Preliminary 2007 City Tax Assessment

[ken0042]

Just watching Global News, and the city has put out preliminary numbers as to what is going to happen with our 2007 City taxes.

From what they have said we will pay about the same nxt year as we do this year. But some neighbourhoods will pay less. There's a link here: http://www.canada.com/globaltv/calgary/excel.xls

Now, mine goes down 13%; but why? Why do I pay less, but others pay as much as 17% more? I do see that because I'm in a new neighbourhood I now have more neighbours to pay our community's share of the taxes. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

[ken0042]

Am I the only one who has an opinion on this? (Or did I post it too close to game time last night.)

[Radically Red]

Nice to know that mine is going to go down 13% as well.

There is some formula that decides what we pay. Some way to keep it all balanced I think

[Eagle Eye]

The city looks at the average increase of home values over the last year. If your home increased the average amount ( I think it was 43%) then your tax increase will be zero. If you home increased less than 43% then your tax will decrease and the opposite for an increase

[Bertuzzied]

Crap! mine is going up 15%. I'll probably be paying like $400/month. Ugh!! Thats how much my mortgage payment was 5 years ago on my condo.

[Shazam]

Why do I pay less, but others pay as much as 17% more? I do see that because I'm in a new neighbourhood I now have more neighbours to pay our community's share of the taxes.

The way it works is that the City of Calgary sets a total taxation number for home property taxes - let's say $10 million, just for argument's sake. Then, they determine your home's market value. Then, they determine the average house's value. They then determine how far or below your house's value is versus average. If it's higher, your taxes go up. If it's lower, your taxes go down. If it's the same, your taxes stay the same (all of these values are actually within ranges).

The city considers this "fair" because it's a revenue neutral system (they don't collect more tax in total just because someone's individual's home value goes up), but it doesn't work on an individual level because there's still movement between the different classes of houses. But since that movement doesn't affect the total tax taken it, the city doesn't really care.

It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

No it doesn't, and unfortunately I don't think any of the Aldermen except for Craig Burrows seem to comprehend it.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Eagle Eye

The city looks at the average increase of home values over the last year. If your home increased the average amount ( I think it was 43%) then your tax increase will be zero. If you home increased less than 43% then your tax will decrease and the opposite for an increase

I understand the theory; but not the practicality of it. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I want to pay more taxes. It's just I would have been ticled pink to find a tax rate change below the cost of living for myself. Now I have reduction that is being paid for by others; possibly people on fixed incomes.

One thing I was reading is some cities in BC have an option for seniors where they can defer their taxes until they pass away; having the taxes paid by the estate. There's even a favourable interest rate (around 2%) on the back taxes. Just means the kids get less of an inherritance. For me, being in my 30's, I would welcome that if it menat my parents could keep their house longer; or that I didn't have to end up paying my parents' taxes for them.

[moncton golden flames]

This really bothers me. People living on the outskirts, requiring new roads and services, have a decrease in taxes, and myself, living inner city, have to make up the difference. My area has been serviced for about 50 yrs, but I have to pay so suburbanites can live farther from work, and strain our infrastructure? total BS.

[arsenal]

Booo mine went up 17% and I just moved in a few months ago...

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

This really bothers me. People living on the outskirts, requiring new roads and services, have a decrease in taxes, and myself, living inner city, have to make up the difference. My area has been serviced for about 50 yrs, but I have to pay so suburbanites can live farther from work, and strain our infrastructure? total BS.

Well the family of 4 living in a tiny condo on the outskirts that they paid $150k for moved there because it was affordable. The wealthy family of 4 lives in Crescent Heights overlooking downtown in their $4 million home because they love the view in their luxurious neighbourhood.

The government has decided that they will tax the people in the $4 million home on the $1 million piece of land at a higher rate than the $150K condo on about $20K worth of land. Just as they charge income tax on the guy living in the $4 million place at almost 50%, while the guy living in the $150K place probably pays more like 20%.

Its a fairly common trend that inner city land and properties are more valuable. Its just the way it works out.

[mykalberta]

+2% - 25 meters north +7% - sweet

And not all of Crescent Heights is 4 mil homes, I may walk by them up the 165 stairs from hell.

The one thing I have wondered is why are condo owners asked to pay a dispraportionate amount compared to home owners. I payed 1600 last year (860 Sq Feet), there are 15 suites per floor and 6 floors, = 90 suites at average 1500 - that is 135K on about 1/2-3/5 of a block + 8 buisnesses in front - also I am not in the beltline but in an area increasing +2%.

I know home owners are going to chime in on this, but does anyone actually know? I would expect the condo to have paid for an increased sewer when built so paying extra for it cant be the problem.

Just wondering - sorry to hijack.

MYK

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Well the family of 4 living in a tiny condo on the outskirts that they paid $150k for moved there because it was affordable. The wealthy family of 4 lives in Crescent Heights overlooking downtown in their $4 million home because they love the view in their luxurious neighbourhood.

The government has decided that they will tax the people in the $4 million home on the $1 million piece of land at a higher rate than the $150K condo on about $20K worth of land. Just as they charge income tax on the guy living in the $4 million place at almost 50%, while the guy living in the $150K place probably pays more like 20%.

Yes but not everyone that moves into the inner city lives in a $4M house.

That same family of 4 in your example could have made some sacrifices and moved into something more inner city but older (built in 1970-80 ish) house. But lured by brand new stuff and bigger houses they elected to move to the burbs where no firehall, school, and freeway access existed. Now Joe other guy who did make that sacrifice to move to a fully serviced older neighborhood has to pay more property taxes to build burb family their roads and firehall.

Admittedly the example works better with a 2 person household. I'm still amazed that the Beltline is getting hit with such a massive increase. So much for encouraging people to live closer to downtown...

[Tron_fdc]

WTF? 17% INCREASE?

What a pain in the ass!!

[Nufy]

2% increase here.

Not bad I guess....Considering some other places....

[Tron_fdc]

This kinda ****es me off. I live in Bankview, and the guy across the street is selling his house for $530k. Obviously it will get knocked down, and it's probably worth that, but the assessed tax value was $300k. I paid 450, and am getting taxed at exactly that amount.

So someone explain to me how that's fair? If I find out that I'm paying tax on $526, and numnuts across the street is at $351 when his place is worth more than mine I'm gonna burn down city hall.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

Yes but not everyone that moves into the inner city lives in a $4M house.

That same family of 4 in your example could have made some sacrifices and moved into something more inner city but older (built in 1970-80 ish) house. But lured by brand new stuff and bigger houses they elected to move to the burbs where no firehall, school, and freeway access existed. Now Joe other guy who did make that sacrifice to move to a fully serviced older neighborhood has to pay more property taxes to build burb family their roads and firehall.

Admittedly the example works better with a 2 person household. I'm still amazed that the Beltline is getting hit with such a massive increase. So much for encouraging people to live closer to downtown...

I definitely know what your saying, but not everyone can live downtown, and everyone should be provided with services. If our city had a stable population, no one would complain about this at all, because in 10 years everywhere would be an "established neighbourhood". The inner city neighbourhood you live in now was built on the backs of people paying tax in locations even more inner city than you, and they probably complained about it at the time too.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Should be noted that's a revenue neutral projection.

There will be a 5-10% hike in the revenue they actually take, maybe more.

[SinceDay1]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

This really bothers me. People living on the outskirts, requiring new roads and services, have a decrease in taxes, and myself, living inner city, have to make up the difference. My area has been serviced for about 50 yrs, but I have to pay so suburbanites can live farther from work, and strain our infrastructure? total BS.

Up front costs for new communities such as roads and sewers are bourne by the developer which are in turn passed onto the homeowner through the cost of their home and lot. We all bear the cost of construction of the major thoroughfares which access new subdivisions, but the city benefits as a whole from these capital projects. Lets not forget the that taxes paid by suburbanites also help cover the cost of maintaining and repairing aging inner city infrastructure.