Kayend
Active Member
Good info. The secondary check mentioned in the document is to make sure no data entry error (data quality check) into the DVIS System and KCC will not disqualify any applicants.
For those that like to argue about statistics...
- Thread starter Britsimon
- Start date
Good info. The secondary check mentioned in the document is to make sure no data entry error (data quality check) into the DVIS System and KCC will not disqualify any applicants.
Britsimon
Super Moderator
Properties in Florida are generally less expensive, so the tax rates are less, although the percentages in Florida (in my experience) are higher.
Britsimon
Super Moderator
Homestead exemptions are not available in every state and certainly do not affect the numbers I quoted earlier (California) where the homestead exemption covers the first $7000 of assessed value. The differences in California are based on values, which are lower on older property because the assessed value cannot grow outside certain percentages annually, meaning older homes are generally cheaper than newer property. Sadly I like newer houses!
Britsimon
Super Moderator
Yep again, you are really talking about Florida rules. It's very different in other states and homesteading is only important in a few states where the homestead exemption is high relative to the overall values.
Britsimon
Super Moderator
Actually Mijoro I read that post too quickly. Aruably, the slow regions are likely to be AS and AF - because the "average" EU/SA/OC case is less likely to come from a country with developing public records systems and with high Muslim populations. AS and AF cases will more often go to AP (administrative processing) and AP cases natually take more manpower. So. EU/SA/OC cases are easier to process and should go faster. SA and OC regions also have smaller quotas, so a small global change (say 500 visas extra for SA/OC) would have an enormous in those regions and barely be noticed elsewhere.
Britsimon
Super Moderator
Correct. However, not all regions will move ahead at the same pace. So if the global limit hits early you might see a fast moving region having hit 95% of its quota at the point the global limit is filled and a slow moving region sitting on 85% of its quota. In that case, the quota will effectively be skewed in favour of the fast moving regions.
Britsimon
Super Moderator
Let's drop the argument I'm having some lekker beers down here in SA its the end of the year
Big cheers for every one specially for my mate simon
Cheers dude!
Kayend
Active Member
I don't think so. If the regionals quota are divided by 100% and the slow regions still have enough selectees then one region visa slots cannot be use by other regions. I believe the last 2 fiscal months are reserve for this kind of adjustment if any.
Eucn
Registered Users (C)
Sorry simon but the most important element of homesteading is the limit to the growth of the assessed value not the exemption. However the ca exemption is 75000 usd
Eucn
Registered Users (C)
Simon that's not entirely correct. The limit to the growth of the assessment has nothing to do with the age of the house. If you buy an old house tomorrow your tax will be significantly higher than what the current owner pays further the exemption is at least 10 times higher in ca than what you mention.
Britsimon
Super Moderator
The assessed value resetting with a sale is something that I have seen avoided, but it might have been to do with the way the house was sold, and I have certainly seen more were the assessed value has reset on sale (both of those comments being about California). Having said that the numbers in Florida were far less and in an already depreciated market so I don't suppose I paid as much attention as I am looking at homes in California.
The discussion is about property tax. The CA exemption on property tax is $7k but the exemption on forced sale in CA is $75k (for single people). However, I don't think we are talking about bankruptcy here are we???
The tax rate in California is 1% not 2%.
I guess neither one of us was entirely correct!
Last edited by a moderator:
Britsimon
Super Moderator
Further reading shows that California has differences to Florida because a of a change in law in the late 70's that limited the tax to 1% and the growth to 2% per year. Thank goodness for that - before that law people were paying 3% and with unlimited increases - so people were losing their homes because they couldn't afford to pay the property taxes.
This is all still a big shock to my wallet though as in the UK we have a banded system and even though my house is in the highest band I still only pay about $3000 per year. Houses I am looking at in California will cost 5 times that amount!
This is all still a big shock to my wallet though as in the UK we have a banded system and even though my house is in the highest band I still only pay about $3000 per year. Houses I am looking at in California will cost 5 times that amount!
OnTheGo
Registered Users (C)
Simon, I don't quite understand the highlighted...could you illustrate with an example of what that means (limited to 1% and growth to 2% p.a. / 3% an unlimited increases) ..?
Britsimon
Super Moderator
OK, in California - if you buy a house with a value assessed at $800,000 the tax in the first year should be $8,000 (although you can apply for the homestead exemption which would save a wopping $70 per year). In the second year, that $800,000 can only be increased by 2% so the assessed value the following year could rise to $816k which would then increase the tax by $160. So, in the case of an old couple who have lived in a house for 20 years they aren't being forced to sell their homes because of massive increases in property tax.
The 3% tax and unlimited increases was the situation until the late 70's when the local house price rises meant constant rising property tax bills which were 3% of the homes assessed value and could increase in line with market values (generally higher than the 2% limit now in place). So if you bought your house 5 years ago and a similar house sold for double your original price then you would find your property tax could literally double. This caused a lot of problems and a changed was agreed. This change was due to proposition 13.
OnTheGo
Registered Users (C)
Ah. Muchas gracias ... eso lo entiendo . By 'growth' (the 2% example) you meant the increase of the asset tax base (= value of the property). That was the main thing I wasn't sure about...but your examples make real sense and illustrate what fair or unfair can do to people and their livelihoods.
I think this system of charging a property tax solely based on the assessed value is unfair. While I agree that people need to be protected from having to sell their house because of sky rocketing property tax demands, on the flip side I think it's also unfair that new buyers who already have to cop, say double the purchase price compared to a few years ago, would then also have to cop double the tax to start with, compared to those who were fortunate enough to buy at the lower price (often just a couple of years prior).
$800k as an example would barely buy you a simple shack in some of the better suburbs of LA, so that doesn't mean people can afford massive ongoing costs of owning the property just because the shack was expensive.
Again, no point in arguing the system but compared to Australia, in what we call "Council rates" the assessed property value will only make up one of several criteria for calculating the "rates due" ... one of which is the location of the property for instance, i.e. a canal home will be charged higher rates than properties in standard residential areas, and what they classify as a 'rural property' (i.e. a small acreage) will be cheaper again.
From what I've heard now a few times, property taxes and state income taxes are two of the main reasons why people keep abandoning California in favor of other states, namely Texas and Florida apparently.
. By 'growth' (the 2% example) you meant the increase of the asset tax base (= value of the property). That was the main thing I wasn't sure about...but your examples make real sense and illustrate what fair or unfair can do to people and their livelihoods. I think this system of charging a property tax solely based on the assessed value is unfair. While I agree that people need to be protected from having to sell their house because of sky rocketing property tax demands, on the flip side I think it's also unfair that new buyers who already have to cop, say double the purchase price compared to a few years ago, would then also have to cop double the tax to start with, compared to those who were fortunate enough to buy at the lower price (often just a couple of years prior).
$800k as an example would barely buy you a simple shack in some of the better suburbs of LA, so that doesn't mean people can afford massive ongoing costs of owning the property just because the shack was expensive.
Again, no point in arguing the system but compared to Australia, in what we call "Council rates" the assessed property value will only make up one of several criteria for calculating the "rates due" ... one of which is the location of the property for instance, i.e. a canal home will be charged higher rates than properties in standard residential areas, and what they classify as a 'rural property' (i.e. a small acreage) will be cheaper again.
From what I've heard now a few times, property taxes and state income taxes are two of the main reasons why people keep abandoning California in favor of other states, namely Texas and Florida apparently.
Britsimon
Super Moderator
Ah. Muchas gracias ... eso lo entiendo
I think this system of charging a property tax solely based on the assessed value is unfair. While I agree that people need to be protected from having to sell their house because of sky rocketing property tax demands, on the flip side I think it's also unfair that new buyers who already have to cop, say double the purchase price compared to a few years ago, would then also have to cop double the tax to start with, compared to those who were fortunate enough to buy at the lower price (often just a couple of years prior).
$800k as an example would barely buy you a simple shack in some of the better suburbs of LA, so that doesn't mean people can afford massive ongoing costs of owning the property just because the shack was expensive.
Again, no point in arguing the system but compared to Australia, in what we call "Council rates" the assessed property value will only make up one of several criteria for calculating the "rates due" ... one of which is the location of the property for instance, i.e. a canal home will be charged higher rates than properties in standard residential areas, and what they classify as a 'rural property' (i.e. a small acreage) will be cheaper again.
From what I've heard now a few times, property taxes and state income taxes are two of the main reasons why people keep abandoning California in favor of other states, namely Texas and Florida apparently.
First time I have heard anything like that!!! I wish they would all bugger off so I could drive on uncongested 6 lane highways. I seriously doubt there is much population movement to other states from CA...
FYI $800k won't buy much in North CA either, but it depends where of course - some places are more affordable than others. I'm thinking I'll need to spend at least $1million to get a nice sized house (2500/3000 square feet), within a good school district and still commutable to SF. Either that or pay less for the house and then pay for private education.
OnTheGo
Registered Users (C)
I will try to find some of these articles (next year...lol...in preparations for NYE now).
LOL at the highlighted!!
vladek15425
Well-Known Member
Sloner; simon's calculation are more than correct, because him using the succes rate for dv11 and dv13 automatically includes the county quotas (3500).....
Sm1smom
Super Moderator
I had been quite determined to stay off this thread for personal reasons, but at this stage, I just can't contain myself anymore!
My goodness!
Great response, as usual, Simon
Precisely why I tell my kids don't believe everything you read on the internet whenever they tell me something ridiculous and I ask how they came about it, to which they respond "oh, it's on the internet".
For sheez! I live about 1 hour's drive away from Southern Cali, I've lived there ever since I moved to the US, and it's still as congested as the first day I stepped foot into the State. Congestion is the main reason why I couldn't and still can't bear to live there. Same reason I can't stand places likes San Francisco and it's immediate suburbs in Northern Cali.
People abandoning California for places like Florida and Texas??? Majority of the people living in California don't give a hoot about the property or State income taxes. Yes, they may grumble about it now and then, but not enough for them to abandon the State in favor of some other.
Just like those living outside of the US who are supposedly "massively renouncing" their US citizenship or LPR status for tax reasons, those "abandoning California in favor of other states, namely Texas and Florida apparently" are like a drop in the ocean!
My goodness!
Great response, as usual, Simon
Precisely why I tell my kids don't believe everything you read on the internet whenever they tell me something ridiculous and I ask how they came about it, to which they respond "oh, it's on the internet".
For sheez! I live about 1 hour's drive away from Southern Cali, I've lived there ever since I moved to the US, and it's still as congested as the first day I stepped foot into the State. Congestion is the main reason why I couldn't and still can't bear to live there. Same reason I can't stand places likes San Francisco and it's immediate suburbs in Northern Cali.
People abandoning California for places like Florida and Texas??? Majority of the people living in California don't give a hoot about the property or State income taxes. Yes, they may grumble about it now and then, but not enough for them to abandon the State in favor of some other.
Just like those living outside of the US who are supposedly "massively renouncing" their US citizenship or LPR status for tax reasons, those "abandoning California in favor of other states, namely Texas and Florida apparently" are like a drop in the ocean!