Just by those, it would be 11%, but I don't think you can do that because it is based on property value. Maybe a better measure would be operating budget for the past 3 years.
As someone who really wants Nenshi re-elected I hope the terrible wanting lower taxes makes you stupid arguments by psycnet and yeahbaby aren't used by his supporters. Its not what Nenshi says and it does not help anything.
Taking more money from increased taxes should be viewed as a privilege and honor to be entrusted by those in government and Nenshi does come across as someone who takes it very seriously.
With previous governments, Bronco, I wanted zero tax increases, because I didn't trust it would be spent wisely, didn't trust how they were spending. I may have believed the city needed more money to work with but the wrong folks were there. I happen to trust Nenshi with the money (not a fan of the city managers raise thing) so I don't mind some increases.
It wouldn't help if Nenshi is building trust by being really intelligent in his speech on how to spend money, but having a supporter telling people that they are morons for not wanting to write a blank cheque.
From my understanding and someone else can correct me, the day today operating budget for the city is the big concern and the big increase.
When that cost is increasing faster then the rate of inflation there's a problem and we've all seen that city hall isn't exactly frugal when it comes to its spending habits.
The constantly increasing property tax rates have to be openly debated, you can no longer have a politician at any level that just says, give us your money and we'll spend it wisely.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I dunno maybe someone who has had their life significantly impacted by the paltry amount we pay in municipal taxes can enlighten me.
Well 25% is pretty significant, low property taxes was one of the attractive things about living in Calgary. Pretty soon we will be like Ottawa where the taxes dwarf the mortgage payments. I bet you don't pay property taxes.
I dunno maybe someone who has had their life significantly impacted by the paltry amount we pay in municipal taxes can enlighten me.
If you have ever owned rental properties then City taxes can be a very big deal as to whether your property turns a profit every month or if you have to subsidize it based on the current rental market.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
If you have ever owned rental properties then City taxes can be a very big deal as to whether your property turns a profit every month or if you have to subsidize it based on the current rental market.
If you own condos, condo fees play a way bigger role than property taxes for me. BIG TIME!
Or yah know, he is catering to a group of voters who doesnt believe in Nenshi's style urbanism and density driven growth (its not just developers) in a city that isnt restrained by geography. But no, all those ideas that are different than Nenshi's are crazzzzzy and only idiots who didnt finish high school would vote for someone like that
If he's catering to those voters, then from an economic policy perspective, that actually is crazy. Just because we have room to grow out forever doesn't mean we should. The more we grow out, the less efficient we become. So to subsidize outward growth is idiotic. We pay for it right off the bat when we provide services to the developments that the developer levies don't fully cover, and then we pay for it over and over and over again in lifecycle costs. Having said that, low density is fine as long as the cost is passed to the users.
If you have ever owned rental properties then City taxes can be a very big deal as to whether your property turns a profit every month or if you have to subsidize it based on the current rental market.
Because Calgary's rental market hasn't been overinflated and overpriced for years regardless.
From my understanding and someone else can correct me, the day today operating budget for the city is the big concern and the big increase.
When that cost is increasing faster then the rate of inflation there's a problem and we've all seen that city hall isn't exactly frugal when it comes to its spending habits.
The constantly increasing property tax rates have to be openly debated, you can no longer have a politician at any level that just says, give us your money and we'll spend it wisely.
I'm not sure that is a fair assessment. The city has been growing like crazy and that growth requires services, especially expensive initial investment.
I'm not sure what sort of metric can be used to measure spending in times of rapid growth and high fluctuations in property values, but I don't think trying to compare growth of an operating budget and the rate of inflation is reasonable.
Unless there is some step in between the reference to the operating budget and the "cost is increasing faster then the rate of inflation" that wasn't spelled out or I missed.
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
When that cost is increasing faster then the rate of inflation there's a problem and we've all seen that city hall isn't exactly frugal when it comes to its spending habits.
People have understand that the inflation rate for governments is very different than the household inflation rate. At home we buy food, rent/mortgage, clothing, cars and fuel, heating fuel, furniture, etc. Governments buy a whole different set of products and their inflation rate is higher than the consumer price index.
If he's catering to those voters, then from an economic policy perspective, that actually is crazy. Just because we have room to grow out forever doesn't mean we should. The more we grow out, the less efficient we become. So to subsidize outward growth is idiotic. We pay for it right off the bat when we provide services to the developments that the developer levies don't fully cover, and then we pay for it over and over and over again in lifecycle costs. Having said that, low density is fine as long as the cost is passed to the users.
What? You mean construction and maintenance of new utilities, emergency services, schools, rec and roads to serve new areas isn't free? Poppycock!
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Teh_Bandwagoner For This Useful Post:
I just used you as an example. Just some of the arguments I have seen.
Have never liked the argument when an increase is made by making it sound like it should not matter to the person.
Plus I have never been known to use massive hyperbole.
To be fair most of what I'm hearing is crying from people who already have means (six figure income, own multiple properties, etc), when the reality is they represent a smaller percentage of the voter block.
Attempting to think like the majority is helpful during voting season, rather than insulating yourself.
