Tax the 1% Protest

So I went tonight to the CH TC presentation from our OC tax assessor to hear how he frames in person the presentation which I had previously read.  Video will be at http://www.townofchapelhill.org/index.aspx?page=958 after they process it.   The base question the BoCC is grappling with is whether to do a revaluation when we know property values will be down.  The statistics the assessor uses to track this stuff says that as of Jan 1, 2012, we're actually at a very fair revaluation now - homes are in total tax valued slightly higher than market rate, but fairness is good, meaning we're all slightly higher so we're each paying our share of total tax bills already. Then Matt C asked an interesting question.  He noted that the #s the assessor showed indicate CH values have fallen faster than the rest of the county.  Therefore, if there is a revaluation, CH's share of the total OC tax bill will go down.  So selfishly, the CH TC should support revaluation. That got me thinking -- the other thing the assessor said in his presentation was that the values of homes worth more than $250k had fallen faster than lower-priced homes in the county.  Which, using the mathmatically correct Matt C logic, means that revaluation at this time will reduce the tax bills of those with more expensive homes while increasing it for lower-priced homes. The assessor said the manager was going to recommend waiting until 2015 to do the revaluation.  I guess I'm calling all social-justice minded OPers (thus my posting on what you thought was an unrelated thread here) to advocate with the BoCC to delay the revaluation at least that far. Let the rich pay a higher share for a couple more years.  Overall, the valuations are fair to the assessor's standards.  Revaluating now will only create political hassles for the boards (Gene Pease said he wouldn't support a revenue-neutral tax increase. The math major in me said "huh?") and will reduce taxes for those who don't need it.

"revaluation at this time will reduce the tax bills of those with more expensive homes while increasing it for lower-priced homes" . . . incorrect.  You're reducing this to a vacuum to play class warfare.  This supposed increase only occurs if a) revaluation causes a lower-priced home to go up in value (probably not tremendously likely) or b) County increases the tax rate across the board (in which case, there is no guarantee that those with higher-priced home would see a reduction in tax bill)"reduce taxes for those who don't need it" . . . what grounds do you have to make that assertion?  If resident "a" is spending 40% of their gross income on housing cost, and lives in $500,000 home, and resident "b" is spending 40% of their gross income on housing cost, and lives in a $125,000 home, wouldn't they both have equal benefit and "need" of a tax reduction?"The actual values overall make ZERO difference in how much tax you pay" . . . umm, sorry, but there could not be a statement further away from the truth.  Simple math tells me it's, quite literally, half of the equation: value x rate = tax bill.  A resident only gets a say on the rate portion (by the ability to re-elect or vote out incumbent commissioners); the county is able to dictate the other half (assessed value) of the equation."The tax rate is set as the amount of the expenses in the budget divided by the value of all the properties" . . .I could be incorrect, but I don't think that I am . . . I believe that it would be more appropriate to identify that the tax rate is set, relative to assessed valuations, in effort to reach a targeted portion of the budget.  Obviously, the county budget includes several (many) other sources of funds than property taxes . . . including, but not limited to, sales tax, state and federal funds, fines/levies/assorted county fees, etc.."Let the rich pay a higher share for a couple more years" . . . for someone who used the word FAIR four times in 2 posts, this strikes me as a touch on the hypocritical side.  Who do you define as "the rich"?  Is it based on income?  Is it based on assets?  Is it based on your or someone else's definition of the value they contribute?  Does it matter if they are young or old?  What about if it's earned income vs. "unearned" (dividends, investments)?  What if they're curing cancer?  How about this . . . Let the "rich" pay their PROPORTIONATE share . . . or, better yet, every EVERYONE pay their PROPORTIONATE share.Now, I understand, if the tax assessed values drop, that would lead to a drop in property tax receipts unless their is a concurrent increase in tax rate.  So, of course, the knee-jerk reaction is to raise the tax rate.  Folks, at some point in time, we are going to have stop pissing away money at the governmental level.  Some services need to be cut, or reduced in funding.  A fantastic starting place would be duplicated or redundant services . . . Why on earth are there THREE parks and recreation divisions in this market (county, CH, Carrboro)?  Don't think we could create some efficiencies, and, in all likelihood, better and more consistent service, with a different model (maybe even an outside contractor)?