Recs

19

These 7 States Tax Homeowners the Hardest

Don't let it get away!

Keep track of the stocks that matter to you.

Help yourself with the Fool's FREE and easy new watchlist service today.

Paying income tax is hard enough for those struggling to make ends meet. But with property taxes, even those who have no income end up having to bear their share of the overall tax burden.

Property taxes are typically imposed and collected by local tax authorities rather than state revenue departments, but property tax revenues have a big impact on the decisions that state governments make on where to apply their financial resources. Still, you can get a sense of how much of a property tax burden state residents bear by looking at the average tax paid per person. Using figures from the most recently available data from the Tax Foundation and land and home values from the Lincoln Institute, let's look at seven states that impose the highest average property taxes on their residents.

7. Rhode Island
Property taxes in Rhode Island average $2,083 per person. With average home values of $241,000 just barely putting Rhode Island in the top third of the nation, high tax rates and a high density of urban land help push the state's overall property tax burden higher. Moreover, with just over 1 million people, Rhode Island doesn't have many people over which split the fixed costs of state government.

6. Vermont
In Vermont, the average property tax bill is $2,166. Vermont's land values come in just below Rhode Island's at $239,000, and the state has a much more rural character than Rhode Island's small size and coastal proximity. As with Rhode Island, Vermont's small population of around 625,000 provides only a limited base on which to tax.

5. New York
New York imposes an average of $2,280 in property taxes per person. Average home values come in at $316,000, putting the state in the top 10. Yet given the huge disparities in real-estate prices throughout the state, that burden is very unevenly spread. Rural tax rates in upstate New York can be relatively reasonable, but in New York City, you'll see tax burdens that are more in line with those of neighboring states that are dominated more by the city's metropolitan area.

4. New Hampshire
New Hampshire charges an average of $2,463 per person in property taxes. At $178,000, its average home values are very low, but the lack of a general state tax on wage and salary income contributes to the need to raise revenue elsewhere. Although New Hampshire has a 5% income tax that applies to dividends and interest income, it's not enough to keep the state from having to charge much higher rates than you'll find in many areas. A relatively small population of just 1.32 million also adds to the burden.

3. Connecticut
Connecticut residents pay an average of $2,522 per person in property taxes. High property values of $347,000 put the state in the top five of the nation, and the large proportion of real estate that's located either along the waterfront or in areas close to New York City is largely to blame for the high tax rates.

2. Wyoming
Wyoming seems like an out-of-place selection on this list, given its wide expanses of open land. But highly priced real estate in the northwestern corner of the state, combined with the smallest population of any state in the nation and extensive ranch properties statewide, help explain the average $2,633 property tax burden. In addition, with no state income tax, the state government has to collect more revenue from other sources.

1. New Jersey
New Jersey tops the 50 states with an average property tax burden of $2,819. At $343,000, its average home value is among the top five states, and despite fairly high income and sales taxes, New Jersey's fairly consistent suburban character leads to a reliance on property taxes for revenue as well.

A tax on wealth
Property taxes represent a departure from income and sales taxes, both of which require an ongoing action in order to trigger taxation. Even if you have no earnings and make no purchases subject to sales tax, simply owning real estate is enough to incur what can be a huge annual tax liability, especially in these states. That's something you have to consider in choosing where to live and buy property.

The Motley Fool's chief investment officer has selected his No. 1 stock for this year. Find out which stock it is in the brand-new free report: "The Motley Fool's Top Stock for 2013." Just click here to access the report and find out the name of this under-the-radar company.


Read/Post Comments (64) | Recommend This Article (19)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 10:35 AM, verdun58 wrote:

    What about Texas? The property taxes here are very high; a home valued at $200,000 will pay $5,000 a year in property tax.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 10:50 AM, beairdboy wrote:

    I live in CT and we get more than we pay for. I have no problem paying for the states service, we have great schools/colleges,roads,services for the poor disabled and elderly and list goes on and on.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Stevegarry22 wrote:

    Six left wing liberal Nanny states. What would you expect? Someone has to pay for all the welfare baby breeders!

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 11:06 AM, ewilsond wrote:

    I live in Texas and my home is appraised at $180,000. I am retired Air Force Veteran on Social Security and my Property Taxes are over $2,500.00 a year. We do not have a income tax here but Texas gets you in every way they can

    Our sales tax is 8.25. .

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 11:09 AM, nguyen2kenneth wrote:

    Here in state of California Lib city of Menifee, my house value at $265K and my annual property tax is approximately $ 6300.00

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 11:15 AM, politiconned wrote:

    Average property tax in N.J. $2,819.00?

    Maybe if you live in a tent in Paterson, Trenton or Camden (Don't forget Newark)

    In Bergen County, average property tax is over $15,000.00

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 11:16 AM, bjjs wrote:

    Wow - Jersey finally made it to the top of the heap. Guess that's why I'm planning to move out of state sometime this year. Living in a smallish townhouse and now paying over $6,200 in property taxes what is wrong with this picture?

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 11:23 AM, JePonce wrote:

    Average home value in Omaha, NE is $133,000.

    My new home cost $135,000, but my property tax is $3,400 a year.

    So, what is up with that?

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 11:25 AM, karlpopperfan wrote:

    NH has NO sales TX and no income tax save for the dividend tax.

    It's all about trade offs. I'd rather live in a high property tax state than a high income and sales tax state

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 11:27 AM, cgrover wrote:

    Pennsylvania is high too. When taxes on my home hit $10K, I moved out of the NE.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 11:27 AM, NotaLiberal wrote:

    ewilsond...we have not state income tax, property taxes are the lowest in the country , only i the city do you pay 8.25% sales tax ( except food ) . If you are so unhappy with Texas go live in one of those liberal nanny states and see how much they RAPE you after telling you to your face they wont .

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 11:30 AM, hthomas49 wrote:

    Tulsa, OK

    assessed value $89K, tax $1121 or 1.2606%

    NJ value $343K, tax $2819 or 0.8217%

    sales tax 8.517%

    Income tax 5%

    we get hammered with all this and our services still suck.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 11:30 AM, azulpalido wrote:

    @nguyen2kenneth, firstly, Riverside county is no liberal haven. Menifee is no San Francisco. The inland empire portion of California is quite red.

    The base rate for property tax in Riverside County is 1.08%. You willingly purchased into a new development in Menifee where the greedy developers passed on costs directly to the home owner through something called "mello roos." A developer wants to build a community out in BFE, but doesn't want to pay for services/infrastructure (roads, police, firefighters, schools, libraries, etc). So you get stuck with the bill.

    Those are special development fees that are paid through extra taxes for up to 30 years. With mello roos, you're at 1.9% but none of that has to do with being in a "lib" city (in which, you are not).

    I purposely avoided homes in any area that had mello roos (but usually those were so far away that I would never live there anyway). Do your homework like how much actual PITI is. Don't whine about it after you've purchased.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 11:32 AM, hthomas49 wrote:

    nota liberal, Oklahoma is as red as they get. what's your explanation now?

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 11:37 AM, abramsmm01 wrote:

    I wouldn't call Wyoming a liberal nanny-state.

    Whatever one's political and social views, small states with small tax bases now find themselves with a model that doesn't work too well in today's economies of scale.

    I don't see why the New England states don't combine in some way, reducing all sorts of redundancy.

    Something tells me all the history, plus people who would be impacted, would fight like hell to make sure it never comes to pass. But how else can places like VT and RI ever become competitive again?

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Gogeyi wrote:

    I just bought a beautiful little home in Tennessee for $77,000 dollars 3 bedroom 2 full baths, taxes $217.00 a year, Tennessee is a beautiful place to live, you all need to move here, we are nice neighbors, living in paradise mountains all around, if this home was in New York or California it would go for at least $200,00 thousand dollars its that nice.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 11:59 AM, njhightaxes wrote:

    I'm not sure where the author obtained their info. but the average property tax bill in NJ was approx. $7800.00 for 2012. In 1999, the avg. was $4,240 so the author is way off. I pay $11k for .40 acres (home value is $330k) and that's considered reasonable in the area where I reside, Mercer County. The only people I know paying less than $7k live in Gloucester, Salem, Cumberland, and Atlantic County (in the boonies/woods).

    Despite the high taxes, NJ is a multi-cultural state with access to many activities, including museums, theatres, hiking, biking, beaches, ethnic restaurants, etc. NJ also ranks high w/regard to its schools and has a high rate of college graduates. Over 60% of our taxes go toward education and the remaining for services, which are excellent.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 12:01 PM, buzzltyr wrote:

    Finally an article that mentions property taxes, all we hear about Texas is no inome tax but they have very high property taxes. California has very low taxes, end result is Californians have made a fortune on their homes.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 12:05 PM, fredg13y wrote:

    My home in New Jersey is probably worth , at this time, $349,000. My real estate taxes this year are $8,000.00. I don't know where you got this low average figure. In New Jersey there is no such thing as an annual tax of $2,819. How would our corrupt politicians get rich if the average tax was that low -- there would be nothing to steal for their reelection campaigns. Planning to move soon!

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 12:06 PM, ashwindollar wrote:

    That quoted rate is definitely a very low rate compared to most of New Jersey. I live in Monmouth County, with a house assessed at $350,000 (and this is in Howell, a 3 bedroom house on 2 acres anywhere else in North/Central Jersey would be assessed at twice as much). We pay about $9000 in property taxes. Most of North Jersey is taxed at a much higher percentage rate.

    However, you get what you pay for. Teachers get paid very well compared to other states, and schools are very good.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 12:07 PM, NOTvuffett wrote:

    @Gogeyi, for the last 20 yrs or so I have been living in the Dallas area. The terrain is depressing. I prefer mountains. Honestly I never even thought of Tennessee. What are the income and sales taxes like there?

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 12:10 PM, Alexis1118 wrote:

    IDK what part of NY the writer researched because Westchester County,NY has the highest property taxes in the nation. There are people paying upwards of 20K annually.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 12:12 PM, lirpsen wrote:

    Did not they (the pilgrims) left Mother England to extirpate from themselves the very thing we are forced upon now?

    Her teat has long dried, her cadaveric foot still firm pressing against our necks in the form of a myriad of taxes.

    What benefit bring us to allow this?

    Back then, at the height of her "Empire" the whole world called her the most powerful on Earth and her subjects did not have nothing to eat or drink.

    Are not they calling us now "the most powerful on Earth? Do you have food and water?

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Gr8life4me wrote:

    Prop. 13 is the only tax plan that has done any good for Calif. they may have watered it down but never going to defeat it in my lifetime.

    Taxes that are over cumbersome place their populous into a perpetual state of recession as we have seen in the UK coming in with the 3rd dip in a recession they will never escape from.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 12:21 PM, texasliz wrote:

    Yes, what about Texas, especially Houston TX. We never get a break here, they always need more money, so our taxes especially school taxes are always going up and if you can't pay right aways the penalities are ridiculous. I almost lost my property once just because I couldn't finish paying my property taxes by the end of the years.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Ronmc2 wrote:

    buzzltyr-"California has very low taxes"

    Buzz Light Year lives in his own Cartoon world.

    Property Tax % perhaps, but except for no tax on groceries(McD's yes, an apple no), we have among the highest taxes on EVERYTHING else.

    I can hear the Limousine Liberals now-"Since I have my Gov't-supplied driver run all my errands, I didn't realize we have ANOTHER source of tax, I'm sorry, FEE revenue generation".

    From the state who doesn't want to burden the poor with a costly photo ID($7 for 7 years), but has introduced a bill to eliminate plastic grocery bags, so that the poor will have to buy 3 or 4 $2-5 canvas reuseable totes, and hope they remember to bring them. And the Bullet Train to Nowhere.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 12:46 PM, greybuscat wrote:

    I would have thought Texas would be up there, with their practice of shifting the income tax burden on to homeowners.

    I stand corrected.

    Side note: anyone complaining about the taxes in California should consider the substantially higher average wage for most jobs.

    It isn't always enough to overcome the local cost of living, particularly for young high-school grads, but California's tax policies do not exist in a vacuum, and you do have the freedom to live basically anywhere else, all of which have their own benefits and cost.

    Villainizing people and organizations you personally dislike is good, though, if it really makes you feel better about yourself. It certainly isn't accomplishing anything else.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 12:55 PM, ariesmah wrote:

    finally jersey reached the top<img src="http://tinyurl.com/c7l9ck6" width="1">

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 12:56 PM, nmot2012 wrote:

    I'm not sure why anyone on this site would say taxes in CA are low. The CA state property tax rate is 1% of sales price + a max of approx. .25% for local tax. With an average sales price for single family homes hovering around $300K, that's $3,750/year. Add to that a minimum state sales tax of 7.5% (plus local tax) and an income tax rate for wage earners making $47K - $1M of 9.3%, people who own & work in CA spend a lot of hours working for the state.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 1:13 PM, NOTvuffett wrote:

    @Ronmc2, it is amazing to me that cities can enact bans on plastic bags for groceries. Haven't they even heard of things like E. Coli or Listeria, etc. I guess saving the planet by not using a few grams of plastic is more important than a human life.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 1:20 PM, caresen wrote:

    I live in Texas also, have to question the depth from which this article was written. I sold my home in 2007. At that time on a 117,000 valuation my taxes were 3300.00 a year mine were midrange. Moved into our class A motor coach in 2008 have not looked back since.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Markietim wrote:

    $2819.00 Hmmmmm

    I live in a nice house, .35 acres. Wayne NJ. Assessed value of $330,000

    Taxes last year were $15988.00. Filed a tax appeal with the county and they lowered it to $13231.00. I'm very interested to know where this mythical $2819.00 came from.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Scout18 wrote:

    Who gathered the information for this article? Must not have graduated from school yet. New York's average property value $316,000 and taxes of $2,280. I live in New York and my home and property is valued at $209,000 dollars and we pay just under $7,000 a year property tax. If you are going to do an article do proper research.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 1:34 PM, Betterin2011 wrote:

    Whoever wrote this article is very misleading in his presentation. Property taxes are not paid per person as he continues to imply, they are paid by property owners only. You can't pro rata or share these taxes with the whole state and come up with an accurate cost per person. It doesn't work that way, just like most polls today are misleading for the same reasons. Polls are prejudiced by the area that the calls are made into and the way that questions are written or asked. That is why his numbers are grossly off. Property taxes also vary depending on the area of the state one is located in. Overall this is a very dumb article, besides being misleading.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 1:44 PM, donluc888 wrote:

    In Allegheny County In Western Pennsylvania The Property Taxes Are Very High. My Property Was Recently Assessed At $ 180,900. And My Property Taxes, Including City, City School, And County Real Estate Taxes Total $ 3400. Per Year.What A RIPOFF!

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 1:47 PM, patrixia77 wrote:

    Folks, For some reaon the tax is listed on a "per person" basis not on a "per home" basis. Odd choice but why make it easy to understand. Gotta keep us thinking! So multiply the numbers by the average number of people living in a home in your state. Probably 3 give or take. That will get to closer to the number you were expecting.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 1:50 PM, chg1008 wrote:

    Where's TX?? Property taxes on our house are $20,000 a year!!!!!!

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 2:23 PM, agwisreal wrote:

    I live in TX too. Most property tax is levied by cities, and not directly by the state. Most of the money goes to schools, local roads and sewer systems, and general expenses of city government. These things are done at a reasonable cost and reasonably well. It can't be done for free.

    You could argue that these property taxes are effectively state-level taxes because some of the money raised by local property taxes in richer areas is somehow or other siphoned off to help schools in poorer areas. But we do want decent schools for all and this is one step in that direction. (Getting there is another question. But name a state with big cities that actually has decent schools for all.)

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 3:03 PM, radar1610 wrote:

    It's not the property tax that make your property tax higher . I lived in Nassau County in New york and we pay a lot more than anyone think . It's the school tax that make it more difficult for us. That's why there are states with good school education . Maybe the writer is right with this report but did not include the School tax .

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 3:06 PM, mastiffrex wrote:

    Property taxes in Texas are very, very deceptive. The actual property taxes are low but you HAVE to pay a school district tax at the same time you pay your property tax and the school district taxes are equal to or higher than the property tax. So, your actual property tax for a 130,000 house may only be $1500 but you have to pay school taxes on the same bill so your total bill is actually about $3100 (1500 property and 1600 school taxes). You cannot opt out of paying the school tax and you pay regardless of whether you have a kid or not. SO, with that in mind, the property taxes in Texas are more like 20% of the value of your home each year. You never truly own your home in Texas, not with the state making you pay 20% of it's value each year.

    Signed,

    DEEP IN THE HEART OF TAXES

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 3:43 PM, Kummin wrote:

    You missed Illinois. 5000+ on a $200,000 house.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 4:07 PM, DiverMike wrote:

    Caplinger and anyone else who buys into this per capita based comparison are idiots. It is a meaningless comparison-especially in low population states. A more significant comparison would be per property, or better yet, citing the millage rates per thousand of assessed value; coupled with average values.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 4:28 PM, CathyBerni wrote:

    all democratic states

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 4:53 PM, gundagai wrote:

    There has to be something about their assumptions or methodology that they're not disclosing because as many of the comments indicate, these numbers seem to be VERY low.

    In my state, there are many fingers in my pocket:

    State

    Local School district

    County

    City

    Ports

    Fire

    Hospital

    Library

    and so on.

    Now, my total property tax bill is $3293 this year but the state portion is only $547 so I wonder if they are excluding all the sticky fingers except for the state.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Watch1Do1Teach1 wrote:

    Is anyone aware of a source that provides the 'property tax rate that a new buyer would pay, by county, throughout the country'?

    I personally find the data provided in the article 'Property Taxes on Owner-Occupied Housing, by County, Ranked by Taxes As a Percentage of Home Value, 2007 - 2009 (three-year average)' at the Tax Foundation website somewhat more useful than the Tax Foundation article Dan Caplinger sited in this piece. Although it doesn't tell me the tax rate a new buyer would pay it does provide the average property tax cost as a percentage of home value and as a percentage of median income at the county level.

    If I understand that data correctly then various counties in Louisiana, Hawaii, and Alabama have the lowest property tax rates and (some) New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Texas counties have the highest rate. The highest rate appears to be more than ten times the lowest rate. It is also clear from various comments that local governments are using mandatory 'school taxes', Mello Roos (in CA) and other devices to (sometimes greatly) increase the real costs associated with of owning property, just as various states have programs (like Prop 13 in CA) that prevent property tax on an individual property from increasing along with property value over time. The data provided for San Diego County (for instance) shows the 'average' rate at 0.58% while a new buyer would pay 1.25% if they purchase in most areas. I can only guess that the discrepancy is due to the long term impact of Prop 13.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 4:57 PM, Watch1Do1Teach1 wrote:

    make that '...Dan Caplinger cited...' ;-)

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 6:11 PM, Smart4aFool wrote:

    In New Mexico, I pay nearly $3,000 per year on an old house that cost about $90,000 to build and hasn't been fixed up like the neighbors.

    Property taxes are morally wrong (at least the way they are managed). So, you got cancer and can't work? But you still own that house! Fork it over! Your husband died and you're disabled? Pay us if you want to keep that house! Only veterans can get more exemptions, but this is the point: we DON"T "own" our homes if we must pay thousands every year just to keep them. I'm a disabled widow who will lose my home due to rising taxes. The home my father built, which I grew up in and my son grew up in-- really belongs to the state, who will wind up getting more for it than the original price!

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 6:33 PM, marine1967 wrote:

    After 62 years, I finally escaped the Liberal Asylum of New ( Jersey) Germany. For my average 3 br ranch on less than 1/4 acre, I was paying $5500.00. Now I am in the Great State of Kentucky, which is still a solvent member of these United States, by current 3 br ranch on 8 acres is $405.00. My car insurance is 1/2 of NJ. My electric is 1/3, by dog's vet bills are 1/4 ( Ex: NJ I need a prescription $35.00 for office visit to get my dog's insulin. Insulin costs $64.00 a box of needles, $68.00, that $167.00. Here no prescription needed for either, insulin $24.00, needles $13.00 That is a savings of $130.00. I find these savings everywhere. imply put, my needs in NJ were $6000.00 a month, Kentucky $1100.00 for the same way of life.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 7:20 PM, mom77 wrote:

    I am a retired widow living the country life in an Illinois cornfield..(minimum allowed acreage, average house, no city services), and my taxes are so high they have to escrow 7200$ this year, since I can no longer afford the 2 payments!

    Our property taxes are shamefully wasted..from paying for multiple districts, and high salaries to multiple superintendents...to leaving emost lights on in every school 24/7!! When I suggested something simple like keeping a minimum of lights on at the schools overnight, I was told it wasn't going to happen, regardless. I didn't send any kids to these schools, and I never minded paying for them when I believed the money was necessary and well spent, but things have changed and the cost to me is more than three times as much as when I moved here.

    The waste is so blatant that I can no longer vote for one more tax increase, regardless of what I am told. I can no longer afford my taxes...I hope the people who take our taxes will QUIT the waste and think about people like me who do without medicine and essentials to avoid nonpayment of our burdensome, outrageous, wasted taxes. Their attitudes are destroying America. If I am expected to save, save, save and do without to make ends meet....why don't our public services and politicians have to do the same?

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 7:22 PM, Toledocll wrote:

    You do not own the land, you are leasing it with legal protection, the American dreams of owning a small piece of it died years ago when government officials realized it was a cash cow.

    If you do not pay your property taxes, the government can take it back with all the improvements. When you pass it onto your children, it is taxed.

    Your primary home should never be taxed, if it is free and clear then that is that, no outlay, no nothing. You go away for a few years, you still own it without paying a dime.

    Many countries are this way.

    But today, owning a home, especially for those on a fixed income, can be a huge burden. The only burden that a person should have on their home is those that they chose to have, not those that are forced on them by money hungry government.

    Where does the loss of revenue come from? How about investing in utilities and communications companies, where the government owns half, private industry owns the other half thus sharing in profits while keeping competition intact. With the added benefit of being self regulating (to a point) because the peoples interest, through company policy, as set forth by the board of directors, the CEO, stock holders and employees would be upheld because both private and government would have equal say.

    But that would never work in the USA because of the big bad word, socialism, which most people have no idea what it means, which is, all business and enterprise is controlled and owned by the state. There is no free enterprise. Which I would never advocate, but a mixture of capitalism and socialism is what I am advocating which would be a win-win for large businesses, the government and people, while keeping competition and innovation intact.

    You want an easier life without the tax man knocking on your door? I sure as heck do, so think about it.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 8:06 PM, computersurplus wrote:

    If everyone would look you can find out what the PT are in any state - http://www.tax-rates.org/taxtables/property-tax-by-state

    NJ is the highest I see at 1.89% of home value so if you have $350k house $6615 max where as in AL the same house would be $1155 but the house in NJ is 2bd, 2bth and no yard and the one in AL is 5-8bdm-3bth and 3-5acres of land. I know because I have a 2400sqft-5bd, 2.5bth on my own land 3.77 acres and I pay about $850 per year PT in AL

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 8:14 PM, computersurplus wrote:

    Masstitfrex - PT in TX is no where near 20% as you so claim. Apparently you cant do simple math so you need to use the school tax to go to back to school. If you paid 20% on a $130k house that is $26,000.00 in taxes TX PT tax is 1.81% or $2353 and then if you double that for so called school tax that is only 3.62% or $4706 per year. Cars are a entirely different story. In IN the car average of say $20k is about $3k per year tag fees not just the 1st one but every year. Then in AL car tag on same 20k car is only about $250 1st time and then about $75 per year after

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 9:25 PM, vermonterfool wrote:

    Whoa! You missed a HUGE fact about the Vermont statewide property tax that skews this whole article. Vermont is the only state in which property taxes are income sensitive. If you make $99,000 or less, you get a discount on your property tax with a cap of $8,000.

    In other words, a couple bringing in $77,000 might have a tax bill of $5,000 on their $240,000 home. but with income sensitivity, that tax bill can be reduced to the neighborhood of less than $2,000.

    Do your research.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 9:32 PM, gpsboy wrote:

    If my NJ property taxes were anywhere NEAR $2819. I would still be living there. Try $11,000 a year for a $345,000 home (5 years ago).

    My partner, who still lives in the state pays more than $17,000. Believe it.

    It takes more than a "Fool" to believe this article. It would take an idiot.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 9:43 PM, mbee1 wrote:

    Sure a lot of bitching on these taxes. The taxes pay for things the taxpayers want. If you do not want to pay taxes than get together and throw out services.

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 10:09 PM, KarenMMM wrote:

    Why was the state of Illinois not included on the list? Our taxes actually managed to go up even though our property value had plummeted in the last 5 years, and we were dealing with job loss at the time. Within a couple of years our taxes had doubled, even though property value was 1/2 of what it was. We were lucky enough to sell our home instead of losing it because we couldn't afford the property taxes anymore. Most of the taxes went to the school systems which would have been ok if they were offering quality education, instead they were a bottomless pit of wasteful, frivolous spending..

  • Report this Comment On April 27, 2013, at 10:57 PM, rolandp11 wrote:

    There is a basic flaw in the calculation of tax based on the ESTIMATED price rather than on the price ACTUALLY paid.

    You buy a property for 100000 USD and you initially pay a tax of 1% i.e 1000 in the first year.

    Due to speculation and manipulation without me adding a brick or an ouce of cement the estimated price of my house becomes 10 times (1000000) in the next 10 years. I therefore have to pay a property tax of 100000 per year at the rate of 1% of the ESTIMATED price. Now I am a retired person and since I cannot afford to pay these high astronomical property rates I decide to sell. But now for some reason nobody is willing to pay me more than 100000 (i.e the original price). Will the state now purchase my property at 1000000 the estimated price of the property even though no outsider is willing to pay more than 100000?

    Also what if due to manipulation and speculation the prices of properties start tumbling down and at the end of the 10th year the property value is exactly the original price.

    This means all this while I have paid property tax on a VIRtUAL price.

    By virtual price I mean something that I actually did not pay for and something which I would never have paid for because I did not have the finances for it.

    The way property prices are calculated is not correct.

    The point that I am trying to make is that:

    Property taxes should be calculated based on the PRICE I ACTUALLY paid. And for the sake of calculation of taxes etc the property should be deemed depreciating as the years go by at the rate of 1% or 2%. Just like the insurance guys depreciate your vehicle every year.

    The state is free to charge a sales tax in case I ACTUALLY sell my property at a higher rate of 10 times the original value or in case I transfer it to someone else. From that time onwards the tax can be calculated on the new price I ACTUALLY paid.

    Hope the state realizes this flaw and revisits the way property taxes are calculated.

    Best Wishes to the people of this planet.

    Roland Pereira rolandp11@gmail.com

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2013, at 1:15 AM, mamccleskey wrote:

    There is no state property tax in Texas. Property taxes are collected by the various counties and are then distributed to the county, city, school district, hospital district and (if there is one) the county community college. There is NO state income tax. There is also a homestead exemption for home owner occupied properties and a senior citizen exemption for home owner occupied properties when the home owner becomes 65 years old.

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2013, at 1:53 AM, DavidLeland wrote:

    @Betterin2011 I absolutely agree! It's the fundamental analysis of property taxes, they are not *ever* per capita or personal.

    So what is the article doing here? Where are the editors? It's a sign of a deep quality problem at this website, which has been noticed repetitively by commenters over the past couple of years.

    Let the reader beware! Also, let the publishers (Fool, Yahoo! ) understand that reading audience erosion stems from such factors.

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2013, at 8:41 AM, TMFGalagan wrote:

    @2njhightaxes and others asking about the methodology - At the link near the top of the article, you'll find the Tax Foundation data that this article used to rank the states. The fact that states like Texas and Illinois have very high populations likely helped spread the burden out more than in some of the low-population states that made this list.

    @Betterin2011, DavidLeland - I agree that one legitimately argue with using per-capita figures rather than per-household, but it was the basis for the Tax Foundation's analysis. Moreover, it's a legitimate and easy way to compare states, and while it's definitely not the only way, it does bear some relation to actual tax bills if you believe that larger families tend to live in larger, more expensive homes.

    @VermonterFool - Thanks for the note. The analysis included the impact of the Vermont exemption for some families; without it, the tax would presumably have been even higher.

    Thanks to all for reading!

    best,

    dan (TMF Galagan)

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2013, at 12:39 PM, notensarge wrote:

    here we figure property taxes

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2013, at 12:50 PM, notensarge wrote:

    I'm 81 yrs old and slow,so help me. I still don't know what the property taxes are in those states. Here taxes are figured by property value not number of people in the state. I'm just a simple old man,help;;;;;

  • Report this Comment On April 28, 2013, at 1:13 PM, enginooity wrote:

    I don't think that per capita tells the whole story. You should have used % of evaluation and also factored in exemptions.

  • Report this Comment On May 04, 2013, at 2:39 PM, walfor wrote:

    In Salem, OR $175,000 property value has a tax of $3,000 plus all residents of OR pay over twice the national average for state income tax!! Yes, it is true we don't have sales tax but that is small compensation for the other exorbitant taxes we have. I remember when I moved here from CA many years ago my basic phone bill in CA was $3.65. Here in OR, the exact same service was $20.00 back then. Taxes.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2391540, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/21/2014 1:12:42 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Dan Caplinger
TMFGalagan

Dan Caplinger has been a contract writer for the Motley Fool since 2006. As the Fool's Director of Investment Planning, Dan oversees much of the personal-finance and investment-planning content published daily on Fool.com. With a background as an estate-planning attorney and independent financial consultant, Dan's articles are based on more than 20 years of experience from all angles of the financial world.

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 16,546.32 146.65 0.89%
S&P 500 1,931.13 27.12 1.42%
NASD 4,386.96 70.89 1.64%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes


Advertisement