because we're talking about what the consumer pays. landlords are going to try to maximize profits so they're going to charge as much as they can. if market rate on a unit is $1000/month it doesn't matter what the property taxes are; you can charge market rate or see it sit vacant. if property taxes are less that just means that profits will be higher.
After tax cuts and teachers leaving the state, Wisconsin faces massive deficit
- Thread starter DrMeithos
- Start date
because we're talking about what the consumer pays. landlords are going to try to maximize profits so they're going to charge as much as they can. if market rate on a unit is $1000/month it doesn't matter what the property taxes are; you can charge market rate or see it sit vacant. if property taxes are less that just means that profits will be higher.
simple question: if you got a property tax reduction that came out to $100/month per unit but market rental rates remained the same would you reduce everyone's rent by $100 or would you celebrate that profits were up by $100 per unit per month?
yes. can you? the argument is that a property tax reduction benefits the rentor. I'm saying it doesn't because it doesn't affect market rates. you're saying that a landlord will take that money and reinvest it in the property and for some reason not increase rents because now it's a nicer property and they can charge more for it. that's retarded. the landlord will charge as much as they can every time. smart landlords won't invest in the property unless the investment has a return, generally on the form of increase revenue per month. it's a business, not s charity.
holy shiti'm basically reiterating what everyone else is saying, but: Property taxes tie into the market rate for rentals because they tie into what investors must rent their property for in order to make a profit. Sure, if the market rate stays the same after a decrease in property taxes, profit for property owners goes up. But, competition to rent out places will likely drive down the rental prices because property owners can get by with renting their place out for less while still maintaining a profit.
on the flip side, if property taxes went up and the market rate did not adjust for some reason, some investors would likely turn around and try to sell their places because it would no longer be profitable to rent. Or, they would eat their losses.
For every property owner that would love to have $100 extra a month in profit, there are property owners that have been struggling to rent their place out and are more than happy to drop the price for their place by $100 in order to find a renter. Its the beauty of capitalism
Last edited:
which explains why cogz is the only person in here who does not understand any of this.
The real reason I clicked on this thread...Has anyone posted any info regarding whether the recent budget stability of Wisconsin was due to general economic recovery, tax & spending cuts, or both? How are other states doing with their budget since the recovery started to take hold? I assume tax revenue in almost every state has increased fairly significantly. But, I'm guessing Wisconsin is doing better than states that haven't made fiscally responsible choices.
will never happen and I don't own "units" I own houses
Oh lord, mark it down and let it be heard throughout the heavens! Van admitted he was wrong about something.
What? There's not a whole lot of conservatives here to begin with, let alone I'm sure the unemployment rates are probably the same, or tilted in favor of conservatives.
Or are you just parroting that false sentiment about Republicans being dumb even though they're actually more educated?
p.s. Just out of curiosity, what degree(s) do you have? I see you so interested in everyone else's, so I'm sure you wouldn't mind sharing.
SirBatesAlot
Veteran X
wisconsin facing massive DICK
prop 13 in California keeps property taxes low and makes it so the longer you hold property the lower your rates are relative to new owners. corporations abuse the law by creatively manipulating ownership shares so a tax reassessment is never triggered giving them an artificially low property tax assessment.
meanwhile rents in the sf bay area are through the roof even for properties that have been held for so long they're paying half the taxes of their neighbors.
vacancy rates in rental properties drives the price of rentals, not overhead including property taxes. you could eliminate property taxes tomorrow in a hot market like San Francisco and rents would still go up because people are willing and able to pay those tents and vacancy rates are really low.
likewise you could double taxes tomorrow and you won't be able to charge more if vacancy rates are really high. competition will keep prices down and landlords will exit the market until an equilibrium is reached.
meanwhile rents in the sf bay area are through the roof even for properties that have been held for so long they're paying half the taxes of their neighbors.
vacancy rates in rental properties drives the price of rentals, not overhead including property taxes. you could eliminate property taxes tomorrow in a hot market like San Francisco and rents would still go up because people are willing and able to pay those tents and vacancy rates are really low.
likewise you could double taxes tomorrow and you won't be able to charge more if vacancy rates are really high. competition will keep prices down and landlords will exit the market until an equilibrium is reached.
are you not answering the question because you don't like the real answer?
you'd keep the money. the savings would not be passed on to your rentors.
a property owner will always charge what the market can bare. A cut in property tax has almost zero chance of benefiting the "renters" unless the rental market has high availability. The only way that happens is if the economy is growing (for the renters) or the price of housing comes down.
