Jump to content



Photo

Do you have to pay property tax? 261 of your neighbors don't.


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 23 September 2015 - 02:44 PM

Wow

 

http://www.newsandtr...28b8174989.html

 

 

I am sure this isn't true.  Right?



#2 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 23 September 2015 - 02:50 PM

Yes,

I believe it is true....



#3 GrumpyGranny

GrumpyGranny

    Local Legend

  • Administrators
  • 5,169 posts

Posted 23 September 2015 - 02:57 PM

There was a discussion on the Chatter about this last year:

 

http://clarkcountych...property +taxes

 

However, only Clarksville was discussed. I'm not sure where the tax free properties in Jeff are.



#4 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 23 September 2015 - 03:08 PM

There was a discussion on the Chatter about this last year:

 

http://clarkcountych...property +taxes

 

However, only Clarksville was discussed. I'm not sure where the tax free properties in Jeff are.

 

Near or in Armstrong Farms I believe.

 

Clarksville properties are in Blackiston Heights.

 

If you figure an average assessed value for those areas of $120,000 and then assume they are at the tax caps because it's in municipal Clarksville/Jeffersonville limits and a majority ARE at the caps, then you figure $1200 a year lost for each one.

 

$1,200 X 154 in Jeff = $184,800

$1,200 X 107 in Clarksville = $128,400

 

Granted it is completely unfair, but we're not talking about vast sums of money (especially at the county level).  Which is why I assume they haven't corrected the issue.


Edited by Tina, 23 September 2015 - 03:17 PM.


#5 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 23 September 2015 - 03:15 PM

Lindon, in your next article you can ask Vicky about the developer discount.  :thumbsup:  (IC-6-1.1-4)


Edited by Tina, 23 September 2015 - 03:16 PM.


#6 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 23 September 2015 - 07:59 PM

I'm not sure where it is in Jeff either.....but it isn't my property....

 

Wonder who decided what properties didn't have to pay taxes, and what data was used?



#7 Big Bopper

Big Bopper

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts

Posted 23 September 2015 - 09:41 PM


Do away with property tax. Drive them crazy
  • jiyabird likes this

#8 Hickory Huskers

Hickory Huskers

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 266 posts

Posted 24 September 2015 - 09:20 AM

Near or in Armstrong Farms I believe.

 

Clarksville properties are in Blackiston Heights.

 

If you figure an average assessed value for those areas of $120,000 and then assume they are at the tax caps because it's in municipal Clarksville/Jeffersonville limits and a majority ARE at the caps, then you figure $1200 a year lost for each one.

 

$1,200 X 154 in Jeff = $184,800

$1,200 X 107 in Clarksville = $128,400

 

Granted it is completely unfair, but we're not talking about vast sums of money (especially at the county level).  Which is why I assume they haven't corrected the issue.

 

Yes, I live in Armstrong Farms and have had a $0 tax bill for the past three years.  I never asked for special treatment nor am I connected to anybody in the county government.  It just happened.  I don't know why, but my best guess is that the developer was not selling lots very quickly and pulled some strings to be able to tell prospective buyers that they wouldn't have to pay property taxes for a while.  I don't take this for granted, and I have $1200 put away for if/when we start having to pay again.


  • jiyabird likes this

#9 jiyabird

jiyabird

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,043 posts

Posted 24 September 2015 - 12:52 PM

There was a discussion on the Chatter about this last year:
 
http://clarkcountych...property +taxes
 
However, only Clarksville was discussed. I'm not sure where the tax free properties in Jeff are.


But Clark County is Clark County and we are all in the same tax base.

#10 Gabriella

Gabriella

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 500 posts

Posted 27 September 2015 - 01:50 PM

I guess this is why my property tax, along with others', keeps going up........



#11 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 27 September 2015 - 02:51 PM

I guess this is why my property tax, along with others', keeps going up........

Correct.  Every drop in NET assessed value raises all of our taxes.  TIF also drops our net assessed value.



#12 jiyabird

jiyabird

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,043 posts

Posted 27 September 2015 - 04:24 PM

Then how do we put a STOP to it ?

#13 Kevin Vissing

Kevin Vissing

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,004 posts

Posted 27 September 2015 - 09:30 PM

I am looking into it. If there is any way we can correct it, I will do my part to vote to solve the problem. I have asked our auditor about this, and it's very complex. What I'm understanding, we need to eliminate the Cedit tax, then increase the Loit tax the difference. I am concerned about the ramifications of that action. I will let you know what I find out.
I totally agree, that no one should be off the property tax rolls. Very unfair to those that do pay.
  • jiyabird and firefly1937 like this

#14 hillbilly highway

hillbilly highway

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 29 September 2015 - 07:58 AM

Correct. Every drop in NET assessed value raises all of our taxes. TIF also drops our net assessed value.

Tina in your opinion what would be the best course of action to correct this issue? Is it a complex as Kevin is saying or do we just start taxing these properties?
  • firefly1937 likes this

#15 Curmudgeon

Curmudgeon

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Posted 29 September 2015 - 11:50 AM

I think this has to do with the crediting of the property tax replacement portion of CAGIT (County Adjusted Gross Income Tax) within each census tract.  If you look at the affected tax bills, they show a property tax replacement credit of 100%.  This is caused by the relatively high number of jobs within the census tract (primarily at the Port) and the relatively low amount of residential assessed value.  While it has been awhile since I tried to figure this out, I think the typical property tax replacement credit is on the order of 7%.  I had the Auditor double check this with the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance, and he was told that there was basically nothing that could be done under the current local income tax distribution system.  I agree that this makes no diddly-dang sense.   



#16 jiyabird

jiyabird

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,043 posts

Posted 29 September 2015 - 02:52 PM

I think this has to do with the crediting of the property tax replacement portion of CAGIT (County Adjusted Gross Income Tax) within each census tract.  If you look at the affected tax bills, they show a property tax replacement credit of 100%.  This is caused by the relatively high number of jobs within the census tract (primarily at the Port) and the relatively low amount of residential assessed value.  While it has been awhile since I tried to figure this out, I think the typical property tax replacement credit is on the order of 7%.  I had the Auditor double check this with the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance, and he was told that there was basically nothing that could be done under the current local income tax distribution system.  I agree that this makes no diddly-dang sense.


Something can ALWAYS be done. They just don't want to take the time and energy to do it. You can bet if it effected THEM in their pockets in a big financial way they would find a solution to the problem!
  • Tina likes this

#17 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 29 September 2015 - 08:09 PM

Tina in your opinion what would be the best course of action to correct this issue? Is it a complex as Kevin is saying or do we just start taxing these properties?

 

From the way I understand it, it is complex.

The reason for the credit is because they collect a bunch of CEDIT.  (County Economic Development Income Tax)  (hmmm, this just reiterates my position on another thread that INCOME TAX does not make up for the loss of property tax, and in this case actually makes the problem WORSE!!)  

 

Because they collect more CEDIT than the state says they can, they have to give a credit to taxpayers.  I do not understand why it stays in one particular area of a taxing unit.  Why can't they rotate it so that at least once every few years someone else gets the benefit?  Why does it have to be 100% in one area instead of say 75% across the taxing unit? Also exemptions are removed from the GAV before we get to the NAV that determines the tax rate, so we all actually pay a higher share than what we would if these homes were included in the NAV.

 

Other than that, the only way to fix it is to reduce the CEDIT tax or eliminate it and implement a different tax.  None of which is necessarily easy.

 

The only way it will be changed is if our politicos hear enough about it to demand they change it.

 

 

(side note: as a Realtor, I would think those areas would have a higher property value because of no taxes, huh?  Nope!)


Edited by Tina, 29 September 2015 - 08:16 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users