Quote:
Originally Posted by calf
I'm a little confused by the inner-city vs. suburb divide when it comes to the subsidy. I live in an established, but still quite suburban community. Removal of this subsidy only affects new builds (correct me if I'm wrong), so, why wouldn't I support someone that wants to shift some costs onto the consumer instead of the taxpayers?
Granted, I get how the inner-city finds the market-value system unfair (I do too...why are my taxes for a house in Tuscany more than a house in Falconridge that uses the same amount of infrastructure), but that doesn't seem to be what the issue is (at this point).
|
You're exactly right. The Mayor has NEVER framed it as inner-city vs. suburbs. It's
all existing (and future taxpayers/ratepayers) no matter where they live that end up picking up the tab of an inadequate developer levy (which pays for the initial outlay of capital) through their taxes and especially utility rates.
On market value assessment - it's supposed to be an approximation of the ability to pay. But if you're income is fixed (say you're a senior) and your property value skyrockets, you have to pay more even though your ability to pay if you want to stay in your home stays the same. This is why property tax is a terrible and regressive taxation system (you'll hear the Mayor say that a lot).