Can I get my property taxes lowered?
There is no relationship between the government appraisal and the mortgage appraisal.  The loan appraisal is done by a lender to determine if the property value is in agreement with the loan amount. The government appraisal is done to determine how much to charge you in taxes. They use the values of residences and commercial property to get their operating budget each year. They also set the rate to generate the amount of income money they need. If they cut all appraisals in half, they would just double the rate. In some jurisdictions the government appraises every year, in other places every three years. Some only when the property is sold. In some jurisdictions the maximum increase or decrease in government appraisal is set by law. But then they reset after the house is sold. That being said. Use this time to review the appraisal from the government. They may have facts wrong. They may think you have a pool, or more bedrooms or a garage, when you don't. Some jurisdictions use an automated process, others do a more detailed/individual process. If there was a mistake ten years ago with the description it will never get caught unless you complain.  Check with the governemnt website for how to appeal. Some have windows of opportunity for an appeal. "You most definitely can appeal the county's appraisal of your property.  How to do so, and your odds of success will vary widely by your location, but I have successfully appealed the valuation on one of my rental properties. I asked my realtor to provide me with recent sales of comparable homes in the neighborhood & provided them along with my appeal as evidence of what I felt a reasonable valuation should be.  One of three things will happen: 1) Your appeal will be accepted, 2) It will be denied, or 3) you will be asked to come in & plea your case in front of the county assessor. In my case, the county accepted my appeal without needing to testify. Look around your county assessor's website ... you will probably be able to find the form necessary for filing an appeal.  If not, give them a call & they'll tell you the procedure. The county generally uses a simplistic statistical model to do their valuations. Little to no human time is spent reviewing your home's value, so it's quite possible for their valuation to be unreasonable.   An appeal can take a bit of time & paperwork, but can definitely be worth the effort if the county's valuation is way off. Hope this helps! @mhoran_psprep Your point is well taken that in practice the relationship between sales prices & tax assessments is a bit more tenuous. The waters get muddy when property values have a large swing (like the past 5 years). When tax assessor's started seeing large drops in property values during the recession (and consequent drops in their budgets), I'm sure there was considerable pressure to prevent wholesale decreases in tax valuations. It's politically easier to ""prop-up"" falling valuations than to raise tax rates.  However, the fact remains that the models that assessors use in determining property values are based on sales history - thus, I believe (and have found) that recent sales can be a persuasive piece of evidence in a property tax assessment appeal." The question is whether the assessment is in line with surrounding homes. If my 1500 sq ft house on 1/4 acre is assessed far higher than a similar sized house/land nearby, I'd have a case. +/- 10% can be for age/quality, but 25% or more, I'd investigate. mhoran is right, values for different purposes need not align. A start would be to use a service like Zillow which offers property tax information, as well as house sizes. Let us know what you discover. Welcome to Money.SE
Answers to this your question break down along a few lines regarding opportunity costs of tying up a significant chunk of your salary and assets in one piece of property, as opposed to other things you'd like to do with your life.  The 30 year standard mortgage was invented in the 30's as part of FDR's new deal to make housing affordable to more people, while relieving the strain on the market of foreclosed homes from ~10 year interest only balloon mortgages (sound familiar?). The 30 year term tends to follow the career of the average American of that era, allowing them to pay the house off and live out the remainder of their lives there at a lower cost.  Houses are depreciating assets because they wear out over time. Their greatest investment value is a place to live. The appreciation on a home comes from the real estate it sits on and the community the property is located in. Value is determined by desirability of the house and community in their current state, and the supply of property in the area. This value can only be extracted when you sell the home. This partially answers your last question noting that you shouldn't buy a really expensive building for investment value. We've learned in recent years that there are no long term guarantees of property value either, because land and communities can decrease in value due to unemployment, over supply, crime, pollution, etc. Only buy as much home as you will need in the next decade or so, in a place that you will like living over that time period, and don't consider it much of an investment. I will tell you to get a fifteen year fixed rate mortgage since it's readily available at lower rates and has a significantly lower total purchase price than the standard 30 years. The monthly payment difference isn't that great, and anyone who looks at the monthly payment as opposed to the total costs, your priorities and the opportunity costs shouldn't be trusted for financial advice. I don't like debt. There are psychological benefits to being free from the bondage and drain of a long term mortgage on your finances.  The biggest argument for paying off your home quickly is freedom to pursue other desires with all of your salary and the assets you have available to you. Some financial advisers will tell you to keep your mortgage costs under 25% of your income, so that you can actually live off the money you make. I would also recommend paying at least enough into your 401k to get the company match and fully funding your Roth IRA. I'd also have an emergency fund to cover at least 6 months of expenses, including this mortgage in case you lose your job. A 15 or 20 year mortgage will give you breathing room to take care of these other priorities, and you can overpay on almost any mortgage to decrease the principal and finish in a shorter time period (make sure to get a mortgage that allows prepayment) . More financially savvy people may tell you to take the 30 year mortgage and invest the difference. Especially with mortgage rates around 4%, this is a very cheap way to increase your purchasing power and total assets. Most people lack the investment prowess and self discipline to make this plan pay off. There are even fewer guarantees regarding markets and investments than property. This also is a way of diversifying your total assets to protect against loss of value in your home. This approach has backfired for thousands of people who are underwater on their homes. This problem is often compounded by job loss forcing you to move, or increasing your commute, making your home less desirable for you. Some people will tell you to maintain the mortgage for the tax credit. This fails a basic math test since you only get about a quarter of the money (depending on your tax rate) that you are paying in interest back from the government. The rest of the money goes to bank at no gain to you. This approach is basically a taxpayer subsidized decrease of your 4% interest payment to a 3% interest payment (assuming you have ~ $5000 in other deductions), and only pays off if you can successfully invest the money at a rate somewhat greater than 3%. "This can be done, and there have been many good suggestions on things to do and watch out for.  But to my shock I don't see anyone offering any words of caution about property managers! Whatever you do, don't assume they have your best interests at heart.  Do not assume that ""no news is good news"" and that if you aren't hearing of problems and are just collecting rent checks, everything must be fine. You can easily end up with tenants you would never have allowed yourself, or tenants with pets that you would not have allowed, etc.  Especially if the manager doesn't want you to have a vacancy and potentially lose you as a client, they may very well lower their standards just to get the place occupied.  And a year or two or three later, you may find yourself looking at a very large repair bill and wonder how on earth it could have happened when you supposedly had someone looking out for your property! There are quality, ethical property managers out there.  They are not all bad to be certain.  But whatever you do, check up on them.  And with multiple properties - especially if in multiple areas/states etc. - this can be nearly a full time job in itself.  As the saying goes, ""Trust, but verify"".  I have never found this to apply more than with rental properties and property management. Don't leave anything significant to them 100%.  You can't even assume that a rule like ""all expenses over $50 must be cleared by me first"", as that can simply mean that they don't bother to come to you for certain kinds of repairs that would cost more than that, or that they just get them ""taken care of"" by their own person (done poorly, illegally, etc.) and never tell you.  Never trust their choice of tenants blindly.  Visit the place yourself at least every few months - a quick driveby at a minimum or better if you can, arrange a reason to walk through the house personally.  Check the back yard, never assume that the front yard is indicative of anything else.  Never assume that a ""no pets"" rule will be followed, or that tenants wouldn't lie to the management about having pets.  Never assume that the tenants won't move additional people into the property as well. Always expect a bare minimum of 1 month vacancy every year, and an additional minimum of 1 month's rental revenue in unexpected maintenance/repairs every year.  This is at a minimum!  You might do much better than this, and have a high quality tenant in place for years who costs next to nothing in extra maintenance.  But do not count on it. Rental real estate investing looks so simple on paper, where it's just numbers.  But reality has a very rude habit of surprising you when you least expect it. After all, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition! Good luck!" What's funny to me is that the sales tax isn't what gives Amazon better prices.  It's that stores have to include their costs on the price that's shown on the shelf.  Amazon gets to tell you later that there's a shipping fee, Amazon isn't paying a store staff and rental on store front property.  In short Amazon can show the customer a price that is making a decent profit, and still be lower than a retail outlet. "Consider property taxes (school, municipal, county, etc.) summing to 10% of the property value.  So each year, another .02N is removed.  Assume the property value rises with inflation.  Allow for a 5% after inflation return on a 70/30 stock bond mix for N.   After inflation return.   Let's assume a 20% rate.  And let's bump the .05N after inflation to .07N before inflation.  Inflation is still taxable.   Result  Drop in value of investment funds due to purchase.   Return after inflation.   After-inflation return minus property taxes.   Taxes are on the return including inflation, so we'll assume .06N and a 20% rate (may be lower than that, but better safe than sorry).   Amount left.   If no property, you would have .036N to live on after taxes.  But with the property, that drops to .008N.  Given the constraints of the problem, .008N could be anywhere from $8k to $80k.   So if we ignore housing, can you live on $8k a year?  If so, then no problem.  If not, then you need to constrain N more or make do with less house.   On the bright side, you don't have to pay rent out of the .008N.  You still need housing out of the .036N without the house.   These formulas should be considered examples.  I don't know how much your property taxes might be.  Nor do I know how much you'll pay in taxes.  Heck, I don't know that you'll average a 5% return after inflation.  You may have to put some of the money into cash equivalents with negligible return.  But this should allow you to research more what your situation really is.   If we set returns to 3.5% after inflation and 2.4% after inflation and taxes, that changes the numbers slightly but importantly.  The ""no house"" number becomes .024N.  The ""with house"" number becomes  So that's $24,000 (which needs to include rent) versus -$800 (no rent needed).  There is not enough money in that plan to have any remainder to live on in the ""with house"" option.  Given the constraints for N and these assumptions about returns, you would be $800 to $8000 short every year.   This continues to assume that property taxes are 10% of the property value annually.  Lower property taxes would of course make this better.  Higher property taxes would be even less feasible.   When comparing to people with homes, remember the option of selling the home.  If you sell your .2N home for .2N and buy a .08N condo instead, that's not just .12N more that is invested.  You'll also have less tied up with property taxes.  It's a lot easier to live on $20k than $8k.   Or do a reverse mortgage where the lender pays the property taxes.  You'll get some more savings up front, have a place to live while you're alive, and save money annually.   There are options with a house that you don't have without one." How about if we lower taxes on the bottom two brackets and increase taxes on the top two brackets? Right now it's 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent. But wouldnt it be better if we change it to 8, 13, 25, 28, 35, 38 percent?   The poor are the ones who spends most of their money on sale taxes than compared with any other brackets and the more money the poor have the more they will spend which will lead to more growth in the economy You can reduce your capital gains taxes in two ways (USA), off the top of my head: Agreed which is why an income tax is a bad idea.  Personally I'm in favor of property taxes as a way to fund government.  It is a much more objective measure and easy for the government's to confiscate if taxes remain unpaid. Ditto Rocky. Also: Break the sale up over several tax years so that you don't have a spike in your income pushing you into a higher tax bracket. Don't sell it until you retire, when you're probably in a lower tax bracket. (If you're 20, this may be impractical.) Get some other deductions, like medical expenses, charity, etc. Failing that, maybe a couple of other ideas that neither of us thought of, I think the real answer is: suck it up and pay the taxes. If there was a way to reduce your taxes just by checking the right box on a tax form or some such, everybody would do it and the government wouldn't collect any taxes.