Property tax cap favours Nova Scotia's weathy

[Keith P.]

I see fellow forum member Mr. May apparently wants to pay HRM more taxes.

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/bu...ealthy-372974/

Colin May, a former Dartmouth city councillor before amalgamation, has lived in his home on Dahlia Street for 37 years.

He admits his home is “grossly under assessed” resulting in a lower tax bill for him than his neighbours, a “young couple” that recently moved in.

“It’s unfair,” he says, arguing that the cap should be phased out. “The longer they wait, the worse it gets.”

[The Crow Whisperer]

Why am I not surprised that a city councilor thinks homeowners aren't paying enough tax? Always HRM need more taxes to fund their lavish spending gravy train at ratepayer's expense on palatial extravagant bike lanes, bump-outs, libraries for drug addicts to shoot up in, and club houses for club kids.

Why does he think Dahlia Street of all places is not being taxed enough? Looks like a working class street, not Beverly Hills. But screw the poor working class people that own these meagre little shacks, they need to "pay their fair share."

[TrudeauSockPuppet427]

Originally Posted by The Crow Whisperer

Why am I not surprised that a city councilor thinks homeowners aren't paying enough tax? Always HRM need more taxes to fund their lavish spending gravy train at ratepayer's expense on palatial extravagant bike lanes, bump-outs, libraries for drug addicts to shoot up in, and club houses for club kids.

Why does he think Dahlia Street of all places is not being taxed enough? Looks like a working class street, not Beverly Hills. But screw the poor working class people that own these meagre little shacks, they need to "pay their fair share."

Keith P, did you forget to sign out of your new sock-puppet account?

[The Crow Whisperer]

Councilor May learns that his neighbor pays more property tax than he
does, so his solution is that he should pay more tax, not that his neighbor should pay less.

[Patrick Matthews]

All I know is everytime I look at a new development that cost 20+million the assessment is about 1/4 of that. Seems pretty obvious where the quick tax grabs could be, and it shouldnt be on people that havent moved or speculated in many years.

[Saul Goode]

"Why am I not surprised that a city councilor thinks homeowners aren't paying enough tax? Always HRM need more taxes to fund their lavish spending gravy train at ratepayer's expense..."

Removing the assessment cap need not increase the municipality's tax revenue, and that's not what most proponents of its removal are arguing for.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

"Why am I not surprised that a city councilor thinks homeowners aren't paying enough tax? Always HRM need more taxes to fund their lavish spending gravy train at ratepayer's expense..."

Removing the assessment cap need not increase the municipality's tax revenue, and that's not what most proponents of its removal are arguing for.

Of course the proponents are not arguing that. But that is exactly what will happen. Municipalities will not be able to resist the tax rate sleight of hand that will give them a huge windfall.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Of course the proponents are not arguing that. But that is exactly what will happen. Municipalities will not be able to resist the tax rate sleight of hand that will give them a huge windfall.

What "tax rate sleight of hand"? The cap doesn't apply to the tax rate. It applies to assessments.

There is no way to justify the cap. It's inequitable to the point of being punitive.

[Patrick Matthews]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

There is no way to justify the cap. It's inequitable to the point of being punitive.

What is your argument here?

I see you are very anti cap - are you upset your newly purchased property is higher taxes than others nearby?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

What "tax rate sleight of hand"? The cap doesn't apply to the tax rate. It applies to assessments.

There is no way to justify the cap. It's inequitable to the point of being punitive.

There are many ways to justify the cap, but that argument has been made elsewhere. Your other comment needs to be addressed. Taxes owed are a combination of tax rate and assessments. For generations municipal govts have played the sleight of hand game with the public, crowing about how they kept tax rates the same and hoping to deceive a gullible public. Journalists like current HRM Council member Kathryn Morse who at the time was a CBC drone dutifully repeated their misleading statements in their news reports. But the increased value of the assessment roll and the higher tax bills homeowners received as a result never seemed to be mentioned. It was an old and time-honored HRM annual tradition.

The exact same thing is likely to happen here despite arguments from revenue-hungry municipal politicians that eliminating the cap will not result in higher taxes. Of course it will. This is simply a ruse to con the public yet again and have them fork out more in property taxes so municipalities like HRM can p*ss it away. Because that is what they do.

[Saul Goode]

"...everytime I look at a new development that cost 20+million the assessment is about 1/4 of that."

Can you cite even one real example of that?

[Patrick Matthews]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

"...everytime I look at a new development that cost 20+million the assessment is about 1/4 of that."

Can you cite even one real example of that?

Didnt see this until now.

I didnt write them down because Viewpoint was so readily available. Now its interface seems dramatically different.

Most things are subdivided into "condos" now whether or not they are which makes it harder for sure (ie Scotia Square and the Halifax Convention center now "condos"). Will just make it more annoying to find info.

Its probably still under construction so perhaps a bad example but Queens Marquee is worth a lot more (and was last year) than its assessed value.

Emera's NSP Waterfront building was 54million and discovery centre building quoted at another 10million here but the complex only taxed as if it were worth $50mil alone and values have gone up a lot in 5 years.

Id be interested if the practice has ceased, but anecdotally when I checked tax assessments off costs of big new projects they were way off.

[Franco401]

The other fallacy here is the idea that governments exist to steal people's money.

Why trust (government), who are elected by the public and get paid a flat salary? Instead I trust (corporation), who is only beholden to shareholders and gets caught committing fraud every 3 years.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Franco401

The other fallacy here is the idea that governments exist to steal people's money.

On the first page of every revolutionary govt playbook is the entry requiring them to confiscate assets.