Thanos
Active Member
Are you trying to imply that Toronto has the highest property tax?
And having a train pass by your little village does not mean you have a decent transit system.
|
|
|
Ottawa reclaims top spot in MoneySense's 5th annual "Canada's Best Places to Live"
- Thread starter Fresh Start
- Start date
Are you trying to imply that Toronto has the highest property tax?
And having a train pass by your little village does not mean you have a decent transit system.
taal
Senior Member
That's funny ... considering Toronto Toronto has the lowest property tax in the GTA (by a significant amount by the way) ... and likely one of the lowest in Canada.
Which is not a good thing by any stretch ... but that's a different story.
taal
Senior Member
The unemployment rate is pretty similar across the GTA ... Toronto likely has the highest at around 10% with surronding areas between 8-10%. Crime, well it depends what crime, and again this will probably be very similar (likely lower *serious* i.e. murder crime rates in Toronto proper actually). I don't even know what 'cultural' attractions are so I won't touch that ... anyway the problem with that is it's completely biased to the size of the area, for a small town it's church / mosque / what not, can be counted as a cultural attraction ...
The big differences, however, are growth rate / poverty / and income disparity.
T-Bor
Active Member
Must not have been the Moncton I visited. I was there last August as well and it was a thoroughly depressing place, though there were a few nice spots. To each their own, but I can hardly see how anyone can say there is more going on in Hali downtown than Moncton. It sure is becoming quite the hub of the maritimes though
Glen
Senior Member
Looking at October 2007 the city had an unemployment rate of 7.9%. The GTA (removing Toronto) had a rate of 5.6%. Toronto's rate was 41% higher.
taal
Senior Member
I stand corrected ... but let's stop and think about this ... I think this must be the case in nearly any large metroplatian area in the western world ... cities always have the highest poverty rates, as they have the most services and housing for such people ... these people are very much likely to be unemployed ... and part of them, actually looking for a job (what it takes to contribute to the unemployment figure).
So really, this should be taken to account - these are some of the reasons why I think you really need to look at a region as a whole - the poverty / unemployment in the city (at least that associated with poverty) is very much the responsibility of the entire region, not just the city which houses (and spends the most) on services for such people.
I'm sure there's other factors that can be used to compare the core city to its suburbs but this is much more complicated and not likely to be done in this half hearted reports. For example a detailed look at employment growth in the 416 vs 905 will show some of the problems even when factoring in the rest of the variables.
Things like income disparity though, again, the core city will suffer from this to much larger extents then the core ... and this is not something which the city is *at* fault for so to speek.
Fresh Start
Banned
Yes noob, property taxes are the major reason tenants will choose 905 over 416, with rates varying by as much as $14 per square foot. Over the term of a lease, this difference leads to substantial savings for the business, and unless this inequity is addressed, Toronto’s commercial decline will continue. It will become the new bedroom community for the suburban commercial tigers. High commercial property taxes send jobs and development to the 905 region contributing to urban sprawl and works at cross purposes with hub-and-spoke transit, such as GO and TTC, who bring people to and from Union Station (since there is NO job growth downtown anymore).
That is why those little villages are in a better position than most of Toronto right now. Here's more food for thought:
---
Municipal spending is out of control
Kevin Gaudet, Financial Post
http://www.jeffreyteam.com/blog/tor...toronto-has-highest-property-taxes-in-canada/
Even before Toronto announced its latest property tax hikes yesterday, Toronto took the dubious honour for having the highest property taxes in Canada, according to a detailed report issued by the city of Edmonton. Together with Ottawa, Brampton, Hamilton and London, Ontario municipalities take five of the top six spots on the list. This is something most homeowners in these cities know intuitively every time they pay their tax bill. Now they have it confirmed by an objective report that compared more than 30 municipalities across Canada.
Toronto ranked first with the highest taxes paid at $3,912, followed by Brampton at $3,826. Ottawa was third at $3,532; Hamilton and London were fifth and sixth at $3,305 and $3,078 respectively. St. John’s, Newfoundland, deserves credit for taking last place with the lowest average tax at $1,540, and Surrey, BC was second last at $1,814.
This sad but helpful property tax news is timely as city councils across Ontario prepare their budgets. As well, Premier McGuinty’s freeze on assessments for homes expired at the beginning of 2008. Not only will tax rates be going up, but for the first time in a few years homeowners will take a second hit if their home value reassessment shows an increase above the average increase. Assessment changes will take effect for 2009 property tax rates.
What is especially helpful about the Edmonton report is that it compares property taxes in a dollar value instead of as a percentage. Some mayors, like Toronto’s Mayor Miller, try to defend high property taxes by hiding behind what appears to be a lower rate than other cities. This is hiding because the average value of a home is high in Toronto so the total taxes paid for a Toronto homeowner are higher. When paying taxes one cares less about the rate paid or the details of the complicated formula used. Instead, one cares about how much money is being taken year over year. That is the only comparison relevant to a taxpayer, not whether the rate is 0.82 in one city versus 1.15 in another city.
The main reason for high and growing property taxes in Ontario is that municipal spending is out of control. Municipalities have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. While mayors continue to clamour for more and more money from many sources, their appetites for spending grow unchecked.
Data from Statistics Canada shows that municipal revenue across Ontario has been running at three times the rate of inflation. In 2006 municipal revenue was up 6.3% while inflation was only at 2.0%; in 2005 revenue was up 7.2% and inflation was only 2.2%. Despite Ontario municipal revenues ballooning from higher taxes, more transfers from other levels of government, higher user fees and new taxes in Toronto; mayors continue to complain that they don’t have enough.
It is interesting how mayors can work together cooperatively when it comes to demanding transfers from other levels of government or getting new taxing authority from the province. If that same energy were transferred to creating efficiencies and reducing costs, the report out of Edmonton might show a different – and welcome – conclusion.
fouronesix
Active Member
Two things freshstart. I don't think its reasonable to call someone a noob simply because they dare debate with you, especially when you failed to make a distinction between residential property tax rates (of which Toronto is amongst the lowest in the GTA) and commercial property tax rates (of which Toronto is amongst the highest in the GTA).
It was under previous administrations that the disparity between residential and commercial property tax rates was allowed to become so imbalanced; specifically, under the leadership of Mel Lastman, residential property taxes were frozen and therefore increased at a rate lower than inflation. The rvenue gap created by this measure was filled in part by commercial property taxes. Under Miller, the residential property tax rate has increased in order that the commercial property tax rate can be lowered, relatively speaking.
Secondly, a proportion of commercial property taxes go towards funding local school boards, and this proportion is set by the province. The proportion paid by commercial property owners in Toronto is higher than that paid by commercial property owners in other municipalities in the GTA.
As for the article, it is not surprising that average property tax receipts will be higher in an area with higher land values. To suggest that Toronto should lower tax rates so that the average property tax receipt is comparable with significantly smaller and less wealthy jurisdictions is absurd.
Furthermore, roughly 75 percent of Toronto's 8 billion dollar budget is for programs and services that are provincially mandated; the remaining 25 percent is 'discretionary' spending on the part of city hall. Maybe it can be argued that the revenue necessary for building and maintaining a large urban aglomeration can be supported on the back of property tax receipts alone, although this is debatable. Regardless, it is hard to argue that upper levels of government should not provide some revenue for the programs they mandate the city provide.
I eagerly await your brash reply!
It was under previous administrations that the disparity between residential and commercial property tax rates was allowed to become so imbalanced; specifically, under the leadership of Mel Lastman, residential property taxes were frozen and therefore increased at a rate lower than inflation. The rvenue gap created by this measure was filled in part by commercial property taxes. Under Miller, the residential property tax rate has increased in order that the commercial property tax rate can be lowered, relatively speaking.
Secondly, a proportion of commercial property taxes go towards funding local school boards, and this proportion is set by the province. The proportion paid by commercial property owners in Toronto is higher than that paid by commercial property owners in other municipalities in the GTA.
As for the article, it is not surprising that average property tax receipts will be higher in an area with higher land values. To suggest that Toronto should lower tax rates so that the average property tax receipt is comparable with significantly smaller and less wealthy jurisdictions is absurd.
Furthermore, roughly 75 percent of Toronto's 8 billion dollar budget is for programs and services that are provincially mandated; the remaining 25 percent is 'discretionary' spending on the part of city hall. Maybe it can be argued that the revenue necessary for building and maintaining a large urban aglomeration can be supported on the back of property tax receipts alone, although this is debatable. Regardless, it is hard to argue that upper levels of government should not provide some revenue for the programs they mandate the city provide.
I eagerly await your brash reply!
ssiguy2
Senior Member
These things mean NOTHING and I repeat NOTHING.
When you include small cities in a larger area and they great that's because you are picking and choosing.
Many of the cities that rank high are because they are well to do suburban cities. Take for example London which does well at overall 12th spot but if you were to splice it up into smaller sections like East London and Old North London would be number one ofn the list like Westmount or Rosedale.
Unless these figures are done by the CA or CMA they are useless.
When you include small cities in a larger area and they great that's because you are picking and choosing.
Many of the cities that rank high are because they are well to do suburban cities. Take for example London which does well at overall 12th spot but if you were to splice it up into smaller sections like East London and Old North London would be number one ofn the list like Westmount or Rosedale.
Unless these figures are done by the CA or CMA they are useless.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Arts and cultural activities are way more accessible in Ottawa than in Toronto. It doesn't matter how much stuff there is to do, if you can't afford to do it.
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
Disagree, though Ottawa is obviously head and shoulders above every other place in the top 10 when it comes to these sorts of things.
I suspect out difference in opinion might stem from our differing perspectives, though. Toronto really doesn't do much to bring any kind of arts or culture to its suburbs.
I suspect out difference in opinion might stem from our differing perspectives, though. Toronto really doesn't do much to bring any kind of arts or culture to its suburbs.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I dunno. I have seen far more "regular folk" attend a show at the NAC, then I have seen suburban Torontonians take in shows at the Four Seasons.
And I dunno if it has anything to do with bringing it to the suburbs. It's not like Ottawa hosts tons of cultural activities in Kanata or Orleans.
There's a lot more opportunity in Toronto. Shows come to the NAC but for short runs; way more to choose from in Toronto. I go to lots of shows at various Toronto theatres, and I see lots of "regular folk". I'm regular folk actually.
kettal
Banned
How do you quantify this? Do people show up at NAC unshaven, wearing a dirty flannel jacket, and a can of beer in hand?
kEiThZ
Superstar
Fair enough. Just my impression. It seems to me that most of the people I know in Ottawa patronize the NAC at least once or twice a year. By contrast most of the people I know in Toronto rarely attend artistic events. I dunno if that's quantifiable. Just personal observation. I do think prices are slightly cheaper in Ottawa though.