Is anyone else sick of Rick Bell?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Slava

Most of this is simply irrelevant though. Sure some people get nothing back....the people who didn't pay in the first place. Anything above and beyond that is between them and their landlord.

I still don't get the logic of the argument that renters don't pay property tax.

Let's assume for a minute that property taxes were 10 times what they are now. Then let's assume that the city is giving back all that property tax back (for whatever reason). Would you still say that renters should get nothing back because they didn't pay anything in the first place? Of course you wouldn't.

Just because the numbers are smaller doesn't change the situation.

I don't see why the city considering different options to give back the money to residents is appalling. Giving the money back directly is problematic, for reasons explained above. Putting money into transit, or community revitalization, etc IS giving money back to taxpayers, obviously more indirectly. None of the options being talked about really fail to give the money back to taxpayers.

[jammies]

I'm not sure how keeping $52 million of "overcharged" tax money via a vote, and raising $52 million in increased taxes via a vote are different. Other than that if you refund the money, then change the tax rate to get it back again, it's extremely inefficient and actually costs the taxpayer more.

They legally have the power to keep the money once they take a vote. Which then makes it the city's money, not your money. Before that vote, it's not really anyone's money, and saying it's "yours" doesn't make it so.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I still don't get the logic of the argument that renters don't pay property tax.

Let's assume for a minute that property taxes were 10 times what they are now. Then let's assume that the city is giving back all that property tax back (for whatever reason). Would you still say that renters should get nothing back because they didn't pay anything in the first place? Of course you wouldn't.

Just because the numbers are smaller doesn't change the situation.

I don't see why the city considering different options to give back the money to residents is appalling. Giving the money back directly is problematic, for reasons explained above. Putting money into transit, or community revitalization, etc IS giving money back to taxpayers, obviously more indirectly. None of the options being talked about really fail to give the money back to taxpayers.

Its pretty straightforward though. Renters don't pay property taxes. They pay rent. If the owner fails to pay property taxes they face action by the city, end of story. Regardless of what you think on that issue though, the city would have no obligation to see that the returned funds flow through a landlord to a renter.

Giving the money back isn't problematic. Reduce taxes accordingly and voila, its done. My monthly tax amount changes a couple of times a year anyway, or at least it seems to depending on the budget and things like that. Clearly this could be easily factored in.

[_Q_]

Yeah, but looking at the sentiment here, putting it to a vote would probably result in the money being returned to tax payers. In fact, I would bet most people would vote to reduce taxes without thinking about the overall impact on the community.

What's right and what's popular are usually two different things.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Yeah, but looking at the sentiment here, putting it to a vote would probably result in the money being returned to tax payers. In fact, I would bet most people would vote to reduce taxes without thinking about the overall impact on the community.

What's right and what's popular are usually two different things.

Thats OK. You seem like you're smart and we're right, so we'll agree soon enough.

(God I hate those condescending sayings)

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by jammies

I'm not sure how keeping $52 million of "overcharged" tax money via a vote, and raising $52 million in increased taxes via a vote are different. Other than that if you refund the money, then change the tax rate to get it back again, it's extremely inefficient and actually costs the taxpayer more.

They legally have the power to keep the money once they take a vote. Which then makes it the city's money, not your money. Before that vote, it's not really anyone's money, and saying it's "yours" doesn't make it so.

Well considering that things like property taxes have doubled since 2003 (Was in the paper a couple of weeks back).

And other costs of living and support fees have grown exponentially in the same period of time. I don't think the city has a problem with adjust tax rates upwards.

Saying that the 52 million was for transit, then for flood repairs (covered by the province and feds). Makes the process seem a little bit dishonest.

Personally getting back $162 or whatever doesn't make a difference for me, but this city has become very expensive to live in, it seems like this city council and the last one haven't seen a dollar that they don't like to spend.

There is a squeezing happening with the lower to middle income people in the city.

I agree with the other poster, this city does not seem to know how to put together a proper capital budget, and they seem to be too eager to not disclose and say, trust us we know what we're doing.

Sell us on the 52 million dollars, don't continually change the story and I'm sure people would listen which is preferable to being told.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Slava

Giving the money back isn't problematic. Reduce taxes accordingly and voila, its done. My monthly tax amount changes a couple of times a year anyway, or at least it seems to depending on the budget and things like that. Clearly this could be easily factored in.

Giving it all back in future tax years can only lead to a situation where in 2014, everyone's taxes go way down to refund two years worth of the "overtax", then jumping back up again in 2015 because only one year of the "overtax" is being refunded that year (and every year in the future) - leading people to complain in 2015 that their taxes are jumping by 10% in that year.

Honestly, where the money came from and what we do with it isn't even the argument. The argument is ultimately, what do we want to fund? if you want something funded, it really doesn't matter whether it comes from a new fund that is created, or if it comes out of the regular taxes.

If council wants to fund transit and flood recovery costs, and is going to fund those things anyways by some means, then this whole debate is pointless anyway, as our taxes are going to be adjusted to fund those things, no matter what is done with this "$52 million per year".

The debate isn't about what to do with the money, it's about whether, going into the future, we want to have the same level of services, and pay less tax, or whether we want to pay the same amount of tax, and receive more services. Considering our infrastructure deficit, I cannot say that we should lower taxes (from rates that are already the lowest in Canada) so that we can fall further behind in building the infrastructure we need going forward.

[Bigtime]

Is anyone else sick of Myke Thomas?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Well considering that things like property taxes have doubled since 2003 (Was in the paper a couple of weeks back).

The total amount of dollars being brought in may have doubled, but that doesn't mean that every homeowners' bill has doubled. There's a lot more homeowners paying taxes now than there were 10 years ago.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

... The argument is ultimately, what do we want to fund?.. .

Absolutely not. This argument is based on a false premise. Using this logic, the Province should have kept the money. They, for sure could have found thousand ways of how to spend it, especially now with all the flood-related issues they are faced with. Why didn't they? They returned it to the City and, by their own admission, expected the City to refund it to the taxpayers.

The money is always needed and can always be spend well for a variety of good societal needs; but only on a going forward basis through the budgeting process and budget approval. The over-collection was not City's to begin with (it was Province's money) and not their to keep now.

[_Q_]

I would be more than thrilled if the $52 million was "returned" to the tax payer only to see our taxes increased by that same amount because of much needed infrastructure upgrades.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I would be more than thrilled if the $52 million was "returned" to the tax payer only to see our taxes increased by that same amount because of much needed infrastructure upgrades.

These two actions would not be connected. Municipal budget was not short of $52M. Present taxation level has been approved. Future taxation level will have to be approved.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Absolutely not. This argument is based on a false premise. Using this logic, the Province should have kept the money. They, for sure could have found thousand ways of how to spend it, especially now with all the flood-related issues they are faced with. Why didn't they? They returned it to the City and, by their own admission, expected the City to refund it to the taxpayers.

The money is always needed and can always be spend well for a variety of good societal needs; but only on a going forward basis through the budgeting process and budget approval. The over-collection was not City's to begin with (it was Province's money) and not their to keep now.

The money was given into the city's control before the floods, so no, the province could not have taken it to fund flood related issues. Your first sentence though, exactly describes what I was saying. The government decided what level of services they wanted to provide, they are answerable to taxpayers. The municipal government must do the same.

And again, there is no option in which the city isn't giving the money back to the taxpayers. The options are whether they give the money back directly, or whether they give it back indirectly.

[_Q_]

Yeah, ultimately, the entire budget comes from tax payer dollars. The Municipal government isn't really "stealing" from anyone. They take that money and provide services in return.

As You Need a Thneed said, that money will go back to the tax payers no matter what. If it goes into transit, it improves commute times for the entire city, whether you take transit or not. If it goes into community revitalization, then it improves park spaces, side walks, etc. If it goes back as a tax break, then, well.... you can spend the extra $10 per month on Tim Hortons.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The total amount of dollars being brought in may have doubled, but that doesn't mean that every homeowners' bill has doubled. There's a lot more homeowners paying taxes now than there were 10 years ago.

It was based on the average individual tax bill moving from about 8 hundred and some to about 1600 iirc

It wasn't a bulk tax dollar figure

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Yeah, ultimately, the entire budget comes from tax payer dollars. The Municipal government isn't really "stealing" from anyone. They take that money and provide services in return.

As You Need a Thneed said, that money will go back to the tax payers no matter what. If it goes into transit, it improves commute times for the entire city, whether you take transit or not. If it goes into community revitalization, then it improves park spaces, side walks, etc. If it goes back as a tax break, then, well.... you can spend the extra $10 per month on Tim Hortons.

Ah the old beer and popcorn argument where people in government believe that the taxpayers won't spend their money properly so why give them more.

Again, and you seem to either not understand or not want to understand. the 52 million dollars represents a over taxation, it was not part of the cities budget or the provinces budget it represents the government collecting more dollars then was defined as tax level.

So the province was basically saying, whoops too much this shouldn't have been collected give it back.

Let me ask you a question, I'm assuming you do your taxes every year. If you were entitled to a refund, because you either paid to much or had the proper deductions, wouldn't you be questioning things if the government said, yeah your due a refund, but dude, we really want to build a park, and we believe that if we gave you the money you'd blow it on porn anyways so we'll just take that from you.

This is not a tax reduction, it is actually money deemed returnable.

And the city doesn't seem to have a plan for it, they just want it, and the story shifts continually.

If they're going to take it find, but don't the people have a right to know what the specific plans are for it?

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Ah the old beer and popcorn argument where people in government believe that the taxpayers won't spend their money properly so why give them more.

Again, and you seem to either not understand or not want to understand. the 52 million dollars represents a over taxation, it was not part of the cities budget or the provinces budget it represents the government collecting more dollars then was defined as tax level.

So the province was basically saying, whoops too much this shouldn't have been collected give it back.

Let me ask you a question, I'm assuming you do your taxes every year. If you were entitled to a refund, because you either paid to much or had the proper deductions, wouldn't you be questioning things if the government said, yeah your due a refund, but dude, we really want to build a park, and we believe that if we gave you the money you'd blow it on porn anyways so we'll just take that from you.

This is not a tax reduction, it is actually money deemed returnable.

And the city doesn't seem to have a plan for it, they just want it, and the story shifts continually.

If they're going to take it find, but don't the people have a right to know what the specific plans are for it?

How is it an over taxation? Based on what? Why didn't they give it back directly to us rather than the city? I'm actually curious.

I do my taxes every year, yes, but getting money back because of contributions to RRSPs or whatever is a different story than one level of government not knowing what to do with my tax dollars and handing it off to another level of government. Isn't that what's happening? If not, what exactly happened and how were we "over-taxed"?

[redforever]

The main problem is the City of Calgary does not have a policy as to what to do when situations like this arise.

If a policy were in place, it would be cut and dry as to what to do with the $52 million.

It is also something that could be decided quite easily this upcoming municipal election.

[Stay Golden]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Ah the old beer and popcorn argument where people in government believe that the taxpayers won't spend their money properly so why give them more.

Again, and you seem to either not understand or not want to understand. the 52 million dollars represents a over taxation, it was not part of the cities budget or the provinces budget it represents the government collecting more dollars then was defined as tax level.

So the province was basically saying, whoops too much this shouldn't have been collected give it back.

Let me ask you a question, I'm assuming you do your taxes every year. If you were entitled to a refund, because you either paid to much or had the proper deductions, wouldn't you be questioning things if the government said, yeah your due a refund, but dude, we really want to build a park, and we believe that if we gave you the money you'd blow it on porn anyways so we'll just take that from you.

This is not a tax reduction, it is actually money deemed returnable.

And the city doesn't seem to have a plan for it, they just want it, and the story shifts continually.

If they're going to take it find, but don't the people have a right to know what the specific plans are for it?

Bingo!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by redforever

The main problem is the City of Calgary does not have a policy as to what to do when situations like this arise.

If a policy were in place, it would be cut and dry as to what to do with the $52 million.

It is also something that could be decided quite easily this upcoming municipal election.

You can bet this election will run around this whole issue, I doubt that the mayor will be toppled because of the standing habit that good candidates don't run against standing mayors.

While Nenshi did a good job during the flood, this whole money issue has been a disaster for him and he's come across badly.