市政府对地产的评估大幅下降

老杨

可能还是有人看不懂。我就说的详细一点。
* H0 l+ M# L  k5 {
好比紫光今年刚买房子市值52万，估值50万，税3000。
老怪也今年刚买房子市值48万，估值50万，税3000。

按说估值在2009的估值是近几年最准确的，可问题就出在准确上了 ...
! P" T# v7 g- J$ R小黄 发表于 2010-1-5 23:32

呵呵，黄教授也有搞错的时候啊。请酷暑同学来帮黄教授演算一下。

小黄

黄教授说的够浅显易懂了，受教
( t. R% i  V3 h+ l" T) ^
! T6 `, v( i. T$ a按照那个公式，N=地税，a=政府想收的总额，b=你的估值，c=全城所有房子估值的和
3 ^* {- ]9 Z# v' ?2 y
3 `6 c$ _7 G4 o3 _/ F8 H按city of edmonton网站的数据，明年a会有大约5%的增长，全城房屋平均降了大约10%
如果你的估值比去年下降的比率为x，则
2009年 N2009=a*b/c
) n! Y: @) Z* e2010年 N2010=1.05a*(1-x)*b/0.9c=1.1667*(1-x)*N2009
所以x至少为0.143，也就是估价至少要降14.3%，今年的地税才能与去年持平。
不知道我的计算有没有问题
& ~. g& T9 G( |; i( pnowave 发表于 2010-1-6 00:57

4 r* B/ k, x: \2 [7 G1 S' c% t! xOnly one problem, the total number of houses increased. Suppose that 2% more tax are collected due to new house and home renovation, then the estimate would drop for about 12~13% for most mid level houses.
$ v) j" b" t& x( F, h
I do notice a new trend that:
3 G- T& J) t; o: d1 W1 S8 T1) newer houses are evaluated more than old ones, even if the market prices are the same (I think it's due to lobbying by seniors). This is a reversal back to the policy prior to 2007.

  _, [& N: [9 T- A2) higher end houses are evaluated less than mid/low end ones. Many million dollar houses in Eagle Ridge are evaluated at about $700k, which is only 60%~70% of market value. (Probably due to lobbying by rich people)

小黄

呵呵，黄教授也有搞错的时候啊。请酷暑同学来帮黄教授演算一下。
老杨 发表于 2010-1-6 08:16

Please enlighten me.

yangshanshan

Only one problem, the total number of houses increased. Suppose that 2% more tax are collected due to new house and home renovation, then the estimate would drop for about 12~13% for most mid leve ...
0 B! g3 ?2 [9 P) g小黄 发表于 2010-1-6 08:36

if it's all due to lobbying. do you mean if the average assessment of a neighborhood is down significantly more than city average, it's probably because the lobbying of that neighborhood?

小黄

3 Z9 b. A6 u/ ^+ C  K& y

if it's all due to lobbying. do you mean if the average assessment of a neighborhood is down significantly more than city average, it's probably because the lobbying of that neighborhood?
yangshanshan 发表于 2010-1-6 08:43

# i9 F5 v) m$ D" U8 l' @2 \( XYes. Look at Eagle Ridge.

Another possibility is due to real market corrections. But I don't think that's a major factor now. Most of the corrections materialized in 2007.

yangshanshan

Yes. Look at Eagle Ridge.
8 Q; c& i$ ~9 z1 z# s: t9 S
8 U9 }7 _" k  b  p9 Q* VAnother possibility is due to real market corrections. But I don't think that's a major factor now. Most of the corrections materialized in 2007.
小黄 发表于 2010-1-6 08:46

what i noticed is neighhoods take turns. that says some down more one year and some others down more the next year. so according to your assumption, the neighborhoods take turns lobbying in different years?

Luk

see see

小黄

what i noticed is neighhoods take turns. that says some down more one year and some others down more the next year. so according to your assumption, the neighborhoods take turns lobbying in differen ...
/ K- g- T6 O$ ?yangshanshan 发表于 2010-1-6 08:50

No. Some neighborhoods have low estimations outright.

Rapala

都洗了睡，没什么好争的，等账单来了就清楚了，保管只多不少。

如花

各位，把你们的物业税的单子拿出来，然后翻到背面，或者到市政府的网站看看，“What is market value assessment"，2010的市值是对应的是2009年7月的市值，09年是对应08年7月的市值，政府的估值不是前瞻性的预测，只是历史数据的对比。对现在或将来的房价预测意义不大。

千里之外

kankankankan

abear

本帖隐藏的内容需要回复才可以浏览

katherine221

每天一点

衣食住行

可能还是有人看不懂。我就说的详细一点。

好比紫光今年刚买房子市值52万，估值50万，税3000。
2 K9 p! M* u& S: s* h; I老怪也今年刚买房子市值48万，估值50万，税3000。
0 ~0 y( v2 R) E# U+ `; L( L0 j
按说估值在2009的估值是近几年最准确的，可问题就出在准确上了 ...
* K0 h3 k* C* ^5 |% y小黄 发表于 2010-1-5 23:32

# M, q: k# Q2 O: s' u不太明白。
- ]& {( f9 _; U( v; b+ [. s按你的举例，老怪还是可以向政府抱怨：他家房子的政府估值比紫光家的低，他不应付和紫光同样的地税。政府这么做根本没有降低抱怨的人数。大量抱怨来源于邻居攀比，而不是估值本身。在网上是很容易看到邻居家的政府估值的。

likehome

2# 宋兵乙

' Z8 t  ~9 ], x8 u6 o
看看你的房产降了多少

小黄

不太明白。
按你的举例，老怪还是可以向政府抱怨：他家房子的政府估值比紫光家的低，他不应付和紫光同样的地税。政府这么做根本没有降低抱怨的人数。大量抱怨来源于邻居攀比，而不是估值本身。在网上是很容易看到 ...
衣食住行 发表于 2010-1-6 11:20

. `$ R+ f) D! C' m$ EYes, your neighbor's house is estimated lower than yours, but what can you do about it? All the city needs is to tell you that there are variations in size and decoration.

$ i+ k7 u% u1 y6 H! c8 e1 S, hPreviously, you can use a purchase agreement as proof, now that's not a viable way any more.

眉飞色无

lexi

kankan kankan

RobertKing

up up up

Enjoylife1

I want to see it.

propeller

Hunter666

是真的吗/?

冥顽脑袋

可能还是有人看不懂。我就说的详细一点。
# b( G6 m4 I3 L+ a% [) [
好比紫光今年刚买房子市值52万，估值50万，税3000。
老怪也今年刚买房子市值48万，估值50万，税3000。

按说估值在2009的估值是近几年最准确的，可问题就出在准确上了 ...
小黄 发表于 2010-1-5 23:32

政府今年预算增加，部分加在地产税里了。刚出来的地产估值总体下降10%，税对有些人会有减少，有些会增加。
http://www.edmonton.ca/for_resid ... ate-your-taxes.aspx
; o- e: q1 _) Q" S' {; t6 P
Compare the change in your residential property’s assessed value with the average decline overall in the value of Edmonton households, which was about 10 per cent.
  L! P3 f6 D9 z1 o3 S& H
& p$ H5 w; y: W/ N5 \    * If your property’s assessment decreased in value the same as the average decrease of about 10 per cent, your taxes from last year will likely increase by about five per cent, which is the average increase required for the 2010 budget.
    * If your property assessment decreased in value greater than the average decrease for Edmonton properties, your taxes will likely increase less than the budget-required tax increase of five per cent.
7 o/ J& T3 x9 r$ U& H    * If your property assessment decreased less than the average decrease for Edmonton properties, or if your property value increased, your taxes will likely increase more than five per cent.

yay

kankan

冰山上的来客

降了 10%

老杨

Please enlighten me.
小黄 发表于 2010-1-6 08:37

+ x+ }0 T  @5 ]) _* i你的原文：好比紫光今年刚买房子市值52万，估值50万，税3000。
老怪也今年刚买房子市值48万，估值50万，税3000。
.............所以一刀切，统统降低10%
) R9 t$ y/ ]9 c; x7 d' {3 i. o这样紫光的估值46.8万，老怪估值43.2万
- i0 O$ Z; A- q
一刀切的实际结果是紫光的估值45万，老怪的估值也是45万。

小黄

你的原文：好比紫光今年刚买房子市值52万，估值50万，税3000。
老怪也今年刚买房子市值48万，估值50万，税3000。
.............所以一刀切，统统降低10%
这样紫光的估值46.8万，老怪估值43.2万
1 k% {* E1 ^5 T. T
一刀切的实际 ...
7 q' ?- M* ~& s; H0 U& k5 y& y6 g% H老杨 发表于 2010-1-6 21:07

2 B2 M) a7 V# ^6 K+ g笔误而已。你说的对，都是45万。那又怎样？
老怪拿着48万的合同，辩不过政府45万的估值啊。

mingzhao1984

henghengzhu

59# mingzhao1984
& m# Z, B# G4 i2 p5 O  [& o
4 N  N: r, G$ y8 v4 I4 d4 z2 W9 Mthanks for sharing