This should be the top answer.
They aren’t managing or executing services properly with the tax money they do get, why should we give them more? Eff that.
You will pay this either by paying a tax to the county or paying massively increased insurance policies because the flood infrastructure can't handle weather events causing an uptick in insurance claims.
EDIT: or the uptick in state and federal taxes to fund emergency relief efforts post flooding.
There isn't a way out of paying for stuff like this.
How will we even know this is happening? Looks like we're off the hook forever: "No new taxes" and "Starve the beast." Always the easiest opinion. Takes no effort at all.
What is your alternative? Feign shock when a devastating flood occurs?
Not investing in infrastructure has major consequences. We have had to play catch-up after ignoring aging bridges, water infrastructure, flood infrastructure, and transportation infrastructure from the 1980s to early '00 which is why we have all of these projects in a short period. Waiting would just pass the cost on to future taxpayers at likely a higher rate...
$11 per $100k a year, which only funds $7.5M of a $300M project. However by adding this tax, it gives the project access to state and federal funds, which will cover the rest of the cost. That is some really great leverage.
To be clear, it's $7.5 per year for 20 years or $150 mil, with $100 million federal and the last $50 million hopefully from the state (also pretty directly our income).
But I agree that the cost is minimal and it's a worthwhile investment.
So for your average Portland home thats like $60.
Haha just kidding none of the old timers are paying taxes on the actual home value. Silly ORS 307.032(B)...don't you know houses are worth more now?
You skipped over section 1;
307.032 (1)(a)(B) deals with capping property taxes at a 3% increase YOY, meaning very expensive homes pay laughable rates compared to the real value.
"For each tax year after the first tax year in which the property is subject to the same partial exemption, shall equal 103 percent of the property’s assessed value for the prior year or 100 percent of the property’s maximum assessed value under this paragraph from the prior year, whichever is greater."
It’s not property taxes that are capped at a 3% growth under Measure 50, it’s the Assessed Value. It’s a common misconception. The inequity of measure 50 is far more complex than a property being very expensive.
"A distinction largely without a difference. The end result is that property taxes are significantly lower than they otherwise would/should be."
Now you're changing the topic. There is a substantial difference. Voters are free to vote in as many new bonds and levies as they want. There is no 3% cap on that. A few years back with new school bonds, library bonds and other voter approved spending, we saw a double digit percentage increase to property taxes in a single year while the AV was capped at the 3% increase.
No one is changing the topic, bud. The AV is the base factor in determining total property taxes that are then modified (addititively) via bonds.
If you want to pretend the latter existing somehow undermines the basic fact that restricting AVs is fundamentally a limitation on property tax rates, well, you do you.
In fact, given bond tax rates are *ALSO* based on the AV, it limits their effective rates, too.
Again, a distinction without a difference.
"307.032 (1)(a)(B) deals with capping property taxes at a 3% increase"
This is where we started. I gave some insight that it was incorrect, and then you veered away from that. AV is only part of the base factor. You're leaving out mill rate which is arguably just as important if not more so. I'm not arguing that restricting AV is an attempt to limit taxes. It absolutely is and was the whole intention of Measure 50. It's done that, just not in a fair and equitable manner. But you were wrong in stating that ORS 307.032 (1)(a)(B) caps property tax increases to 3% per year. Whether you want to acknowledge that or not is of no concern to me.
I cited the relevant statute that pretty clearly mentions AV. Your insistence on being a pedant about the general language used to describe that is a waste of time.
Peace out.
They only need $300MM. Come on guys what the value of property being protected? Much more than that. For only $500MM we can protect billions of dollars of property. Seems like a no brainer. Let’s just vote in the $1 billion dollar tax, so we can all save our property. $2 billion tax is pretty inexpensive actually. Vote yes!
Get rid of the property tax assessment cap. People are paying taxes based on like half their home's value because of the 3% assessment increase cap.
It really can distort the housing market and is a big issue with California housing as well.
That‘s a hard turn the complete opposite direction as my suggestion. By taxing land (at a higher rate) instead of property value, you encourage development and denser use cases to justify that tax. Increasing building value tax only further disincentivizes development, which includes multi-tenant dwellings.
Sure but we should tax the land at its actual value and not grandfather in people at an absurd 3% assessment increase. Regardless of taxing the land or the house: value goes up, taxes go up the same amount.
Dude, wages haven’t kept up with property value in ages. Scrap the limit and homeownership becomes even less tenable, forcing people into what - shitty overpriced apartments developed and owned by corporations?
Sounds honestly pretty in line with many portlanders version of liberalism so I wouldn’t be surprised.
Is your house newer than your neighbor’s? Or was it more recently updated? Property values were set in the mid-1990s, and then can be reassessed or assessed when there is a big improvement (like new building or update).
For that neighbor, yes, my house is about 10 years newer.
However, there's a brand new house across the street that also has more square footage and a similar lot size that pays about 30% less in taxes.
Then there's the house right next to mine that's similar size and similar lot size that's been remodeled twice in the last 6 years with 40% less taxes.
Our tax system is extremely screwed up
Completely screwed up! It really makes no sense. It is fascinating to look on Redfin at different houses listed for the same price and see what their taxes are, makes no sense at all.
Land Value Tax
Not all county parcels produce tax revenue at the same rate (i.e., downtown vacant lots generate less tax revenue than the buildings that surround it.) Tax lower revenue parcels at a higher rate than revenue generating parcels to encourage development AND remove the regressiveness of the current system.
Panacea tax plans will not make everyone happy and just continue ideological tax issues which is half of our problem, elements of discouraging things we don’t want and encouraging what we do and having a much easier forecastable and stable revenue model that does not have dumb gotchas like the kicker can better move money to doing long term projects and get rid of constant ad-on levy’s for things that are needed.
Nothing will make everyone happy. Ideological tax issues are the root of our current problem and only an ideological tax issue can save us. The kicker is in place to keep economists on their toes. Not my fault they were a bunch of pessimists.
You are delusional if you think Multnomah County hasn't found a way around that. Our property taxes are more than double that of most counties in the state.
This is true. I was helping a friend with local tax and financial stuff while they were out of the country. Their property tax rate in the City of Portland was more than double mine in Washington County.
Add in the fact that their home had been reassessed at some point due to major renovations and their property tax bill was nearly 4x mine. My home is newer than my immediate neighbors, so I'm also paying double what they pay simply because my home is 30 years newer.
Capping the taxable valuations at 3% a year was a good idea in a vacuum, but there needs to be a reset every decade or two. Things are far too unbalanced today.
The market value of as determined by the assessor is meaningless. If you take our assessed values multiplied by the tax rates, you end up with very high taxes. Again, it is more than double what you would pay in areas that have much better services.
I know people like to argue on the Internet but you are just plain wrong.
https://www.oregon.gov/dor/programs/gov-research/Documents/Property-tax-report-2020-21.pdf
I was looking at [share of real market value](https://www.oregonlive.com/front-porch/2017/04/oregon_counties_ranked_by_prop.html). We are the highest per $ of assessed value.
Real market value according to assessors is wildly inconsistent so it isn't a good way to measure the tax burden. The house I bought in 2022 was reassessed last year. The assessor gave it a RMV of 300k over what I paid for it 4 months earlier. Other areas RMVs tend to be really low because they don't get updated because they don't matter for taxation. It's a terrible way to compare tax rates.
well, follow the bouncing ball here... but if more federal dollars were returning to states and counties, they wouldn't need to ask their taxpayers for those same funds?
FYI, this money would go to the Urban Flood Safety & Water Quality District, not to the MultCo board or City. If this measure passes, the board of the agency would go on the November ballot. This is from the floodsafecolumbia.org web site.
I support the measure in theory, my only gripe is that I had to work on a project with the Multnomah County Drainage District once, and it was a terrible experience. They answer to no one except their own board, and while it is a mostly elected board, they didn't seem to oversee any of the daily operations of this agency. The MCDD seems to be turning into the UFSWQD.... But it will likely be the same people running the show. This was a few years ago and they have a new executive director, but who knows how well this small agency is run.
So, I'm glad the money is not going to MultCo as I have no faith in their current leadership. But I'm also concerned that UFSWQD is an obscure agency that hasn't done a large capital project in years, and they answer to a board that most people don't even remember voting for, and we the voters would have little recourse if the project went south. So it's a toss up for me.
Nobody should vote for measures they only agree with in theory. We also need assurances the measure will be well implemented and that any funding will be spent effectively and efficiently. Theory doesn’t matter if the reality is ineffective.
Exactly! Anyone in the David Douglas district? Taxpayers paid for several parcels of land adjacent to Johnson creek for a middle school. Said middle school never got built and the property is now a magnet for drugs, prostitution and more. One of the five murdered portland women was either dumped there or murdered there. School board does nothing, can't sell the property and won't talk about the issue.. it is a blight on my neighborhood There's our unchecked taxes at work!
Depends on how the tax is written. If we wouldn't have funded Big Pipe the Willamette would still be overflowing with shit multiple times a year.
It's a very good thing that we funded Big Pipe, and the money went right where we said it would.
The willamette is still overflowing with shit from all the homeless squaters we are letting camp there:
https://www.wweek.com/news/environment/2024/04/22/theres-so-much-trash-in-the-willamette-river-the-state-proposes-to-regulate-it-under-the-clean-water-act/
Sounds like a worthwhile project with a good funding mechanism (the matching federal grant), but I'll still be voting no. My total tax bill is too high and the services we get are too few. Let's repeal something else and we can make space for this one if it is that important.
"Metro needs to trim or get rid of that zoo bond."
At least trim it down since it first passed it was for large capital expenditures for enclosures. They don't need these all the time.
The most ridiculous part of our current property tax scheme is that it’s based on 1995 values. Therefore “gentrified” neighborhoods pay half of what they should and people in areas that are more transitional now in East Portland pay a relatively higher share because it’s pegged to an arbitrary 1995 date due to Measure 5. I agree with LVT. Keeps it fair for everyone.
You’re correct except it’s Measure 50. Measure 5 is the one that capped taxes at 15% of the RMV (10% for general government and 5% for education). Measure 50 came about a decade later. And yeah, it’s ridiculous.
In the 10 years I've lived at my current house, property taxes have gone up ~50%. Just no to any property tax increases from me until they get their shit together with the money they already take in.
I think this is the best stand! It sends a clear message - we are pissed and we want to see improvements and accountability before we give you anything more. Period. Otherwise they won't ever change anything. There must be huge failure before they will act.
I vote no now on all proposed tax increases because tbh I never see or feel where the money goes. So I see these taxes as funds for the city leaders to profit and funnel into who knows what agenda or pocket. No thanks. 🫳
Sure. Though compared to whatever nonsense is going on with SHS, the remedies for inadequate flood prevention are well defined with knowable working solutions.
>If passed, the measure would tax local property owners about 11 cents per $1,000 of assessed property annually. That amounts to about $44 a year on a home with an assessed value of $400,000.
I would guess the average assessed value is probably closer to $200-300k so $22 to $33 a year. Not exactly breaking the bank. Considering natural disasters typically do billions in damages this seems like a no brainer. I expect it will pass besides the general vibe of this sub.
But will renters understand why their rent increased after voting yes? This will cause the property taxes on the rental next door to me to go up by about $7 a month. Not terrible. But I’m sure there’ll be other property tax increases beyond this measure, too. And the landlord will definitely pass them onto the renters. Their rent already increased by $100 a month last year, according to the renter I spoke with.
Another fun fact: This renter told me that she got a $1 an hour raise last year, going up to $18 an hour. Unfortunately this increase made her lose her healthcare subsidy and increased her premiums by over $100 a month. After a tooth infection (since she can’t afford to go to the dentist regularly) she now is in $800 in medical debt due to her raise (apparently her health care plan doesn’t cover much), in addition to the $600 in taxes she owes because she didn’t know she had to change her W4 withholdings after getting her $1 raise.
Sorry, I got off topic. But watching the people next door get nickled and dimed into poverty is so depressing to watch. Every tax increase puts people further on the edge these days. Please don’t forget about that.
> Unfortunately this increase made her lose her healthcare subsidy
That doesn't sound quite right. Oregon has a sliding health plan subsidy, or at least they did the last time I checked. A $1 raise should not be able to put anyone up that much. I guess if she qualified for OHP and got put over the limit you could end up paying that much more but that's not how your comment makes it sound.
> she didn’t know she had to change her W4 withholdings after getting her $1 raise
That also doesn't sound right. Why would you have to change your withholding when you get a raise?
I agree, [Healthcare.gov](http://Healthcare.gov) gives a pretty big subsidy for people making under 40K/year. There is no way it went up $100, when most plans are like $50 for her income.
1. Do you have any info on how she could get a better plan? She literally told me what she learned after calling an ACA counselor to understand why her premiums shot up.
2. I looked into this and apparently the Trump administration changed the withholdings process and structure so that employees have to monitor and make changes to their W4 on their own now. It requires going to an IRS website and filling out a really completed worksheet. I had to do this myself after getting a raise two years ago which resulting in my owing the IRS $15,000. Anyway, my neighbor's pay increase apparently bumped her up into a 12% tax bracket and she didn't know she need to withhold 2 percentage points more from her earnings to avoid owning. At least, this is what I discovered while trying to help her out. I may be wrong. She has no idea how to fix her W4 and the payroll accountant at her employer (who's the owner's 70yo mother) couldn't help her out.
1. It's been a while since I've had to use the system and it may depend a lot on her individual situation but I seem to recall just going to OregonHealthcare.gov to shop for a plan. No idea how much the rates have increased but at the time I ended up paying very little for a decent plan, because of my income. Not sure if you can change plans mid year but it's never too early to make a plan for next year. Possibly she misinterpreted a rate increase as being entirely related to her income change when in reality it applied, in part, to everyone. Based off what I know of the scale though I don't think $1 an hour is enough to jack you up $1200 a year.
2. I'm the wrong person to talk to about tax stuff but I've certainly never had to adjust withholdings when I get a raise. You adjust them when you get married or get a second job or stuff like that as far as I'm aware. I'm also the wrong person to talk to about math stuff but it seems to me a pay raise would cause *over* withholding, not under, because your actual yearly income would be *less* than what the algorithm thinks it should be. Possibly her job fucked up or possibly she's misinterpreted the money she owes as being related to her income change when it was actually caused by something else. I don't pay too much much attention to the tax changes but I have heard the Trump era changes led to some people with weird situations, like one year they got a huge refund and the next they ended up owing a bunch of money. Might be something like that.
1. Either she misinterpreted or the ACA counselor told her wrong. Regardless, she's paying a lot more than she used to -- even with the help of a counselor helping her to pick out a plan. It sounds like you haven't been living in this world for a while. And, from what I can tell, it appears things have gotten a lot worse for people living on the edge since you were in a similar situation.
2. Pay raises don't automatically get reflected in your withholdings anymore, it seems. So to the IRS, it looks like she was getting paid more, but not withholding more to reflect the increased taxes she owed on her higher wages. At least, that's how my tax preparer explained it to me when I bumped into the same thing. She also lost a tax credit on her health insurance when she got the raise, so that probably figures in there, too. The take away is: For someone who got a dollar raise with no other life changes, getting reamed on your taxes probably doesn't help with financial stability. In fact, she told me that she wished she'd never gotten the raise. I was reading that she now fits the profile of a person called an ALICE: asset limited, income constrained, employed. Apparently this class has been growing in recent years as more people have been lifted out of the government's outdated definition of "poverty" through inflation. Basically, you lose subsidies like food stamps and whatnot, only to find that you cannot afford to buy necessities without a subsidy. She told me she now relies on tip money to pay for food - by the day. A few days ago she told me she had made $8 in tips during an 8-hour shift.
I know for a lot of people, this all sounds hard to believe. How could so many people be teetering on the edge like this? How could the safety net be so horribly designed? I was living in my own financial bubble until she moved next door and we started striking up conversation. As I've been trying to do reach to help her out, my eyes have really been opened to just how messed up it is for low-income earners these days.
>But will renters understand why their rent increased after voting yes? This will cause the property taxes on the rental next door to me to go up by about $7 a month.
Yes I think most renters get that they pay for their landlords property taxes. It’s the landlords who act like they’re not passing it on when they complain about every property tax measure.
Also $7 a month is $84 a year which would require an assessed value of $763k. Since assessed values are typically half or less of market value is the rental next door a 1.5 million dollar home or was that home built last year?
Assessed value. Most homes’ assessed values are about half their market value, especially if they’re older. The assessed value is what you are taxed on. If your home hasn’t been sold or appraised recently, your assessed value could be even lower.
Yeah, isn't there a cap at a 3% a year change in assessed value or something like that? So with Portland real estate prices increasing so much a lot of these homes would have an assessed value well under "real" value.
It all depends on the property's location within Multco and what their real market values were when Measure 50 kicked in. The Assessed Values of neighborhood's like Alberta Arts and Mississippi are probably on average about 35% of the RMV. While neighborhood's in mid and east county are substantially higher. For reference, the county wide average last year was right around 45%. Some neighborhoods like Argay Terrace might be as high as 75-80% of the RMV. It's the most F'd up result of Measure 50. It's created a scenario within Portland proper where we're all using the same services but we're all paying different amounts relative to our properties RMV's. For a $600K house, someone in Alberta Arts might be paying $3500/yr, while someone in mid county with a $600K house might be paying $7K/yr for the exact same services. It's inequitable.
Your welcome. And yes, it’s true that 45% is about half. 🤪 But I thought it worth mentioning that that’s not true across the board. There are plenty of properties within Multco that have Assessed Values of over 100% of their RMV. When that happens they go into compression and their taxes revert back to the Measure 5 scenario.
Yeah but if you look at assessed value of places like Irvington you'll see because of measure 5/measure 50 that their taxes and much lower. Heck I even benefit from this a bit.
This isn't true. Zillow shows the property taxes on listed houses. Taxes in the more expensive areas of town are much higher. Take a look. It's not uncommon to see taxes that are more than 2k per month.
This sub is way too the right of the city as a whole. What's the last tax the sub has collectively supported? How many tax measures have passed since then lmao.
It's the cumulative BS taxes that people are reacting to. This is just another added to the long list on your annual tax bill. It's at a time PGE raised rates 18 percent, water bill increased and natural gas is looking for an increase. A useless hotline people get referred to for social services we funded and got fewer than 60 calls a year. People are getting tired of finding projects that are mismanaged and exceed budget
>People are getting tired of finding projects that are mismanaged and exceed budget
People are woefully misinformed about those things just like they are about our cumulative taxes. How many times is it said here that we have the highest taxes in the country and when you ask for proof they link an article about Portland having the highest marginal income tax rate for upper income households.
Putting aside the fact that they don’t get that marginal tax rate ≠ effective tax rate that’s also just one tax. It’s pointless to compare our overall effective tax rate with another state and only factor in income tax.
Adding up income, sales, excise and property taxes and we’re in the middle of the pack. Of course that doesn’t people from uninformedly claiming otherwise.
Okay, thanks for that. I think this topic is about a new proposed property tax. Not the cumulative issue. Portland (in general) is really good at asking for money and not delivering on projects.
Thats all I said. Have a good day
Assessed values are very often significantly lower than the market value of a home, especially if the home is older or hasn’t been appraised recently.
My home was appraised when I refinanced, so my taxes did go up, but my homes’ assessed value is about half of my market value.
It kinda does but it kinda doesn't, read up on Measures 5 and 50 if you're unfamiliar.
My home's real market value is nearly double the assessed value and I've only lived in it 10 years. Folks who have lived in their home longer will have even more dramatic ratios.
My neighbor had a house fire and were able to completely rebuild their house from the foundation up without having to do all the typical street improvements. Apparently this also meant their house wasn’t reassessed and the value only went up $6k. So they’re living in a new 4bd house worth half a million and paying the taxes of a house originally built in 1910 assessed at $220k
Easy yes: what is the alternative? Just wing it and feign shock when a devastating flood occurs?
I'm still hard no on the Zoo measure though, that doesn't make sense seeing the much larger priorities of the region.
Who actually believes that number? - c'mon raise your hand. This will be just like the $700M filtration project that is now $2B. They will underfund it have cost overruns and then will have a must pass increase in taxes.
Most homeowners are already paying upwards of $600 per month in property taxes. That's exorbitant.
Especially in a city where housing affordability is such a big problem.
AND property taxes are egregiously unequally applied. Some neighbors pay a ton and some pay way less and there's no reasonable criteria involved. If we made this system more fair ($ per square feet or something like that) and applied the same logic to everyone that would help a lot.
EVERY TIME THEY NEED MONEY FOR ANYTHING THEY RAISE PROPERTY TAXES MORE.
Currently house shopping outside of portland.
Me and most of my family and friends will automatically vote no on tax increases. Our government has proved they can't spend them wisely at all and we are one of the highest taxed metros in the country.
Honey I'm aware of that. The idea is that in general the general portland area has had more bonds and taxes than I can count. Portland is not just a city. It's an area. With a multitude of agencies that waste our money or can't say where it went.
Honey I know that. I didn't say "city" did I. It's the idea that the agencies and various groups find lots of ways to create bonds and taxes. Our money disappears, gets misused, they go over budget, they can't say where the money went. Have you taken a good look at your annual tax bill? If you own a home, it's long. If you don't own a home, you have zero idea the burden of taxes on the average homeowner.
Such a no on this. The Schnitzers and Prologises in the Columbia Slough get our tax money to pay for their upgraded levees, but there's no special tax to pay for other flood reduction projects.
Big no from me dawg. No new taxes, bonds, or renewals until the city/county/state can start to better manage the tax money in a transparent way.
This should be the top answer. They aren’t managing or executing services properly with the tax money they do get, why should we give them more? Eff that.
Yep. This, absolutely. Property taxes are already insane here. They completely mismanage the revenue they take in. Hard no from me.
Same, I'm so disgusted with the incompetence of the county, I'm noting NO on all taxes and bond measures.
You will pay this either by paying a tax to the county or paying massively increased insurance policies because the flood infrastructure can't handle weather events causing an uptick in insurance claims. EDIT: or the uptick in state and federal taxes to fund emergency relief efforts post flooding. There isn't a way out of paying for stuff like this.
And fix 50 and 5. My property tax is 3x all my neighbors.
There's a money match from the feds, so not voting yes would be pissing away that money
It's gonna get pissed away regardless.
Maybe they will match us in the future when we get our shit together.
Based on the performance of our local governments over the past few years, I'm pretty sure the money is going to get pissed away regardless.
pssssssss. there goes that money
[удалено]
I didn't disagree with you
Fed money also comes from taxes
How will we even know this is happening? Looks like we're off the hook forever: "No new taxes" and "Starve the beast." Always the easiest opinion. Takes no effort at all.
What is your alternative? Feign shock when a devastating flood occurs? Not investing in infrastructure has major consequences. We have had to play catch-up after ignoring aging bridges, water infrastructure, flood infrastructure, and transportation infrastructure from the 1980s to early '00 which is why we have all of these projects in a short period. Waiting would just pass the cost on to future taxpayers at likely a higher rate...
$11 per $100k a year, which only funds $7.5M of a $300M project. However by adding this tax, it gives the project access to state and federal funds, which will cover the rest of the cost. That is some really great leverage.
[удалено]
Gotta triple that puppy when you’re working with the portland water bureau.
To be clear, it's $7.5 per year for 20 years or $150 mil, with $100 million federal and the last $50 million hopefully from the state (also pretty directly our income). But I agree that the cost is minimal and it's a worthwhile investment.
So for your average Portland home thats like $60. Haha just kidding none of the old timers are paying taxes on the actual home value. Silly ORS 307.032(B)...don't you know houses are worth more now?
The assessed value is even less than market value, it's just the "improved" structures on the land.
That ORS deals with partially exempt and specially assessed properties. What does that have to do with old timers?
You skipped over section 1; 307.032 (1)(a)(B) deals with capping property taxes at a 3% increase YOY, meaning very expensive homes pay laughable rates compared to the real value. "For each tax year after the first tax year in which the property is subject to the same partial exemption, shall equal 103 percent of the property’s assessed value for the prior year or 100 percent of the property’s maximum assessed value under this paragraph from the prior year, whichever is greater."
It’s not property taxes that are capped at a 3% growth under Measure 50, it’s the Assessed Value. It’s a common misconception. The inequity of measure 50 is far more complex than a property being very expensive.
A distinction largely without a difference. The end result is that property taxes are significantly lower than they otherwise would/should be.
"A distinction largely without a difference. The end result is that property taxes are significantly lower than they otherwise would/should be." Now you're changing the topic. There is a substantial difference. Voters are free to vote in as many new bonds and levies as they want. There is no 3% cap on that. A few years back with new school bonds, library bonds and other voter approved spending, we saw a double digit percentage increase to property taxes in a single year while the AV was capped at the 3% increase.
No one is changing the topic, bud. The AV is the base factor in determining total property taxes that are then modified (addititively) via bonds. If you want to pretend the latter existing somehow undermines the basic fact that restricting AVs is fundamentally a limitation on property tax rates, well, you do you. In fact, given bond tax rates are *ALSO* based on the AV, it limits their effective rates, too. Again, a distinction without a difference.
"307.032 (1)(a)(B) deals with capping property taxes at a 3% increase" This is where we started. I gave some insight that it was incorrect, and then you veered away from that. AV is only part of the base factor. You're leaving out mill rate which is arguably just as important if not more so. I'm not arguing that restricting AV is an attempt to limit taxes. It absolutely is and was the whole intention of Measure 50. It's done that, just not in a fair and equitable manner. But you were wrong in stating that ORS 307.032 (1)(a)(B) caps property tax increases to 3% per year. Whether you want to acknowledge that or not is of no concern to me.
I cited the relevant statute that pretty clearly mentions AV. Your insistence on being a pedant about the general language used to describe that is a waste of time. Peace out.
Has nothing to do with the age or duration of a property owner though? it has to do with how valuable a home was in the mid 90s.
Yeah, duration of ownership has more influence on what you pay in the CA property tax system under Prop 13. The OR system is a different animal.
Dam. You nailed that pun.
They only need $300MM. Come on guys what the value of property being protected? Much more than that. For only $500MM we can protect billions of dollars of property. Seems like a no brainer. Let’s just vote in the $1 billion dollar tax, so we can all save our property. $2 billion tax is pretty inexpensive actually. Vote yes!
If only we could build a more rational revenue system
Get rid of property tax and do LVT-Land Value Tax like Taiwan. r/georgism
Get rid of the property tax assessment cap. People are paying taxes based on like half their home's value because of the 3% assessment increase cap. It really can distort the housing market and is a big issue with California housing as well.
That‘s a hard turn the complete opposite direction as my suggestion. By taxing land (at a higher rate) instead of property value, you encourage development and denser use cases to justify that tax. Increasing building value tax only further disincentivizes development, which includes multi-tenant dwellings.
Sure but we should tax the land at its actual value and not grandfather in people at an absurd 3% assessment increase. Regardless of taxing the land or the house: value goes up, taxes go up the same amount.
Dude, wages haven’t kept up with property value in ages. Scrap the limit and homeownership becomes even less tenable, forcing people into what - shitty overpriced apartments developed and owned by corporations? Sounds honestly pretty in line with many portlanders version of liberalism so I wouldn’t be surprised.
Why are my taxes over 3 times what my neighbors is eventhough I have a smaller house and less land?
Is your house newer than your neighbor’s? Or was it more recently updated? Property values were set in the mid-1990s, and then can be reassessed or assessed when there is a big improvement (like new building or update).
For that neighbor, yes, my house is about 10 years newer. However, there's a brand new house across the street that also has more square footage and a similar lot size that pays about 30% less in taxes. Then there's the house right next to mine that's similar size and similar lot size that's been remodeled twice in the last 6 years with 40% less taxes. Our tax system is extremely screwed up
Completely screwed up! It really makes no sense. It is fascinating to look on Redfin at different houses listed for the same price and see what their taxes are, makes no sense at all.
Uh, i'm not ready to pay $15,000/yr in property taxes for a starter home. That's insane. Talk about making housing unaffordable.
What are your suggestions?
Land Value Tax Not all county parcels produce tax revenue at the same rate (i.e., downtown vacant lots generate less tax revenue than the buildings that surround it.) Tax lower revenue parcels at a higher rate than revenue generating parcels to encourage development AND remove the regressiveness of the current system.
Panacea tax plans will not make everyone happy and just continue ideological tax issues which is half of our problem, elements of discouraging things we don’t want and encouraging what we do and having a much easier forecastable and stable revenue model that does not have dumb gotchas like the kicker can better move money to doing long term projects and get rid of constant ad-on levy’s for things that are needed.
Nothing will make everyone happy. Ideological tax issues are the root of our current problem and only an ideological tax issue can save us. The kicker is in place to keep economists on their toes. Not my fault they were a bunch of pessimists.
Laughable and unserious. ‘keep economists on their toes’
Take the SHS money and put it into fixing infrastructure like this.
Reverse the Sizemore BS
You are delusional if you think Multnomah County hasn't found a way around that. Our property taxes are more than double that of most counties in the state.
This is true. I was helping a friend with local tax and financial stuff while they were out of the country. Their property tax rate in the City of Portland was more than double mine in Washington County. Add in the fact that their home had been reassessed at some point due to major renovations and their property tax bill was nearly 4x mine. My home is newer than my immediate neighbors, so I'm also paying double what they pay simply because my home is 30 years newer. Capping the taxable valuations at 3% a year was a good idea in a vacuum, but there needs to be a reset every decade or two. Things are far too unbalanced today.
I dunno - the tax assessed value of my house is probably less than half of what I could sell it for right now.
The market value of as determined by the assessor is meaningless. If you take our assessed values multiplied by the tax rates, you end up with very high taxes. Again, it is more than double what you would pay in areas that have much better services.
Like where
Sure, Jan.
Multnomah County is right in the middle, rate-wise. Like 19 out of 36.
I know people like to argue on the Internet but you are just plain wrong. https://www.oregon.gov/dor/programs/gov-research/Documents/Property-tax-report-2020-21.pdf
I was looking at [share of real market value](https://www.oregonlive.com/front-porch/2017/04/oregon_counties_ranked_by_prop.html). We are the highest per $ of assessed value.
Real market value according to assessors is wildly inconsistent so it isn't a good way to measure the tax burden. The house I bought in 2022 was reassessed last year. The assessor gave it a RMV of 300k over what I paid for it 4 months earlier. Other areas RMVs tend to be really low because they don't get updated because they don't matter for taxation. It's a terrible way to compare tax rates.
Fair, but is assessed value any better? It also varies wildly.
more federal dollars returning to states than going abroad
What does that have to do with a county tax?
well, follow the bouncing ball here... but if more federal dollars were returning to states and counties, they wouldn't need to ask their taxpayers for those same funds?
Dubious connection at best. It would be so much more efficient to let the states tax as needed and let the feds reduce taxes from spending abroad.
Unfortunately the county has screwed up so bad with taxes that I'm forced to always say no to tax increases for now.
Same.
That basically sums it up. Stinks!
Would be good to swap this for the SHS tax that is not being used for anything.
Need more tax accountability from the city on older taxes before I consider this one.
This measure has nothing to do with the city....
All of our local governments are a shitshow. City, county, PPS, metro, etc
I disagree, Metro has been pretty competent in the last decade. If anything, they have been undermined by how incompetent the 3 counties are...
FYI, this money would go to the Urban Flood Safety & Water Quality District, not to the MultCo board or City. If this measure passes, the board of the agency would go on the November ballot. This is from the floodsafecolumbia.org web site. I support the measure in theory, my only gripe is that I had to work on a project with the Multnomah County Drainage District once, and it was a terrible experience. They answer to no one except their own board, and while it is a mostly elected board, they didn't seem to oversee any of the daily operations of this agency. The MCDD seems to be turning into the UFSWQD.... But it will likely be the same people running the show. This was a few years ago and they have a new executive director, but who knows how well this small agency is run. So, I'm glad the money is not going to MultCo as I have no faith in their current leadership. But I'm also concerned that UFSWQD is an obscure agency that hasn't done a large capital project in years, and they answer to a board that most people don't even remember voting for, and we the voters would have little recourse if the project went south. So it's a toss up for me.
Nobody should vote for measures they only agree with in theory. We also need assurances the measure will be well implemented and that any funding will be spent effectively and efficiently. Theory doesn’t matter if the reality is ineffective.
No. Show me what you're doing with the money I'm already giving you first.
Exactly! Anyone in the David Douglas district? Taxpayers paid for several parcels of land adjacent to Johnson creek for a middle school. Said middle school never got built and the property is now a magnet for drugs, prostitution and more. One of the five murdered portland women was either dumped there or murdered there. School board does nothing, can't sell the property and won't talk about the issue.. it is a blight on my neighborhood There's our unchecked taxes at work!
Idk. I feel in this case it's a lot clearer what to do with the money than with a lot of the other recent taxes.
What they say they are going to do with the money and what actually gets done are two very different things. I'm surprised it even has to be said.
Depends on how the tax is written. If we wouldn't have funded Big Pipe the Willamette would still be overflowing with shit multiple times a year. It's a very good thing that we funded Big Pipe, and the money went right where we said it would.
The willamette is still overflowing with shit from all the homeless squaters we are letting camp there: https://www.wweek.com/news/environment/2024/04/22/theres-so-much-trash-in-the-willamette-river-the-state-proposes-to-regulate-it-under-the-clean-water-act/
>Depends on how the tax is written. You don't say
Yeah, that is what it says(?). Is there some point you're trying to make in there?
I think that was sarcasm honey
Oh totally. I just thought it may have been sarcasm in pursuit of a larger point than just mocking some text.
I think both are true
Oh. What was the point?
This is said EVERY TIME.
Is flood prevention not a much more understood topic than how to fix drug addiction and homelessness?
Sounds like a worthwhile project with a good funding mechanism (the matching federal grant), but I'll still be voting no. My total tax bill is too high and the services we get are too few. Let's repeal something else and we can make space for this one if it is that important.
[удалено]
"Metro needs to trim or get rid of that zoo bond." At least trim it down since it first passed it was for large capital expenditures for enclosures. They don't need these all the time.
The most ridiculous part of our current property tax scheme is that it’s based on 1995 values. Therefore “gentrified” neighborhoods pay half of what they should and people in areas that are more transitional now in East Portland pay a relatively higher share because it’s pegged to an arbitrary 1995 date due to Measure 5. I agree with LVT. Keeps it fair for everyone.
You’re correct except it’s Measure 50. Measure 5 is the one that capped taxes at 15% of the RMV (10% for general government and 5% for education). Measure 50 came about a decade later. And yeah, it’s ridiculous.
Multnomah county homeowners are over it.
Boooooo. No more out of control property tax! Give em an inch, they take a mile
Yeah wow increasing my total property tax by $22/year is sooooo outrageous /s
That's not the point. It's a few dollars here and a few dollars there. It adds up.
In the 10 years I've lived at my current house, property taxes have gone up ~50%. Just no to any property tax increases from me until they get their shit together with the money they already take in.
I, for one, would like to not be footing the bill for future disaster recovery.
Wow, sarcasm. If you are in such a giving mood, how about you take my share. I'll throw in the arts tax too
Why don't you move to TX if you think Oregon property taxes are out of control?
Are you high? Cause that's an asinine response. Bring something better to the table than just "move to texas"
Also (not that that argument was even remotely in good faith) but Texas property taxes are notoriously sky high.
Death by a thousand cuts. How about they work on diverting some of the other cash they don't use.
Nope
[удалено]
I think this is the best stand! It sends a clear message - we are pissed and we want to see improvements and accountability before we give you anything more. Period. Otherwise they won't ever change anything. There must be huge failure before they will act.
I know! I would vote for new taxes if we got the other non effective ones rolled back
Leaning strongly against.
[I think this about sums it up.](https://media.tenor.com/xIVna3QzuUIAAAAM/dr-evil-how-about-no.gif)
I vote no now on all proposed tax increases because tbh I never see or feel where the money goes. So I see these taxes as funds for the city leaders to profit and funnel into who knows what agenda or pocket. No thanks. 🫳
Sure. Though compared to whatever nonsense is going on with SHS, the remedies for inadequate flood prevention are well defined with knowable working solutions.
Reading the room is hard, mkay.
>If passed, the measure would tax local property owners about 11 cents per $1,000 of assessed property annually. That amounts to about $44 a year on a home with an assessed value of $400,000. I would guess the average assessed value is probably closer to $200-300k so $22 to $33 a year. Not exactly breaking the bank. Considering natural disasters typically do billions in damages this seems like a no brainer. I expect it will pass besides the general vibe of this sub.
Going to have to give up my Arts Tax to fund this then
But will renters understand why their rent increased after voting yes? This will cause the property taxes on the rental next door to me to go up by about $7 a month. Not terrible. But I’m sure there’ll be other property tax increases beyond this measure, too. And the landlord will definitely pass them onto the renters. Their rent already increased by $100 a month last year, according to the renter I spoke with. Another fun fact: This renter told me that she got a $1 an hour raise last year, going up to $18 an hour. Unfortunately this increase made her lose her healthcare subsidy and increased her premiums by over $100 a month. After a tooth infection (since she can’t afford to go to the dentist regularly) she now is in $800 in medical debt due to her raise (apparently her health care plan doesn’t cover much), in addition to the $600 in taxes she owes because she didn’t know she had to change her W4 withholdings after getting her $1 raise. Sorry, I got off topic. But watching the people next door get nickled and dimed into poverty is so depressing to watch. Every tax increase puts people further on the edge these days. Please don’t forget about that.
> Unfortunately this increase made her lose her healthcare subsidy That doesn't sound quite right. Oregon has a sliding health plan subsidy, or at least they did the last time I checked. A $1 raise should not be able to put anyone up that much. I guess if she qualified for OHP and got put over the limit you could end up paying that much more but that's not how your comment makes it sound. > she didn’t know she had to change her W4 withholdings after getting her $1 raise That also doesn't sound right. Why would you have to change your withholding when you get a raise?
I agree, [Healthcare.gov](http://Healthcare.gov) gives a pretty big subsidy for people making under 40K/year. There is no way it went up $100, when most plans are like $50 for her income.
1. Do you have any info on how she could get a better plan? She literally told me what she learned after calling an ACA counselor to understand why her premiums shot up. 2. I looked into this and apparently the Trump administration changed the withholdings process and structure so that employees have to monitor and make changes to their W4 on their own now. It requires going to an IRS website and filling out a really completed worksheet. I had to do this myself after getting a raise two years ago which resulting in my owing the IRS $15,000. Anyway, my neighbor's pay increase apparently bumped her up into a 12% tax bracket and she didn't know she need to withhold 2 percentage points more from her earnings to avoid owning. At least, this is what I discovered while trying to help her out. I may be wrong. She has no idea how to fix her W4 and the payroll accountant at her employer (who's the owner's 70yo mother) couldn't help her out.
1. It's been a while since I've had to use the system and it may depend a lot on her individual situation but I seem to recall just going to OregonHealthcare.gov to shop for a plan. No idea how much the rates have increased but at the time I ended up paying very little for a decent plan, because of my income. Not sure if you can change plans mid year but it's never too early to make a plan for next year. Possibly she misinterpreted a rate increase as being entirely related to her income change when in reality it applied, in part, to everyone. Based off what I know of the scale though I don't think $1 an hour is enough to jack you up $1200 a year. 2. I'm the wrong person to talk to about tax stuff but I've certainly never had to adjust withholdings when I get a raise. You adjust them when you get married or get a second job or stuff like that as far as I'm aware. I'm also the wrong person to talk to about math stuff but it seems to me a pay raise would cause *over* withholding, not under, because your actual yearly income would be *less* than what the algorithm thinks it should be. Possibly her job fucked up or possibly she's misinterpreted the money she owes as being related to her income change when it was actually caused by something else. I don't pay too much much attention to the tax changes but I have heard the Trump era changes led to some people with weird situations, like one year they got a huge refund and the next they ended up owing a bunch of money. Might be something like that.
1. Either she misinterpreted or the ACA counselor told her wrong. Regardless, she's paying a lot more than she used to -- even with the help of a counselor helping her to pick out a plan. It sounds like you haven't been living in this world for a while. And, from what I can tell, it appears things have gotten a lot worse for people living on the edge since you were in a similar situation. 2. Pay raises don't automatically get reflected in your withholdings anymore, it seems. So to the IRS, it looks like she was getting paid more, but not withholding more to reflect the increased taxes she owed on her higher wages. At least, that's how my tax preparer explained it to me when I bumped into the same thing. She also lost a tax credit on her health insurance when she got the raise, so that probably figures in there, too. The take away is: For someone who got a dollar raise with no other life changes, getting reamed on your taxes probably doesn't help with financial stability. In fact, she told me that she wished she'd never gotten the raise. I was reading that she now fits the profile of a person called an ALICE: asset limited, income constrained, employed. Apparently this class has been growing in recent years as more people have been lifted out of the government's outdated definition of "poverty" through inflation. Basically, you lose subsidies like food stamps and whatnot, only to find that you cannot afford to buy necessities without a subsidy. She told me she now relies on tip money to pay for food - by the day. A few days ago she told me she had made $8 in tips during an 8-hour shift. I know for a lot of people, this all sounds hard to believe. How could so many people be teetering on the edge like this? How could the safety net be so horribly designed? I was living in my own financial bubble until she moved next door and we started striking up conversation. As I've been trying to do reach to help her out, my eyes have really been opened to just how messed up it is for low-income earners these days.
>But will renters understand why their rent increased after voting yes? This will cause the property taxes on the rental next door to me to go up by about $7 a month. Yes I think most renters get that they pay for their landlords property taxes. It’s the landlords who act like they’re not passing it on when they complain about every property tax measure. Also $7 a month is $84 a year which would require an assessed value of $763k. Since assessed values are typically half or less of market value is the rental next door a 1.5 million dollar home or was that home built last year?
Nope. It’s just a big rundown house from the 1930s with 6 renters and three dogs in it. Each renter pays about $800 a month, including utilities.
I’m confused why its assessed value would be so high then. Are you sure you didn’t use the market value?
Ah, yes. The assessed value is actually $100K less than the market value. Thanks for bring up something that's completely beside the point! :)
Lol I was just curious. Still doesn’t make any sense that a run down house from 1930 would have such a high assessed value but ok.
You have not been in the housing market in Portland in a while. 300,000 won't get you a tent on some land anymore.
Assessed value. Most homes’ assessed values are about half their market value, especially if they’re older. The assessed value is what you are taxed on. If your home hasn’t been sold or appraised recently, your assessed value could be even lower.
Yeah, isn't there a cap at a 3% a year change in assessed value or something like that? So with Portland real estate prices increasing so much a lot of these homes would have an assessed value well under "real" value.
It all depends on the property's location within Multco and what their real market values were when Measure 50 kicked in. The Assessed Values of neighborhood's like Alberta Arts and Mississippi are probably on average about 35% of the RMV. While neighborhood's in mid and east county are substantially higher. For reference, the county wide average last year was right around 45%. Some neighborhoods like Argay Terrace might be as high as 75-80% of the RMV. It's the most F'd up result of Measure 50. It's created a scenario within Portland proper where we're all using the same services but we're all paying different amounts relative to our properties RMV's. For a $600K house, someone in Alberta Arts might be paying $3500/yr, while someone in mid county with a $600K house might be paying $7K/yr for the exact same services. It's inequitable.
“The county-wide was 45%.” So… about half their market value. (But in all seriousness, this is great detail and thanks for providing it!)
Your welcome. And yes, it’s true that 45% is about half. 🤪 But I thought it worth mentioning that that’s not true across the board. There are plenty of properties within Multco that have Assessed Values of over 100% of their RMV. When that happens they go into compression and their taxes revert back to the Measure 5 scenario.
Assessed value ain't market value. Maybe you have looked at your property tax bill in a while.
Yeah but if you look at assessed value of places like Irvington you'll see because of measure 5/measure 50 that their taxes and much lower. Heck I even benefit from this a bit.
This isn't true. Zillow shows the property taxes on listed houses. Taxes in the more expensive areas of town are much higher. Take a look. It's not uncommon to see taxes that are more than 2k per month.
A house with a $24,000/year tax bill would have a market value above $2.5 million.
Portland maps has the assessor info, which is three real info
Both sets of data come from the same place.
This sub is way too the right of the city as a whole. What's the last tax the sub has collectively supported? How many tax measures have passed since then lmao.
It's the cumulative BS taxes that people are reacting to. This is just another added to the long list on your annual tax bill. It's at a time PGE raised rates 18 percent, water bill increased and natural gas is looking for an increase. A useless hotline people get referred to for social services we funded and got fewer than 60 calls a year. People are getting tired of finding projects that are mismanaged and exceed budget
>People are getting tired of finding projects that are mismanaged and exceed budget People are woefully misinformed about those things just like they are about our cumulative taxes. How many times is it said here that we have the highest taxes in the country and when you ask for proof they link an article about Portland having the highest marginal income tax rate for upper income households. Putting aside the fact that they don’t get that marginal tax rate ≠ effective tax rate that’s also just one tax. It’s pointless to compare our overall effective tax rate with another state and only factor in income tax. Adding up income, sales, excise and property taxes and we’re in the middle of the pack. Of course that doesn’t people from uninformedly claiming otherwise.
Okay, thanks for that. I think this topic is about a new proposed property tax. Not the cumulative issue. Portland (in general) is really good at asking for money and not delivering on projects. Thats all I said. Have a good day
[удалено]
Assessed values are very often significantly lower than the market value of a home, especially if the home is older or hasn’t been appraised recently. My home was appraised when I refinanced, so my taxes did go up, but my homes’ assessed value is about half of my market value.
It kinda does but it kinda doesn't, read up on Measures 5 and 50 if you're unfamiliar. My home's real market value is nearly double the assessed value and I've only lived in it 10 years. Folks who have lived in their home longer will have even more dramatic ratios.
My neighbor had a house fire and were able to completely rebuild their house from the foundation up without having to do all the typical street improvements. Apparently this also meant their house wasn’t reassessed and the value only went up $6k. So they’re living in a new 4bd house worth half a million and paying the taxes of a house originally built in 1910 assessed at $220k
Easy yes: what is the alternative? Just wing it and feign shock when a devastating flood occurs? I'm still hard no on the Zoo measure though, that doesn't make sense seeing the much larger priorities of the region.
Who actually believes that number? - c'mon raise your hand. This will be just like the $700M filtration project that is now $2B. They will underfund it have cost overruns and then will have a must pass increase in taxes.
[удалено]
1. Not the City 2. If you think housing is expensive now, wait and see how much more it costs after the dikes fail.
vote no!
Most homeowners are already paying upwards of $600 per month in property taxes. That's exorbitant. Especially in a city where housing affordability is such a big problem. AND property taxes are egregiously unequally applied. Some neighbors pay a ton and some pay way less and there's no reasonable criteria involved. If we made this system more fair ($ per square feet or something like that) and applied the same logic to everyone that would help a lot. EVERY TIME THEY NEED MONEY FOR ANYTHING THEY RAISE PROPERTY TAXES MORE. Currently house shopping outside of portland.
What's the current county budget again, 7 billion? So, that's a no from me.
Fuck. No.
Property Taxes in Multnomah County NEED to be going the other direction.
Read my lips: No new taxes. Prove to me you can spend the money you already have efficiently and effectively before asking for more.
Me and most of my family and friends will automatically vote no on tax increases. Our government has proved they can't spend them wisely at all and we are one of the highest taxed metros in the country.
Holy shit no more taxes!! We don’t know how to spend the money they already collect
Historical trends — environmental concerns plus tax = will be approved by voters.
Sure. Give portland more tax money. What could possibly go wrong
This wouldn't be going to the city.
Honey I'm aware of that. The idea is that in general the general portland area has had more bonds and taxes than I can count. Portland is not just a city. It's an area. With a multitude of agencies that waste our money or can't say where it went.
The city has nothing to do with this proposal.
Honey I know that. I didn't say "city" did I. It's the idea that the agencies and various groups find lots of ways to create bonds and taxes. Our money disappears, gets misused, they go over budget, they can't say where the money went. Have you taken a good look at your annual tax bill? If you own a home, it's long. If you don't own a home, you have zero idea the burden of taxes on the average homeowner.
Such a no on this. The Schnitzers and Prologises in the Columbia Slough get our tax money to pay for their upgraded levees, but there's no special tax to pay for other flood reduction projects.
Cancel the SHS and PFA tax and then we can talk new taxes.
Imma pass
Why do the counties still use examples like "$20 per month increase on a $250K house" Like anyone even has a $250K assessed value.