Airplane Taxes

[FlyingMonkey]

I'm just wondering:  is there any state as bad as my home state of Georgia for airplane ownership?  We have to pay property taxes annually on aircraft, as if they were houses or other real estate.  This year my airplane was assessed at a value of $75k (does anybody think they could sell a 2007 CTSW without EMS for $75k?!?) and my tax bill was $895.  This process repeats every year.

It would be easier to bear if the taxes were used for aviation improvements, but they go into general revenue and pay for schools and administrative costs in a county I don't even live in...

[Ed Cesnalis]

Last year I told the county that their assessment was too high and they dropped it to my suggested value.

[FlyingMonkey]

21 minutes ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

Last year I told the county that their assessment was too high and they dropped it to my suggested value.

So I guess at least one other state has these crazy annual taxes.

[Tom Baker]

Illinois doesn't have any annual property tax, but they get you for 6.25% of the purchase price up front. If you don't pay it in time they will hit you with penalties. They have people who search the FAA records for new aircraft registration.

[FlyingMonkey]

1 hour ago, Tom Baker said:

Illinois doesn't have any annual property tax, but they get you for 6.25% of the purchase price up front. If you don't pay it in time they will hit you with penalties. They have people who search the FAA records for new aircraft registration.

Georgia does BOTH.  I paid 7% up front and almost $1000 annually.   

[cdarza]

Wow that is crazy.  

[Tom Baker]

1 hour ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Georgia does BOTH.  I paid 7% up front and almost $1000 annually.   

Well you know only the wealthiest people own airplane, so they need to pay their fair share.

[Roger Lee]

Register it in Missoula, Montana in an LLC. Cheap and easy. You put put all your vehicles, planes, boats and trailers there. Some plates are permanent and some dirt cheap per year.

[FlyingMonkey]

2 hours ago, Roger Lee said:

Register it in Missoula, Montana in an LLC. Cheap and easy. You put put all your vehicles, planes, boats and trailers there. Some plates are permanent and some dirt cheap per year.

Annual taxes are based on where the airplane is based.  They check hangars and write down which airplanes are there.  No way around the annual tax.  I looked into registering an LLC in another state to avoid the sales/transfer tax, but the lawyer I talked to wanted 80% of the tax as fees to set it up, so not worth the hassle.

[Warmi]

5 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Georgia does BOTH.  I paid 7% up front and almost $1000 annually.   

Damn ... that’s got to be some kind of minor miracle with IL actually not being absolutely, positively the worst in this regard .... when it comes to taxes , normally Illinois is always down there running for the worst spot with places like California and New Jersey ...

[Roger Lee]

Mine was $175. no other fees when adding or removing items and no fees for info on the phone. I guarantee there are p[lanes at your field that are registered in other states and all states say they are supposed to leave and come back, but I have never seen that enforced. Who's to say when it comes and goes.

[KentWien]

Fortunately, New York is tax free.

At least for the airplane. 

[Anticept]

Ohio does not put a property tax on equipment, but there is a sales tax, which is fair.

I don't understand why you would put a property tax on anything but land though. Land is a limited commodity, and property tax discourages large land purchases which are subsequently left undeveloped, and quite appropriate to use it to fund schools. Putting a tax on posessions just makes people not want to live there.

[FlyingMonkey]

2 hours ago, Anticept said:

Ohio does not put a property tax on equipment, but there is a sales tax, which is fair.

I don't understand why you would put a property tax on anything but land though. Land is a limited commodity, and property tax discourages large land purchases which are subsequently left undeveloped, and quite appropriate to use it to fund schools. Putting a tax on posessions just makes people not want to live there.

IMO, all property taxes mean that one can never actually own that type of property, you are merely allowed to rent it from the government (after paying full market price for it, of course).  This essentially means government is the owner of all real estate (and airplanes, in Georgia), and you are just a sharecropper allowed use of it as long as you pay "the man".

I know I'm in the minority in this view, but it's hard to argue against the logic of it.

[Anticept]

No one actually owns land, taxes or not. The person who "owns" it is the person with the biggest guns laying claim to it. This can change from day to day. So taxes or not, you still don't really own it if someone comes along and says that now they do and you can't fight them off.

As said, one of the issues in regards to a lack of property tax is that said tax is a discouragement from buying land and squatting on it without developing it. I'd love to see better systems and better ways of taxation and funding public service, but it's what I am aware of at this time.

[FlyingMonkey]

14 minutes ago, Anticept said:

No one actually owns land, taxes or not. The person who "owns" it is the person with the biggest guns laying claim to it. This can change from day to day. So taxes or not, you still don't really own it if someone comes along and says that now they do and you can't fight them off.

As said, one of the issues in regards to a lack of property tax is that said tax is a discouragement from buying land and squatting on it without developing it. I'd love to see better systems and better ways of taxation and funding public service, but it's what I am aware of at this time.

Government always has the biggest/most guns.  So they own it, QED.  Thanks for agreeing! 

Let's talk about the concept of ownership.  If I "own" something, it's mine to use as I wish.  Develop, sell, keep, or squat.  If it's mine, I get to decide.  If you start monkeying with that by saying I have to pay a government for the right to use it in certain ways (like sitting on it and not doing anything with it) or any way at all (which is what modern property taxes do), then the government is saying what acceptable use of the property is instead of the owner getting to decide, and the pretense of "ownership" goes out the window.  In that case the government is allowing me to work the land, make improvements, and transfer that use, but as soon as I don't pay the yearly ransom on the property, it reverts to the true owner, the government.  They can then auction it off to the next sucker to repeat the cycle.

Use isn't ownership.  You are paying rent for what realtors call "first right of refusal" on use of a property.  That's not ownership.  And it's bad enough that it happens on a piece of real property, it's unconscionable that it's done to a depreciating asset like an airplane.

BTW, I called the assessors office to ask about the valuation.  They base everything off the "Aircraft Blue Book", which is a subscription service.  So the only way I can even see how they make their value determination is to pay $399 per year.  Nice, open process there.   

[Andy A]

I would pull a VREF report from AOPA's website and if its less than the assessed 75k value the county is using, I would try to get it adjusted.  The county I live in in South Carolina charges annual property tax on the airplane you own on January 1.  This year we will still be paying taxes for the Cessna 310 we had earlier this year.  Seems like is was only $300-$400 last year.  I see a lot of planes in my area registered to LLC's in Deleware.

[FlyingMonkey]

42 minutes ago, Andy A said:

I would pull a VREF report from AOPA's website and if its less than the assessed 75k value the county is using, I would try to get it adjusted.  The county I live in in South Carolina charges annual property tax on the airplane you own on January 1.  This year we will still be paying taxes for the Cessna 310 we had earlier this year.  Seems like is was only $300-$400 last year.  I see a lot of planes in my area registered to LLC's in Deleware.

That was my plan, as well as showing Barnstormers and Controller listings as comps.

[Anticept]

1 hour ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Let's talk about the concept of ownership.  If I "own" something, it's mine to use as I wish.  Develop, sell, keep, or squat.  If it's mine, I get to decide.  If you start monkeying with that by saying I have to pay a government for the right to use it in certain ways (like sitting on it and not doing anything with it) or any way at all (which is what modern property taxes do), then the government is saying what acceptable use of the property is instead of the owner getting to decide, and the pretense of "ownership" goes out the window.  In that case the government is allowing me to work the land, make improvements, and transfer that use, but as soon as I don't pay the yearly ransom on the property, it reverts to the true owner, the government.  They can then auction it off to the next sucker to repeat the cycle.

Use isn't ownership.  You are paying rent for what realtors call "first right of refusal" on use of a property.  That's not ownership.  And it's bad enough that it happens on a piece of real property, it's unconscionable that it's done to a depreciating asset like an airplane.

I understand the implications and it definitely fits under that category of "this sucks".

However, it would absolutely NOT be healthy for a society to have vast swathes of land to be owned by only a few individuals who choose not to do anything with the land they own. Property tax creates an incentive to develop property for occupation or production. Land is an incredibly, incredibly valuable commodity. Wealth IS often is tied to the amount of land controlled, be it observed from the perspective of an individual, or be it by government. Developed land is even more valuable to a society.

That's a big reason why eminent domain also exists. The good of the society should, to a reasonable degree, come before the desires of an individual (but not their needs), and eminent domain is an avenue that the government can use in the process of development. Yes I know it's abuseable and brings a whole new set of problems of its own, and we could go back and forth for days over this, but I really don't want to open that can of worms. I do believe when used properly, everyone benefits. Most tools we have, when used properly, could benefit everyone, and also why I so passionately hate abuse of said tools... it's destructive not only physically and emotionally, but also in faith of the system.

Anyways, we also have zoning laws, ordinances, etc which also dictates what you can do with your property. It's not just property tax that dictates what you can do with it. These are all strings that come attached with "ownership" when you purchase something.

To help you understand my thought process as well: I am a proponent of Utilitarianism, because I believe in altruistic egoism. Ultimately, I am in the interest of myself, but I strongly believe that I can't reach the best I can be if those around me are not benefiting as well.

So again, I DO agree, property tax sucks. But I do believe it's a necessary evil.

[Ed Cesnalis]

2 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

I know I'm in the minority in this view, but it's hard to argue against the logic of it.

I agree totally

[FlyingMonkey]

18 minutes ago, Anticept said:

I understand the implications and it definitely fits under that category of "this sucks".

However, it would absolutely NOT be healthy for a society to have vast swathes of land to be owned by only a few individuals who choose not to do anything with the land they own. Property tax creates an incentive to develop property for occupation or production. Land is an incredibly, incredibly valuable commodity. Wealth IS often is tied to the amount of land controlled, be it observed from the perspective of an individual, or be it by government. Developed land is even more valuable to a society.

That's a big reason why eminent domain also exists. The good of the society should, to a reasonable degree, come before the desires of an individual (but not their needs), and eminent domain is an avenue that the government can use in the process of development. Yes I know it's abuseable and brings a whole new set of problems of its own, and we could go back and forth for days over this, but I really don't want to open that can of worms. I do believe when used properly, everyone benefits. Most tools we have, when used properly, could benefit everyone, and also why I so passionately hate abuse of said tools... it's destructive not only physically and emotionally, but also in faith of the system.

Anyways, we also have zoning laws, ordinances, etc which also dictates what you can do with your property. It's not just property tax that dictates what you can do with it. These are all strings that come attached with "ownership" when you purchase something.

To help you understand my thought process as well: I am a proponent of Utilitarianism, because I believe in altruistic egoism. Ultimately, I am in the interest of myself, but I strongly believe that I can't reach the best I can be if those around me are not benefiting as well.

So again, I DO agree, property tax sucks. But I do believe it's a necessary evil.

We're not too far apart.  I'm a strong libertarian and believe in the concept of voluntary action, that each person has the right to decide for himself what is in his interest, and not have that dictated or coerced by anybody, whether or not they have a government badge.  A desire, or even a need, of one person (or group of people)  does not create an obligation on another person (or their property).  If you want somebody to give up property, instead of force or financial coercion, it's much better to persuade that person by reason or financial incentive.  After all, most everything is for sale at the right price; just because somebody doesn't want to meet that price doesn't give them the right to simply seize the property, even if they have a mob of voters behind them demanding it.       

[Anticept]

Unfortunately, and this is another reason for eminent domain, individuals will price the value of their property knowing full well that the government has the fiscal means to pay nearly any price they name.

I'm NOT libertarian. I take some of the concepts of it, but I also believe that inaction is also harmful to a society, and thus to myself. I believe some of the problems we have right now stem from the general "it's not my problem" attitude. I strongly, strongly believe that represents one of the worst views our culture has developed.

That's what leads me into altruistic egoism. If my neighbor is suffering and I chose to ignore the problem, and he steals from me to survive, I will not judge his morals any less. I will still be upset with him, and I will still seek recourse. But if I have the means to lend assistance, and he becomes a better person as a result, then we both are better off. His decisions which lead him to his suffering are indeed his, but ignoring the problem will not help, and tossing him in jail just means that now I'm paying for his room and board /anyways/.

It's why I also believe in social safety nets. We're fallible individuals. We're not perfect. But either we need to be helping people be better individuals, or take up eugenics instead of half-assing it like we are today. In the current system of just passing the buck (it's not my problem!), it is costing us a fortune in partial solutions.

[FlyingMonkey]

Libertarianism does not entail inaction, or indifference to others' suffering.  It simply says you have the right to make the choice of action or inaction for yourself.  Utilitarianism sees the highest goal as the most people being happy, while libertarians see the highest goal as allowing every individual to seek happiness however they want as long as they don't harm others' rights.

The philosophical problem with Utilitarianism is that any horror can be justified if it benefits enough people.  If a million people could achieve immortality by murdering a hundred and drinking their blood, that's could be an acceptable outcome under utilitarianism.  Under libertarianism, it would never be acceptable to violate the hundred's right to life.

The problem most people have with libertarians is that they don't want to use force to control others' behaviors.  We have never had a society that has allowed people to respect others and to live their lives as they want without a government controlling their every move, and that freedom scares people.  If it's not ethical for me to extort money from you to send my kids to college, it is no more ethical for you to use the government as your proxy to do the same thing.  A million people could vote to steal your money, but that doesn't make it any more legitimate than if I just stole it myself. 

[Anticept]

I would like to be clear: I am not implying libertarianism is about being inactive, just demonstrating one of the more extreme ends, just like the use of force can be excessively applied on the other end of the spectrum.

Regarding your example of interpersonal vs government proxy for mandating who pays for college, or really any such example like that: indeed there are similarities. However, I will place in front of you a bit of history.

Once upon a time, the idea of education for all was scoffed at. It was said that it was impossible. No way it could ever happen. Then during the enlightenment era, public education became a thing. We saw dramatic growth in the decades following, as it expanded horizons for everyone. It raised the financial floor of what was possible for the common man. But it had to be funded, and thus taxes were enacted.

There's lots of examples of good intentions gone bad, and lots of good intentions that turns out great. I'm a person that does feel that it is actually justified to use /some/ force to solve social crisis. It does seem backwards sure, but it's going to come down to whether your highest values are placed in the individual or in the collective. For me, the answer is somewhere in the middle.

Aye, utilitarianism can also be used to justify atrocities, which is why earlier I specified that a person's needs, the collective good, then a person's desires would be the ideal order of priority for distribution of resources, but I also recognize that it's also incompatible with a lot of human tendencies and drives, which is why I also threw in "reasonable". That in itself would start a great debate, but I'm pointing it out to help you understand my position a bit better.

While typing this up, I was reminded of a philosophy that i think is much more appropriate to my view than utilitarianism: Social Liberalism.

[ODowneyEng]

Huricane Florence took care of my Airplane Tax problem here in NC. When you add the Towns take to the County’s it was over 1% of value per year. I was not aware of this tax before I moved to NC from NY. I am not replacing until I move to an Aviation Friendly State. Any suggestions? This sh%t really got under my skin.