$13,000 is approximately one-tenth of one percent of the assessed value of the property.
By way of comparison, my landlord stopped by last night, and mentioned that the house I rent is valued at $150,000 and he paid around $1,500 in property taxes per year.
This is 1%, or 10 times the rate Michael Jackson pays.
At issue is whether or not Neverland can be considered agricultural property. Jackson gets a tax break because the ranch is currently considered to be agricultural.
But the article is unclear on what would happen to the tax rate if Santa Barbara County disallows that agricultural status. It did say this:
So what does this mean, Jackson would then have to start paying 0.01% rate on $18 million rather than $12 million? Or would his rate perhaps go up, maybe approaching the rate that non-bazillionaires have to pay?
I really hope it’s a misprint. Surely they meant $130,000, not $13,000. If not, I’m appalled. And I’m not generally in favor of “soaking the rich”, either. Just don’t soak the poor to make up for failing to soak the rich.
(My landlord lives in King County, Washington, not Santa Barbara County, California, but still the disparity is jarring.)
Of course I mean “0.1%” in the third paragraph from the end, not 0.01%. My ineptitude with numbers is making me hopeful that I’m suffering some terrible misunderstanding. Can somebody clear this up?
It’s not a misprint. Development of agricultural land has a huge tax break. However, I heard on the radio this morning that the local tax folk are investigating him because he has approximately 6 acres developed with buildings and such on them which is 3 or 4 acres too many to still consider it agricultural. If I remember correctly that is just a very small percentage of the entire estate.
My county does value assessments every two years for everyone and the taxes paid are based on those assessements. My house is worth about $145,000, for tax purposes is valued at $112,000 and I pay about $1500 a year in property taxes.
My property taxes are based on the assessed value, not what I paid. I have never heard of anyone’s taxes being based on what they paid. I don’t think it works that way.
Yeah, it’s truly outrageous, if not a misprint. Michael Freaking Jackson’s Modern-Day-Hearst-Castle Palatial Kingdom of Magic runs a little less than twice what you pay in property taxes. That’s quite a tax break for “developing agricultural land”. Or is the tax break supposed to be for keeping it agricultural? Those seem to be opposite concepts.
Handy, it definitely does not work that way. You pay a percentage of (recently) assessed value every year. At least, that’s how it works every place I’ve lived.
I remember Prop 13 when I lived in California; I had no idea it was still in effect. Any Californians care to discuss their property tax situation?
Well me and the guys at NAMBLA were talking about this the other day. Let me defend Jacko here.
A Rich Guy requires very few public services. He owns a ton of stuff and pays a discounted rate for it. Although the price per pound is less he still pays a lot of money.
Any normal Rich Guy pays a lot more into the pot than he takes out. (as he should, it is matter of degree, should he pay twice as much as he takes out, three times as much?)
Of course Mike is probably an exception.
Still it is the average Joe who is a freeloader on property taxes. Imagine a city with some vacant lots. If we build (and tax) regular-old houses we have to provide police. snow & snow removal, schools and all that. If we build a business (say a print ship) we get taxes but provide basically no schools, trash removal and so on. If we build a mansion we get much the same benifits of the print shop.
Now, if you ran the city, which would you rather have built? The fact is the average guy get more in services than he pays in taxes. The average Rich Guy pays more than he gets.
I see your point. But – but – property tax is theoretically based on the value of the property, not how many times you call the police per month, or how many kids you have in school. Down here on the pavement, at least, if you move from a $250,000 house into a $500,000 house, you can reasonably expect to see your property tax double. (Can’t you?)
Take LifeOnWry for example. Pays $7,000 yearly on $250,000 valuation. If he were in fact to move into a house twice as expensive – not freakishly pricey; half-million-dollar houses are practically a dime a dozen around here – he would at that point (if my theory is correct) be paying more property tax than Michael Jackson pays for Neverland Ranch. And I bet the local cops don’t even cruise by LifeOnWry’s front driveway on a regular basis, just to make sure everything’s all right. He’s probably using FAR less public services than Michael, if that is supposed to be the basis of your property tax.
(Minor nitpick - LifeOnWry is a girl.) And 62% of my property taxes go directly to the public school system. Since I have a kid in the system, I don’t bitch about THAT, but I also live in a neighborhood with lots of retirees who don’t have kids benefitting from our tax dollars. We own another property in town (apartments) with a taxable valuation of $400,000 for which we only pay $4600 a year in property taxes. (Incidentally, our school district is the one that’s made national news for being $56 million in debt. Imagine how happy I am right now.) As an average Joe (or Joann, rather) I think I object to being regarded as a freeloader compared to some bazillionaire.
However, none of that has to do with Jackson, and I apologize for the hijack.
I’m not sure I understand you. I’m saying you’re being soaked to the gills compared to some bazillionaire, practically subsidizing him. He’s the freeloader. (As it were; this whole thing makes me angry not at Jackson, of course, but at the system)
Not you, masonite. I was objecting to Paul In Saudi’s comment - I don’t think it’s accurate, although I have no basis for that other than the fact that I read it and got all huffy about it.
" I remember Prop 13 when I lived in California; I had no idea it was still in effect. Any Californians care to discuss their property tax situation?"
Ah, yes, we still have it. One percent of accessed. I think there was discussion of raising our business property tax rate to make some money for the state.
In my city there was a little law up until a couple years ago that said if you were a senior citizen & bought property here, you could keep paying only the property tax amount you paid on the house you had before you came here. So, if you paid $1000 a year before & you bought a home here that’s worth $2M you’d only have to pay $1000 a year on it. What a deal. But no longer.
Sheess, I own 40 acres of ag land. In Colorado. I have a grazing lease for cattle that keeps it in ag status. There is not a building, shed, driveway, well or any other improvement on it. If I did not lease it, the county would likely try to take away my ag status.
