Quote:
Originally Posted by vid
So essentially, you'd be applying a municipal tax to the rental income received by landlords? Unless you can make that apply only to parking lots, you would be taking a larger chunk of the rent from occupied buildings, which could cause landlords to raise rents, which could force tenants out of the core. The opposite of what we want to do.
|
the assessed value of a property should be based on the net income (someone correct me if I'm wrong here). the higher the net income, the higher the assessment, and the higher the taxes. of course you're taking a larger chunk of the rent from occupied buildings. can't get blood from a stone. they earn more income. progressive taxation theory suggests that the greater the income, the greater the ability to pay as there is a larger discretionary income. that is why in most provinces (except alberta I believe) and at the federal level higher income earners pay a higher percentage of tax. and many low income earners pay no tax at all.
the issue, as i understand it, is that parking lots are underassessed by the City. not sure why - the City does use formulas to calculate rental income. maybe they use incorrect assumptions?
what you seem to be talking about though is some sort of sin tax on parking lots. a tax to discourage a negative use, like taxes on cigarettes and liquor. i don't think you can finance municipal government through sin taxes alone.
i think i might be missing your point. it is not sustainable to finance a city by taxing parking stalls while class A office space gets a freebie.