Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on February 14, 2006

Click here to view bill details.

This is so the new homeowner knows up front he is getting screwed by the state. Why not just eliminate the whole pop up concept. I don't get why someone in a neighborhood should pay thousands more in property tax because he is new to the neighborhood. The whole transfer tax/pop up scheme was the wool over our eyes from the start.

there is no way that they will do this. A better way would be to put the new "real tax" amount on the listing. I have had real estate agents tell me that the tax amount on the listing will not change. Don't know if they are ignorant or lying to sell a house.

Actually, the pop-up tax was one of those People’s Choice ideas contained in proposal A, which Michigan voters approved overwhelmingly. The idea was to prevent people from being taxed out of the homes they owned and had been living in due to rising real estate values around them. Assessments are based on “market value” when the property subsequently is sold. There can be no better way to determine true market value than to use the actual sale price on a given piece of property. The pop-up idea was enthusiastically welcomed when instituted in the 1990s. So what’s the beef now? I’m not sure HB 5671 is exactly the right idea, but disclosing the tax liability that will be incurred by a purchaser due to the pop-up is only honest business practice. You'd hate to think it’s so, but maybe HB 5671 or something like it is needed to make sure that real estate sales people adhere to honest business practices.

The "pop up" is the law, but realtors and closing agents routinely do not disclose this. This is part of Proposal A and has been for a dozen years. Now, however, when the difference can be 100%, people are squawking. They forget that, without Proposal A, everyone's property tax would be 100% higher by now, not just new buyers. Is it "fair"? Is it equitable? Probably not. But it is the law and it is keeping people, particularly people whose houses are paid for but whose cash flow is low, in their houses.

I know you can say millages are passed by voters. The sales pitch is always the same. It's for the kids. We need a new library. The High school needs a marching band practice field, the police need their own firing range etc. My taxes have gone up 10% or more per year the last 9 years. The Proposal A pitch was much of the same. Take it or get your income tax hiked. We got a 50% sales tax hike along with it too. Don't forget the 3/4% property transfer tax slipped in there. Oh, and the lottery money. Why hasn't any of these bright ideas worked to solve our problems and lower our taxes? Or perhaps allowed the State to eliminate say the transfer tax? Proposal A also had baked into it the increase in single business tax. A contributing factor in our high unemployement rate. What a burden. Proposal A was shoved down our throats and is a broken system.

... are not possible. Too many conflicting theories. If my identical house and my neighbor's are taxed differently, it is unfair. Clearly. But, if my neighbor is 72 on a fixed income and has lived in the same house for 47 years, why should his property taxes rise because I moved into the neighborhood and built an identical house that is valued higher at today's prices. That was the original reason for the cap. Of course if he and I, for some unfathomable reason exchange houses, we both "pop-up" to current fair market valuation. How is this fair? What has really changed from a day ago? If I pay $150,000 for my house on the valuation date, shouldn't that be the evaluation? No, because that would be "price chasing" so the assessor uses some factor in the county to say that it's really worth $160,000, or $145,000 or whatever. Besides, home valuation changes constantly. What amenities, environment, neighborhoods, traffic patterns, schools, businesses, all go into the mix to change valuations. How can I come up with a reasonable tax based on constantly changes tax bases? Or a farmer be priced out of his land by property tax valuations based on new subdivisions that might be built if he should sell? That's the current use/best use argument. Or the rationale for property taxes: local services. My neighbor has no children. Why should he fund public schools and not receive the same benefits that I with my 12 kids receive? He's a radical environmentalist. He creates no waste, recycles everything including his trash. Why should he pay for county garbage service? He's already paid with expensive recycling projects. He drinks water from his own pond, and composes and has his own waste treatment processor. Why should he pay for county mandated water & sewage lines that he doesn't want in the first place? Laws like this are the inevitable see-sawing balancing of one interest group ripping off another legally.

the pop up is not truly based on the sev it is truly a blending of the sev and the new purchase price which pops up over a two year time span. if i as the real easte person tell you one number and the the true number that comes out of the local goverment is diffrent. is it that then my fault??? does $200 and an attitude get me sued. there is all ready a disclamer on the sellers disclosure, and a good agent will tell you to check into that if it is a concern. not my place as a real estate person to tell you what the local government is going to do.