Property tax cap favours Nova Scotia's weathy

[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.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

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.




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.

So much of this post is false and misleading that it’s hard to know where to start.

“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 didn’t say or suggest there was anything unfair about your actions. What I said was that your ability to pay and someone else’s inability to pay are irrelevant in determining whether assessments or the cap program are fair and appropriate.

“Assessed values are by their very nature arbitrary to some extent since PVSC cannot possibly assign values on today's mercurial market values...” Assessments are required by law to be valid estimates of market value at a certain fixed date. That does involve an element of judgment because it requires comparison of properties which have sold (i.e., whose values have been determined by the market) to those which have not. But it’s all based on actual data derived from the market. Also, it's worth adding that every assessment is subject to review on as many as four levels of appeal (depending on how far the parties want to take it).

“...since PVSC cannot possibly assign values on today's mercurial market values.” PVSC doesn’t try to do that. It doesn’t assess property in the midst of "mercurial markets”. It values them, again as required by law, based on values on a fixed date in the past (known as the “base date”, which is shown on the assessment notice), using actual market data gathered over a 12-month period. In recent years, the base date has been fixed as January 1 of the preceding year. 2020 assessments were based on the market which existed on January 1, 2019; 2021 assessments will be based on the market of January 1, 2020, and so on.

“the existing property tax system...is based on the concept that assessed value = ‘ability to pay’. That is its foundation. Go look it up.” I don’t want to be rude, but I have to be blunt: that’s 100% nonsense. Assessed value in NS is wholly a matter of statute law, defined in the Assessment Act, and has exactly NOTHING to do with ability to pay. As you would say, go look it up. Start with section 42 of the statute. There are mountains of case law on the topic which will confirm the point too, and it’s easily searchable online. If you’re interested I’d be happy to provide some references to get you started.

“You also seem fixated on the meaning of the word ‘fair’” If I’m “fixated” on fairness, it’s only because the law requires it. It’s an absolutely fundamental requirement of any law, and particularly taxation statutes. Failure of the law to operate and be applied fairly is a basis for challenging how governments apply it - including challenging assessments. People must be treated equally under the law. Wouldn't you agree that that's a good and worthwhile thing?

“Saying the owner should sell the asset to pay inflated the tax bill surely sounds less than "fair" to me.” I didn’t say an owner should sell. I said it’s one obvious option where the value has skyrocketed. Some are more than happy to do it. But if an owner prefers not to sell, as I suggested, there are other approaches to deal with the increased taxes. In my view, simply saying “okay, forget about it - you don’t have to pay” (which is the effect of the cap) is simply ludicrous. It shifts one property owner's tax burden to other taxpayers who should have nothing to do with it. How is that appropriate?

“Life is never fair. I want a Mercedes-Benz but my income only allows me to purchase a used Kia...etc.” That’s true, but it completely misses the point. What happens to people in life either fortuitously, or because of choices they make, or because of the actions of others, is not always “fair”. Life happens. That’s fine. We can’t control that. But your argument confuses the fairness of what happens in life with the fairness of the assessment system, which is what’s relevant. We can control the fairness of the assessment system. But the cap is fundamentally unfair because it doesn’t treat property owners equally.

“How do you measure ‘ability to pay; in this scenario? You cannot.” If you re-read my post, you’ll see that that’s exactly my point. We can’t choose who’s required to pay taxes and who isn’t on the basis of ability to pay. I only addressed it because you raised it. You’re the one who brought up “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 lives on a 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”.

Finally, I’ll ask a third time, because this question describes the very essence of the problem, and yet you seem determined not to answer: how can you possibly justify one owner paying significantly higher taxes than another who owns an identical property next door? And I’ll add, how can you justify that the actual effect of the cap, which can be proved simply by looking at the assessment roll, is to benefit the wealthiest owners of the most valuable properties, when its ostensible purpose was to give tax relief to those who need it most?

The cap is a farce, a joke.

[Antigonish]

There needs to be a better system than property taxes although I'm not sure what that is at the moment. I've seen land value taxes as an alternative but what about people who bought a house 30 years ago at say, 200k now suddenly it's valued at 500k and their LVT skyrockets to match that? If they cannot afford that jump what do they do? Are they forced to sell or the government confiscates their property they already paid for?

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

There needs to be a better system than property taxes although I'm not sure what that is at the moment. I've seen land value taxes as an alternative but what about people who bought a house 30 years ago at say, 200k now suddenly it's valued at 500k and their LVT skyrockets to match that? If they cannot afford that jump what do they do? Are they forced to sell or the government confiscates their property they already paid for?

What do you mean by "land value taxes as an alternative"? That's exactly the system we have now.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Weathy

Simple weather forecast Android app. It gives information about:

Current temp
24 hour forecast
10 day forecast
Searching cities

https://github.com/Weathy/Weathy

Sorry, been staring at that typo in the thread heading for too long...

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

https://github.com/Weathy/Weathy

Sorry, been staring at that typo in the thread heading for too long...

Sorry about that Mark. I don't see a way to edit it now.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

So much of this post is false and misleading that it’s hard to know where to start.

My, my, my. You seem very invested in PVSC/AMANS thinking on this.

“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 didn’t say or suggest there was anything unfair about your actions. What I said was that your ability to pay and someone else’s inability to pay are irrelevant in determining whether assessments or the cap program are fair and appropriate.

Sending a property owner a tax bill based on unrealized "wealth" as measured by the estimated value of their property if they sold it seems rather unfair to me.

Assessments are required by law to be valid estimates of market value at a certain fixed date. That does involve an element of judgment because it requires comparison of properties which have sold (i.e., whose values have been determined by the market) to those which have not. But it’s all based on actual data derived from the market. Also, it's worth adding that every assessment is subject to review on as many as four levels of appeal (depending on how far the parties want to take it).

This could have been taken straight from the PVSC training manual.

PVSC doesn’t try to do that. It doesn’t assess property in the midst of "mercurial markets”. It values them, again as required by law, based on values on a fixed date in the past (known as the “base date”, which is shown on the assessment notice), using actual market data gathered over a 12-month period. In recent years, the base date has been fixed as January 1 of the preceding year. 2020 assessments were based on the market which existed on January 1, 2019; 2021 assessments will be based on the market of January 1, 2020, and so on.

See above.

“the existing property tax system...is based on the concept that assessed value = ‘ability to pay’. That is its foundation. Go look it up.” I don’t want to be rude, but I have to be blunt: that’s 100% nonsense. Assessed value in NS is wholly a matter of statute law, defined in the Assessment Act, and has exactly NOTHING to do with ability to pay. As you would say, go look it up. Start with section 42 of the statute. There are mountains of case law on the topic which will confirm the point too, and it’s easily searchable online. If you’re interested I’d be happy to provide some references to get you started.

Oh dear. I'm sorry you went off the deep end but if you are (as it surely sounds) working in the property assessment field you might have the tunnel vision so many assessors in my experience demonstrated, with no understanding of how their work fit into the bigger picture.

Read what I wrote again. I never said that assessed value was based on ability to pay. I said the property tax system used assessed value as a proxy for one's ability to pay. A quick Google search should reassure you of that:

The second principle states that taxpayers should pay taxes according to their ability to pay them. Under an ad valorem property taxation system, the value of one's real property is used as a proxy for one's ability to pay. The property tax is therefore a tax on wealth, where wealth is estimated by the value of one's real property. Those who own higher valued properties pay higher property taxes. This principle is also cause for criticism of the ad valorem tax system because owning a high valued property does not automatically translate into the ability to pay higher property taxes. Real estate is an illiquid asset that, while attaining a high value, does not lead to more cash with which to pay property taxes.


The nonsense, such as it is, is all yours.

People must be treated equally under the law. Wouldn't you agree that that's a good and worthwhile thing?

But the existing system does not. It is levying property tax based upon the mistaken equation of speculative property value = ability to pay. The only such property owners to whom that might apply are recent purchasers at that no longer-speculative value. Seems equitable to me.

“Saying the owner should sell the asset to pay inflated the tax bill surely sounds less than "fair" to me.” I didn’t say an owner should sell. I said it’s one obvious option where the value has skyrocketed. Some are more than happy to do it. But if an owner prefers not to sell, as I suggested, there are other approaches to deal with the increased taxes. In my view, simply saying “okay, forget about it - you don’t have to pay” (which is the effect of the cap) is simply ludicrous. It shifts one property owner's tax burden to other taxpayers who should have nothing to do with it. How is that appropriate?

It is about as appropriate as any other blunt-instrument govt measure. You seem to have zero appreciation for why the cap began in the first place. It was to protect property owners in certain areas (typically coastal properties) from runaway assessments and skyrocketing tax bills with no additional or improved services provided. There were other options possible, but in the interest of expediency the cap was chosen. It limits assessment increases to a small percentage each year based upon CPI IIRC. It isn't perfect, but if one accepts that the previous no-cap system had serious flaws it works reasonably well. One could argue that a better solution would be to limit the increase in municipal govt spending to a certain percentage, or to base taxes at least in part on some other measure than a speculated property value, or to limit the annual increase in a property's tax bill in some way, but all of those have their own issues. Certainly the main issue is that municipalities, not surprisingly, liked the gravy train they were riding and did nothing to protect property owners faced with a doubling (or more) of their property tax bill based solely on speculative market values.

But your argument confuses the fairness of what happens in life with the fairness of the assessment system, which is what’s relevant. We can control the fairness of the assessment system. But the cap is fundamentally unfair because it doesn’t treat property owners equally.

I never commented on the fairness of the assessment system. I was commenting on the fairness of the property tax system. The assessment system may or may not be necessary in its present form. I have experience with it and it is a very expensive, very pedantic and rigid, not very forward-thinking bureaucracy here in NS. The many millions we spend on it (at least for residential properties) could probably be dramatically reduced with an AI-based analysis of property sales prices given today's advances in technology. Having an assessor drive down a street and take notes to base reassessments upon "windshield checks" is probably not the best use of resources. But we seem stuck with it as are most other North American jurisdictions, for a variety of reasons. Statisticians love the type of data it generates.

Finally, I’ll ask a third time, because this question describes the very essence of the problem, and yet you seem determined not to answer: how can you possibly justify one owner paying significantly higher taxes than another who owns an identical property next door? And I’ll add, how can you justify that the actual effect of the cap, which can be proved simply by looking at the assessment roll, is to benefit the wealthiest owners of the most valuable properties, when its ostensible purpose was to give tax relief to those who need it most?

You're so caught up in the red mist of trying to defend the assessment process you missed my answer to that. I'll try to put it another way. The cap is imperfect, but better than nothing. It prevents spend-happy, revenue-crazed municipalities like HRM from profiteering based on speculative increases in assessment rolls each year. Those increases are speculative because in most cases they are unrealized wealth that is not tangible until the property sells. The good thing is that eventually, most do and the problem, such as it is depending on one's POV, goes away. Given the highly likely probability that municipalities would use the termination of the cap to pillage owners of capped properties, reap a windfall of revenue, and increase wasteful spending, anything that prevents that from happening is a good thing.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Sorry about that Mark. I don't see a way to edit it now.

Haha... no worries, just having fun with it.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

My, my, my. You seem very invested in PVSC/AMANS thinking on this.



Sending a property owner a tax bill based on unrealized "wealth" as measured by the estimated value of their property if they sold it seems rather unfair to me.



This could have been taken straight from the PVSC training manual.



See above.



Oh dear. I'm sorry you went off the deep end but if you are (as it surely sounds) working in the property assessment field you might have the tunnel vision so many assessors in my experience demonstrated, with no understanding of how their work fit into the bigger picture.

Read what I wrote again. I never said that assessed value was based on ability to pay. I said the property tax system used assessed value as a proxy for one's ability to pay. A quick Google search should reassure you of that:

The second principle states that taxpayers should pay taxes according to their ability to pay them. Under an ad valorem property taxation system, the value of one's real property is used as a proxy for one's ability to pay. The property tax is therefore a tax on wealth, where wealth is estimated by the value of one's real property. Those who own higher valued properties pay higher property taxes. This principle is also cause for criticism of the ad valorem tax system because owning a high valued property does not automatically translate into the ability to pay higher property taxes. Real estate is an illiquid asset that, while attaining a high value, does not lead to more cash with which to pay property taxes.


The nonsense, such as it is, is all yours.



But the existing system does not. It is levying property tax based upon the mistaken equation of speculative property value = ability to pay. The only such property owners to whom that might apply are recent purchasers at that no longer-speculative value. Seems equitable to me.



It is about as appropriate as any other blunt-instrument govt measure. You seem to have zero appreciation for why the cap began in the first place. It was to protect property owners in certain areas (typically coastal properties) from runaway assessments and skyrocketing tax bills with no additional or improved services provided. There were other options possible, but in the interest of expediency the cap was chosen. It limits assessment increases to a small percentage each year based upon CPI IIRC. It isn't perfect, but if one accepts that the previous no-cap system had serious flaws it works reasonably well. One could argue that a better solution would be to limit the increase in municipal govt spending to a certain percentage, or to base taxes at least in part on some other measure than a speculated property value, or to limit the annual increase in a property's tax bill in some way, but all of those have their own issues. Certainly the main issue is that municipalities, not surprisingly, liked the gravy train they were riding and did nothing to protect property owners faced with a doubling (or more) of their property tax bill based solely on speculative market values.



I never commented on the fairness of the assessment system. I was commenting on the fairness of the property tax system. The assessment system may or may not be necessary in its present form. I have experience with it and it is a very expensive, very pedantic and rigid, not very forward-thinking bureaucracy here in NS. The many millions we spend on it (at least for residential properties) could probably be dramatically reduced with an AI-based analysis of property sales prices given today's advances in technology. Having an assessor drive down a street and take notes to base reassessments upon "windshield checks" is probably not the best use of resources. But we seem stuck with it as are most other North American jurisdictions, for a variety of reasons. Statisticians love the type of data it generates.



You're so caught up in the red mist of trying to defend the assessment process you missed my answer to that. I'll try to put it another way. The cap is imperfect, but better than nothing. It prevents spend-happy, revenue-crazed municipalities like HRM from profiteering based on speculative increases in assessment rolls each year. Those increases are speculative because in most cases they are unrealized wealth that is not tangible until the property sells. The good thing is that eventually, most do and the problem, such as it is depending on one's POV, goes away. Given the highly likely probability that municipalities would use the termination of the cap to pillage owners of capped properties, reap a windfall of revenue, and increase wasteful spending, anything that prevents that from happening is a good thing.

You seem to be laboring under a few misapprehensions - perhaps “suspicions” is a better word - so I’ll just say for the record that I don't work for PVSC, nor in property appraisal, nor in taxation, nor in any realty-connected field at all. I’m not, as you allege, "very invested in PVSC/AMANS thinking" and I’m certainly not, as your rather florid hyperbole puts it, "caught up in the red mist of trying to defend the assessment process". I’m actually not “defending” the assessment process at all. I’m just a taxpayer who’s taken the time to learn how assessment works and I’m simply saying that the cap has no place in it.

I understand exactly what the cap was intended to address and remember well the circumstances under which it was introduced. The problem with it (which anyone could have foreseen - and many did - before it was introduced) is simply that (if you’ll indulge an overworked metaphor) as a cure, it’s worse than the disease.

While the cap has undoubtedly helped some property owners who’ve found themselves overwhelmed by taxes generated by steep rises in property values, it doesn’t apply to just such owners. There are so few limitations that the cap now applies to virtually all residential owners, regardless of need (whereas initially it had to be applied for), and as a consequence it distorts the whole system. It achieves tax relief for the relative few who need it by compelling other property owners to pick up their tax burden. That free ride is just not right. I don’t need the cap, nor do thousands of others. Yet we get the benefit of it, at a huge unnecessary cost to all taxpayers.

Meanwhile, others unjustifiably pay higher taxes than those with similar properties (wait, aren't you the one who said "Nobody should pay more in taxes than they absolutely need to"?).

What’s worse (or at least, as bad) is that it also disproportionately (sometimes grossly so) benefits those who need it the least by granting huge tax breaks to wealthy owners of valuable properties. The whole scheme is just manifestly stupid.

You say the cap is “imperfect, but better than nothing” (surely the faintest praise possible), but I’m not advocating “nothing”. That kind of thinking presumes that there’s no alternative, but it's not so. There are better ways to help overburdened property owners through tax (i.e., not assessment) policy which grants relief without unfairly burdening others. Approaching relief from the taxation side also places the onus to deal fairly with taxation squarely where it belongs: with elected municipal politicians.

Leave the assessment side alone as a tool to simply determine property values, as it was intended to do. Fix taxation problems on the taxation side. Stop screwing disinterested taxpayers by making them pick up other peoples’ bills and make municipalities accountable for what they get.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

There are better ways to help overburdened property owners through tax (i.e., not assessment) policy which grants relief without unfairly burdening others. Approaching relief from the taxation side also places the onus to deal fairly with taxation squarely where it belongs: with elected municipal politicians.

There's the problem. I don't necessarily disagree, although the bureaucratic burden of implementing that will be very costly compared to the cap. But the even bigger problem is that by letting municipal pols determine the relief, if any, you are putting the foxes in the henhouse. They are exactly the wrong bunch to be determining that since it is in their self-interest to not do anything meaningful in order to rake in the maximum amount of revenue possible. The argument put forward by Mason last year on the topic is a good example. If memory serves he suggested that a bit of relief for property owners with incomes less that $30K per year might be possible. Of course then the very wealthy pensioner getting $35K annually is out of luck and according to him, deservedly so since they are clearly living the lush life.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

There's the problem. I don't necessarily disagree, although the bureaucratic burden of implementing that will be very costly compared to the cap. But the even bigger problem is that by letting municipal pols determine the relief, if any, you are putting the foxes in the henhouse. They are exactly the wrong bunch to be determining that since it is in their self-interest to not do anything meaningful in order to rake in the maximum amount of revenue possible. The argument put forward by Mason last year on the topic is a good example. If memory serves he suggested that a bit of relief for property owners with incomes less that $30K per year might be possible. Of course then the very wealthy pensioner getting $35K annually is out of luck and according to him, deservedly so since they are clearly living the lush life.

Creating a relief scheme needn't be left to municipal councillors' machinations. Municipalities only exist as a matter of provincial legislation. There's no reason that a tax-relief regime couldn't be prescribed by provincial statute, to be administered by municipal governments. In fact, I have to wonder if that wasn't considered but discarded in favor of the simpler option of the cap.

And while the fox in the henhouse idiom is apt, councillors who formulate budgets and strike tax rates are at least accountable to voters every few years. If my own memory serves, HRM council did in fact cut tax rates at least once in the last decade (I thought maybe twice but would have to check) amidst the tide of revenue from rising assessments, so there's evidence they can be responsible. And on that note, it'll be fascinating to see what they'll do in 2022 when the skyrocketing values of the 2020 market really hit the assessment roll, particularly considering how hard municipal revenue has been hit by Covid.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

And while the fox in the henhouse idiom is apt, councillors who formulate budgets and strike tax rates are at least accountable to voters every few years. If my own memory serves, HRM council did in fact cut tax rates at least once in the last decade (I thought maybe twice but would have to check) amidst the tide of revenue from rising assessments, so there's evidence they can be responsible. And on that note, it'll be fascinating to see what they'll do in 2022 when the skyrocketing values of the 2020 market really hit the assessment roll, particularly considering how hard municipal revenue has been hit by Covid.

Yes, the ballooning value of the assessment roll has allowed HRM Council to reduce the tax rate slightly at least once that I recall and kept it fixed a couple of other times, all of which they trumpeted as evidence of their fiscal responsibility. Regardless of their actions regarding rates, most tax bills have continued to increase year over year. Of course, budgets have also ballooned as they spent like drunken sailors and allowed the high-priced bureaucracy bloat to reach new heights. The unsustainable police and fire budgets are perhaps the best examples, where you have to really be special to not make 6 figures in either of those agencies. But the many dozens of people in Communications and policy/support roles in City Hall don't come cheap either.

Thee next couple of years will be a potential bloodbath for taxpayers. HRM has chosen to not reduce spending in any meaningful way, as if the gravy train is still rolling ahead full speed. But while the roll may still grow in reflection of the 2-year lag in values, many of those properties will be vacant and many of the businesses shuttered. The tax accounts will be noncollectable. Homeowners may take a real beating on their tax bills as a result. The only good thing to come out of that may be that it could make voters finally start to pay attention to the actions of our spend-happy Council and finally throw them out in 2024.

[Corker]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Yes, the ballooning value of the assessment roll has allowed HRM Council to reduce the tax rate slightly at least once that I recall and kept it fixed a couple of other times, all of which they trumpeted as evidence of their fiscal responsibility. Regardless of their actions regarding rates, most tax bills have continued to increase year over year. Of course, budgets have also ballooned as they spent like drunken sailors and allowed the high-priced bureaucracy bloat to reach new heights. The unsustainable police and fire budgets are perhaps the best examples, where you have to really be special to not make 6 figures in either of those agencies. But the many dozens of people in Communications and policy/support roles in City Hall don't come cheap either.

Thee next couple of years will be a potential bloodbath for taxpayers. HRM has chosen to not reduce spending in any meaningful way, as if the gravy train is still rolling ahead full speed. But while the roll may still grow in reflection of the 2-year lag in values, many of those properties will be vacant and many of the businesses shuttered. The tax accounts will be noncollectable. Homeowners may take a real beating on their tax bills as a result. The only good thing to come out of that may be that it could make voters finally start to pay attention to the actions of our spend-happy Council and finally throw them out in 2024.

While there may be a general perception that HRM has been utilizing ballooning property assessments to hide tax increases and/or claim benevolency for lowering tax rates while still increasing tax bills, that is not really how it has been working in recent years. My understanding is that HRM’s budget deliberation process begins by reducing the general tax rate to reflect the increase in assessments. So if assessment values on average increased by 3% then the tax rate is reduced by 3% and the total tax revenue remains the same. Staff advise Council what shortfall that creates due to cost increases built into labour and other contractual agreements and to what extent a CPI based increase to the lowered tax rate will offset that shortfall. Council then reviews each department’s proposed budget and other initiatives to determine the final operating and capital budgets, with any increases debated relative to their impact on the lowered tax rate. It may be splitting hairs but the debate begins with prior year average tax bill as a baseline and moves to what increase is appropriate, rather than starting with the prior year rate/inflated assessment and whether to decrease.

Call me a nerd but I keep a spreadsheet with my tax bill information. In 17 years, HRM’s urban general tax rate has declined from 1.019% to 0.067%. There have been five years where the rate increased, two where the rate remained the same, and ten where the rate declined. The overall tax rate including the various other charges like transportation, education, fire protection and provincial rates, has decreased from 1.457% to 1.196%.

While individual properties may vary, my capped assessment has increased 83.9% while my tax bill has increased 51.0%, which is equivalent to 2.45% per year. By comparison, over the same time Halifax CPI has been 1.71% per year while NS Power’s consumption rate (I don’t have the base rates) has increased 3.64% per year.

We can argue whether Council's spending choices are good bad or ugly, but I would suggest that the budget and tax rate setting process is actually a good and appropriate one.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Corker

Call me a nerd but I keep a spreadsheet with my tax bill information.

Okay, you're a nerd. But I appreciate you tracking those data!

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Corker

While individual properties may vary, my capped assessment has increased 83.9% while my tax bill has increased 51.0%, which is equivalent to 2.45% per year. By comparison, over the same time Halifax CPI has been 1.71% per year while NS Power’s consumption rate (I don’t have the base rates) has increased 3.64% per year.

We can argue whether Council's spending choices are good bad or ugly, but I would suggest that the budget and tax rate setting process is actually a good and appropriate one.

That is very good information and it illustrates the spending problem within HRM. The argument about whether the budget and spending process is effective is one that falls down though in how it uses the existing baseline as its starting point. No business would run that way. While zero-based budgeting within the public sector is often merely a smokescreen, it does put pressure on the bureaucracy to at least justify maintaining the status quo. HRM management does not even bother with looking at that. It is carved in stone and the only debate becomes how much Council should let it grow. Given HRM's explosive population growth in recent times, this becomes a self-fulfilling exercise.

Councillors like Mason and Austin have gone on record as saying more spending is good and seem to see that as their job. The population/tax roll growth gives them money to spend, so they spend it. But that growth is not linear and does not always justify that spending. If you add 10% more taxpayers, you do not need 10% more fire captains, 10% more police cruisers, 10% more policy/support staff at city hall, etc. But that is what the HRM way of looking at budgets does. Those ever-more-expensive collective agreements with the major employee groups like police, fire and transit are not imposed from above. They are negotiated by staff and approved by Council.

While such agreements are never easy to change, it can be done if there is the will to do so and Council is willing to take a little heat. Those in particular have become very rich with no commensurate return in service quality or efficiency, which is why I consider them unsustainable. Having tax bills increase at a rate greater than CPI over the long term is further evidence that not only has HRM failed to gain any economies of scale from its growth but instead has used that growth to increase the scope and size of its bureaucracy with little regard for the taxpayer. When the gravy train derails, it will be a very ugly sight.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

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.

This is an important truth. Without delving into the details of this discussion (I find salient points on both sides), I strongly agree that we'd all be better off ultimately if less $ were squandered on endless unproductive bloat of the kind governments excel at.

[The Crow Whisperer]

Much of the property owning middle class bougies in HRM work for govt and academia, they only vote left: Lib or NDP or Green.
They hate capitalism, freedom, free speech, the United States and republicans, are resentful and jealous of anyone who have a little more pocket change than they do, and want to live in an authoritarian socialist country where the state owns the means of production.

[mleblanc]

Originally Posted by The Crow Whisperer

Much of the property owning middle class bougies in HRM work for govt and academia, they only vote left: Lib or NDP or Green.
They hate capitalism, freedom, free speech, the United States and republicans, are resentful and jealous of anyone who have a little more pocket change than they do, and want to live in an authoritarian socialist country where the state owns the means of production.

Woah. That was a lot to take in. What forum are we in again?

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by mleblanc

Woah. That was a lot to take in. What forum are we in again?

Twilight Zone, apparently. Just waiting for Rod Serling to chime in.

[The Crow Whisperer]

They need to stop spending on bike lanes and traffic calming.