housing cost back in line with reality

The thread titile is a rip btw

For debate's sake lets throw housing values into the wayback machine to say 1973 or so

valuation in the subjective sense , Joe average is able to keep a roof over the wife & kids heads on his solo blue collar job

the objective valuation would gauge it differently, housing starts, construction jobs, real estate market, even quintile mobility

playin' devils advocate, let's say housing plumets in valuation, Joe's kids are able to pick up foreclosures and/or tax sales ,(owners walking away under water) pennies on the $....

extreeme example, but no valuation renissance save for that on paper.

In any rise/fall valuation scenario, i often would about bizillions of $$$ just going 'pffffft' , because i think of it as energy not being able to be destroyed, just changed....

~S~
 
This is part of the reason we are seeing a recovery

Politicians don't want housing costs to be realistic, they prefer higher costs in order to get more taxes from people who own houses.


That typically isn't how real estate taxes are assessed.

It really doest matter what the towns RE is worth on the market.

The city will set the mill rate according to the city's needs.'

If the value of all real estate goes down, but the cost of government does not, the mill rate goes up.

I cannot speak to what is typical, but in Texas the tax rates are directly tied to the market value of the homes. Before the housing bubble it was typical for the assayers office to reevaluate property rates every 3 years. When prices shot up they started reevaluating property values every year.

Local taxing agencies can then decide how much to charge based on those valuations, as long as the overall tax rate does not increase more than the 10% Texas law limits it to.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top