Deseret News | Reader comments: Property tax notices

Reader comments
Property tax notices — a shock in the mail

Bob G | 5:14 a.m. Oct. 14, 2007

As usual our legislators had to put in thier disclaimer to show how minor the tax increse was. The real issue is the inflated valutation and the real taxation. Inflation in value is not under the control of legislators and is the reason we are suffering from the blight of taxation without representation. Taxes are still being raised but without legislative and representation. A very clever way of getting around the constitutional laws governing taxation. They aren't doing it but the state is still getting the increased taxes and funds. This is taxation without representation pure and simple. A grandfather property tax is due so people aren't forced out of their homes and on the streets. It got so bad in California that the law was changed to relfect this and help save homeowners from being forced off their land and in to poverty. Property values have trippled over the past two years and taxes have trippled right along with it, it's not a one year thing and is perpetually depressive to homeowners on fixed incomes in retirement that can't buy or replace their homes. The new tax increase and to make payments will far exceed their fixed income.

Fed Up | 6:45 a.m. Oct. 14, 2007

How many people are going to be forced out of their homes, by being overly taxed, before Utah wakes up? At seventy-four, we have reached that limit. Living in California, when Proposition 13 was passed, there were the expected crys, "We'll cut police & fire protection, etc." California survived &, if there were to be a similar law here, so would Utah. How can Utah expect to attract new business, when for every dollar paid two go for taxes? There must be someone with enough fortitude, knowledge, & determination, to start a petition to get such a proposition on a ballot. Wake up Utah...a tax revolt in in the offing.

Lyall | 8:45 a.m. Oct. 14, 2007

If Utahns think this is a shocker, it will be nothing if the voucher referendum does not pass. With 150,000 children entering the public school system in the next ten years, the added tax burden will drive income tax and property tax up significantly, because we'll be paying $7,500 per child. The voucher bill gives us a good opportunity to give a great education to these children for much less.

Can you say Utah's bankrupt?

Comments continue below

MFM Northern Utah County | 8:46 a.m. Oct. 14, 2007

Tax increases in the face of a sagging housing market is uncalled for. This will exacerbate the economic problems. This in the face of taxing entities offering huge giveaways to commercial development. I think we need full disclosure (transparency as the democrats put it) of what is going on with all aspects of taxation at all levels. We may need a grassroots movement, the same as happened in California, to save property owners from excessive taxes. There needs to be some consolidation of city services, visa vie the counties to try and avoid excessive administration. The idea of all these school districts across the state also needs to be investigated. Why the need for tiny districts, with all the administration costs that goes along with it? We need some accountability and dialog. Where are the watchdogs? Don't tell me the teachers and everybody working in the public sector are underpaid...that is tired rhetoric. Come on people! Everybody else works 260 days a year or more, and teachers, for instance, 180 days. In the first place, you don't get into the teaching profession to make money....they known what the pay is going to be.

Tom | 9:52 a.m. Oct. 14, 2007

This was a REALLY well researched and written article. In fact, this is the kind of reporting that keeps me coming back to Deseret News. Well done.

IF you don't like what your mechanic does with your car, you go get another one. If you don't like what your accountant does with your money, you get another one.

This isn't "taxation without representation." If you (like me), don't like the increases, vote the incumbents out.

There are plenty of good people in this state who can keep a promise; it is time to give them the opportunity to prove they can.

I'd gladly pay more | 10:00 a.m. Oct. 14, 2007

I'd gladly pay more as long as it went directly to teacher raises and not through the district office first. I love what the legisalture did this year to ensure that the money went to teachers. Too many times when money is intended for teachers, it goes to some pet project of the district office. I'll pay more taxes if it can go straight to the local teachers that are doing a great job working with my kids.

Richard Young | 10:07 a.m. Oct. 14, 2007

Under Utah law an increase in actual dollars is considered a "tax increase" even though the tax as a percentage of assessed valuation never increases. So some of these tax increases are very understandable. What I don't get is why the percentage has to increase. The increase in property values should be enough for our local governments to live on. Having said all this however, I think property taxes on private residences are a terrible way of raising revenue. I'd much prefer a local income tax. Then at least a person could feel they actually owned their property. As is it we simply lease it from the government.

utahkeith | 10:09 a.m. Oct. 14, 2007

Rising tax costs are a result of the increase in property values! The real issue will be when all these houses start going in default because people are "House Poor" buying housing they can't afford and the market which drove up the market value also has a deflatiatory effect, will the property tax decrease as well, or will the government then stick it to us and refuse to lower the property value "Tax Base"! That will be the thing to see. The initial fact is, taxes going up with increased value is to be expected if the increase meets the value increase. This will be interesting for sure. I wonder myself if this will help put more houses on the market with realistic housing prices, I for sure am not going to buy a $139,000 home for $270,000-$300,000 that is totally insane in my opinion, BUYER BE WARE, Your house will NOT be worth what you pay for it in 2 years.

Agit8r | 10:23 a.m. Oct. 14, 2007

Does anyone actually know someone who was forced out of their home due to not being able to pay their taxes? I've never met anyone who has. I've never even seen an article that quotes someone who has. I'm just curious.

Sock it to me | 11:05 a.m. Oct. 14, 2007

This does tick me off, but I look at my sister on the east coast who has a house similar to mine here in Utah and her property taxes are over ten thousand dollars a year.

your dream | 12:06 p.m. Oct. 14, 2007

please remember we are living the american dream if you don't like something than change it!!!
If we don't like someone in office take them out of thier place,if we don't like anything than change it
many historical people did it starts with one person.
Think about it !!!!!

non- republican | 12:31 p.m. Oct. 14, 2007

Utah has finally done the LIBERAL thing !! Tax and spend. The shoe is now on the other foot.

To Agit8r | 1:19 p.m. Oct. 14, 2007

Yes I do. Not here in Utah, but in Seattle. King County started pulling the same thing as Salt lake County is doing now. I knew of many retired people that had to sell their homes after a few years because the property taxes were increasing at a rate of $200 each year. after five years it started to add up. If you don't think it can happen here I hope you're happy when your parents have move in with you.

Agit8r | 2:29 p.m. Oct. 14, 2007

I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I was just curious. You hope I'm happy when my parents have to move in with me? My mother is dead and my dad has about a year, but, thanks for the sentiment. I couldn't pry him out of his house. I've tried. Did I offend you by asking a simple question? Where did the people go who lost their home? Where did they find a cheaper place to live?

anti-property tax | 2:35 p.m. Oct. 14, 2007

In the state of Indiana there are measures afoot to end the property tax altogether! In the state house, 43 of 51 legislators are in favor; in the senate, 18 of 26. And more will come aboard until its final approval for a referendum in 2009. Even Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is "open to the movement to end this tax. This tax -- especially with never-ending increases is harmful to the economy. People will cut back on purchasing clothing, furniture, cars, appliances, etc., resulting in a drop in sales taxes and the firing of employees. People will also cut down on charitable giving. When will these assessors and their county governments finally wake up to realize that they cannot go on in this manner forever without seriously impacting the entire economy of a state? It's high time to stop this insanity! We need another PROP. 13!

h bambl | 3:33 p.m. Oct. 14, 2007

It's time to put the fire to our legislature's feet. Fix this problem of ever-rising taxes or get them OUT and put people in that represent the people or have the people fix it with what they did in Calif.....Prop. 13. It's time to take the government beaureaucrats out of the formula of taxation, fees, etc. and who continuly seem to find endless ways of getting around laws to raise their revenues. Yes, "their" revenues. The first priority with all these funds seems to be to take care of their needs or entitlements first and then work in the public needs (ie. pension plans that pay 70% to 100% plus of their salaries when retired - which no private industry offers to its generall employees; $50K+ trucks and luxury government autos for many government workers available for their private use along with the gas from home to work; cellular phone plans that no one seems to monitor as to personal use and expense; and the list goes on) It's time all tax payers step up to make their voices heard and stop the insanity that government seems to think there's no end to what they have a right to.

Time for Tea | 4:52 p.m. Oct. 14, 2007

It's time for a tea party. My family can just afford the home we purchased. It's modest, but in an growing area. We can't afford more in taxes. It just won't work in our budget. If I am not mistaken, in CA, once you buy a home, your taxes are based on that price, until you either re-fi or buy a new home. Then, the taxes are reasses on the new value of the home. That's why when folks re-build, they leave one wall standing, so it's a 're model'. It's a way around CA's taxes. Not a way around Utahs.

Cleetorn | 5:22 p.m. Oct. 14, 2007

Who does Lyall think he's kidding? School vouchers will NOT decrease the amount of tax money required to educate children, it will only divert where some of it goes. The tax base will NOT decrease with vouchers. It is utter foolishness to believe that it will. Based on this (along with the other weaknesses in the referendum as it is currently written), vouchers are NOT good for anyone.

Patriot | 6:16 p.m. Oct. 14, 2007

Cut all the comments! Do something about it ! Refuse to pay any illegal double taxation and re-elect George Washington. He had a special way of making the British understand the American point of view.

pro property tax | 6:16 p.m. Oct. 14, 2007

i think property taxes are our most fair tax. if you live in a huge house you pay more, etc. this article mentions the 45% exemption for homeowners, but businesses don't get this exemption, nor do the owners of a 2nd or 3rd home. i think this is a pretty fair tax.

and like the article mentions utah's property taxes are really low compared to the rest of the nation and our western neighbors. would we rather reduce property tax and increase sales tax (which is a regressive tax)? or income tax?

Ken Goddard | 6:18 p.m. Oct. 14, 2007

Cry, cry, cry all you ballbabies. But you don't mind bragging about how valuable your home is to all who will listen or hocking it for a loan to live the high life. Or asking top dollar on a sale. Don't you want to see your childrin and grandchildrin edgecated propurly.

HUP | 6:31 p.m. Oct. 14, 2007

pro property tax: you're full of baloney!

To Agit8r | 6:52 p.m. Oct. 14, 2007

A couple had to move to an apt (that they couldn't really afford, a couple moved in with their kids and one's husband died of a heart attack shortly after (a couple of days)due to the stress. She moved into a trailer park. All would have been fine with their retirement except for the continual increases that they hadn't counted on.

RE: Ken Goddard | 6:57 p.m. Oct. 14, 2007

My kids are being educated properly. I'm sending them to private school. Let's let Ken pay the increases.
Rest assured, the school system will not see any of the increase. It'll go to some pet project that will help very few.

Anonymous | 7:06 p.m. Oct. 14, 2007

You want to see property taxes go even higher??? Vote for referendum one! Then I'll be paying more money to help send your kids to private school. Sorry Lyall your way of thinking regarding vouchers and property taxes just doesn't add up for me. When all these extra kids come in....so will there parents who will be paying property taxes on their homes. Ta Da! There's the extra money- not from you or me but if I vote yes on referendum one, my taxes will go up so the Guv can give money to the rich. I think not!

brent | 11:09 p.m. Oct. 14, 2007

A flat tax and elimination of property taxes would work. Currently half the state pays little or no income tax. Property taxes and home mortgage deductions cancel each other out so both should be ended.

Steve Thacker | 7:35 a.m. Oct. 15, 2007

Your story presents a very unfair impression that most local governments have increased property taxes when you state "471 of the 513 local governments in Utah are increasing property tax revenue this year". It wasn't explained until the end of this very long article that for many local governments, the only increase in property tax revenues is due to "new growth", or the new development that was added to the tax rolls since the prior year. The property tax rate actually decreased for many local governments, including my city of Centerville, but because of the taxes collected from "new growth", the property tax revenues in total increased. Were these local governments all accounted for among his "513 lcoal governments"? Of the 513 he did research, how many actually lowered their tax rate but still had a revenue increase because of the "new growth" factor? If the author actually understands this difference, then it appears he has intentionally written a slanted article that doesn't speak well for his professional reporting ethics.

Jimmy 22 | 7:46 p.m. Oct. 15, 2007

With the vouchers you'll be getting a n allowance for about half of what the state would spend on your kid. That means a net increase for the kids who stay in public school. How can that be bad for public schools?

Don B. | 2:49 p.m. Oct. 16, 2007

Steve T., you sound like you understand some of it but are "full of it". Whether or not total revenue increases are due to "new growth" or whatever...if revenue increases significantly, and it has and does EVERY Year either due to "new growth", tax rate increases, or grossly over assessed "windfall" revenues, under taxed Centrally Assessed properties (Corporations), etc. the excess revenue is being squandered by spendthrifts who think they have to "use it or lose it" mentality (probably gained from Hill AFB govt. employment experiences). And we taxpayers who rank in the top 4 highest taxed residents out of 50 States never see decreases in taxes, tax rates, assessments, spending, budgets, or from any of those leeches which attach themselves to our Tax Notices...like School Districts, Mosquito Dists. ad infinitum. Get it?

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.