Thanks, I will try that route.

Exactly, which is why I opposed whatever bill there was a couple of years ago about adding to the state constitution that we wouldn't have a state income tax. I have control over my income. I have no control over the value of my house, and the ones who do control it also taxes me on that value. If they need more money, they value my house higher. Yeah, I could live in a $100k house, but that often accompanies higher crime and crappier schools.

I would argue you have a lot more control over your house value than your income (at least from a strategic standpoint).

Unless you're self-employed and playing games with your income, nobody is intentionally keeping their actual income low to avoid paying additional income tax. You can choose to live below or above your means.

Sure, the county can/will raise your taxable value but you start at a base point and it can only go up 10% each year, and they are (generally) tied to actual values. People ***** and moan about their assessed value, but owners I know are valued below market currently (I know I am).

only up 3% in 77030, surprisingly. we even added a second story room last year.

there is a floor for "good neighborhoods" for sure. I would assume most posters on here can afford to be in neighborhoods with adequate schools though. Lifestyle creep is the bigger issue for many of us.

Here's an example to illustrate my point. A person bringing in $250K+ could easily qualify for a $750K house with a 3%+ tax rate in Creekside. They could also buy a $400K house in the older part of the Woodlands and pay closer to 2%. That decision will cut your property tax bill by over close to 2/3's. Now you won't have the Joanna Gaines kitchen but life can be tough.

To me, that's a more realistic "financial strategy" than someone deciding to keep their income lower to avoid paying additional state income tax.

We can all point to anecdotal stories about tax values going up that quickly, but unless the home changed hands and/or there was major (permitted) work done to it, it is extraordinarily rare for values to rise at that pace in Harris County.

In most mature neighbourhoods, property values for long time owners lag the market by a good margin.

Mine went up $90k in the two years I've owned the house.

not arguing that they haven't increased, just not at the pace of the actual market.

You pointed to a $250K home hitting $400K in 5 years. It would really take 6 years of maxing out values for that to happen, and even then, I just haven't seen that occur. My focus in inner-loop but I it should be similar county wide.

You can look at nearly any active listing in an older neighborhood (new construction is going to be much closer to market value for obvious reasons). I would guess that 95%+ are going to be assessed lower than the list/sale price, and most of those by a fairly substantial amount.

And yes, they are "trying" to keep up with actual market values, because that's the task they are given.

You are correct with that example. I live in the area and have watched prices closely the last 8 years. There isn't anything that was $250k 5 years ago and is $400k now.

I paid $315k 8 years ago and could easily get $375k-$400k, based on the most recent comparable sale. The market is a little crazy right now, though, so I could probably ask $450k and get something north of $400.

The issue in the area right now is the huge gap between new construction and resales. New construction is up to about $250/sq ft due to construction costs. So, a $750k new construction house a few years ago is $1 million if new construction today.

The issue with this is anyone with a newer resale (built within the last 8-10 years or less) thinks they can ask (and get) new construction prices. And because inventory is so low and there are so many people moving here from out of state, this is what's happening (because $250/sq ft sounds like a bargain if you're from CA). It's creating some crazy comps, and I know the CAD has the sales info, so they are using it against us.

All the more reason to move to appraisals every five years or something like that. I know this insanity will pass, or at least even out.

Also, Creekside is in Harris Co, but the rest of The Woodlands is in Montgomery Co. There is a big difference in the two CADs. Anecdotally, I would say HCAD is much more aggressive in increasing property values.

Diggity said:

---

I would argue you have a lot more control over your house value than your income (at least from a strategic standpoint).

Unless you're self-employed and playing games with your income, nobody is intentionally keeping their income low to avoid paying additional income tax. You can choose to live below or above your means.

Sure, the county can/will raise your taxable value but you start at a base point and it can only go up 10% each year, and they are (generally) tied to actual values. People ***** and moan about their assessed value, but owners I know are valued below market currently (I know I am).

---

The problem is spending budgets not value. Value is just how the governmental budget gets allocated. The government is going to spend like a drunken sailor if they can, so the best case depends on the answer to the question...what is rising faster real estate values or incomes? Whichever is changing least would be better.

MAROON said:

---

property tax is the worst form of tax out there. You tax someone on the estimated value of their home. Not the amount of income the asset brings in, but the value. Can you imagine if every year you have to pay a tax on your stock portfolio or you bank cash balances.

I've come to the point in life where I would welcome a state income tax or sales tax if we ditched the property tax. I can control my income and my spending, I can't control the value of my house.

And my salary increases are in no way connected to the increases in my home valuation.

---

I haven't done research, but property tax seems to be the most fair. Everyone who has a roof over their head pays including all of the illegals who skirt income tax by being paid in cash. Sales tax seems to be the next best except for communities on the state border and online shopping out of state.

JJxvi said:

---

Diggity said:

---

I would argue you have a lot more control over your house value than your income (at least from a strategic standpoint).

Unless you're self-employed and playing games with your income, nobody is intentionally keeping their income low to avoid paying additional income tax. You can choose to live below or above your means.

Sure, the county can/will raise your taxable value but you start at a base point and it can only go up 10% each year, and they are (generally) tied to actual values. People ***** and moan about their assessed value, but owners I know are valued below market currently (I know I am).

---

The problem is spending budgets not value. Value is just how the governmental budget gets allocated. The government is going to spend like a drunken sailor if they can, so the best case depends on the answer to the question...what is rising faster real estate values or incomes? Whichever is changing least would be better.

---

The problem with that is incomes seem to more rapidly and steeply go down than they go up. For example, this past year. There were tons of people who lost their jobs and had no (or significantly reduced) income due to Covid. That creates a huge budget shortfall that carries over year after year.

Also, there was a recent thread about foreign countries and investors buying up tons of residential real estate - sometimes entire subdivisions (it was posted in ether B&I or real estate). I'm not sure that's happening as much here as in other states, but it certainly could happen. Those investors don't pay income tax at all, and I don't think it would be fair for them to come in and jack up local real estate markets and get a tax break for doing so.

MAROON said:

---

property tax is the worst form of tax out there. You tax someone on the estimated value of their home. Not the amount of income the asset brings in, but the value. Can you imagine if every year you have to pay a tax on your stock portfolio or you bank cash balances.

I've come to the point in life where I would welcome a state income tax or sales tax if we ditched the property tax. I can control my income and my spending, I can't control the value of my house.

And my salary increases are in no way connected to the increases in my home valuation.

---

derail, but aren't they basically trying to do this.

Diggity said:

---

I would argue you have a lot more control over your house value than your income (at least from a strategic standpoint).

Unless you're self-employed and playing games with your income, nobody is intentionally keeping their income low to avoid paying additional income tax. You can choose to live below or above your means.

Sure, the county can/will raise your taxable value but you start at a base point and it can only go up 10% each year, and they are (generally) tied to actual values. People ***** and moan about their assessed value, but owners I know are valued below market currently (I know I am).

---

Disagree on your premise that people aren't intentionally keeping their income low. It's called income deferment and it's a basic part of tax planning.

Your last part while possibly true doesn't address the fact that the government is taxing you on the value of a non-income earning asset (in the case of your home).

And after all those years of them increasing your taxes because of the increase in value when you finally sell the asset they are coming one last time for their cap gains tax.

I guess we'll agree to disagree. I feel like an individual has much more control over their home purchasing budget than they do their income.

MAROON said:

---

you have control over your purchasing budget, but you have zero control over the yearly tax value increases unless you purposely buy in a undesirable neighborhood - which no one would do, unless that is all they could afford.

---

you control the starting point, you fight the taxes, and you hope you won't get nailed for 10% every year. It's worked out fine for me so far...maybe I'm just the lucky one.

It's not a perfect system by any means but I would rather have our system than live in NYC.

Property taxes are the devil and Cheryl Johnson can lick my arse hole

Diggity said:

---

MAROON said:

---

you have control over your purchasing budget, but you have zero control over the yearly tax value increases unless you purposely buy in a undesirable neighborhood - which no one would do, unless that is all they could afford.

---

you control the starting point, you fight the taxes, and you hope you won't get nailed for 10% every year. It's worked out fine for me so far...maybe I'm just the lucky one.

It's not a perfect system by any means but I would rather have our system than live in NYC.

---

Hope. You have no control and attempt to justify a lower value. Eventually, your luck will run out.

again...what's your alternative that you have total control over?

Income. If I wanted to retire at 60, I'd have a lower income, thus tax bracket. But as it stands, I'd still have a massive property tax bill that would go up each year until I hit 65. There's no hope they keep my value low. I guess I could sell the house and move into something cheaper, which is the issue.

I think the bigger issue is those people that fight tax increases.

So government got smart and won't raise rates in Texas.

But they'll raise the value. At the end of the day, they'll still get their share.

I live in in Humble ISD. They've championed "we reduced tax rates" a few years ago. But if I look at my tax bill, I bet you in still paying more this year than 5 years ago. Even though the rates went down slightly.

~egon

And then the CADs like to say "Don't look at us. It's the tax districts that set the rates" while both know it's a simple multiplication problem so both sides have equal weight.

Yearly 10% increase on homesteads appraisals seems unreasonable. Shouldn't that be closer to expected inflation?. Maybe 2% or 3% ? Definitely not more than 5%

AgAttorney2010 said:

---

Yearly 10% increase on homesteads appraisals seems unreasonable. Shouldn't that be closer to expected inflation?. Maybe 2% or 3% ? Definitely not more than 5%

---

Appraisals should reflect the market. Taxes should be closer to inflation. Counties cannot raise property taxes more than 3.5% per year without voter approval.

Who has heard back from HCAD on their protests and what % are they offering to reduce your assessed value?

Genuinely curious, why would someone want to protest earlier than necessary? The later your protest, the more comps you have that are already adjusted down thus improving your case.

Maybe its just me, but I wait till the deadline or just before to file my protest and delay my protest date as late as I can.