City to raise property taxes by 10%?

[Ace]

Province Gives, City Takes

[ken0042]

Bottom line is my taxes aren't going up by this. The province is just taking less of the money from the city.

It doesn't really affect my bottom line.

[White Doors]

No, but it is still a tax grab by the City.
If he does this he better stop moaning and groaning about not having enough money.

How about 5% to the city and 5% rebate to us?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by White Doors

How about 5% to the city and 5% rebate to us?

But he's only taking 5%.

The other ~5% was already set out in our last round of tax increases that were sent out earlier.

[Resolute 14]

$25 million is not a great deal given the infrastructure deficit the city is facing. That money will pay for one interchange a year. Nevermind the desperately needed upgrades to city utilities, roads, mass transit and badly needed parks and facilities.

[Claeren]

Calgary has some of the lowest big city porperty taxes in Canada, no?


And property taxes do not match inflation like income taxes do.

-If you earn $50,000 this year, lets say you pay 50% tax or $25,000 in taxes.
-Then you get a big raise to $60,000 next year and taxes stay the same at 50%.
-You then pay 30,000 in taxes, or $5000 more then last year.
-(They would have to cut taxes by 8%, just to maintain the same absolute income tax penalty in this scenario!)

Compared to the city:
You have a house worth 500,000, and you pay say 20,000 in tax.
Next year your house is worth 600,000 but you still pay 20,000 in tax.


The two important things to think about in regards to city taxation IMHO:

1) The Provincial and Federal have left cities out to dry, at the best of times only offering them uncertain one time funding, and the only way left for cities to get big money is through property taxes, and even then the province traditionally takes ~%50!

2) The cities costs go up at least by the rate of inflation each year, and the cities own basket of costs usually even more so then regular inflation! So if they DIDN'T raise property taxes each year then (a) services would HAVE to be dropped and (b) a large one year increase would eventually take place as opposed to a few percent a year.


I believe i read somewhere a short while back that Calgary's municiple cost inflation for each of the past few years has been in excess of 4.5% (compounded annually obviously). So to just maintain fuding they would have to raise property taxes (and user fee's) by the same amount annually.

Claeren.

[snappyk]

I don't like how it was supposed to be 4.4% but now it's going to be 10%. I find it to be kind of underhanded the way they tried to sneak it through. Believe me, this does hurt me financially, I don't have "disposable" income anymore and unfortunately my wages aren't going up to keep up with the inflation either.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by snappyk

Believe me, this does hurt me financially

I'd really like to hear the explanation of that one. You do realize that if you were going to pay $1500 this year, you will still be paying $1500, right? The amount you are paying didn't go up.

[snappyk]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I'd really like to hear the explanation of that one. You do realize that if you were going to pay $1500 this year, you will still be paying $1500, right? The amount you are paying didn't go up.

Well, let's see here, I was sued for a large amount of money and now have to pay for a lawyer in a long drawn out fight which will more than likely cost me around $20000 to fight, is that a good enough explanation for you or would you like to know more of why I don't have enough money in my life?

[ken0042]

Snappy, my point is you are still paying the same amount. Would we all like to pay less taxes? Sure. It's just that the 2 levels of government are fataing around with how the money is distributed. Klein says he is putting money from the surplus into education; a provincial issue. He looks good by doing that. Bronco says he is putting more money into police; a city issue. He looks good doing that.

At the end of the day your taxes are still the same.

However if Klein said that he was sending $25M to Calgary for police, it would just kinda go into page 7 news.

The problem is people show it as a 10% increase; when it's really the 5% that was dicussed months ago. It sells newspapers and makes people watch newscasts; when all it is is the gov't shuffling the deck.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by ken0042

But he's only taking 5%.

The other ~5% was already set out in our last round of tax increases that were sent out earlier.

No, this is a sperate issue. The province is going to take 10% less education taxes from us btu Calgary is just going to increase their take by the same amount. It's a tax grab.

[White Doors]

"Compared to the city:
You have a house worth 500,000, and you pay say 20,000 in tax.
Next year your house is worth 600,000 but you still pay 20,000 in tax."

This is just flat our wrong. Your house gets assesed every year. You pay property tax based on what the city thinks your home is worth. If yout home goes up by 100k you had better believe that you are going to be paying more tax.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by White Doors

"Compared to the city:
You have a house worth 500,000, and you pay say 20,000 in tax.
Next year your house is worth 600,000 but you still pay 20,000 in tax."

This is just flat our wrong. Your house gets assesed every year. You pay property tax based on what the city thinks your home is worth. If yout home goes up by 100k you had better believe that you are going to be paying more tax.

Sorry in this case you are flat out wrong.

The city lowers the tax/"$value of home" to compensate for price appreciation in a notice sent out every January (a tax-neutral assessment).

Eg. 2005 Assessment $205,000 X Tax rate 0.00951 = $1,950 tax bill
2006 assessment $250,000 X Tax rate 0.00780 = $1,950 tax bill

(note: if your house appreciates faster than the city average then your tax bill on this tax-neutral assessment could certainly increase)

Next, the city calculates the tax increase and sends a second notice in May or June reflecting your actual bill.

eg. taxes increase by 4.4%
New tax rate = 0.00780 x 1.044 = 0.00814
Therefore 2006 tax bill = $250,000 x 0.00814 = $2,035.80

For all the outraged comments I hear about taxes (both personal and property) I am amazed at how often the perceived problem does not actually exist.

~bug

[White Doors]

If your house appreciates at a slower rate you do get a lower tax rate, but will end up payign about the same amount of taxes when you combine it with your new appreciated home value. However, if your howm appreciates at the average or above average rate then you are paying more. This is the way it is for the vast majority of people. Generally speaking, if your house appreciates, you pay more property tax.

fact.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by fotze

For people who are outraged about other people's outrage over paying more taxes, I've always wondered why they don't just add an extra $75 to the check they send in to the city. Hey, it's only $75 and I'm sure the city would take it.

It's not that I couldn't find something to use $75 on........ (I think there's a mom joke in there somewhere.)

It's just that the media is showing this as a 10% tax increase. The CFCN article that this thread is based upon really skates around the issue of the fact that what you were told you would pay in March is not going up. This morning on Global they were talking about how this increase might force low income people out of their homes.

Would I like to pay less? Sure. But would I rather pay the same and see an increased police presence?

[ken0042]

Oh, sure! Cloud the issue with facts!



However, I would say the fact that Mount Royal residents may (or may not) be paying less that their full share is a different matter that the sensationalization of this story.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by fotze

For people who are outraged about other people's outrage over paying more taxes, I've always wondered why they don't just add an extra $75 to the check they send in to the city. Hey, it's only $75 and I'm sure the city would take it.

The city should do a poll asking who would like the 5% rollback. Those who don't mind the taxes staying the same just pay the extra $75 dollars every year. Everyone's happy then.

Trust me, few kick or scream about taxes better than I do.

However, it is best to kick and scream about what you are really taxed upon, and not what you imagine you are taxed upon.


THe education tax refund to the city is a whole other topic (admittedly what this thread is actually supposed to be about)

Originally Posted by fotze

Another thing is those assessments are completely wrong in some areas, which is why I am opposed to the city milking more out of us.

Check out this one in Mount Royal:

I agree, market value assesments are a long way from perfect, there is no question.

However, do the people in Mount Royal receive 2 - 3 times the city services than I do in Mckenzietowne?

Or should they pay more taxes just because they can afford to?

Also remember that the sale price will impact the property's assement for the following tax year as well as raising the assesments for the surrounding properties.

A more productive discussion would provide better alternatives to the current tax scenario rather than dwell on perceived tax imbalances which existed under previous scenarios as well.

Originally Posted by White Doors

fact

Link?

If your home appreciates at the city average rate, your tax-neutral assessment will not change.

Your tax will only be increased if council raises the tax rate.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by ken0042

The problem is people show it as a 10% increase; when it's really the 5% that was dicussed months ago. It sells newspapers and makes people watch newscasts; when all it is is the gov't shuffling the deck.

The problem is that 5% increases are so commonplace that council doesn't sneeze at an extra 5%.

A herald editorial on the weekend nailed this issue: the city plays a shell game with finances. City revenue has grown 82 per cent since 1996. Population 24.65 per cent (from the article)

The 'cry poor' routine is a load of hooey.

When council plans on 5% tax hikes every year - on top of extra development fees, on top of user fees, on top of huge money from the feds and province - there's a spending problem.

Still, had they simply spent the money to offset next years planned tax increases I would have been fine. Instead they found new projects that weren't important enough to make the 3 year plan and they'll still hike taxes next year.

[White Doors]

Guys,

No one's property taxes will go UP because of this. The point is, the Alberta government is lowering the tax on prepertied for education. Instead of that savings being passed on, the City is going to take it. While it won't increase your taxes, it is still a tax grab.

People SHOULD be questioning this.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by White Doors

While it won't increase your taxes, it is still a tax grab.

People SHOULD be questioning this.

Very well said.

The difference is I questioned it and then dismissed it. Which is my perogative. And I don't have a problem with people like you questioning it; as long as they understand what it is they are questioning. It's not a matter of our bills going up; it's a question of if you think the city is spending our money wisely.

The funny thing is; when the Ralph Bucks came out; many people said that the $400 could be better spent on things we need; rather than a handout. Now that we are talking about a $25 per person rebate; people are up in arms about it.

Granted in this case it's a per household thing; so $75 per household. But it's still less than what we were getting from Uncle Ralph.