Discussions

or even a hybrid...we spent the last few months preparing to move to Cochrane outside of Calgary and house prices are comparable to Brandon but taxes were almost half. Not to get into a whole different discussion but that doesn't seem right

While there may be some merit in this plan, it is not fair in all cases.  
In the community where I live, they implemented an annual garbage levy. The mistake they made was not to put a limit on the number of bags. In the small older homes where seniors and single people tend to live, they produce very little garbage (maybe 1 bag per week), while in the large more expensive homes I regularly see anywhere from 6-8 bags set out. So these people do get more service for their money.  

Fishin Guy said " Why did we go to a assessed based tax system? I was reading the other day about Killarney I think it was has changed their tax system to a per household fee vs the assessed value. This would actually bring down taxes in the higher valued homes and increase the lower priced. But overall it would be more fair to everyone would it not? The more expensive homes don't get any more value to the higher taxes they pay or anything. Edited by admin, 2015-06-18 08:39:03. Reason: Title"

you think it is okay to increase the tax burden on the people who can least afford it and lessen it for people who can most afford to pay more in taxes?

Johnbisonbear said "    Fishin Guy said " Why did we go to a assessed based tax system? I was reading the other day about Killarney I think it was has changed their tax system to a per household fee vs the assessed value. This would actually bring down taxes in the higher valued homes and increase the lower priced. But overall it would be more fair to everyone would it not? The more expensive homes don't get any more value to the higher taxes they pay or anything. Edited by admin, 2015-06-18 08:39:03. Reason: Title" you think it is okay to increase the tax burden on the people who can least afford it and lessen it for people who can most afford to pay more in taxes? "

Do you think it would be fine if one person paid $5 for a loaf of Bread while someone else pays $3 because they have a bigger house?  
 
Income tax deals with differences in wages. I believe fees for services (property taxes) should be similar for everyone.

Johnbisonbear said "    Fishin Guy said " Why did we go to a assessed based tax system? I was reading the other day about Killarney I think it was has changed their tax system to a per household fee vs the assessed value. This would actually bring down taxes in the higher valued homes and increase the lower priced. But overall it would be more fair to everyone would it not? The more expensive homes don't get any more value to the higher taxes they pay or anything. Edited by admin, 2015-06-18 08:39:03. Reason: Title" you think it is okay to increase the tax burden on the people who can least afford it and lessen it for people who can most afford to pay more in taxes? "

Really? I know many people living in less valued homes making the same as others living in overpriced homes yet pay less in taxes. Also I have seen some of these higher priced homes families living with nothing because of the high bills of the home. So anyone living in say a 200 grand or less cannot afford to pay their share of the pie? Let me guess the line of seniors and min wage workers only live in cheaper homes? There are a lot of established decent income families living in lesser homes. This argument to me is about the same as what about keeping door to door post for the seniors and disabled that cannot make it to the mail box yet make it to the grocery store ever other day.

Oh and there are those also that live in older homes with their homes already paid off too.

A person could also say that older areas need more infrastructure repair. Both sides have good arguments. If taxes were broken down further, I might agree that new developments pay a higher percentage of infrastructure cost. As for street cleaning, garbage pick up. education, government cost, policing etc, I think same fees for everyone. Just my opinion.

Nordberg said "    CommonTater said "    Johnbisonbear said "    Fishin Guy said " Why did we go to a assessed based tax system? I was reading the other day about Killarney I think it was has changed their tax system to a per household fee vs the assessed value. This would actually bring down taxes in the higher valued homes and increase the lower priced. But overall it would be more fair to everyone would it not? The more expensive homes don't get any more value to the higher taxes they pay or anything. Edited by admin, 2015-06-18 08:39:03. Reason: Title" you think it is okay to increase the tax burden on the people who can least afford it and lessen it for people who can most afford to pay more in taxes? " Do you think it would be fine if one person paid $5 for a loaf of Bread while someone else pays $3 because they have a bigger house?     Income tax deals with differences in wages. I believe fees for services (property taxes) should be similar for everyone. " Perhaps the idea is that newer/bigger houses are in newer areas and should therefore pay a bigger share of the increased infrastructure costs that come with that.     I can see both sides of this argument, it's a tough call. "

They do already pay. The city doesn't pay for the infrastructure. The developer pays for everything to get put in and then gets turn over to the city. Lot purchases now are way higher than they were years ago.

Fishin Guy said "    Nordberg said "    CommonTater said "    Johnbisonbear said "    Fishin Guy said " Why did we go to a assessed based tax system? I was reading the other day about Killarney I think it was has changed their tax system to a per household fee vs the assessed value. This would actually bring down taxes in the higher valued homes and increase the lower priced. But overall it would be more fair to everyone would it not? The more expensive homes don't get any more value to the higher taxes they pay or anything. Edited by admin, 2015-06-18 08:39:03. Reason: Title" you think it is okay to increase the tax burden on the people who can least afford it and lessen it for people who can most afford to pay more in taxes? " Do you think it would be fine if one person paid $5 for a loaf of Bread while someone else pays $3 because they have a bigger house?     Income tax deals with differences in wages. I believe fees for services (property taxes) should be similar for everyone. " Perhaps the idea is that newer/bigger houses are in newer areas and should therefore pay a bigger share of the increased infrastructure costs that come with that.     I can see both sides of this argument, it's a tough call. " They do already pay. The city doesn't pay for the infrastructure. The developer pays for everything to get put in and then gets turn over to the city. Lot purchases now are way higher than they were years ago. "

If Brandon is anything like Winnipeg, the infrastructure paid for by the developer doesn't even remotely cover the costs of sprawl. For example, they might lay in the water mains, but do they pay for the new water treatment plant and/or booster stations required due to sprawl? Increased pollution control infrastructure? They don't. The cost burden is spread out across all rate payers in the city.  
 
Income tax *doesn't* deal with it, the higher your income the more likely you are able to take advantage of tax credits and savings.  
 
There needs to be a more equitable system, but what that system is isn't clear-cut.

CommonTater said "    Johnbisonbear said "    Fishin Guy said " Why did we go to a assessed based tax system? I was reading the other day about Killarney I think it was has changed their tax system to a per household fee vs the assessed value. This would actually bring down taxes in the higher valued homes and increase the lower priced. But overall it would be more fair to everyone would it not? The more expensive homes don't get any more value to the higher taxes they pay or anything. Edited by admin, 2015-06-18 08:39:03. Reason: Title" you think it is okay to increase the tax burden on the people who can least afford it and lessen it for people who can most afford to pay more in taxes? " Do you think it would be fine if one person paid $5 for a loaf of Bread while someone else pays $3 because they have a bigger house?     Income tax deals with differences in wages. I believe fees for services (property taxes) should be similar for everyone. "

You think it should be the same for something like water bills too? Two people get the same bill as a family of ten living in the home together? How about home heating?

Considering that water and heat are billed based on usage, I think they are fine the way they are.  
 
If we were to apply property tax logic to water bills, a family in a big new house would pay much more for a gallon of water than a family in an older smaller home.  
 
My problem is when a family of 4 in a new large home has to pay significantly more for property taxes than a family of 4 in a smaller older home if both homes are on lots with the same frontage.  
 
Edited by CommonTater, 2015-06-18 18:04:01

I like to see it this way: Most of the things our cities spend on are more like public goods than individual services. I can't imagine breaking down how much of the pothole repair I used versus my neighbours. Having police and fire protection is also a public good, even if I don't use it myself directly. So how should cities pay for this stuff? We all share the cost. The problem is that the city has very limited means to estimate how much of the burden each of us can afford. But they know the (approximate) value of our properties so that is their best estimate of our ability to pay. Generally, higher income people live in more expensive homes than lower income people, even if that's not always the case. It might not be perfect, but it's the best they can do, since they have no means to determine all of our incomes.  
 
If cities got more funding from the province/feds, then they could lower property taxes and we would all pay according to our ability via income tax, but that is not how it works. Cities are responsible to their citizens for so many things, but provinces and federal government leave them very few options for generating the funds to pay for it all.  
 
Some things work in a way that makes sense (water is pay for use) and some things don't (we all pay the same no matter how much garbage we generate). But overall it's a reasonable system if you agree that we should all pay according to our ability for the city's public goods.

Killarney is still on the assessed value of the home. They did separate out three areas of cost, policing, street lights, garbage, all of which are pretty much fixed costs to the community. This is nothing new, many municipality's have had special levies for years past. Costs the same to police a small home as a large home, everyone benefits the same from street lights, garbage pick up is up for discussion, though it is on a yearly contract basis , so easy to split per household. Otherwise the large home owner still pays more tax than the small home owner based on assessment.

aBUFAmember said "I like to see it this way: Most of the things our cities spend on are more like public goods than individual services. I can't imagine breaking down how much of the pothole repair I used versus my neighbours. Having police and fire protection is also a public good, even if I don't use it myself directly. So how should cities pay for this stuff? We all share the cost. The problem is that the city has very limited means to estimate how much of the burden each of us can afford. But they know the (approximate) value of our properties so that is their best estimate of our ability to pay. Generally, higher income people live in more expensive homes than lower income people, even if that's not always the case. It might not be perfect, but it's the best they can do, since they have no means to determine all of our incomes.     If cities got more funding from the province/feds, then they could lower property taxes and we would all pay according to our ability via income tax, but that is not how it works. Cities are responsible to their citizens for so many things, but provinces and federal government leave them very few options for generating the funds to pay for it all.     Some things work in a way that makes sense (water is pay for use) and some things don't (we all pay the same no matter how much garbage we generate). But overall it's a reasonable system if you agree that we should all pay according to our ability for the city's public goods. "

What you say makes sense only if property tax is viewed as an income tax or a luxury tax and not a usage fee. If property tax is based on the ability to pay, as you suggest, then it should be based on assessments. If property taxes are a form of luxury tax (ability to pay), we have the correct system.  
 
 
 
 
 
Edited by CommonTater, 2015-06-18 18:46:08

aBUFAmember said "I like to see it this way: Most of the things our cities spend on are more like public goods than individual services. I can't imagine breaking down how much of the pothole repair I used versus my neighbours. Having police and fire protection is also a public good, even if I don't use it myself directly. So how should cities pay for this stuff? We all share the cost. The problem is that the city has very limited means to estimate how much of the burden each of us can afford. But they know the (approximate) value of our properties so that is their best estimate of our ability to pay. Generally, higher income people live in more expensive homes than lower income people, even if that's not always the case. It might not be perfect, but it's the best they can do, since they have no means to determine all of our incomes.     If cities got more funding from the province/feds, then they could lower property taxes and we would all pay according to our ability via income tax, but that is not how it works. Cities are responsible to their citizens for so many things, but provinces and federal government leave them very few options for generating the funds to pay for it all.     Some things work in a way that makes sense (water is pay for use) and some things don't (we all pay the same no matter how much garbage we generate). But overall it's a reasonable system if you agree that we should all pay according to our ability for the city's public goods. "

No, it isn't the best they can do. Literally everything funded by property taxes is available for every citizen to use. Whether one does is a personal choice - I don't swim at the sportsplex, but the city isn't doing anything to stop me from doing so. I don't drive on every single street, but I can if I choose to.  
 
Fire and police are protective services - they protect me just as much as they protect you just as much as they protect our neighbours.  
 
Garbage pickup, while each bin might have a different amount in it, everyone only has 1 and it takes the same amount to time to pickup and transport regardless how much is in it.  
 
By far the fairest way to deal with property tax is a flat rate per property. As many have said before, there is absolutely no reason for a homeowner of a $500k home to pay more than I do for my $189k home when we both use the exact same amount of the same services.

Best way would be income based, like federal/provincial income taxes. End of discussion

PJC said "Best way would be income based, like federal/provincial income taxes. End of discussion "

How do you figure that? Hypothetically lets say you and I live in identical houses, but you earn twice the money I do. You honestly feel you should pay twice what I do when we get the EXACT same services??  
 
The best way is a flat fee, hands down.

Johnbisonbear said "    Fishin Guy said " Why did we go to a assessed based tax system? I was reading the other day about Killarney I think it was has changed their tax system to a per household fee vs the assessed value. This would actually bring down taxes in the higher valued homes and increase the lower priced. But overall it would be more fair to everyone would it not? The more expensive homes don't get any more value to the higher taxes they pay or anything. Edited by admin, 2015-06-18 08:39:03. Reason: Title" you think it is okay to increase the tax burden on the people who can least afford it and lessen it for people who can most afford to pay more in taxes? "

Capitalism.  
They one who can afford the expensive home paid already more taxes on his income.  

Fishin Guy said "Oh and there are those also that live in older homes with their homes already paid off too. "

Are you suggesting people that buy smaller homes and pay them off should also pay more taxes just because they have paid them off?  
 
Edited by loeog, 2015-06-19 07:47:21

NOBI said "    Johnbisonbear said "    Fishin Guy said " Why did we go to a assessed based tax system? I was reading the other day about Killarney I think it was has changed their tax system to a per household fee vs the assessed value. This would actually bring down taxes in the higher valued homes and increase the lower priced. But overall it would be more fair to everyone would it not? The more expensive homes don't get any more value to the higher taxes they pay or anything. Edited by admin, 2015-06-18 08:39:03. Reason: Title" you think it is okay to increase the tax burden on the people who can least afford it and lessen it for people who can most afford to pay more in taxes? " Capitalism.   They one who can afford the expensive home paid already more taxes on his income.   "

Proportionally to the total earned, the rich pay way less, Because the income of high-income individuals is often substantially understated for tax purposes since it is reduced by the deduction of interest expenses and losses from tax shelter activities, neither of which represents real economic losses. In addition, high- income individuals receive a hugely disproportionate share of non-taxable income such as accrued gains on shares and real estate, investment income on life insurance policies, inheritances and gifts, income accumulating in pension plans, the imputed rental income due to the equity they have invested in their homes, and employer-provided benefits.  
 
 
 
Edited by loeog, 2015-06-19 07:38:51

loeog said "    NOBI said "    Johnbisonbear said "    Fishin Guy said " Why did we go to a assessed based tax system? I was reading the other day about Killarney I think it was has changed their tax system to a per household fee vs the assessed value. This would actually bring down taxes in the higher valued homes and increase the lower priced. But overall it would be more fair to everyone would it not? The more expensive homes don't get any more value to the higher taxes they pay or anything. Edited by admin, 2015-06-18 08:39:03. Reason: Title" you think it is okay to increase the tax burden on the people who can least afford it and lessen it for people who can most afford to pay more in taxes? " Capitalism.   They one who can afford the expensive home paid already more taxes on his income.   " Proportionally to the total earned, the rich pay way less, Because the income of high-income individuals is often substantially understated for tax purposes since it is reduced by the deduction of interest expenses and losses from tax shelter activities, neither of which represents real economic losses. In addition, high- income individuals receive a hugely disproportionate share of non-taxable income such as accrued gains on shares and real estate, investment income on life insurance policies, inheritances and gifts, income accumulating in pension plans, the imputed rental income due to the equity they have invested in their homes, and employer-provided benefits.         Edited by loeog, 2015-06-19 07:38:51"

what do you consider high income?  
 
i can tell you that even with all these tax breaks "high income" households still pay more per person percentage wise and actual cash then middle to low income households, plus low to middle income households receive many tax breaks and help too, gst, family allowance, lower income tax rate ect  
 
pension contributions are taxed as income unless you put them into a rsp which at the take you time you will be taxed and not have a low enough income to get many of the old age benefits  
 
you have to pay capitol gains tax on real estate and shares too i haven't looked in a while but on inheritances ect as well, all while already being taxed at a higher income rate of course for the greater good lol  
 
then because you worked your but off saved your money and bought a nicer house you have to pay a higher share of the cities bills  
 
imho i think a flat tax/fee for service should be used across the board, everyone has the opportunity to make their own choices, those choices shouldn't get you out of paying your fair share

loeog said "    Fishin Guy said "Oh and there are those also that live in older homes with their homes already paid off too. " Are you suggesting people that buy smaller homes and pay them off should also pay more taxes just because they have paid them off?     Edited by loeog, 2015-06-19 07:47:21"

Not at all. There is the assumption that higher income earners live in the more expensive homes. I am just saying there are also higher income earners living in smaller homes in more established areas that if put a per household tax base system it could be afforded.

If in fact one rate should be charged, should families that can afford to build streets that only have 4 homes per side instead of 16 be also taxed the same low rate?

Trevor said "    PJC said "Best way would be income based, like federal/provincial income taxes. End of discussion " How do you figure that? Hypothetically lets say you and I live in identical houses, but you earn twice the money I do. You honestly feel you should pay twice what I do when we get the EXACT same services??     The best way is a flat fee, hands down. "

No, that's not the best way "hands down". It's the best way if you believe in a personal use approach to how much one should pay. If you believe we should all pay according to our ability (ie. income), then what we have is better, and income based would be best.  
 
I'm not advocating what we have, not pay for use, nor anything else. Just laying out the logic behind the current property tax system. ONE view is that we should all pay based on our ability, not based on what we use. That is what cities do (roughly). That is also what provinces and the federal government do (for most things).  
 
So yes, "hands down" and "end of discussion" meaning that which you prefer depends on whether you believe "I should only pay for what I use" or "we should all share the costs of public goods that we all use". Should a millionaire pay the same for public parks as someone who can't do better than a part time job below the poverty level? It depends on your point of view.

Oh, and it depends on your definition of 'fair'. We seem to have many different opinions on this.

aBUFAmember said "Oh, and it depends on your definition of 'fair'. We seem to have many different opinions on this. "

Obviously we have different definitions, so I'll ask you this.  
 
How is it fair to charge 2 people different rates for the exact same service??

Because I invest in my property, and upgrade my home to keep with the times and live in something that improves the look of the city or town, but the same person down the street decides to leave their home in the 70's look, but still live quite comfortable and make the same income as I do, I should pay more for the lights on the street, the fancy new rinks, the water treatment plants etc? I don't use the rinks, I don't use the street lights any more than I do, they don't take anymore snow of the street in front of my house, but yet I pay just about double in taxes, kind of hard too understand

aBUFAmember said "    Trevor said "    PJC said "Best way would be income based, like federal/provincial income taxes. End of discussion " How do you figure that? Hypothetically lets say you and I live in identical houses, but you earn twice the money I do. You honestly feel you should pay twice what I do when we get the EXACT same services??     The best way is a flat fee, hands down. " No, that's not the best way "hands down". It's the best way if you believe in a personal use approach to how much one should pay. If you believe we should all pay according to our ability (ie. income), then what we have is better, and income based would be best.     I'm not advocating what we have, not pay for use, nor anything else. Just laying out the logic behind the current property tax system. ONE view is that we should all pay based on our ability, not based on what we use. That is what cities do (roughly). That is also what provinces and the federal government do (for most things).     So yes, "hands down" and "end of discussion" meaning that which you prefer depends on whether you believe "I should only pay for what I use" or "we should all share the costs of public goods that we all use". Should a millionaire pay the same for public parks as someone who can't do better than a part time job below the poverty level? It depends on your point of view. "

Interesting take. I guess since I rent my home the tax bill would go up a crap load since the owner may be a gazzilionaire. My rent would follow.  
 
Now one could argue that a qualifier on that plan would be based on the income of who lives there and physically pays the rent.  
Maybe who signs as the renter.  
 
Easy scam. Multiple people live there and my bet is the person with the lowest income would step up to the plate.  
 
Property values does level the field in a faire way than any other that I can think of without unintended consequences.  
 
 
 
 

Trevor said "    aBUFAmember said "Oh, and it depends on your definition of 'fair'. We seem to have many different opinions on this. " Obviously we have different definitions, so I'll ask you this.     How is it fair to charge 2 people different rates for the exact same service?? "

It's a matter of your point of view. You clearly see it only as "the service I use". I see a lot of what the city provides as a public good that benefits us all (fire, police, roads, etc.). Sure, there are some things that are easier to see directly how much each of us uses, but there is also a lot that is not so clear. So what I believe is fair is that people pay according to their means. To me, that is fair for public goods. Unfortunately, using property value/tax is a crude way to determine that, for reasons others have already pointed out (but the city doesn't have any other way to gauge our means - no individual/household income data). And unfortunately not everything the city does is purely public good vs purely individual service. So we'll have to accept that the system isn't perfect. But I believe what we have is reasonable, even if it's not the best. It is obvious we disagree on that. But whether you like it or not, this is the rationale for the property tax system - which is the question that started this discussion.