Oneida County is movin' on up . . . Moving Up to Spot #19 among the most heavily taxed counties in the nation when property taxes are are calculated as a percentage of home value. In last year's tally we were 24. The good news is that taxes are "only" 2.31% of home value as opposed to 2.4% -- most likely because average home values increased from $91500 to $106,600. The bad news is that property taxes here are taking a greater percentage of our incomes, increasing from 4.0% to 4.4%.
No wonder people and jobs constantly leave. With numbers like these, "economic development" is a waste of time and money.
This does not even take into account our sky-high sales tax, sewer taxes, water fees, and utility costs.
Thank you Oneida County, our wonderful "international airport," towns, villages and cities. Watch out Monroe County (Rochester) . . . We're shooting to take over your #1 spot.
Read more at The Tax Foundation.
6 comments:
The picture is worse than painted. Home values in our area are noiw plunging, particularly in high end areas as New Hartford. These are also the highest taxed areas. Oneida County governemnt is broken and requires complete reform and overhaul.
221, according to this: http://taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/23649.html
According to this data, Alameda County California( San Francisco Bay Area, one of the most expensive real estate markets in the country) is ranked 512 compared to Oneida County's rank of 19. We Alamedans on average paid .8% of our home's value which turns out to be, on average, $4065. Evaluating taxes against wages, OC and AC are on par. What is striking is the difference in home values - $100k compared to $500K.
Having resided in both places, I'm surprised at the parity in taxes and can only say too bad Oneida doesn't have as many urban amenities as Alameda. But on the other hand you don't have East Oakland, earthquakes and water shortages.
Oops, scratch the last one - Oneida County, like California, is unable to manage its water resources.
Honestly though, if my wife and child would agree, I'd forsake Alameda for Oneida on short order.
Cheers from the left coast.
Is anonymous saying that tax parity between a $100,000 house and a $500,000 house is a positive for the $100,000 home owner? I have a friend who owns a house in Conn. valued at $700,000. His taxes are just about the same as mine in a New Hartford home worth $200,000. Is that parity?
Seems anonymous is pointing out that real estate tax, as a percentage of wage, is roughly the same between OC and AC. However, the AC resident likely pays a much higher mortgage than the OC resident and cost of homeowner ship in AC is significantly when comparing wages and home cost; i.e. wages in AC are 2x and home cost 5X compared to AC.
The man in Connecticut pays same tax as New Hartford - does he get the same level of services from gubmint? He pays a lot more on his mortgage than the NH resident - and probably the same size house.
I guess what anonymous is saying is that if you live in a place like the SF Bay Area or Connecticut, the job market and amenities associated with larger urban areas drive up the cost of purchasing a house, yet the cost of providing service and infrastructure to housing is pretty much consistent between place to place.
Similarly pay scales are adjusted for the cost of living in each area and I bet that an "average joe" residing in each of the three places being discussed (OC, AC and CT) will tell you that a paycheck doesn't go far enough.
Understood but the bottom line of home ownership is the asset value of the house. As the asset grows, ones net worth grows. A declining or stagnant house value is a negative asset. Value is the only valid comparison.
Post a Comment