Raleigh, N.C. — For the first time in eight years, Wake County has reassessed property values. It is no surprise that values are up, but some folks could experience sticker shock when they see the numbers next year.
The county's Revenue Department spent the past two years reevaluating property values countywide, which it does every eight years. On average, Wake County has seen property values jump 43 percent.
"The western part of the county is very desirable. It's close to the employment center of the Research Triangle Park,” Emmett Curl, Wake County revenue director, said.
It was the east where land values saw the biggest increases, however.
“With the opening of Interstate 540 and [U.S.] 64, the eastern side of the county is inflating much faster in land,” said Curl.
The northern part of the county has seen a steady increase, too, and there has been a significant jump in the value of retail property.
That is "certainly good for the area, good for the economy,” new homeowner Allison Rabin said.
Rabin just moved inside the Beltline. She is pleased to hear property values are going up, even if it means higher taxes.
"It's good. I think property values in the Raleigh area are going to continue to go up, at least that's my hope,” said Rabin.
The county will be sending out the reevaluation notices in the next couple of months. Homeowners can challenge the adjustments if they want.
County commissioners are also considering whether to reevaluate property values every four years, instead of eight.



![[SLIDESHOW]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/entertainment/out_and_about/2012/02/04/10712136/pics_agunn53833-100x75.jpg)
![[SLIDESHOW]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/lifestyles/travel/2012/02/09/10710709/10710709-1328829176-100x75.jpg)
![[SLIDESHOW]](http://wwwcache.wralsportsfan.com/asset/basketball/2012/02/09/10705803/10705803-1328766083-100x75.jpg)
![[SLIDESHOW]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/lifestyles/travel/2012/02/08/10704761/10704761-1328743348-100x75.jpg)







WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.
This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.
That's an awful lot of number crunching you're asking for there, but I'll give you a baseline example that you can extrapolate from.
In 2006, the Gross Domestic Product of the United States was just over 13 trillion dollars. The total revenue of the government was right at 2.5 trillion dollars or about 19.2 percent of the GDP. Granted, those numbers have to be adjusted given that I would eliminate all taxes on food, drugs, and articles of clothing under $50 per item, but it's a start. So let's say that the non-exempted revenue is but half of the current revenue. That means that one would need a sales tax rate of 40 percent to break even on existing revenues. But you are forgetting the property tax component. I can not even get a handle on the total property valuation in the US, but from what I can crunch, it has to be somewhere north of 400 trillion dollars. A tax rate of 65 cents on the hundred alone would generate that same 2.5 trillion dollars.
September 28, 2007 12:32 a.m.
September 27, 2007 7:43 p.m.
September 27, 2007 4:48 p.m.
Thereby shifting the entire burden of taxation to the consumer and requiring that any nominal sales tax rate be set so as to recover the revenue lost to the elimination of corporate taxes.
Think about that for a moment Steve. We already pay rates approaching 25% to 25%, and in some cases more, on our gross incomes, and still the federal government runs in the red. That's WITH corporate income taxes and such mixed in. Eliminate them and begin to estimate what a sales tax would have to be set at in order to even keep revenue flat, much less grow it.
Where's the benefit?
September 27, 2007 4:47 p.m.
This is incorrect. You need to read HR 25 again. I had to. It imposes a one time tax at retail POS only. What you are describing is a VAT.
September 27, 2007 4:43 p.m.