Do you buy new, used, or very well used cars?

[mrodgers]

And my property taxes are nothing compared to people who live in high property tax areas. I know my annual property tax bill is equal to a friends quarterly property tax payment in New Jersey.

My property taxes are $150. That's not escrow built into my payment. That's what I send each year, LOL. No one here after reading this forum for so many years would be able to live like me though.

 

[Colleen27]

What the heck do you do for work that $5000 more is no big deal to spend on a car? Sheesh. That's a massive difference. Almost $100/month, probably is today with interest rates.

Except you usually get better interest rates financing a new car than a used one, so it may be less of a difference than you'd think. I don't generally finance cars but I was with my mom the last time she went car shopping, and at the time, the loan offers she was getting were 3-4% higher for a used car than a new one.

I get that if you don't have it, you can't spend it, but choosing to spend more on a purchase that you're going to use every day for many years is hardly a questionable decision. And you hardly have to be rolling in dough to absorb even a $100/mo higher payment.

The funny part is, I showed up for work in my new-to-me Audi and they all got on me with "look who's making the big bucks!" Meanwhile it was in the parking lot while they stood next to their $60,000 $700/month trucks and my Audi is the same payment my weak little econobox Mazda 3 was at $325 (because they did give me double what the piece of junk was worth.)

Pretty sure that's just a "truck guy" thing. They have their ideas of what brands/models/styles are expensive and aren't willing to let the factual cost of their toys get in the way. My MIL used to get those comments from some of the men in FIL's social circles about her BMW - which was 6 years old, bought below market from a relative who inherited it from the proverbial "grandma who only drove to church" - as they rolled up in their 1-2 year old F250s and Titans, every one of which was worth more than that Beemer. But a Beemer is a "luxury", not like those "hard working trucks". LOL

 

[hopemax]

Yeah, looks can be deceiving. A friend bought a beautiful used Cadillac Limo. It had been used it's entire life by a limo company, and it was spotless. A lot of co-workers wondered where he got the money to buy it. They were shocked to discover he paid $5,000 for it, about one quarter to one third what most of them had paid for their cars. That Caddie was spotless, but had 300,000 miles on it.

Our previous neighbor used to go through a selection of luxury brand large vehicles. He explained that people who buy luxury vehicles don't buy used versions of them, and they don't run them forever. People who buy used vehicles are looking for workhorse brands like Honda and Toyota. So that if you were like him, and had a buddy in the car business who would watch as things came through, you could get hooked up with a used luxury car for less than you might think.

Now that I think about it, my Uncle did this sort of thing. He'd buy a used Lexus from his company when they were looking to replace their company cars.

 

[kymom99]

My escrow portion of my house payment is over $700.

I don’t have an escrow but if I did, it would be about $300 a month

 

[White Cat]

My property taxes are $150. That's not escrow built into my payment. That's what I send each year, LOL. No one here after reading this forum for so many years would be able to live like me though.

I did live like you. Worse in fact. In a crap coal town in Pa near WV. But I didn’t like it. At all. So in my mid 20’s I decided to do something about it.

 

[tvguy]

Our previous neighbor used to go through a selection of luxury brand large vehicles. He explained that people who buy luxury vehicles don't buy used versions of them, and they don't run them forever. People who buy used vehicles are looking for workhorse brands like Honda and Toyota. So that if you were like him, and had a buddy in the car business who would watch as things came through, you could get hooked up with a used luxury car for less than you might think.

Now that I think about it, my Uncle did this sort of thing. He'd buy a used Lexus from his company when they were looking to replace their company cars.

My wife and I bought our son a 2006 Ford Taurus with 25,000 miles on it for $9.995 in 2007. Generic car. Right after we bought it there was an article about the most popular car with millionaires..........you guessed it, Ford Taurus.
Basic, reliable, no frills transportation. It served him well, he drove it 180,000 miles until he crashed it. $6,000 damage. He was married by then and he and his wife went out and bought a replacement, only to hear from their insurance company that the car was in such good condition, that they were going to fix it. Or they could get a check for $3,000 and have it totaled. They opted to total it.

 

[AustinTink]

$2,571 a year for me for a house Zillow says has a current market value of $509,000. But being in California my property taxes are fixed at 1% of the $101,000 I paid for the house, with a 2% increased allowed each year, plus any bonds voters approve.
I just don't understand why property owners in other states haven't revolted like we did here in California in 1978 and pass laws to cap property taxes.

Probably why I drive a 10-year old car (that I bought new). Our property taxes here are insane. Over 13k this year.

My car only has 53,000 miles on her so I hope she keeps going for a very long time.

 

[kdonnel]

$2,571 a year for me for a house Zillow says has a current market value of $509,000. But being in California my property taxes are fixed at 1% of the $101,000 I paid for the house, with a 2% increased allowed each year, plus any bonds voters approve.
I just don't understand why property owners in other states haven't revolted like we did here in California in 1978 and pass laws to cap property taxes.

Parts of Georgia had systems in place like you describe but were found to be illegal by the highest state court.

It resulted in two people living side by side that paid incredible differences in property taxes for property valued the same. The person who had lived there for 30 years vs the person who moved their a year ago.

It results in people feeling trapped, unable to move because they know if they do move their property tax will rise considerable.

It results in a very unequal distribution of tax liability.

I feel like the state courts were correct in ruling that the method was unlawful and unfair.

 

[tvguy]

Parts of Georgia had systems in place like you describe but were found to be illegal by the highest state court.

It resulted in two people living side by side that paid incredible differences in property taxes for property valued the same. The person who had lived there for 30 years vs the person who moved their a year ago.

It results in people feeling trapped, unable to move because they know if they do move their property tax will rise considerable.

It results in a very unequal distribution of tax liability.

I feel like the state courts were correct in ruling that the method was unlawful and unfair.

I disagree. People can't control the current value of their home, they can only control what they paid for it. They bought what they could afford. The exact situation you describe is why voters here approved Prop 13. I remember interviewing a nice lady in her 80's, she and her husband bought a house they could afford 40 years (about 1938) before for $5,000. In 1978 the house had appreciated enough that the property taxes were $5,000 a year. Only way she could realize that windfall would be to sell the house. A property tax system that bases the tax on a value the person could never afford it downright unethical in my book.
There are other ways to deal with that. In some states after age 65 home owners waive property taxes on their primary residence. That is an even more "unfair" tax system to your way of thinking, and the courts have upheld it.

 

[tvguy]

Probably why I drive a 10-year old car (that I bought new). Our property taxes here are insane. Over 13k this year.

My car only has 53,000 miles on her so I hope she keeps going for a very long time.

For the first time in decades we have two cars with less than 100,000 miles on them. We bought both in anticipation of retirement. Currently both have less than 20,000 miles on them, a 2018 and a 2020.
But the car we traded in on the 2018 we had owned for 31 years, so your car is still brand new compared to that.

 

[kdonnel]

I disagree. People can't control the current value of their home, they can only control what they paid for it. They bought what they could afford. The exact situation you describe is why voters here approved Prop 13. I remember interviewing a nice lady in her 80's, she and her husband bought a house they could afford 40 years (about 1938) before for $5,000. In 1978 the house had appreciated enough that the property taxes were $5,000 a year. Only way she could realize that windfall would be to sell the house. A property tax system that bases the tax on a value the person could never afford it downright unethical in my book.
There are other ways to deal with that. In some states after age 65 home owners waive property taxes on their primary residence. That is an even more "unfair" tax system to your way of thinking, and the courts have upheld it.

It just does not seem equitable to have one neighbor who bought a home in 1978 for $50,000 that is now worth $900,000 paying $500 in property taxes and the other neighbor who bought a home in 2023 for $900,000 paying $9000 in property taxes.

That is an extremely inequitable distribution of tax burden.

Instead both should be paying $4750.

 

[tvguy]

It just does not seem equitable to have one neighbor who bought a home in 1978 for $50,000 that is now worth $900,000 paying $500 in property taxes and the other neighbor who bought a home in 2023 for $900,000 paying $9000 in property taxes.

That is an extremely inequitable distribution of tax burden.

Instead both should be paying $4750.

It's no different than any other Capital Gains situation in our tax codes. You don't owe additional tax on the gain, until you realize the gain by selling the house, the stock. the business.
To tax someone based on a value the owner had not realized is vastly more inequitable.

 

[lpereira]

With the exception of this last car bought in late March of 2020 I have always bought beaters. Not well used, straight out beaters. When you drive a beater people give you wife berth because they know you have nothing to lose. In 35 years I have owned four beaters and one brand new car. It would have been 3 beaters but deer clearly don't care about your nothing to lose.

 

[5kidsmommy]

I have always had cars that are at least a few years old until my last one. I bought a brand new car last year. We like to have an extra car incase one of the cars is down for an extended period. I was pretty much done with having a family vehicle and was ready to finally have a non-mom car. I looked at used but the prices of used cars were ridiculous. We managed to get 2.9% financing on the new car due to having pretty good credit. The dealership quoted us 6.4% but I was already pre-approved.

I should add when we were young we struggled financially, we spent years with only one car and it's a relief to be able to purchase something new that I wanted. I do plan on driving it for 10 years. I love my car.

 

[mrodgers]

I did live like you. Worse in fact. In a crap coal town in Pa near WV. But I didn’t like it. At all. So in my mid 20’s I decided to do something about it.

Like what, stop paying child support and spousal support? I don't think that an individual making the median income of the average household should not be capable of having a decent place to live. You also didn't have housing jump up 2 to 3 times what it was in the span of a year and a half. $70k+ is a lot of freakin money to make as a wage, but it's not enough to have a $250,000 mortgage. Not easy to lose everything and start over again with how things are today.

I have to save up a retirement again as well, but now I only have 17 years and they sure are trying to make sure I lose more than I'm putting in.

 

[mrodgers]

I disagree. People can't control the current value of their home, they can only control what they paid for it. They bought what they could afford. The exact situation you describe is why voters here approved Prop 13. I remember interviewing a nice lady in her 80's, she and her husband bought a house they could afford 40 years (about 1938) before for $5,000. In 1978 the house had appreciated enough that the property taxes were $5,000 a year. Only way she could realize that windfall would be to sell the house. A property tax system that bases the tax on a value the person could never afford it downright unethical in my book.
There are other ways to deal with that. In some states after age 65 home owners waive property taxes on their primary residence. That is an even more "unfair" tax system to your way of thinking, and the courts have upheld it.

I have to go a step further than you and say that property tax all together is unethical.

 

[tvguy]

I have to go a step further than you and say that property tax all together is unethical.

Well, that argument could be made too.

 

[Colleen27]

Parts of Georgia had systems in place like you describe but were found to be illegal by the highest state court.

It resulted in two people living side by side that paid incredible differences in property taxes for property valued the same. The person who had lived there for 30 years vs the person who moved their a year ago.

It results in people feeling trapped, unable to move because they know if they do move their property tax will rise considerable.

It results in a very unequal distribution of tax liability.

I feel like the state courts were correct in ruling that the method was unlawful and unfair.

It just does not seem equitable to have one neighbor who bought a home in 1978 for $50,000 that is now worth $900,000 paying $500 in property taxes and the other neighbor who bought a home in 2023 for $900,000 paying $9000 in property taxes.

That is an extremely inequitable distribution of tax burden.

Instead both should be paying $4750.

The problem is, if they both had to pay $4750 you'd have a whole lot more people who couldn't afford a place to live. My state has a similar law and the biggest reason it was passed is because the huge leaps in real estate values were literally taxing seniors out of their homes and into a market where their home equity wasn't enough to provide housing for the rest of their lives. Which wouldn't be as much of an issue with the numbers in your example, but around here it was more like a house that was purchased for $20K that is now worth $200K, and the now-senior owners cannot afford 10x higher property taxes but also don't have nearly enough amassed equity (even with no mortgage) to see them through renting for the remainder of their lives. Someone who can afford a 900K house, or a 200K house, is far more able to afford the taxes on that house than someone who could only afford a 50K or 20K house during their working years and is now retired on a pension/SS/savings that reflects the income of their working years.

I agree that it results in people feeling trapped. I don't know that we'll ever leave our current home and that's a big part of the reason; what we pay in taxes per year wouldn't rent you a one-bedroom apartment in a safe neighborhood for a single month today, so even if we sold and could find something suitable to pay cash for (to have a no-mortgage to no-mortgage fair comparison), the tax difference alone would be staggering. Someone who bought my house today would get a tax bill more than double ours, and we're still 7-8 years away from the point where we had anticipated downsizing.

 

[DisneyHardin]

$2,571 a year for me for a house Zillow says has a current market value of $509,000. But being in California my property taxes are fixed at 1% of the $101,000 I paid for the house, with a 2% increased allowed each year, plus any bonds voters approve.
I just don't understand why property owners in other states haven't revolted like we did here in California in 1978 and pass laws to cap property taxes.

I just thought about the math and realized that we pay less than 1% of what we paid for our house in property taxes. We actually pay property taxes to 2 cities - I live in a Class D city within the larger metro city, so I pay the bulk of my property taxes to the metro city and then I pay a smaller property tax to the Class D city. The PVA did reassess our house a few years ago and we are now paying taxes on about $75,000 more than we paid for it 13 years ago, but it's still pretty low.

I'm always shocked at what people that live in places like New Jersey pay in property taxes.

 

[tvguy]

I'm always shocked at what people that live in places like New Jersey pay in property taxes.

I was shocked when some in the past have posted here that they consider an individual making $150,000 a year to be middle class, but with that level of taxation, yes, you would need that income.
My wife and I combined never made anywhere near that a year, and we considered our income to be upper middle class, despite living in expensive California. But not New Jersey level expensive!