Hello Folks,
My property tax payments are coming up and I thought I'd try to maximize at least on the mileage front for paying the bills.
I have a Platinum United Mileage Plus Visa and also a Platinum American Airlines Mastercard.(Also have a Plat Delta Skymiles from Amex, but Alameda county does not accept AMEX)
I have a payment of about 3000 due Dec 1st,2003 and another payment of 3K due Mar 1st 2004.
Any suggestions on how I could maximize on my miles with these two transactions? Any double mile offers youare aware of/absolutely any other suggestions??
Thanks a bunch!!!
N

------------------

One thing to consider when using your credit card to pay your property tax bill, does the city you live in charge a convenience fee which is more than that value of the miles earned. I pay just over $12,000 in property taxes in San Francisco per year (yea, I know it's crazy), however, if I charge them, the fee is just over $400.00. While I would have earned 12,000 miles for the transaction, I would have paid for those miles whereas if I purchased an off season ticket to Paris for under $400.00, I would have earned the miles towards ff status as well as the miles. For me, it dosen't make sense to pay with my credit card, even though I would get 12k in miles only because I would be paying for them, far more than that usual $0.02 cents per mile that miles are valued at.

It's not usually a good deal for normal miles.. but when AMEX has double mile promo, then that's worth paying the 'convenience' fee.

Thanks guys, appreciate your insight..
N

Not necessarily.

On my property tax bill (also in San Francisco) of $2,118 annually (obviously, I bought a long time ago and Prop 13 has kept my assessed value artificially low), the convenience fee for paying by credit card would be $57. (I called to find this out!)

Even with the current Starwood American Express double points promo (on purchases over $500), this just does NOT seem like a good deal to me. That is about 1.35 cents per Starpoint. And the bonus points typically take a LONG time to post -- a couple months -- so doing this as a "quick" way of buying extra points doesn't entirely work either (only works for the base points, which will post at end of monthly billing cycle).

On the other hand, if the convenience fee were REALLY cheap, or the promo for MORE than double points/miles, I might do it.


Kathy

Property taxes are much like income taxes - the convenience fee usually makes charging taxes a bad idea.

As an aside, you are not the only person Prop. 13 has helped. Warren Buffet owns a property in Laguna Beach valued at $4 million on which he pays $2,264 in taxes. This translates to 0.566 mills, or a whopping 56 cents per $1,000 of fair market value.

$12K, it's INSANE. This is the very reason why I refuse to purchase any more California real estate! But here's an idea. Does the tax collector honor PayPal? If he/she does, please let me know so I can transfer my meager $1,700 of secured real property taxes via my credit card.

What about C2it or something comparative? It seems to me sometime ago there was a fellow paying all sorts of unconventional things through C2it and there was no charge for transfers from his Citibank Visa card.

Tell me about it! My neighbors home has been in her family since it was built in the 1870's and only pays $300 a year in property taxes. It dosen't seem fair to me that I pay such a premium for my home since I recently purchased it and my neighbor whose had her home in her family since the house was built pays so little and the value of her home is just a little less than my home.

Although you're going to get me going off on a tangent, please indulge me.

First of all, you benefit from Prop. 13 like everyone else. 10 years from now your neighbor will be complaining about the little amount of property taxes you're paying compared to him/her.

Second of all, watch out for "special assessments." They're circumventing what was supposed to be the limitation on property taxes. Unbelievably these districts [schools, open space, community colleges, fire protection districts, the library, the parks, etc., etc.] are all coming forward with "special taxes." They are able to go to the general electorate to seek approval. Now why should your neighbor who does NOT own real property and thus is unaffected by the special assessment have any vote on the issue? Or why should your neighbor who maybe doesn't live in your district yet rents out his home NOT have a vote on the issue even though he/she is directly affected?

Thus you get to pay for the cost of government which benefits all while your tenant neighbor gets a free ride! What a country!

Sorry for the disgression and good luck with "paying your taxes like the rest of us."

How come I have to pay school taxes and I don't have any children?????

I hope you're joking.

Public education benefits everyone. It's for the common good.


Kathy

I went to private schools...sorry...and I was joking....but now that I think about it...

[This message has been edited by IMStill4Travel (edited Nov 23, 2003).]

That's the whole point Kathy, and no I WASN'T joking!

The point here is that where government services benefit everyone, everyone should be asked to pay for them; NOT just property owners. In California public education is in essence financed through local property taxes. Therefore all of society doesn't pay for public education; only property owners do.

When school districts cry "chicken little" because they don't have enough money, they typically present "parcel tax" [a disingenuous name because as you can see the tax from parcels already finances public education] measures which again, are ONLY paid by property owners.

Thus the rest of society gets a free ride and doesn't pay its fair share of a service which supposedly benefits everyone. So is that what you meant when you said property owners should continue to pay because everyone benefits? Or maybe you didn't understand?

Now start looking at other special districts in California which provide services which benefit EVERYONE [like parks, cemeteries, hospitals, fire departments, water, sewage and open space districts, community colleges, etc., etc.]. In California EVERYONE of these "quasi governments" receives a pro-rata portion of the property taxes again paid only by property owners. And when these districts need more money, they play the same "chicken little" theme proposing [you guessed it] more parcel taxes [which are again paid ONLY by property owners].

So really who is paying what for the benefit of everyone? Or stated differently, exactly how does the non property owner pay his or her fair share? Is it the sales and vehicle taxes property owners pay as well? What about the income taxes property owners pay as well?

The point I was trying to make is that if the foregoing were not unfair enough, whenever there's an election to approve one of these special taxes against real property guess who gets to vote? You guessed it, the general electorate [those who are benefitted by these taxes yet who are not being asked to pay their fare share].

Now to get back to the original thread, 20 years ago the $12K/year of taxes were probably $2K. Is government now providing 6 times the amount of services it provided 20 years ago?

So in California you're better off becoming a tenant so you can pay your fair share of the government costs which "benefit everyone."

I fail to see your point.Aren't property taxes figured into the tenants rent either directly or indirectly? So technically...the property owner physically pays the taxes...but is subsidized by the tenant. I should hope so. When it's time to vote...then who would you say should be allowed...tenants (who subsidize the owners and actually live there.) or..the owners...(who actually own the property.)...tough question. I'd like to say this also...we have to remember that renters/tenants don't ever own their property....thus...are never going to realize any capital gains from such (which,in Cali,can be HUGE! ).
The write-off of mortgage interest helps soften the blow of property taxes as well.
So..IMHO...I like to look at it as the "price you pay" for equity.



[This message has been edited by IMStill4Travel (edited Nov 23, 2003).]

Finally, if the burdens of home or property ownership are truly disproportionate -- taking into account all the circumstances after an accurate cost-benefit analysis of your particular situation by a trained accountant or financial advisor -- you always have the option to sell and become a tenant. (!)

I rest my case.

In the mean time, stop picking on the 38% of American households who cannot afford or choose not to become homeowners.

If so many people decide to sell that home or property values decline, then maybe your point is valid.



["Choose" vs. "chose."]

[This message has been edited by SPN Lifer (edited Nov 23, 2003).]