September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Rasslin' | Main | Threats and harsh speech »

Mar 26, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jim Saintsing

It's appalling to think that somebody can require payment of a fixed percentage of the price just because you are able to sell your home. Fixed, non-negotiable percentage skim-offs are no doubt a huge drag on the marketability of real estate. ®ealtors are so right to lead the struggle against fixed, non-negotiable and onerous percentage charges to home sellers!

Linda McCarley

I guess if it's on TV, it must be so. The proposed 1 % transfer tax is not a non-negotiable skim-off as the NC Realtor Association would have you to believe. The problem for the realtors is that it is negotiable. In a hot market, the 1 % tax is passed on to the buyer. Instead of putting your home for $200,000, put it up for $202,000. The money is on the table and the extra $2000 causes little pain for anyone. But if the market is a little slower, the seller might have to lower his or her price a little, the realtor might (OH NO!) have to lower their 6% (not 1%, but 6%) commission. Or the developer might have to drop his price a little. Again, it causes a little pain all around. And the only thing we get from that little ouch is letting homeowners bear less of the price of development. Right now a town can approve 2,000 new housing units and it's up to the county to find the money for schools and other infrastructure. Since the counties' main revenue source is property tax (the only real "home tax"), that has to go up---all to subsidize the profit of developers and realtors. Sweet!????
The transfer tax bills before the General Assembly have referendums attached so voters can decide whether they want to have an alternate to property tax for keeping their community business-friendly AND livable. Why does the Raleigh-based Realtor Association want to prevent voters from making their own choice? I wonder. Let your state legislator know that YOU want to decide on your options, not have the Realtors Association lobbyists make that decision for you.


"The money is on the table and the extra $2000 causes little pain for anyone."

Another great rationalization for a tax that has no business being levied on anyone.

You want to raise money for infrastructure spending? Raise the property tax.

Stop trying to pretend that this tax doesn't hurt anyone.


"Let your state legislator know that YOU want to decide on your options"


Yes indeed....let's do that. Make it a ballot initiative.

Let's see how the voters like the "options" this tax gives them.

Stanley Norwalk


I agree that property taxes have to be raised...but not 20-30 cents as needed to dig ourselves out of the hole that has been dug over the years. That would drive small businesses to bankruptcy and home-owners on a fixed income out of their homes. The commissioners formed a Blue Ribbon Committee last year. The education subcommittee recommended a 10 cent > in property tax a 1% > in the sales tax and a 1% transfer tax to fund the $5 billion gap over the next few years.

Property taxes should and will go up. Wake has the lowest property tax in the Triangle and the lowest of any urban county in the state...another source of funding is needed.


The problem is this isnt another "source". Still me and you.

$2 grrr seems a lot to me. And to a tract style builder multiply that by 50 or 100 or 300!

Explain to me how homeowners will "bear less" by paying more?


"Explain to me how homeowners will "bear less" by paying more?"

They won't.

By the way, Stanley....... in no way am I arguing for any sort of a tax increase.

The argument that "Wake has the lowest property tax rate in the Triangle and the lowest of any urban county in the state" is NOT a valid reason to impose a tax like this.

I made the point about taxes because the elected officials who control tax policy would never have the courage to actually come right out and raise property taxes with such a justification.

Their are other ways to find funding, and there are other ways to increase revenue without such a draconian measure as a transfer tax, or a huge property tax increase.

The property transfer tax is just flat out wrong as policy, and the irrelevant arguments about the "evil" realtors, their fees, and their PR effort is just more noise that diverts everyone from the real issues that meed to be discussed.

Connie Mack Jr

There is a saying among some Republican fundamentalists, "Once saved, always saved!" Some say God has rewritten it: "Once taxed, always taxed!"


Gosh, I stand corrected!

John Hood has illustrated why I am so very wrong about this issue.


"Besides, homeowners and their real-estate agents actually make lots of money selling property. They can afford to surrender some of that wealth to government. After all, they made it by satisfying a basic human need, the need for shelter. They should be ashamed of themselves. It’s not like they made the money honestly – by, say, suing deep-pocketed companies or teaching at taxpayer-subsidized universities."

Thank you for making me see the light, John.


Hey Bubba,

Raising the property tax is a good idea for some counties like Wake. Not a good idea in some poor counties with little industrial base which have 50% or more higher property taxes. (By the way, Wake's tax just went up a "big" six cents and people are hopping mad). Property tax is the mainstay of funding local infrastructure, no question.

The question is how much a hike is need to catch up. In Wake County, the conservative estimate is 11 billion in needs over the next 20 years. That's more than doubling the property tax.

Don't know about you, but I'm not planning on buying any property in the next ten years---so I'm not going to be a "source" for TT revenue any time soon. A tract home developer wouldn't have to pay any of the TT, he or she would pass it on to the buyer. And as to "bearing less", a TT on most homes I would buy is less than or equal to one year's property tax at the present rate. That's paying less over time than a big property tax increase.


"Raising the property tax is a good idea for some counties like Wake."

Then encourage them to go for a massive increase, then.

Be my guest.

As if "more tax revenue" is always the solution to a problem like this.....

Connie Mack Jr

Thank you for making me see the light, John.* Bubba

Bubba! Using John Hood as your source is like Atila the Hun discussing the surrounding land values around Venice before he sack the place.



So you believe passing the taxes onto the the buying public is a good thing? We pay enough.

And btw... Sooner or later you will pay both taxes.

I really hope you dont believe that municipalities wont raise property taxes anyway. That seems more than a bit naive.

The TT being less than one year of property tax is irrelavant. It would take years of even a big property tax to equal the 1% TT on any home.


I don't understand the mentality of the "buyer pays". Ask any seller what the bottom line is from the sell of their house, and they are probably going to feel like THEY have paid.

The comments to this entry are closed.