[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Is this the bolded true? do you have a source for this?

It is true, quote with link below. There are specific grants for rural areas that nobody else is eligible to receive:

Weighted moving average enrolment determines the enrolment thresholds of the small rural schools eligible to receive this grant.

The block funding is based on enrolment, with different amounts for different student populations.

Alberta's K to 12 funding model recognizes the unique challenges rural jurisdictions face operating schools and delivering education services.

Source:https://www.alberta.ca/k-to-12-educa...ing-model.aspx

So because it costs more to deliver education rurally they get more money. I don't have any issue with that, it makes sense that everyone who lives in AB should get a good education - but everyone who lives in AB should also contribute equitably through taxes.

Also, because funding is based on a 3 year average population size, areas that are growing quickly (which is cities and suburban bedroom communities) have their funding partially based on old lower populations, while declining population rural areas have their funding partially based on older higher populations.

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

The social benefits of farming are negligible, I reckon we can tax them at their raw property value.

All jokes aside, the taxes are low if you sit on it and farm, but then again the margin of profit is low, if you sell the land or subdivide, the taxes are just as high as anything, infact often times much higher because when the land was purchased in the 60s it was worth a 1/4 of what it is now, so you need to pay taxes for the rate of increase. I wish farming was a get out of tax free card, but alas, no one is free from death or taxes.

Every other land use pays property tax on fair value except for farmers. Daycares, doctor's clinics, etc., all of which also have social benefits. It's objectively unfair that the provincial property tax burden falls disproportionately on residential uses and every other industry other than farms. There's no reason they shouldn't pay taxes on actual values like everybody else. The political power of farmers is the reason they don't.

As for capital gains taxes on price increases, every other industry pays that as well when assets change hands, so I'm not sure I see why that should exempt farmers from paying appropriate levels of property tax. And already the first $500k of farming capital gains is tax free. My sympathy for a couple who has to pay capital gains tax (at half of income tax rates) on their gains once they exceed a million dollars is limited. The homestead portion of a farm is also free from capital gains tax.