Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
Progressive taxation (or even a flat tax) results in the rich subsidizing the poor. Few people will argue that they shouldn't, the question is to what extent they should. That is outside the scope of this issue.
The seperate issue at play here is that urban subsidizes rural at the same wealth level. It is a lifestyle subsidy. GP_Matt's Grande Prairie example illustrates the point perfectly.
Cities are the economic drivers of the province. They also need certain things to stay prosperous. To underfund them is to jeopardize the health of the province's golden geese.
|
If I have a 500k house, I pay nearly 10x more property tax than someone who owns 500k worth of farmland. And it's much more efficient to deliver services to me in a city where I can share roads/hospitals/schools with a huge number of other people than it is in a rural area.
I don't have an issue with taxation by assessment, it's reasonable for the well off to pay more. I have an issue with taxation by assessment where one type of industry/lifestyle pays hugely less than everyone else.