No. of Recommendations: 32
I just posted this on the Folly in California board, which is frequented by the usual TMF mix of 90% libs and 10% other. I'm looking forward to the responses:

Now that the Dems have a supermajority in CA, you can count on a tax-hiking spree. One thing they are talking about, from what I read, is repealing the Prop 13 provisions that apply to commercial real estate.

So my question is, is rental property considered to be commercial real estate? My sister is an MSNBC type who lives in CA. She doesn't have enough income to pay any income tax but I would find it rather amusing if the owner of the condo she rents is hit with higher property taxes and has to raise her rent. After voting all her life for candidates who take stuff away from other people, it's only fair that they finally take something away from her, too. Don't you agree?

--fleg
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
After voting all her life for candidates who take stuff away from other people, it's only fair that they finally take something away from her, too. Don't you agree?

YES!!!!!!

channeling my Inner Jedi
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Hi Fleg,

So my question is, is rental property considered to be commercial real estate?
Yes, no, and horse shoes...

There is a distinction made in the regulatory lending world (but not the taxation world) between residential and commercial. The defining characteristics are whether
a) there are 4 or less (5 or more) units on a single tax-parcel,
b) it has utilities for residence (bathroom, kitchen, 2 modes of ingress/egress to each bedroom.)
c) Special note; if its mobile, rolls, flies or floats it can *still* be residential, rather than commercial.

"Commercial" (in the lending world) is everything that is not definied by the above. Whether it is rented out, or owner occupied doesn't affect the distinctions.

In the taxation world its much simpler;
x) Owner occupied, and residential per above; Residential
y) Owner occupied, and NOT residential per above; Commercial
z) Tennant occupied/Rental (regardless above); Commercial


Will any of that mean *anything* to the predatory mooches? Who can say?

They'll probably try to find a way to punish the maximum number, regardless.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
My sister is an MSNBC type who lives in CA.

My sincere condolences. That's got to be worse than having a loved on with Alzheimers.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It also depends on the landlord. My apartment complex is owned by a company that owns a ton of property in and around Ann Arbor, both residential and commercial. If taxes went up only on the commercial properties would they spread that tax burden amongst all their lease holders? Probably, so my rent would go up (it does every year anyhow).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I would find it rather amusing if the owner of the condo she rents is hit with higher property taxes and has to raise her rent."

I don't know about your state but we give rent credit for the portion that is attributed to taxes. Check Your Facts.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't know about your state but we give rent credit for the portion that is attributed to taxes.

So you make everyone who pays taxes but is not a renter subsidize renters. Nice.

--fleg
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
LLBERG wrote: I don't know about your state but we give rent credit for the portion that is attributed to taxes.

So a corporation in the business of buying and renting commercial properties (multi-family apartment buildings) must give a credit to its tenants for the portion of its expenses that goes to property taxes? Then surely it raises rents to offset the credit it gives its tenants.

Sounds like the way Democrats often shoot themselves in their collective foot.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
LLBERG wrote: I don't know about your state but we give rent credit for the portion that is attributed to taxes.
__________________

So realistically, because some tenant complained only a landlord gets a property tax deduction, the landlord now pays an accountant a little extra to allocate the taxes to the tenant

The landlord, then must cover the expense for the accountant as well as loss for the deduction because the landlord is not going to eat it

The tenants that claim standard deductions are totally screwed with this change, and those that itemize only pay a little more

The politician? He is a hero to those suckers -- gotta be libs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
These are a vew types of real estate:

Commercial
Residential (homes/appartments)
Farm land
Timber land
Mining/Oil/Gas
Wetlands


No business looking to expand or start-up would choose California => if their was another option.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't know about your state but we give rent credit for the portion that is attributed to taxes.

So you make everyone who pays taxes but is not a renter subsidize renters. Nice.


But what this means is that renters can afford higher rent - and landlords will be happy to oblige.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"But what this means is that renters can afford higher rent - and landlords will be happy to oblige." - warrl


Rents are outrageous here in Murfreesboro, TN because of the Nissan Plant nearby. A one bedroom apartment rents for ~ $700/month and a 2 bedroom apartment rents for about $900/month. It's significantly cheaper to buy a house here than it is to rent, especially since mortgage interest rates are so low right now. You can buy a pretty nice 3 bedroom 2 bath house near where we live for less than $100,000. Payments on a $100,000 house would be ~ $450/month + Insurance + taxes which aren't that high here. In fact there are even some little 2 bedroom houses available that can be bought for about $50,000 so mortgage payments would be even cheaper. On a 15 year loan payments would be ~ $350/month + insurance + taxes.

Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"So you make everyone who pays taxes but is not a renter subsidize renters. Nice."

Why not? You want all renters to subsidize homeowners. Property tax is a tax paid by both renters and homeowners. It's an attempt to treat both equally. Check the tax code and get informed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You are as uninformed as fleg. Read the state tax code
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
LLBERG wrote: Property tax is a tax paid by both renters and homeowners.

How so?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Rents are outrageous here in Murfreesboro, TN because of the Nissan Plant nearby. A one bedroom apartment rents for ~ $700/month and a 2 bedroom apartment rents for about $900/month.


I think most renters in cities like NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, Boston, Washington DC, Seattle, Miami, and Philadelphia would scoff at your notion that the rents you quoted are "outrageous".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
andrew wrote: I think most renters in cities like NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, Boston, Washington DC, Seattle, Miami, and Philadelphia would scoff at your notion that the rents you quoted are "outrageous".

Pffft! I charged $1,000 for a bread-and-butter unit in Los Angeles' inner city.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
LLBERG wrote: Property tax is a tax paid by both renters and homeowners.

How so?

CC


The landlord is billed the property tax and pays it, but I'm sure that most landlords recoup the property tax cost from the rents paid by the tenants.

Mike
Print the post Back To Top