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.

[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?

[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

"...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.

[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.

[The Crow Whisperer]

So that's how Mike Savage can say "we didn't raise taxes." It's gaslighting by money-hungry governments and their sycophants in media who are dutifully rewarded with plum patronage appointments in government. Explains why so many mockingbirds go into politics.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Patrick Matthews

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?

The argument is dead simple: the cap is manifestly unfair. It makes it possible for two identical properties to bear significantly different tax burdens. How can that possibly be equitable? A taxation system with that effect should never be allowed to exist.

And am I "upset" that my "newly purchased property" is taxed more than others nearby? Hardly. I've been in the same house since before the cap was introduced, so I've benefited every year since its inception....while others get screwed and carry the tax weight for me.

Narrow self-interest is not the only perspective from which to see things.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

The argument is dead simple: the cap is manifestly unfair. It makes it possible for two identical properties to bear significantly different tax burdens. How can that possibly be equitable? A taxation system with that effect should never be allowed to exist.

And am I "upset" that my "newly purchased property" is taxed more than others nearby? Hardly. I've been in the same house since before the cap was introduced, so I've benefited every year since its inception....while others get screwed and carry the tax weight for me.

Narrow self-interest is not the only perspective from which to see things.

Nobody should pay more in taxes than they absolutely need to. That is where self-interest lies. Individuals know better where to spend their hard-earned income than govts do.

The existing capped system is inherently more fair than an uncapped system. Someone buying a house in this market clearly has the ability to pay not only for the price of the house but also the annual tax bill. Neither of those figures would be a surprise to the buyer. Meanwhile the pensioner on a fixed income who happens to have a house in a hot area that is now worth a lot more than it was when they were at work, or the fisherman's widow who who lives on the coast line on a property that is suddenly worth much more but has little income, do not have the ability to pay a tax bill based on uncapped assessments. Sounds very fair to me.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Nobody should pay more in taxes than they absolutely need to. That is where self-interest lies. Individuals know better where to spend their hard-earned income than govts do.

The existing capped system is inherently more fair than an uncapped system. Someone buying a house in this market clearly has the ability to pay not only for the price of the house but also the annual tax bill. Neither of those figures would be a surprise to the buyer. Meanwhile the pensioner on a fixed income who happens to have a house in a hot area that is now worth a lot more than it was when they were at work, or the fisherman's widow who who lives on the coast line on a property that is suddenly worth much more but has little income, do not have the ability to pay a tax bill based on uncapped assessments. Sounds very fair to me.

If you believe that "nobody should pay more in taxes than they absolutely need to", then how can you possibly justify one owner paying more than another who owns an identical property next door?

The idea that "the existing capped system is inherently more fair than an uncapped system" simply does not stand up to reason or logic.

The fact that a buyer might be aware of what the taxes on his newly-purchased property will be and that he has the ability to pay them has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the assessment is fair. Neither does the inability of another owner to pay taxes because the value of her property has increased. Determining fairness on the basis of the circumstances of every individual owner would, by definition, be unfair in itself because it would inevitably create patent inequities. A system in which tax liability is determined by ability to pay: think about the practical implications of a system like that for a minute. Thankfully, it would be a practical impossibility to implement anyway.

The system has to be "fair" to ALL who are assessed; the way to achieve that is to assess ALL properties at, or as near as possible to, market value at a particular date - which is exactly what the system which existed pre-cap was designed to do.

Addressing the inability of individuals to pay their tax bills because of rising property values (or for any other reason, for that matter) needs to be addressed on the taxation side, as a matter of municipal tax policy, not on the assessment side. And there are ways to do that. One approach is to defer an individual's tax liability until the property is sold or otherwise changes ownership, to then be paid out of the proceeds of that disposition. That both ensures that the municipality gets the tax revenue owed it and allows the owner to retain the property in the meantime. Of course, another more obvious solution in a rising market is simply to sell and reap the windfall!

But under the assessment cap system, I'll ask again: how can you possibly justify one owner paying more than another who owns an identical property next door? Especially if they have equal ability to pay, which seems to be your focus?

By the way, in the interest of accuracy this page should be renamed “Assessment cap favors Nova Scotia’s wealthy”. The relevant legislation caps assessments, not taxes.

[Franco401]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That is where self-interest lies. Individuals know better where to spend their hard-earned income than govts do.

Individuals spend their hard-earned cash on themselves, governments spend it on everyone. Unless of course you actually believe in trickle-down economics, which is transparently a lie by the billionaire class to fool the uneducated. The idea that money is better for society if we let the rich do what they want is absolutely ridiculous.

[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 Saul Goode

The fact that a buyer might be aware of what the taxes on his newly-purchased property will be and that he has the ability to pay them has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the assessment is fair. Neither does the inability of another owner to pay taxes because the value of her property has increased. Determining fairness on the basis of the circumstances of every individual owner would, by definition, be unfair in itself because it would inevitably create patent inequities. A system in which tax liability is determined by ability to pay: think about the practical implications of a system like that for a minute. Thankfully, it would be a practical impossibility to implement anyway.

If I am paying $400K in a hot market for a capped property valued at $250K by PVSC, there is nothing "unfair" about my actions. I know what I am doing in terms of both what I am paying for the property and what the tax bill will be. I decide that it is worth it and do the deal. If I wanted to pay less I would have bought a different property in a different area. Seems perfectly fair to me. Assessed values are by their very nature arbitrary to some extent since PVSC cannot possibly assign values on today's mercurial market values.

You clearly are in the dark about the existing property tax system because it is based on the concept that assessed value = "ability to pay". That is its foundation. Go look it up. And it is an utterly false basis.

You also seem fixated on the meaning of the word "fair". Is it fair to demand payment of a tax bill based on the non-liquid fixed asset's presumed market value when there is no intent to liquidate it? Saying the owner should sell the asset to pay inflated the tax bill surely sounds less than "fair" to me.

Real estate markets are not "fair". House A is meticulously maintained and decorated. House B is run-down and lived in by slobs. Yet House B is valued higher because it is on a more desirable street or in a hotter market. How "fair" is that? Perhaps you would advocate for govt control of property prices to ensure "fairness".

Life is never fair. I want a Mercedes-Benz but my income only allows me to purchase a used Kia. Unfair! Everybody should drive the same kind of vehicle in order to keep things fair. Clearly it is unfair if the good-looking, slick sales guy down the street who has only a grade 11 education makes 5 times as much as I do with my PhD in Women's Studies. Unfair! Surely govt must step in to address this inequity.

But under the assessment cap system, I'll ask again: how can you possibly justify one owner paying more than another who owns an identical property next door? Especially if they have equal ability to pay, which seems to be your focus?

How do you measure "ability to pay" in this scenario? You cannot. That is why the cap was instituted in the first place. Sending some pernsioner a bill due in 30 days on a non-liquid asset that they have no intent to liquidate is hardly "fair". Perhaps next you will be advocating for sending the same hapless pensioner an income tax bill on the actuarial total lump-sum liability value of their pension.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Franco401

Individuals spend their hard-earned cash on themselves, governments spend it on everyone.

Govts actually spend much of it on themselves via the creation of bloated bureaucracies that have an entropy-like tendency to continually expand. The actual service delivery portion of that spend is shockingly small.