Sound Off: How much are you willing to see property taxes increase.......

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Nancy

If they increase taxes by 10% next year, that will mean that my tax bill is 50% higher than it was four years ago. (I guess the Assessors at City Hall have us blacklisted or something.) Any way you cut it, that is obscene in my books.

Are your taxes 50% higher? Or your assessments 50% higher? The assessors just assess the value of your house, the tax rate is set by city council.

[Nancy]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

Are your taxes 50% higher? Or your assessments 50% higher? The assessors just assess the value of your house, the tax rate is set by city council.

My taxes for 2008 were about 40% higher than my taxes for 2005. Add another 10% next year makes it 50%.

My assessment for 2008 was almost 2.5 times my assessment for 2005. My neighbour's assessment has gone up only by 2 times. I wish I could tell you why.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Nancy

My taxes for 2008 where about 40% higher than my taxes for 2005. Add another 10% next year makes it 50%.

My assessment for 2008 was almost 2.5 times my assessment for 2005. My neighbour's assessment has gone up only by 2 times. I wish I could tell you why.

If things are that far apart you should really look to appeal your assessment?

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by Nancy

My taxes for 2008 where about 40% higher than my taxes for 2005. Add another 10% next year makes it 50%.

My assessment for 2008 was almost 2.5 times my assessment for 2005. My neighbour's assessment has gone up only by 2 times. I wish I could tell you why.

Probably because the value of you house has gone up over the past few years. Keep in mind it usually takes the assessors a few years to catch up to market values.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Nancy

My taxes for 2008 were about 40% higher than my taxes for 2005. Add another 10% next year makes it 50%.

My assessment for 2008 was almost 2.5 times my assessment for 2005. My neighbour's assessment has gone up only by 2 times. I wish I could tell you why.

Assessments are based on sales of similar properties. Unless your neighbor's house is very similar then the assessments will be different.

From the city website.

Residential properties (including condominiums) are categorized according to structure type (single family, duplex, high rise, etc.) and geographic region. They are valued using a direct sales comparison approach which analyzes the relationship between the sale price of the properties and the features of the properties. Assessors apply the results to all properties, sold or unsold.

Factors that affect market value include:

• property location (including nearness to green spaces, community services, access, views)
• total finished floor area of a home
• lot size
• basement or lower level of home development (finished floor, walls and ceiling)
• quality of home
• age of building
• existence and type of garage
• traffic influences and
• in the case of income producing properties, the income generated by that property

[Nancy]

Originally Posted by Slava

If things are that far apart you should really look to appeal your assessment?

I have tried appealing. The first time I appealed it and got it adjusted without having to appear. Next year, the assessment went way up again, but this time when I appealed they said I would have to appear before the board on a specific date. They sent me a bunch of "comparables" from my street, homes that were sold that were more or less the same size... but much nicer than ours. I think the problem is that their system is based around square footage and neighbourhood. When we built, we had the cheapest home in the neighbourhood. Anyway, I couldn't make the hearing date... also, the thought of having to do over and over again every single year is depressing.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

22% over five years, first year is 9% the following is about 6.5% in year two and three.

Please remember guys, the budget has to go to Council first before approval, so it's not a sure thing.

I must say you have impressed me over the last couple of days. You seem to have a wide range of knowledge in various areas of what is going on at city hall.

Perfect example was when you gave us a link to the survey an hour before it was released to the press. That was awesome. Kudos and thanks.

So I am wondering if you can give us some examples of what the city has done to reduce costs or where they have cut back spending?

[Nancy]

Originally Posted by fotze

I see the issue as "why does home value have any bearing on what you should owe to the city"? The only rationale is, because it is easy. There is no relation to your house's value to how much you burden the city. None. I believe that in this age of computers we could move to a more equitable measn of charging the citizens what they cost..
<SNIP>

I guess it's supposed to be a "progressive" tax like income tax... he who hath more pay more. The problem is twofold: 1) Income is pretty easy to document, whereas the assessment of a property involves quite a large subjective factor. 2) If someone has a high current income, it is not unreasonable to assume that they have the ability to pay higher taxes, but there are many cases where someone may live in a nice home but no longer has a lot of cash or income coming in.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by fotze

I see the issue as "why does home value have any bearing on what you should owe to the city"? The only rationale is, because it is easy. There is no relation to your house's value to how much you burden the city. None. I believe that in this age of computers we could move to a more equitable measn of charging the citizens what they cost.

It should be a function of:
A. How many people in your house - a number found in the census
B. How far you are from your work - From your T4 or tax return
C. How many automobiles you own - Easily found from registry databases
D. Your house value - If they want to cling to the old way
E. The amount of water and electricity you use
F. How much garbage do you generate - tougher but it possible
G. How many roads you require to be plowed divided by the citizens that travel there - If you are on a downtown thouroughfare then far more citizens benefit from the plowing than a cul de sac in Copperfiled (yes Kenn you)
H. How many police calls in your neighborhood
I. How many fire calls in your neighborhood.
J. How many pets in your house

and so on. All thing most readily available but I guess not as easy.

You nailed it. Taxes are attached to market value simply because it's a low cost alternative to what you are suggesting. Theoretically the market price is determined by many of the attributes that you list out. Why not use it as a basis for tax revenue?

While what you are suggesting is more fair and accurate for real costs, how much would it cost the city to gather and maintain that information, let alone collect taxes based on it? Probably too much to make it feasible.

Computers make it easier to arrange all this information. However, the cost to develop such a system and gather the information would be very high. And we have bridges to build damnit!

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by fotze

I see the issue as "why does home value have any bearing on what you should owe to the city"? The only rationale is, because it is easy. There is no relation to your house's value to how much you burden the city. None. I believe that in this age of computers we could move to a more equitable measn of charging the citizens what they cost.


and so on. All thing most readily available but I guess not as easy.

The premise for pretty much all taxes is you pay as much as the government thinks you can afford, not what costs or benefits are.

No government would do something like this - people might get crazy notions about having a say in how money is spent if they felt like they were paying for their services - or god forbid actually had a say.

Even though I'd pay through the nose thanks to a young family, I'd be all for it.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Thought this fit the thread:

Maybe the tax hike is not just a few starbucks less for everyone

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...2-27666f81ec68

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Thought this fit the thread:

Maybe the tax hike is not just a few starbucks less for everyone

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...2-27666f81ec68

I hate these articles. I wonder if this family is also subscribing to HD TV? Or putting mixed-grade or premium gas in the car? Or making unnecessary home purchases on their credit cards? Just because they're working hard doesn't mean they could be saving a few bucks. And to be honest, they should be closer to their goal of purchasing a home given that prices on the real estate market are now lower.

It's a nice sob story, but doesn't explain all the facts. Of course you can't fit all the facts into an article like this, but all I'm saying is take it with a grain of salt.

[Muta]

Let's just tax the oil and finance companies more. Their salaries need to come down, too, and then the rest of us won't have to face any tax increases ourselves. The end result is just a few less Ferraris on the road, nothing more.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I hate these articles. I wonder if this family is also subscribing to HD TV? Or putting mixed-grade or premium gas in the car? Or making unnecessary home purchases on their credit cards? Just because they're working hard doesn't mean they could be saving a few bucks. And to be honest, they should be closer to their goal of purchasing a home given that prices on the real estate market are now lower.

They probably think they should get luxuries like the occasional night out between 5 jobs before shelling out 22% more to the city too. Jerks.

Clearly its not the bloated adminstration that needs to be shaved, it's their spend happy lifestyle.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I must say you have impressed me over the last couple of days. You seem to have a wide range of knowledge in various areas of what is going on at city hall.

Perfect example was when you gave us a link to the survey an hour before it was released to the press. That was awesome. Kudos and thanks.

So I am wondering if you can give us some examples of what the city has done to reduce costs or where they have cut back spending?

Well thank you, you're a very polite person even after the spat in the other thread! haha...

I cannot give you examples of how the city is reducing costs, but that's only because it's November 2 - the budget has not been released yet. I personally do not know the actual numbers, I have to wait just like everybody else. However I can tell you that there are reasons for a justified increase - not the answer you are looking for, but that once the budget is released, people upset with the numbers will get their explanations. If not from guys like me (on message boards for example) then from the Mayor, aldermen, and other City officials.

As for the release of the City survey, well....It was supposed to be out earlier in the day, but there was a slight mix-up of who was supposed to inform the media about it. I didn't even know if it had been released or not, but I did know it was already posted for the public to see.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by fotze

I see the issue as "why does home value have any bearing on what you should owe to the city"? The only rationale is, because it is easy. There is no relation to your house's value to how much you burden the city. None.

I agree with it being the easy way, and disagree with there not being any relation to your home's value being a basis of comparison.

Can you imagine the costs involved in coming up with a complex formula to come up with taxes? Distance from work, who car pools, who uses transit... my god- that would require a new department just to keep track of all of that.

Garbage collection- they already impose a 5 bag limit per household. Yes, they could maybe do something like what Edmonton does and allow more on a pay-per basis.

As for the road plowing, come by my house in February for a beer and I'll show you how often they plow my cul-de-sac; assuming you can get your car over the ruts.

Water and electricity- that is already charged on a pay-per use basis. My Enmax bill goes up and down depending on how much of each I use.

The bottom line is part of living in any community is some people use services differently than others. Not every dollar collected from you will go to services you use, and that is just the way it is. What you are suggesting is the same as your family hiring a full time accountant to watch your family's finances because you think your wife spends too much at the mall. Sometimes breaking down the exact cost ends up costing you more.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Clearly its not the bloated adminstration that needs to be shaved, it's their spend happy lifestyle.

Twisting words. I said we don't know all the facts, not that they have a free-spending lifestyle.

Salaries and administration size are an issue, and that's a fact. Personal spending habits, well, we'll never know.

Also, blaming the City of Calgary for being expensive is a very narrow way to look at city living. It's the market that dictates most prices in this City. The CoC doesn't set prices on anything except for city services. THere are alot more factors that go into setting prices for groceries, rent, gas, etc.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

They probably think they should get luxuries like the occasional night out between 5 jobs before shelling out 22% more to the city too. Jerks.

Clearly its not the bloated adminstration that needs to be shaved, it's their spend happy lifestyle.

The thing is, they work 5 jobs combined between the two of them, and they still can barely make ends meet? How little are they getting paid?

Perhaps they should have done their research before moving to Calgary, as I'm sure there's cheaper places to live within Canada.

While another tax increase is the last thing we need right now, people need to learn how to work not just hard, but smart.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Muta

The thing is, they work 5 jobs combined between the two of them, and they still can barely make ends meet? How little are they getting paid?

Perhaps they should have done their research before moving to Calgary, as I'm sure there's cheaper places to live within Canada.

While another tax increase is the last thing we need right now, people need to learn how to work not just hard, but smart.

Novel idea. Fewer people, lower taxes. I'm sure it would work out that way.

Your right. We don't need'em. Tim hortons should be self serve anyway.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Novel idea. Fewer people, lower taxes. I'm sure it would work out that way.

Your right. We don't need'em. Tim hortons should be self serve anyway.

Nope. If they found it cheaper to live in Toronto, they maybe they should have stayed there, if money is their main issue?

And if money is their main issue, and Tim Horton's employees get paid more than caregivers / truck drivers / etc. do, then maybe they should consider working there? But I digress.