Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
Why should they? The land value is always a residual function of a Council-approved land-use (not potential land-use). It cannot be done any other way, because a different land-use is not assured or certain; it is an opposite of being certain by being expressly prohibited in the By-Law. Using crude analogies: we shouldn't charge every man with rape just because they have a penis and might rape someone with it. We shouldn't tax every family doctor based on how much income they CAN be making if they were a neurosurgeon.
As I said earlier, these threads are always developing in the same predictable direction: how can governments grab more money from businesses and the salaried middle class (note - not the rich; the rich just laugh at all this noise in their Barbudian and Antiguan tax-free mansions). Progressive federal and provincial taxation systems are flawed to the core and need to be replaced with flat tax + net worth tax + consumption tax. Similarly, municipal taxation system based on FMV is flawed to the core and should be replaced by a flat tax + user-fee based system. But that is a very different discussion.
|
I agree that best use taxation can be problematic though best zoned use might be reasonable. Essentially if you have a lot with a single SFH that is zoned to be subdivided is it unreasonable for you to pay more tax on that basis? I think it works better in residential than commercial.
I think the only question around the golf course taxation is why doesn’t location of the golf course matter in its assessed value and why can’t the unimproved land value supersede the calculated golf course value like it can for retail.
I like that you call people in the top 10-2% of earnings salaried middle class. We are not “middle class”. People like to think they are but people always underestimate their relative wealth.