area homes are selling for.There has got to be a better way to do this. |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 04-04-2003 09:57 AM
Speaking of better ways to do this, there's a fascinating story in yesterday's Inquirer about new Governor Rendell's proposal to alter the tax structure in the state. Basically, the plan is to raise the state income tax and use that money to cut Philadelphia's wage tax and property taxes throughout the state. Some will gain, some will lose, but what fascinates me are some of the quotes in the article.Suburbanite Orest Mandzy, who would pay about $141 more a year under the plan: "It sort of reinforces my early feelings about him, that he's your typical tax-and-spend liberal." Philadelphian Vincent Jannotta, who'd pay $580: "I think down the road, it will be a plus. There's got to be a light at the end of the tunnel somewhere." Suburbanite Chip Layfield, whose tax burden is estimated to rise about $700: "That's why we voted for him. We kind of hoped he would address these issues." Now, sure, this is a small sample size and we have no idea who else the reporters talked to. But I can't help but be amazed that the guy who was complaining the most is the guy who is facing the smallest hit. It's very suggestive to me about why establishing a fairer economic system is such a struggle. |
MisterD
Just Got Here
|
posted 04-04-2003 11:59 PM
I was a little disappointed in the governor's proposal. It leaves Philly's property taxes unchanged and lowers Philly's resident wage tax from 4.5% to 4% according to the article you mentioned.The wage tax is an unmitigated disaster. It doesn't need to be lowered - it needs to be abolished. It puts the city at a significant competitive disadvantage compared to the suburbs. Would dropping the wage tax solve the city's problems? No, certainly not. But why make it harder than it already is to keep jobs/residents in the city. |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 04-05-2003 01:41 AM
The problem I see with abolishing the wage tax is that the city is the central nexus of this metropolitan area, so it has a higher number of renters, smaller homes that generally have lower property values than are found in the suburbs, and a higher percentage of its area devoted to civic resources like universities, hospitals, museums, parks, and so on which are thus exempt from property taxes. And maintaining all of that infrastructure costs a lot of money. So if you eliminate the wage tax, you're cutting the city off at the knees, because there's no possible way it can raise property taxes high enough to cover the shortfall. I don't think this is solely a Philadelphia problem -- I think New York City takes a fairly hefty chunk out of folks' paychecks as well, and I'm sure other cities do as well. I'm not saying the tax shouldn't be lower, but I just don't see eliminating it as a viable option. Even some of the inner suburbs are having to resort to a wage tax as they start becoming more like the city. What alternatives do you see for replacing that revenue? |
MisterD
Just Got Here
|
posted 04-05-2003 02:09 PM
My hope is that abolishing the wage tax would result in more businesses and residents chosing to stay or relocate in the city. Don't under estimate the number of people (and therefore businesses) that want nothing to do with the city because of the wage tax (to say nothing of the gross receipts tax).I don't necessarily agree that the houses in the city are smaller than their suburban counterparts. My three story home (plus attic and basement) is certainly larger than the stereotypical suburban split level. I definitely do not have as much yard as a suburban house though. Your point about lower property values is exactly my point though. Property values as a whole are lower in the city because there is less demand for them. Why? Because people are still fleeing to the 'burbs of high taxes and bad schools (among other reasons). There are specific areas of the city that do have high demand and therefore higher property values (Center City, Society Hill and University City for example). In my mind a key piece of the solution is to make the city's tax structure more competitive with its suburban neighbors. There are already so many social and political dynamics working against the city that it seems to me we should help ourselves in whatever ways we can. |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 04-05-2003 09:23 PM
I'm not saying that every house in Philadelphia is smaller than every house in the suburbs. But the city has a heck of a lot more rowhomes and twins than you're going to find in the suburbs, and usually smaller lot sizes, plus older homes. Even if all things were equal, property values in the city as a whole are going to be lower than the suburbs. By its very nature, the city has to have a different tax structure than the suburbs.Not to get sidetracked, but I think that the schools are a bigger issue than the tax burdens, because in a lot of suburban areas the property taxes take as much of a bite out of your take home pay as the wage tax does. So by reducing the role of the property tax in setting school funding levels, this proposal is a good first step in rectifying the disparity. I did some Googling, and Philly's wage tax is definitely one of the highest and most-talked-about in the country. But it's not the only wage tax out there. Pittsburgh, New York City, and Yonkers all came up pretty soon in the search. I definitely think getting it down to between 2 and 3 percent or even lower would be a real boon, but I haven't seen any indication that eliminating it altogether would be worth the cost. | |
This Is Not News Forums
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
