Property Taxes See Smallest Increase in 15 Years
Thank you, Scott Walker.
Wisconsin’s total statewide property taxes are up .3 percent in 2012 — the smallest increase in 15 years, according to the Wisconsin Taxpayers’ Alliance.
The nonprofit tax research organization said the tax increase is small this year because the school levy, the largest part of a property owner’s bill, dropped 1 percent. State-imposed revenue limits were the main cause for the reduction, the group said.
It’s still moving the wrong way, but at least it’s an improvement.
I think you’ll find that much of the control over the net tax bills resulted not so much from a control over the rates (the average mill rate went up across the state), but a broad devaluation of homes in Wisconsin. My own home in Waukesha was devalued nearly 10% in the last city assessment. That’s not the kind of “tax break” I was hoping for.
Posted by Phil Scarr on January 15, 2012 at 2054 hrs
SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! SHA—oh wait, it’s working.
Phil, the drop in the assessed value reflects the reality of the housing market.
Posted by hsgbdmama on January 15, 2012 at 2121 hrs
Don’t forget that fees have also risen astronomically. Walker is just picking another pocket as he’s continues to pick the first one.
And why are you avoiding next year’s budgets? Is it because there isn’t anyone that is happy about the hell we’re about to pay?
Posted by capper on January 15, 2012 at 2159 hrs
That’s Barrett raising fees, not Walker. My taxes went DOWN this year.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 16, 2012 at 0636 hrs
The Legislative Fiscal Bureau doesn’t do a municipality’s audits, they do the states.
Oh, and property taxes in Waupaca County went up 4.5%, all across the county.
Posted by capper on January 16, 2012 at 0643 hrs
hsgbdmama: I recognize that a drop in property values are a market-driven force. You’re making my point. Just because your tax bill went down, doesn’t mean that it was because of a policy issue driven by the Walker administration. Rather, it’s likely due to a drop in the value of your property. The bill being a function of the mill rate times the value of the property.
Posted by Phil Scarr on January 16, 2012 at 0707 hrs
Bill: Try to work this out. The mill rate can go up while your bill can go down. How? Because the tax is the mill rate times the value of the property. If the value of the property plummets, then guess what? Your property tax bill goes down.
Don’t take a victory lap just yet… Do you know how long it’s going to take to rebuild the lost equity in your home? Years or even decades depending on how the general economic recovery goes and how the Wisconsin state economy responds.
Posted by Phil Scarr on January 16, 2012 at 0710 hrs
“The bill being a function of the mill rate times the value of the property.”
My understanding is that taxing authorities start by setting the tax levy, and the mill rate is calculated from this.
So, in theory a decrease in aggregate assessments would cause no change in the levy and therefore would result in an increase in the mill rate adequate to produce the levy.
If that’s so, then the only decrease in property value that would benefit a taxpayer would be if the taxpayer’s property lost more value than most other properties?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 16, 2012 at 0829 hrs
My understanding is that taxing authorities start by setting the tax levy, and the mill rate is calculated from this.
You’re exactly right. In Sheboygan County we cut the tax levy by about a half milliion dollars, but the mil rate (the $1 per $1000 of assessed value) went up. It really bears no direct relationship to what your property taxes will be.
Governments need a certain amount of dollars to pay for public services, and in our budget we call that the tax levy. This year our tax levey went down and most people in our county saw their total taxes drop an average of about $100. People whose taxes increased did so because of things like revals, building permits that increased the value of the property, and to some extent the impact of Use Value Assessment of ag land in the taxing district (it’s not subject to the equalization rate).
As for the declining equity in real estate, you can hang that right on the doorknob of the out of touch political wankers in the small village on the east coast that runs our country - sometimes known as Washington D.C. These idiots need to get out of the real estate mortgage business and stay out!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 16, 2012 at 0852 hrs
Maybe Capper can enlighten us with which fees Walker specifically raised this year. Then do a graph to show what the specific fee was ten years ago, along with each yearly fee increase Doyle rammed through.
I’m guessing Capper has zero statistical support for any of it. But some AFSCME guy shouted it at a recall rally, so why not go for it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 16, 2012 at 0916 hrs
Steve: I’m sure he could, but I doubt you’d listen.
Posted by Phil Scarr on January 16, 2012 at 0957 hrs
Out here in Jefferson County, Town of Farmington, Johnson Creek School District - the local politicians and school board members saw fit to RAISE our property taxes 5.3% at the County level and 8.0% for the school. They obviously don’t yet get it and we are doing our best to “throw the bums out”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 16, 2012 at 1025 hrs
My understanding is that taxing authorities start by setting the tax levy, and the mill rate is calculated from this.
Absolutely. Phil is just plain wrong on this. The idea that property values are lowering your taxes shows a complete lack of understanding of how property taxes work.
The value of all assessed properties in the district is totaled. The expenses/budget (less state and other aid) is divided by that total which determines the rate.
In terms of taxation, the only properties that are really affected by changing property values are those that for whatever reason have their property changed disproportionately to the rest of the district. Otherwise, your lower value has no effect on your taxes since everyone else’s value has changed too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 16, 2012 at 1029 hrs
Jim said:
...RAISE our property taxes 5.3% at the County level and 8.0% for the school.
I’m not too sure just how they got away with that, because the state capped all municipalities at a zero percent increase over last year. Did they do a referendum, and if so, did the district voters approve it? If so, they deserve what they got!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 16, 2012 at 1306 hrs
That’s weird Jim. I also live in Jefferson County (Lake Mills school district) and my overall tax bill went down $16, in spite of the fact that trash pickup (by a private vendor) went up a little and MATC (unelected board of course) decided on a whopping 14% increase. The Jefferson County share went up about a buck.
Phil is trying the same old shell game politicians have been trying to sell for years. Truth of the matter is mill rate is meaningless. The levy is key.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 16, 2012 at 1945 hrs
Mr, Austen,
I am aware that one such as yourself would never believe me. But you don’t to. As I stated, but you didn’t bother to verify, the Legislative Fiscal Bureau has already done that:
In summary, the changes included in the Joint Finance Committee’s budget would decrease net taxes by $23,572,000 ($5,135,000 in 2011-12 and -$28,707,000 in 2012-13) and would increase net fees by $111,340,800 ($37,248,900 in 2011-12 and $74,091,900 in 2012-13).
Of course, the taxes only went down if you weren’t one of the poorest citizens. Their taxes went up, as the LFB also shows.
I look forward to your attempt at spin.
Posted by capper on January 16, 2012 at 2207 hrs
We didn’t have any referendums that passed in Jefferson County or the school district. Now I am really curious why our taxes went up so much here. Our MATC taxes increased 20%. I also thought county and school taxes were limited by the state.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2012 at 0659 hrs
Now I am really curious why our taxes went up so much here.
Your best effort to get the whole story would be to call the Finance Director’s Office at (920) 674-7434. David Ehlinger is the Finance Director, but probably anyone in his office could give you the answers you need.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2012 at 1036 hrs
I look forward to your attempt at spin.
How about this for spin Capper. In both fiscal years the vehicle title registration fee is increased 10.5 million. It affects everyone with a vehicle and double or more for households who afford and maintain multiple vehicles. Eh, it has gone up every budget year.
35.75 million of the 37.248 million 2011 and 2012 increases and 71.5 million of the 74 million in 2012-20-13 fee increases are tuition increases for the UW system. I don’t blame that on Walker because: the Board of Regents has more control of that than he does and the increases are from all of our favorite liberal intelligentsia. I thought you were for paying them… So if you add the 2 big ones up, they equal 46.25 million and 82 million. i.e. outside of those two, fees have decreased.
This seems to me to be all about the schools again. If we taught basic reading and math in k-12, perhaps we could save a little money by cutting remedial math, science, english courses, 101 math, science and english courses, bike riding, bowling and a host of other accredited badminton-like courses. Then offer every public employee a reasonable 5% match to their retirements and I bet fees go down by at least a billion or five.
Once again I find myself asking you, do you ever read what you link?
From Phil Scarr:
Steve: I’m sure he could, but I doubt you’d listen.
Your earlier snarkily written comments wholly discredited and you still have the arrogance to write that? Now that capper has been discredited too what is next? Not that there would be a purpose, you have already proven yourself equal to your own commentary. You don’t listen. There will be no: ‘Oh I get it’ from Phil or capper, ever. I would love to play war games against any of you libs. History means nothing and you refuse to learn anything from anyone idealogically opposed to you. Biggest loser every time. Heh, there is a show named after you guys.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2012 at 1103 hrs
Well, at least state spending is down. Wait, what? Oh. Nevermind.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2012 at 1344 hrs
35.75 million of the 37.248 million 2011 and 2012 increases and 71.5 million of the 74 million in 2012-20-13 fee increases are tuition increases for the UW system.
Except for the fact that it was Walker that imposed the cuts on the school system that forced the increases. But he has no control? Um, sure, keep telling yourself that.
Posted by capper on January 18, 2012 at 0058 hrs
forced the increases
Really? There was nothing else that could have been done? Thank you for so clearly demonstrating how we got into this mess in the first place, and what will happen if we end up with another D in the governor’s office.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2012 at 0824 hrs
Except for the fact that it was Walker that imposed the cuts on the school system that forced the increases. But he has no control? Um, sure, keep telling yourself that.
I wish he had the control to cut accredited courses such as wind surfing, badminton, bowling, high school level math, science, english, art appreciation, pretty much every class in College that begins with ‘remedial’ or ends with ‘101’. Teaching only upper level education in Colleges would save an extra 5-10 billion or so, I bet(probably a lot more).
Besides all that, whether we all pay as property tax or just the kids (and their families)going to college for 8-12 years worth of degrees pay for it does make a difference to me. You were insinuating that fees went up on everything to keep our taxes down. The truth is, fees for colleges increased a lot for users rather than everyone paying for it and I heartily agree with that ideal. The public pays for k-12, private citizens should be paying for all higher learning. It would perforce clean up higher education because Colleges could only pay out what they get, the way it should be. If educrats are going to continue to cheapen the value of College by offering more and more simplistic classes(taught by interns, not Professors) that actually count towards your degree, then at least have the people using the service pay for the bulk of it. Unfortunately, we are already committed to paying a large portion of College Ed. so the question was only whether everyone pays for the increases(taxes) or whether the users pay for the increases(fees). Your pratty whine that fees ‘have risen astronomically’ is bull for the average WI citizen. And yes, the board of regents could clean house, but that would be slitting their own cushy job throats, so we know the chances of that happening.
I would have citizens pay for all higher ed with the only Government contribution being very large quantities of money available for ability based scholarship from poorer families and research grant projects. The public should not be directly paying for a dime of University costs, salaries, etc. If they weren’t there would be fee decreases, tax decreases, and less money spent in Government this budget.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2012 at 0934 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134049
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 09:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 112
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 10:00 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).