MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/calgary-c...tegy-1.5976003

This isn't the city spending 3.1 billion per year, this is the cost in general to implement all the measures. It also says all levels of government. Much of it will be spent by businesses and individuals to meet the targets. I'd imagine much of the city spending will be replacement costs, so instead of replacing an old diesel bus with another one, it would be the incremental cost of replacing it with natural gas or electric. Same with building heating and cooling, a lot of it would have been done anyway, this is just summing the costs. But it's an easy headline to divide by 28 and say that's what our direct tax dollars need to cover, even if it isn't remotely true.

Because everybody knows that a dollar today and a dollar 28 years from now are worth exactly the same!

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by chemgear

How is anything I said a lie?

I clearly stated this is my understanding of the initiative and that is based on what I've read. My understanding is property taxes go to operational income and non-operational comes from other funding sources.

If my understanding is incorrect or I have a fundamental misunderstanding of YYC budgeting and property taxes, please let me know (I genuinely would like to know, as I like knowing how the government works).

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

My understanding:

It'll be split three ways between the City, Provinces, and Federal levels - the city portion will come mostly from the non-operational spending; which will mean it won't affect property taxes.

Non-operational budget is mostly funded by the province and feds, so it's really just adjusting the priorities for that income stream.

It doesn't matter where it comes from, it is still taxpayer money one way or another. I'm all for working towards net zero but hopefully that money gets spent intelligenty.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

It doesn't matter where it comes from, it is still taxpayer money one way or another. I'm all for working towards net zero but hopefully that money gets spent intelligenty.

It's not, though. A lot of the "costs" are not just tax dollars being spent. Here's an example of what is proposed.

Spoiler!

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....umentId=209460

People should at minimum skim through the document to see what is actually being proposed.

[Bunk]

Re tax rates for the 4 year budget as talked about at Council yesterday:

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...box=1657198169

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

It doesn't matter where it comes from, it is still taxpayer money one way or another. I'm all for working towards net zero but hopefully that money gets spent intelligenty.

Yes it is tax money but that is why I specifically called out property tax. If the Fed's are giving the city money, I hope they have a plan for that money and spend it wisely with the goal of net zero.

What I don't want is what happened with the province and COVID support, where they refused to use it.

But it still shouldn't affect property taxes.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

How is anything I said a lie?

I clearly stated this is my understanding of the initiative and that is based on what I've read. My understanding is property taxes go to operational income and non-operational comes from other funding sources.

If my understanding is incorrect or I have a fundamental misunderstanding of YYC budgeting and property taxes, please let me know (I genuinely would like to know, as I like knowing how the government works).

Oh, nothing directed at you specifically or personally.

I just don't have any faith in their budgeting nor their competence.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Re tax rates for the 4 year budget as talked about at Council yesterday:

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...box=1657198169

The one thing we got early on in the game is an understanding of the assessed property value, meaning that we will probably generate enough in property taxes so that the portion of the budget that has to be covered by property taxes can be covered without an increase to your property tax rate,” said Gondek.

Is Godnek intentionally obtuse or does she not know how property taxes work?

No one cares what the actual mill rate is. Because taxes are tied to asset value which you don’t immediately benefit from holding a mill rate constant is not the same as holding an income tax rate constant.

It sounds like she is trying to make the argument that We arent increasing taxes we collect by 10% because property tax went up 10% and holding the mill rate constant. Instead the mill rate is just the ratio of city revenue from property tax and city budget from property tax.

Now what should be looked at is the did the city budget go up by pop growth plus inflation which is a revenue neutral budget and did the average property tax paid go up by just inflation. (Essentially the overall mix of low and higher value properties remained constant).

Every time Godnek has a quote about property taxes the less I believe she knows how they work.

[Locke]

Oh my God....Gondek used to work for Greyhound??

My God...what have we done?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

Oh my God....Gondek used to work for Greyhound??

My God...what have we done?

So you’re saying don’t vote for Locke if the opportunity presents itself?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So you’re saying don’t vote for Locke if the opportunity presents itself?

I mean...that should go without saying.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's not, though. A lot of the "costs" are not just tax dollars being spent. Here's an example of what is proposed.

Spoiler!

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....umentId=209460

People should at minimum skim through the document to see what is actually being proposed.

Whether those costs get built into property taxes or Calgarians pay them on their energy bills, transit fares, or house purchases doesn't really matter though, the amount of dollars is still very significant.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

I mean...that should go without saying.

I don’t know about that, at the very least the press conferences would be solid gold.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I don’t know about that, at the very least the press conferences would be solid gold.

Those would be so solid I could make them Pay-Per-View and shore up any budget deficits.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

Those would be so solid I could make them Pay-Per-View and shore up any budget deficits.

So the budgets would balance themselves?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So the budgets would balance themselves?

No...if I were in power then I would balance them.

They dont balance themselves. Thats just nonsense.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

No...if I were in power then I would balance them.

They dont balance themselves. Thats just nonsense.

I suppose that using press conference PPV revenue technically counts as you balancing them…but you’re walking a fine line Locke

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

Is Godnek intentionally obtuse or does she not know how property taxes work?

No one cares what the actual mill rate is. Because taxes are tied to asset value which you don’t immediately benefit from holding a mill rate constant is not the same as holding an income tax rate constant.

It sounds like she is trying to make the argument that We arent increasing taxes we collect by 10% because property tax went up 10% and holding the mill rate constant. Instead the mill rate is just the ratio of city revenue from property tax and city budget from property tax.

Now what should be looked at is the did the city budget go up by pop growth plus inflation which is a revenue neutral budget and did the average property tax paid go up by just inflation. (Essentially the overall mix of low and higher value properties remained constant).

Every time Godnek has a quote about property taxes the less I believe she knows how they work.

It's also possible she is trying to intentionally deceive the populace.

I'm not sure which is worse, but it does seem like either that or she has no idea how property taxes work are the only two possibilities here.

[Weitz]

She’s an ideologue that’s not winning a reelection.

Let’s just hope whoever runs against her has a bit of a brain.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by Locke

No...if I were in power then I would balance them.



They dont balance themselves. Thats just nonsense.

The city's budget is always in Surplus or balanced, they aren't allowed to run deficits.