Halifax Population & Growth

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The median household income in the U.S., after tax, is $62,773. In Canada it's $73,000. The American dollar is worth more but that isn't straightforwardly related to the prices of good and services, so in real terms the incomes are not all that different. Property is certainly cheaper in much of America, but I would absolutely dispute that the average American is vastly better off than the average Canadian. And the health care thing is not small: every person and every family, on a long enough timeline, is going to deal with some kind of huge health burden.

Check out purchasing power parity. They're significantly ahead and the gap is only widening. Yes, everyone will incur health costs but ours are built into our much heavier taxes. What we get for those high taxes is open to debate. Very few people in the US are actually getting hit with huge bills, the vast majority have coverage through work or otherwise.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by kzt79

It's absolutely brutal. I spend a lot of time in the US and the divergence in just the past 10 years is truly striking. The median US household has FAR more disposable income and enjoys a better quality of life than the corresponding household in Canada (risk of gun violence aside?). And before people bring up healthcare, most people in the US enjoy much better access to equal or superior care than most Canadians. And they still have more money after taxes, insurance and others costs. Unless you're literally quite poor (bottom 10%), most people are far better off financially at least in the US.

What matters to most people is their own quality of life. While imperfect, GDP per capita is somewhat of a proxy. Canada is near 2014 levels and plummeting! Only G7 country still below pre-pandemic levels. Worst projected growth in the OECD over the next 10, 20, 30, and 40 years. Canada is now a poor "rich country" and trying to leave the club entirely. Truly shameful and a lot of people are only now starting to wake up to the fact things have gone badly wrong, even if they can't quite articulate it in economic terms.

It's beyond me why our leadership would choose to deliberately destroy our quality of life, but here we are.

The divergence has long existed. Partly because of policies that make life for everyone and thus lead to higher taxes and less innovation and entrepenserhip but also basic structural issues. There was a period from 2000 2012 or so where we were catching up but otherwise it's long been the case. Other issues make Canada still look pretty good for all but the top 10%. You can still send your kids to a safe school without the risk of healthcare or student loands swamping your lifes work.

What is leadership doing to deliberaltey destroy our quality of life? That sounds like stupid hyperbole even if you think the excessive non-Covid spending by this government puts us in a tough spot.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The divergence has long existed. Partly because of policies that make life for everyone and thus lead to higher taxes and less innovation and entrepenserhip but also basic structural issues. There was a period from 2000 2012 or so where we were catching up but otherwise it's long been the case. Other issues make Canada still look pretty good for all but the top 10%. You can still send your kids to a safe school without the risk of healthcare or student loands swamping your lifes work.

What is leadership doing to deliberaltey destroy our quality of life? That sounds like stupid hyperbole even if you think the excessive non-Covid spending by this government puts us in a tough spot.

I think the anti-growth mindset is stupid and destructive, yes. I don't understand it. Government seems focused on "equalizing" everyone to a poverty level. Don't get me wrong, I am very lucky to have been born in Canada. I only hope children being born today get to feel the same!

We have long lagged other developed economies by measures of productivity etc and it really is getting worse.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by kzt79

Check out purchasing power parity. They're significantly ahead and the gap is only widening. Yes, everyone will incur health costs but ours are built into our much heavier taxes. What we get for those high taxes is open to debate. Very few people in the US are actually getting hit with huge bills, the vast majority have coverage through work or otherwise.

Well "very few" is pretty vague. Perhaps it's a small percentage of the total population but medical debt is the #1 cause of US consumer bankruptcies. And there are a lot more people who avoid seeking treatment due to cost concerns which can result in things like cancers or other conditions not being caught and treated as quickly making for worse long term outcomes. Which is a major problem considering that there are more people without coverage than there are total people in Canada. Plus, there are also plenty of cases where insurers refuse to pay for certain things resulting in unexpected bills even for people with coverage. So that fact that most people have some type of insurance isn't a guarantee.

It's true that healthcare here isn't perfect and that this is just one area of comparison. But the US definitely does have a problem in that area that shouldn't be downplayed.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Well "very few" is pretty vague. Perhaps it's a small percentage of the total population but medical debt is the #1 cause of US consumer bankruptcies. And there are a lot more people who avoid seeking treatment due to cost concerns which can result in things like cancers or other conditions not being caught and treated as quickly making for worse long term outcomes. Which is a major problem considering that there are more people without coverage than there are total people in Canada. Plus, there are also plenty of cases where insurers refuse to pay for certain things resulting in unexpected bills even for people with coverage. So that fact that most people have some type of insurance isn't a guarantee.

It's true that healthcare here isn't perfect and that this is just one area of comparison. But the US definitely does have a problem in that area that shouldn't be downplayed.

It is an issue for sure. I would personally be more concerned about the gun violence. I'm not saying the US is nirvana and Canada is a dump, far from, but I do think a lot of Canadians don't fully grasp how we are falling behind other developed countries (G7/OECD). Sure 0.X% per year gap may not sound like much but when you extrapolate over a decade or more it becomes meaningful.

[Nouvellecosse]

I've definitely noticed the PPP gap forming with Australia and there's long been one with the US, some middle eastern petrol states and a few of Europe's wealthiest. But I don't see much with other major OECD countries. We're similar to or ahead of countries like UK, France, Italy, Japan, etc. so I woildn't say we're falling behind others in general. Just certain ones. Which isn't great either of course.

[MonctonRad]

I will also post this here because there is a cohort of Haligonian SSP members that never venture into the Atlantic Canadian section (terra incognito after all)

Population Change 2019-2023

- Halifax, NS: 55,974 (518,711-462,737), +12.1%
- Moncton, NB: 23,893 (178,971-155,078), +15.4%
- St. John's, NL: 14,218 (232,039-217,821), +6.5%
- Charlottetown, PE: 10,640 (90,648-80,008), +13.2%
- Fredericton, NB: 9,967 (119,059-109,092), +9.1%
- Saint John, NB: 7,636 (138,985-131,349), +5.8%
- CBRM (Sydney), NS: 7,402 (109,962-102,560), +7.2%

I know that things never remain constant, but, ignoring that, lets assume these growth rates remained constant for the next 25 years - what would be the populations of these metropolitan areas in 2050?

Projected Metropolitan Populations of Atlantic Canadian Cities in 2050 (all things remaining constant)

1) Halifax, NS - 896,535
2) Moncton, NB - 340,249
3) St. John's, NL - 328,010
4) Saint John, NB - 190,528
5) Fredericton, NB - 186,366
6) Charlottetown, PE - 162,468
7) CBRM (Sydney), NS - 159,926

Can you imagine a Halifax of nearly 900,000 people? A city that would be nearing a million residents by 2060? What would this mean for public transportation needs and for basic road infrastructure? HRM officials need to be discussing this right now!!

The Central Maritime Corridor (Halifax/Moncton/Saint John as well as intervening communities) will likely be be at least 1.8M people by 2050. Serious discussions need to be occurring regarding the re-establishment of a regional passenger rail service along this corridor. Where will highways need to be upgraded? Will Halifax to Truro on the 102 need to be six lanes? I could see similar up the KV from Saint John, and around Moncton (including the 15 to Shediac).

People need to be planning now.

[teddifax]

Everything you have said is so true, but the way government is run around here by Status Quo thinkers, with little thought of the future, doesn't bode well for a good transportation network. I hope I am wrong but our transportation system seems worse off than years gone by!

[ArchAficionado]

My sincere hope is that the fast increasing population (tax base) quickly opens the door on more ambitious infrastructure projects in the region, hopefully concurrent with the aging out of more regressive-thinking nimby minded government officials, ultimately paving the way in 15-20 years for the construction of both a proper metro rail system in HRM as well as a high speed rail that could offer service times of:

Downtown Dartmouth - Airport in 15 minutes (acting as a collector terminus to all urban population; going into Halifax via fairview/bedford with 1 stop at Larry Uteck could also be an option but slower)
Downtown Dartmouth - Truro in 30 minutes
Truro - Moncton in 45ish minutes
(Building an upgraded corridor could also allow for slower regional trains with more local stops to intermediate communities)

Important to note that the 2050 projection of HRM at 900k ish lines up pretty closely to the current population of Quebec City's CMA, where they are currently in-progress with a major tramway system and planning for a new Bridge crossing to Levis. As Halifax grows to this number over the next 2 decades these projects need to be budgeted for, planned for, and built, in order for this city to continue not only to grow but to improve.

[GTG_78]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

My sincere hope is that the fast increasing population (tax base) quickly opens the door on more ambitious infrastructure projects in the region, hopefully concurrent with the aging out of more regressive-thinking nimby minded government officials, ultimately paving the way in 15-20 years for the construction of both a proper metro rail system in HRM as well as a high speed rail that could offer service times of:

Despite our population increase, the tax base has not appreciably improved. Our nominal GDP per capita is the lowest in Canada. The population explosion is disguising what is ultimately an incredibly anemic economy.

So whatever HRM wants to build, it will have to do so on a very tight budget.

[terrynorthend]

It doesn't help that we are still only able to build new property (ergo more municipal tax in) at a fairly slow pace, and council keeps capping down the existing owners' share.

Originally Posted by GTG_78

Despite our population increase, the tax base has not appreciably improved. Our nominal GDP per capita is the lowest in Canada. The population explosion is disguising what is ultimately an incredibly anemic economy.

So whatever HRM wants to build, it will have to do so on a very tight budget.

[GTG_78]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

It doesn't help that we are still only able to build new property (ergo more municipal tax in) at a fairly slow pace, and council keeps capping down the existing owners' share.

As unpopular as it will be, the cap needs to be substantially reworked. All levels of government are on the precipice of a major fiscal crisis, and it is either addressed now, or we will be gutting services 10 years from now.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

It doesn't help that we are still only able to build new property (ergo more municipal tax in) at a fairly slow pace, and council keeps capping down the existing owners' share.

If you're referring to the assessment cap program, HRM council has exactly nothing to do with it. It's 100% a provincial matter.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by GTG_78

As unpopular as it will be, the cap needs to be substantially reworked. All levels of government are on the precipice of a major fiscal crisis, and it is either addressed now, or we will be gutting services 10 years from now.

The absolute best thing that could happen to the cap would be its abolition. It's an abomination that never should have been enacted in the first place.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

If you're referring to the assessment cap program, HRM council has exactly nothing to do with it. It's 100% a provincial matter.

I find these assessment caps and non means tested deferral schemes grotesque. It's hard to imagine a more regressive tax scheme. The biggest beneficiaries of this are multimillionaires.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by someone123

I find these assessment caps and non means tested deferral schemes grotesque. It's hard to imagine a more regressive tax scheme. The biggest beneficiaries of this are multimillionaires.

Grotesque is the word indeed.


And there are tens of thousands of Nova Scotians who are not millionaires who also benefit hugely from the cap, at the expense of younger folks just entering the market who will be carrying the freight for us (yes, I include myself). It really is so profoundly unfair.

[ArchAficionado]

Yeah the cap is absolute bogus. Indeed one of the most regressive schemes within NS.

With the steep price increases pretty much anybody who has owned for 20+ years is paying tax on about half or less than the current value of their home.
To be fair though, it is also troublesome the idea of 70+ retired folks getting priced out of the home they've lived in for 40 or 50 years because it is being taxed on this new wildly increased value (although, to be fair, that may encourage seniors to sell and downsize and keep more liquidity in the housing market, also tipping the scale back towards younger folks a bit).
I for one am a proponent of land / property being a more core lever of taxation. I think everyone except the top 1% would benefit from a substantially increased property tax / wealth tax (or at the very least include all capital gains) *paired with* a steep deduction of income taxes, which largely hurt the middle class, to max out at maybe 25% (combined).

At risk of getting more off topic with the tax business, it's also deeply frustrating to me how peoples' ignorance is often weaponized against their own self interest, my example being the recent (and scrapped) liberal proposal to increase the capital gains inclusion rate from 50% to 66% on profits over 250k. One of their vanishingly few good ideas, it was instantly campaigned against by every CEO around (who were eagerly given press coverage in exchange for a small donation I'm sure). And, curiously, I saw SO many comments of average joes who I doubt will ever see 250k in their lives griping about how they'd be paying 66% tax when they sell their dodge ram 16500 child crusher.

Pardon my rambling but the TL;DR is I think that the current revenue scheme taxes labour far too heavily, because it's a low hanging fruit, and doesn't equitably tax ownership. NS should definitely sundown the assessment cap, and perhaps replace it with something like a property tax credit for retirees or for those under a threshold income.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

To be fair though, it is also troublesome the idea of 70+ retired folks getting priced out of the home they've lived in for 40 or 50 years because it is being taxed on this new wildly increased value (although, to be fair, that may encourage seniors to sell and downsize and keep more liquidity in the housing market, also tipping the scale back towards younger folks a bit).

In practice the mill rate should drop when assessments spike. It's really about who pays what percent of the burden. Today the heaviest burden is on whoever bought most recently which makes no sense.

It's not even entirely about seniors. Doesn't the downsizing senior get a reset assessment? So the tax is discouraging helpful behaviour a lot of people would naturally engage in, and can be unfair to anybody across the age spectrum. There are also plenty of seniors who rent.

You can borrow against your house to pay taxes. Seniors getting pushed out of expensive properties they own outright due to property taxes alone does not seem like a real thing.

[Keith P.]

The actual problem isn’t the assessment cap, which was implemented because municipalities were enjoying a tax windfall when coastal property values spiked, something that is now true more generally for most properties. What municipalities have done is to spend that windfall wastefully, as we see daily with HRM, rather than to reduce the mil rate. The problem is that assessed values are a very poor indicator of the ability to pay, which in itself is a very dubious rationale for a tax on property, given it is not a liquid asset.

Property taxes need to be more statistically based, using a mix of various things like square footage, road frontage, number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms, etc - essentially whatever are the cost drivers for municipal service delivery. That would be the most fair way to handle the question.