The regressive taxation theme pushed by Green and Stolz.

I seem to remember during the core review process they were pushing to have snow removal added to the utility bill and based on the frontage of ones property line… thereby a double whammy for corner lots… and a million dollar home with the same frontage as a hundred thousand dollar paying the same rate.

They seem to push the taxation away from progressive taxation based on home value, and more towards one size fits all… which is essentially a tax cut for the rich and a tax increase for the lower class. I can see this sort of thing for transaction costs, but a home tax that is a flat tax on ones home is akin to a head tax that is no way voluntary.

“Fairness” I never heard that word before from the City. What the City considers to be fair and what the residents consider to be fair are likely quite different.

“…. a tiered flat rate model that’s based on the amount of impervious surface area on a property, in other words, properties with large paved parking lots would be expected to pay more.”

So a residential property of say 900m2, with roof water drained onto pervious lawns and a gravel driveway and pavers for a patio with drainage in between would not pay towards the system costs.

I assume that city roads, parking lots, walkways, buildings with roof drains which drain into the system would be covered under a common base distributed on a per property base rather than assessed value base.

So houses in St. Denis Heights would pay less while houses in the VLA will pay more when measured against assessed property values.

SMART, real SMART!!!!!

I am not sure whether it would be asking too much for the city to take 5 to 10 sample properties and show the effect of the change compared to current conditions.

Let’s make it simple folks!!!!

Sorry …. I should have written, let us make this a robust conversation. ;-)

Why should people pay more just because their house is worth more?

Simple, because that is the way the system works.

The more we make, the more we pay.
The more we spend, the more we pay.
The more we invest, them more we pay.

So now we want to change that to:

The more we make, the less we pay
The more we spend, the less we pay
The more we invest, the less we pay.

Fine with me. All I asked is, can I see the consequences. How will that affect us all.

I know, a little bit too much to ask. ;-)

How about retirees that still live in the family home which has increased in value due to the passage of time and/or neighbourhood improvements? They don’t make any more money but due to the ‘value’ of their house they are saddled with additional tax payments.

Or people who choose to spend their money on a new home vs a co-worker who chooses annual vacations to Hawaii – they are stuck with paying more for city taxes just because their house is nicer.

Just because the current system is to pay based on property value doesn’t mean it should be that way. When you go to Costco and buy a steak they don’t ask to see your T4 or your street address before deciding what you pay.

A steak is a choice and a commodity based on market pricing. Paying city taxes is not.

If a person owns a corner lot then why should they pay double or triple what their neighbor pays when they both use the street equally? Especially if the home with low frontage is valued at 5 times the home with a corner lot.

If a person owns a low income home in the VLA that happens to be on a 1/3 acre lot, because that is the way subdivisions were built 50-years ago, then why should they pay double what a house in college heights pays for a 1/6 acre lot when the college heights home is worth 5 times as much and likely the ability to pay is more as well?

For essential services the shared cost should be progressive. If they want flat taxes to share the burden, then it should be for elective services, so that the low and fixed income citizens aren’t priced out of their homes to subsidize the rich.

Any person that is rich is rich because the society they live in enables them to make a good living, and with that comes responsibilities that should not be downloaded to those that haven’t gotten the rewards of wealth from society. Not everyone can be a winner in society and some through circumstances out of their control end up at the bottom… we shouldn’t be kicking them while they are down because we can.

A retiree in a long time home will get hit harder with this tax change, because their lot size is likely bigger than the fancy new homes on small lots. Why should the retiree be subsidizing the rich new home owners when the retiree has likely paid for the infrastructure 2 or 3 times over with their existing property?

Also the small frontage homes in PG are all build in the hilly areas that will require much more maintenance costs for the infrastructure due to sliding and moving ground (eg college heights), where as the larger lot existing subdivisions in the bowl will have a lower long term maintenance cost yet will pay a higher fee based on their larger street frontage.

How is that fair and why should existing subdivisions be paying to subsidize the costs of the hill side small frontage mega home owners? City council priorities I guess.

If you want to keep on paying based on assessed value keep the status quo. If you want to pay based on each properties impact on the storm system (seems reasonable to me) use the proposed method.
Sheesh! People !