Admiral Beez
Superstar
http://www.thestar.com/article/474349
I hate seeing these seniors who bought their houses decades ago being forced out by high property taxes. It just doesn't seem fair to keep raising their taxes dramatically every year when they're not increasing their demand of city services.
Property taxes should be levied solely on the amount of municipal services used by that property, along with a percentage for general city upkeep of parks, police, sewers, etc.
Where the city should gain its funds on property should be in the transaction or sale of property. Now, if Grandma sells her bungalow in 2008 for $800,000 which she bought for $20,000 in 1947, she gets to pocket 100% of that $800,000 tax free (granted, the buyer has to pay city fees, but not the seller). This should change, so that those that benefit from the rocket increases in property values in some areas of the city pay more tax than someone who has property in a poor area. Thus, when Grandma sells her $800,000 house, she should pay MST (Miller Sales Tax) of 10% of the difference between what she paid in 1947 (indexed to today's inflation) and what she sold it for in 2008, to the city.
Essentially I'm advocating capital gains taxes on personal property transactions. This seems to be the only fair way to ensure that those who benefit from massive property value increases pay something to the city, while ensuring that those who do not themselves benefit from these value increases because either they have no plans to sell their home (such as the people in this article), or that live in poorer areas, are paying property taxes relative to the city services they use.
My wife frequently worries that one day the city will force us out of our Cabbagetown semi through punishing property taxes. Sure, we can afford them now, as we're middle class working people, and the total tax cost is about $4,000 a year, much less than my brother's house in Mississauga, for example. However, when I'm 65 years old, retired, living off my smallish company pension and shaky RSPs and my property taxes are $10,000 a year, how do I afford that? My demand on city services will be less in 30 years when my kids are gone, but I'll be expected to pay massive taxes based solely on the hypothetical resale of my home. That's why I say tax me if I sell it, but otherwise leave my taxes at the level simply to cover the services I use.
I hate seeing these seniors who bought their houses decades ago being forced out by high property taxes. It just doesn't seem fair to keep raising their taxes dramatically every year when they're not increasing their demand of city services.
Property taxes should be levied solely on the amount of municipal services used by that property, along with a percentage for general city upkeep of parks, police, sewers, etc.
Where the city should gain its funds on property should be in the transaction or sale of property. Now, if Grandma sells her bungalow in 2008 for $800,000 which she bought for $20,000 in 1947, she gets to pocket 100% of that $800,000 tax free (granted, the buyer has to pay city fees, but not the seller). This should change, so that those that benefit from the rocket increases in property values in some areas of the city pay more tax than someone who has property in a poor area. Thus, when Grandma sells her $800,000 house, she should pay MST (Miller Sales Tax) of 10% of the difference between what she paid in 1947 (indexed to today's inflation) and what she sold it for in 2008, to the city.
Essentially I'm advocating capital gains taxes on personal property transactions. This seems to be the only fair way to ensure that those who benefit from massive property value increases pay something to the city, while ensuring that those who do not themselves benefit from these value increases because either they have no plans to sell their home (such as the people in this article), or that live in poorer areas, are paying property taxes relative to the city services they use.
My wife frequently worries that one day the city will force us out of our Cabbagetown semi through punishing property taxes. Sure, we can afford them now, as we're middle class working people, and the total tax cost is about $4,000 a year, much less than my brother's house in Mississauga, for example. However, when I'm 65 years old, retired, living off my smallish company pension and shaky RSPs and my property taxes are $10,000 a year, how do I afford that? My demand on city services will be less in 30 years when my kids are gone, but I'll be expected to pay massive taxes based solely on the hypothetical resale of my home. That's why I say tax me if I sell it, but otherwise leave my taxes at the level simply to cover the services I use.
