Calgary Municipal Politics Thread

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Absolutely yes there is an education property tax. About 50% of your residential property tax is for this purpose.

http://www.education.alberta.ca/admin/funding/tax.aspx

Yeah, I know that. I guess it's semantics. It's not a municipal property tax in the sense that municipalities collect it for their purposes. They are the collector on behalf of the province. We don't really disagree.

[mykalberta]

I got the impression that if the city voted to raise municipal tax rate by 5%, that they only got 2.5% of that and the rest went to the province. Whatever that amount that goes to the province is called (education tax, wont someone think of the childrens tax), the City still has a very limited amount that they can raise their income levels if the province is continually taking 1/2 of all their increases.

The discussion I believe should be that the province should be funding education through their own taxes or a separate tax that is not hidden as a City tax and not try to hide them within property tax. If 50% of my $1500/year that I pay to the city goes to the province, then the city is only taxing me $750/year.

It also seems unfair that only property owners get charged this extra provincial tax, while renters who I am sure also send their children to school get their educations unfairly subsidized.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I got the impression that if the city voted to raise municipal tax rate by 5%, that they only got 2.5% of that and the rest went to the province. Whatever that amount that goes to the province is called (education tax, wont someone think of the childrens tax), the City still has a very limited amount that they can raise their income levels if the province is continually taking 1/2 of all their increases.

The discussion I believe should be that the province should be funding education through their own taxes or a separate tax that is not hidden as a City tax and not try to hide them within property tax. If 50% of my $1500/year that I pay to the city goes to the province, then the city is only taxing me $750/year.

It also seems unfair that only property owners get charged this extra provincial tax, while renters who I am sure also send their children to school get their educations unfairly subsidized.

If the city imposes a 5% tax increase, that's for municipal purposes only. Municipalities have no ability to impose taxes on behalf of the province for schools.

Regarding renters with children, I'd imagine that a landlord builds all costs into the rental rate, so indirectly renters with children in school would be paying.

And the school tax isn't really hidden as it's collected by municipalities but the school portion is identified separately. It will vary, but I'd think that the school tax should be around 25-35% or the total tax bill that you pay to city. Look at the bottom for the school portion.

[mykalberta]

So I assume the amount of education tax in Calgary would be the same as in Edmonton for comparable property values?

I will have to look into it more. I have it engrained in my mind that if the City raises property tax by 10%, then only 5% goes to the City.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

So I assume the amount of education tax in Calgary would be the same as in Edmonton for comparable property values?

I will have to look into it more. I have it engrained in my mind that if the City raises property tax by 10%, then only 5% goes to the City.

I don't know if school taxes are the same in both cities.

That second part is definitely not true. If Calgary raises taxes by 6%, for example, that's municipal only. It has nothing to do with school taxes, which are set by the province, which tells the municipalities what they are and they just get added onto the tax bill (but are separately shown as school taxes).

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

So I assume the amount of education tax in Calgary would be the same as in Edmonton for comparable property values?

According to the province, they equalize assessment across the province to ensure everyone pays school taxes "equally." For example, if one municipality has an assessment that is on average 95% of market value, their education mill rate will be a bit higher than a municipality that has an assessment that is an average of 100% of market value. By law assessments must be between 95% and 105% of market value. (Which is what you need to prove if you want to win at the assessment review board).

When I was researching this to respond to this post, it occured to me that assessments are only based on market value for residential and commercial property. Farm property is assessed at a value based on a formula the province sets. And the formula spits out values WAY BELOW market value. I've seen some that are 90% less than market value.

Which means that farmers are paying property tax on assessed values that are way too low. That's never bothered me before, since I only own property in Calgary, where there aren't many farms. And if a county has mostly farmers, and they all pay on low values, then it works out that everyone just pays a higher percentage of their value.

But since education taxes are drawn from across the province and used to pay for education all across the province, it means that low assessments of farmers drive up the rate for everyone.

Essentially, farmers are the ultimate parasite community tax wise.

http://www.woodlands.ab.ca/associati...x?p=assessment

http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta....rm_Land_MG.pdf

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I don't know if school taxes are the same in both cities.

That second part is definitely not true. If Calgary raises taxes by 6%, for example, that's municipal only. It has nothing to do with school taxes, which are set by the province, which tells the municipalities what they are and they just get added onto the tax bill (but are separately shown as school taxes).

I actually think the provincial education property taxes would be a great way for the province to free up fiscal room for the cities if it's going to download more responsibilities on them in the city charter talks.

As I mentioned above rural Alberta underpays comparatively, so this would be a "fair" way to transfer tax basis to the cities. (By reducing/eliminating the provincial portion and allowing the municipalities to pick up the slack)

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I actually think the provincial education property taxes would be a great way for the province to free up fiscal room for the cities if it's going to download more responsibilities on them in the city charter talks.

As I mentioned above rural Alberta underpays comparatively, so this would be a "fair" way to transfer tax basis to the cities. (By reducing/eliminating the provincial portion and allowing the municipalities to pick up the slack)

That's certainly one idea that's out there. That would bring in about $650m / yr to the City, which would give enough money for major capital projects like the SELRT in the near future.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I'll see your Fech; and raise you a Ben Christensen.

I'll see your Christensen and raise you an Artur "Crazy Street Preacher" Pawlowski.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

I'll see your Christensen and raise you an Artur "Crazy Street Preacher" Pawlowski.

I don't think that's possible. He's not allowed in City Hall

[Bunk]

One does not like to be boastful, but these kinds of numbers are pretty unheard of in politics. Annual citizen satisfaction survey results were also at an all-time high - so it's good to see most people think we're on the right track. Of course, still a lot of work to do, particularly on transportation, growth issues.

----
Nenshi riding high with 88 per cent approval; do you agree? (with poll)

By Richard Cuthbertson, Calgary Herald November 10, 2012 8:27 AM


Those looking to supplant Naheed Nenshi in next year's municipal election will face an uphill battle, with a new poll showing 88 per cent of Calgarians are satisfied with their mayor.

This is according to a Leger Marketing online poll of 433 Calgarians, which was conducted before Nenshi announced earlier this week he would run for re-election in 2013.

The poll also shows that a year out from vote day, 87 per cent say the mayor should be re-elected, including 51 per cent who "strongly agree."


Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...#ixzz2Bq4HBGBJ

[bizaro86]

Not to rain on the purple parade, but unprecedented probably isn't the right description. Bronconnier had an 84 percent approval rating in his first term, with 87 percent saying the city was on the right track.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/p...e.aspx?id=1638

Either way I still plan on voting for him again.