Property Tax Increase

[BCClone]

You may be correct, but what ever happened to the idea of LOYALITY. I will work for you till retirement, and then you take care of me when I retire? Now everything is figured to the bottom line. I suspect it better for the bottom line for a business, but what about the employee.

Look at this bill that was passed this morning, how is that good for cities and schools? Everyone is complaining about the increases of the property taxes, but what has their home increased in value during that time. I guess the right as convinced everyone that taxes are evil and now we are in a race to get them as low as we can go. But my question is what do people want to give up to get those low taxes?

I can’t answer the second paragraph because I haven’t read the bill so I cant give an opinion.

Several things happened in regards to you first part. After a few businesses, whether by accident incompetence or poor fraud/greed; couldn’t pay the pensions, regulations forced them to classify these things now versus just popping them out of profit. Used to be you would work 30 years, retire around 50 and die around 60. When people started living 10 years more but retiring the same time it became more difficult.

I honestly prefer to control my own and also want to pass it along to my kids. If you like IPERS and are happy with what it offers, more power to you. The forced part of it is one thing I really dislike.

 

[CycloneDaddy]

She will actually be at 89 at 56 when she hits. It says 2,050 area. I put it away. It give or take a 20 bucks or so. She started 1/2 year out of college.

She will have 33.5 years of service then.

IPERS or a 401k is going to be a drastic hit if u retire at 56 instead of 65. Not only are you taking benefits 9 years earlier you are probably also giving up your retirement doubling in value. I just used my company 401k website and at 65 it said monthly pmt was over $11k (includes SS pmt) and 56 was around $6k.

 

[BCClone]

IPERS or a 401k is going to be a drastic hit if u retire at 56 instead of 65. Not only are you taking benefits 9 years earlier you are probably also giving up your retirement doubling in value. I just used my company 401k website and at 65 it said monthly pmt was over $11k (includes SS pmt) and 56 was around $6k.

Chunk of the hit is the life expectancy. It will be considered full retirement for IPERS though. I know one guy who started for the county after HS at 18. At 53 he will be able to retire.

I’m not sure what happens if she takes the lump sum and then goes back to sub for a few years. She would technically earn and start rebuilding if that is allowed.

We are near MN and a common theme for administration people is to retire in IA and then work in MN. MN pays more so I think that would be a nice thing. Cash out Iowa and then go payments from them, could get 500 to a grand for a short time.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Chunk of the hit is the life expectancy. It will be considered full retirement for IPERS though. I know one guy who started for the county after HS at 18. At 53 he will be able to retire.

I’m not sure what happens if she takes the lump sum and then goes back to sub for a few years. She would technically earn and start rebuilding if that is allowed.

We are near MN and a common theme for administration people is to retire in IA and then work in MN. MN pays more so I think that would be a nice thing. Cash out Iowa and then go payments from them, could get 500 to a grand for a short time.

You can not retire with a IPERS pension earlier than 55 unless you are disabled. After you retire with IPERS, you may not go back to work in an IPERS funded school or business for 6 months. After that you can go back to work and sub or whatever. But any salary you earn above $30,000 you will lose half of it. Nothing would apply if you work for a non IPERS business or work out of state. I would like to jump down to Missouri next year if I can find something close enough to drive within an hour or so.

Anyone money that you pay into IPERS after you start drawing it out, is put into a fund for you, and when you retire for good, then you will get a lump sum payment of that money, but not what the school put in for you, you lose that money. It does not add to you money that you took when you retired.

To retire under IPERS you must reach one of two ways, unless disabled, your age and time of service must equal 88 and be at least 55 years of age. Or be 62 and 20 years of service. I hit my rule of 88 this fall, my wife will never hit it, but will use the rule of 62/20 to retire in less than 3 years.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

IPERS or a 401k is going to be a drastic hit if u retire at 56 instead of 65. Not only are you taking benefits 9 years earlier you are probably also giving up your retirement doubling in value. I just used my company 401k website and at 65 it said monthly pmt was over $11k (includes SS pmt) and 56 was around $6k.

With IPERS this should not matter, when you hit your rule of 88, at least 55 years of age, and service equals 88. Then you are eligible to retire on 60% of your highest grossing 5 year average. The earliest anyone can retire is age 55 with 33 years in. Every year you work after you reach your 88, you receive a 1% increase, you may only add 5% total. So the most anyone can ever receive from IPERS is 65% of their highest 5 year average.

In my case as with many, that comes out to an extra $50.00 to 60.00 dollars a month more for every year I remain teaching after this fall. It really does not pay to stick around unless you are staying for the insurance or the difference between salary and retirement. That is why many jump out ASAP after hitting their rule of 88.

 

[BCClone]

You can not retire with a IPERS pension earlier than 55 unless you are disabled. After you retire with IPERS, you may not go back to work in an IPERS funded school or business for 6 months. After that you can go back to work and sub or whatever. But any salary you earn above $30,000 you will lose half of it. Nothing would apply if you work for a non IPERS business or work out of state. I would like to jump down to Missouri next year if I can find something close enough to drive within an hour or so.

Anyone money that you pay into IPERS after you start drawing it out, is put into a fund for you, and when you retire for good, then you will get a lump sum payment of that money, but not what the school put in for you, you lose that money. It does not add to you money that you took when you retired.

To retire under IPERS you must reach one of two ways, unless disabled, your age and time of service must equal 88 and be at least 55 years of age. Or be 62 and 20 years of service. I hit my rule of 88 this fall, my wife will never hit it, but will use the rule of 62/20 to retire in less than 3 years.

I Took this from the IPERS website:

Your contributions and interest credited to your account are always yours.

If you are a vested member, you will receive a portion of your employer’s accumulated contributions based on a formula:

• Regular members: Divide your years of service by 30.
• Sheriffs, deputy sheriffs or other protection occupations: Divide your years of service by 22.

For teachers it looks like you would get 100% after roughly 33 years. At this point I will say it has been a solid discussion but going to stop so we don't totally make this an IPERS thread. Thanks for the discussion and have fun in retirement whenever that may be.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Defined benefit pensions have their pros and cons, but in exchange for the cons you get guaranteed income for life regardless of market conditions. She could save up all that money in a defined contribution plan, and if the market nosedives when she retires she still might not have enough to live on for 30 years let alone pass anything down.

Why should the tax payers provide that when 95% of the population doesn't receive anything nearly as good?

 

[SECyclone]

When I’m planning on retirement funds I always exclude SS. You never know how that’s going to look in 30 years. End it IMO and let people keep that money to spend or invest

 

[ArgentCy]

I can’t answer the second paragraph because I haven’t read the bill so I cant give an opinion.

Several things happened in regards to you first part. After a few businesses, whether by accident incompetence or poor fraud/greed; couldn’t pay the pensions, regulations forced them to classify these things now versus just popping them out of profit. Used to be you would work 30 years, retire around 50 and die around 60. When people started living 10 years more but retiring the same time it became more difficult.

I honestly prefer to control my own and also want to pass it along to my kids. If you like IPERS and are happy with what it offers, more power to you. The forced part of it is one thing I really dislike.

It has to be forced to have any hope of being able to pay the current retirees.

 

[Cyclonepride]

It has to be forced to have any hope of being able to pay the current retirees.

It needs to be changed to a temporary tax until those people, plus those grandfathered in, are out of the system. Or, just add it to the debt like we do everything else.

 

[ArgentCy]

Both systems were Ponzi like schemes. They require more new investors coming into the system in order to continue. Once that starts to shift they are in serious trouble. It's not like these systems took savings over 30 years before they started to pay benefits to anyone.

 

[titleist]

Back to the property tax discussion...

Can someone that has done the research quickly rank these cities from largest to smallest in property tax rate?

1. Gilbert
2. Ames
3. Huxley
4. Polk City
5. Ankeny
6. West Des Moines
7. Waukee

Thanks!

 

[BCClone]

Back to the property tax discussion...

Can someone that has done the research quickly rank these cities from largest to smallest in property tax rate?

1. Gilbert
2. Ames
3. Huxley
4. Polk City
5. Ankeny
6. West Des Moines
7. Waukee

Thanks!

spreadsheet this seems to work

https://dom.iowa.gov/document/individual-tax-levies-all-cities-2002-2019

 

[capitalcityguy]

The whole property tax issue is frustrating to me because everyone, regardless of political persuasion, doesn't seem to understand the mess cities have gotten themselves in. I have friends on FB who we generally agree on 95% of issues, that I find are clueless on this one.

Long and short of it: post WWII we abandoned the way we had built cities for thousands of years...by trial and error...to discover what worked best. Instead we went 100% all in and started designing and building our cities to best accommodate the automobile first...all other factors taking 2nd fiddle. This naturally resulted in not only a lot of expensive infrastructure, but also a much more spread-out style of development (i.e....we started building a lot fewer productive property tax paying commercial buildings and residential houses per acre than anytime in human history...and we went full bore on this.

We all fed into this. We liked our big yards, plenty of "free" parking, etc....etc..

Now that much of this infrastructure (above and below ground) has reached it 2nd and 3rd generation and need major repairs/maintenance, cities are finding these spread out developments simply don't generate enough property tax revenue to fund the corresponding infrastructure that services them.

This is a mess. It is complicated...and why I believe no one want to talk about this harsh reality. It is much easier (as one of my fiscally conservative friends loves to do), to point out the new amphitheater and blame that for rising property taxes. That is far too simplistic....but he doesn't want to hear that because it means coming to grips with how much of his cities neighborhoods and commercial districts (even the shiny new ones) built in the last few decades are actually drains on the city coffers. There is not easy fix.

 

[BCClone]

The whole property tax issue is frustrating to me because everyone, regardless of political persuasion, doesn't seem to understand the mess cities have gotten themselves in. I have friends on FB who we generally agree on 95% of issues, that I find are clueless on this one.

Long and short of it: post WWII we abandoned the way we had built cities for thousands of years...by trial and error...to discover what worked best. Instead we went 100% all in and started designing and building our cities to best accommodate the automobile first...all other factors taking 2nd fiddle. This naturally resulted in not only a lot of expensive infrastructure, but also a much more spread-out style of development (i.e....we started building a lot fewer productive property tax paying commercial buildings and residential houses per acre than anytime in human history...and we went full bore on this.

We all fed into this. We liked our big yards, plenty of "free" parking, etc....etc..

Now that much of this infrastructure (above and below ground) has reached it 2nd and 3rd generation and need major repairs/maintenance, cities are finding these spread out developments simply don't generate enough property tax revenue to fund the corresponding infrastructure that services them.

This is a mess. It is complicated...and why I believe no one want to talk about this harsh reality. It is much easier (as one of my fiscally conservative friends loves to do), to point out the new amphitheater and blame that for rising property taxes. That is far too simplistic....but he doesn't want to hear that because it means coming to grips with how much of his cities neighborhoods and commercial districts (even the shiny new ones) built in the last few decades are actually drains on the city coffers. There is not easy fix.

I blame a lot on cities built the first set of infrastructure and then lived off what would be depreciation for a business. Needed to set aside a portion of that money to handle the costs when they popped up, but the councils and managers were scared to say why that pile of cash was there and not using it for something. We can worry about that tomorrow was their slogan. If they would have functioned his depreciation is supposed to function a good portion of the issues would not be an issue.

 

[ArgentCy]

spreadsheet this seems to work

https://dom.iowa.gov/document/individual-tax-levies-all-cities-2002-2019

That is actually more information than the last posted spreedsheet. Breaks down what is making up the levy for each city. Also it shows the Fica & IPERS in the separate line that is getting put back into the General levy. Now I know that there are some limits set by the State so I wonder how that will affect things.

 

[capitalcityguy]

I blame a lot on cities built the first set of infrastructure and then lived off what would be depreciation for a business. Needed to set aside a portion of that money to handle the costs when they popped up, but the councils and managers were scared to say why that pile of cash was there and not using it for something. We can worry about that tomorrow was their slogan. If they would have functioned his depreciation is supposed to function a good portion of the issues would not be an issue.

The illustration about 1/2 way through this 4 min video suggests even if cities did what you suggest, it still wouldn't solve the issue given the spread-out nature of the development pattern.

 

[ArgentCy]

The whole property tax issue is frustrating to me because everyone, regardless of political persuasion, doesn't seem to understand the mess cities have gotten themselves in. I have friends on FB who we generally agree on 95% of issues, that I find are clueless on this one.

Long and short of it: post WWII we abandoned the way we had built cities for thousands of years...by trial and error...to discover what worked best. Instead we went 100% all in and started designing and building our cities to best accommodate the automobile first...all other factors taking 2nd fiddle. This naturally resulted in not only a lot of expensive infrastructure, but also a much more spread-out style of development (i.e....we started building a lot fewer productive property tax paying commercial buildings and residential houses per acre than anytime in human history...and we went full bore on this.

We all fed into this. We liked our big yards, plenty of "free" parking, etc....etc..

Now that much of this infrastructure (above and below ground) has reached it 2nd and 3rd generation and need major repairs/maintenance, cities are finding these spread out developments simply don't generate enough property tax revenue to fund the corresponding infrastructure that services them.

This is a mess. It is complicated...and why I believe no one want to talk about this harsh reality. It is much easier (as one of my fiscally conservative friends loves to do), to point out the new amphitheater and blame that for rising property taxes. That is far too simplistic....but he doesn't want to hear that because it means coming to grips with how much of his cities neighborhoods and commercial districts (even the shiny new ones) built in the last few decades are actually drains on the city coffers. There is not easy fix.

Look through that spreedsheet and the breakdown of costs. Almost all of the increases are from FICA and "other" employee benefits as well as debt service. Perhaps some of the problem is that the general levy is capped at 8.1 but infrastructure is not the problem. But yes, I agree that cities are getting themselves into a giant mess. Some of already been there for many years.

I now see why Ottumwa is in deep shinola. The Employee Benefits category is LARGER than the General Levy. No other town I've looked at is close.

 

[ArgentCy]

The illustration about 1/2 way through this 4 min video suggests even if cities did what you suggest, it still wouldn't solve the issue given the spread-out nature of the development pattern.

Explain European cities then. They are far more dense and have the same problems.

 

[ArgentCy]

spreadsheet this seems to work

https://dom.iowa.gov/document/individual-tax-levies-all-cities-2002-2019

I wish I could give this 5 informative ratings. Really interesting to go back in time and look through the change.