More Calgary Tax/Utility Hikes

[codetrap]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
I don't think so... most of my utility costs are fees, my usage is low. If my utility bill was just based on usage, mine would be cheap as dirt. I spent big money on LED lights and power efficent appliances. However I pay more for sewage, garbage, recyling, riders, etc etc etc... simply because of where I live.

As for property tax... it should be per person. We all more or less equally use sewage, roads and transit. Why should a house with 10 people living in it pay 3000$ a year next to a house with 2 people living in it that also pays 3000$ a year? It makes no sense.


Yes I keep forgetting I'm the villan... I deserve to pay massive tax because I happen to have managed my finances well and own something nice. Not because I use more transit services, or because I hog all of the water, or produce massive amounts of garbage and sewage... but because somebody else is butt hurt.

What do you classify as low usage? I average around 750KwH/month in our house, and usually around 3-4GJ of Gas. Hence my utilities (Enmax) bill inluding power/water/gas/sewer/garbage is around $250/month on average.. winter is a bit higher, summer a bit lower. With my property Taxes being around $200/month for a 1700sq foot in County Hills... I have to wonder why you're paying twice as much as me, unless your "nice neighborhood" is well.... maybe a little too rich?

You don't understand eh? It makes perfect sense, you just don't like it. It's called PROPERTY TAX, not head tax, or user tax. It's a tax to own the property, has nothing to do what how many people live there. And you're still quoting sewage... that's a user fee, based on how much water you use. The more water you consume, the higher your sewage charge. Which sucks actually, because the VAST majority of my water usage in the summer doesn't go down the drain as urine. It's on my trees, grass, garden... but I still get charged sewage. As far as roads & transit? Property taxes are NOT the only source of income for the city, not even the primary one. Having more people in one home is actually more efficient. Less roads that have to be built. Less homes that have to be serviced, less infrastructure that has to be buried.

As it stands right now, it costs the city more to service a home than they take in. That's why "urban sprawl" is so bad. You should go over to that home and *thank* them for helping to keep your property taxes lower by living in a high density situation. I also don't think you're the villan. Being financially responsible isn't a bad thing. Nobody is taxing you because of that, well, other than income tax. But don't get butt hurt when you buy an expensive property and you get taxed accordingly.

[Feruk]

Real estate value continues to rise, all you home owners celebrate. Your property tax is just a percentage of your house value. Yet all you home owners freak out when your property tax goes up? There must be something I'm missing here because I don't consider many Beyonders to be retarded... If your house value goes up 10%, why wouldn't your taxes??

[Sugarphreak]

...

[rage2]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
I still don't understand this. MORE taxpayers (more people moving into the city) should mean MORE money, especially if the density of Calgary is going up (which it is).

If it's income tax, then yes. Because it's property tax, you have more people coming into the city, but not the same growth in properties, and you get less tax dollars to provide services. Slumlords get rich from ridiculous rent, and that goes towards province/federal taxes, not city. City loses.

[BrknFngrs]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
My place is 1800 square feet, we have LED and CFL lighting throughout, we use a plethora of power efficient appliances, and I hardly get my gigantic garbage or recycle bin more than 1/3 full... yet my Enmax and property tax for this month was 1096$.

Didn't it come up in another thread that the "1800 sqft" number is above grade in a bungalow? So the actual property size that you're heating and powering is close to double that....?

If you're agitated enough by property taxes, electricity costs, power costs, etc to make these threads all the time it might be worth considering downsizing or moving out of town. Seems like the stress reduction could add years to your life!

[ercchry]

Originally posted by rage2

If it's income tax, then yes. Because it's property tax, you have more people coming into the city, but not the same growth in properties, and you get less tax dollars to provide services. Slumlords get rich from ridiculous rent, and that goes towards province/federal taxes, not city. City loses.

slumlords still have to pay property taxes

[Sugarphreak]

...

[rage2]

Originally posted by ercchry
slumlords still have to pay property taxes

Yea, but those property taxes are paid vacant or not before the additional people came. There's no revenue growth for the city. With the halt on suburban development, there's no new property tax for the city in that direction either.

[ercchry]

Originally posted by rage2

Yea, but those property taxes are paid vacant or not before the additional people came. There's no revenue growth for the city. With the halt on suburban development, there's no new property tax for the city in that direction either.

so housing shortage? hrm... what happens to price when demand is high and supply is low... and as sugarphreak has so nicely brought attention to, high value=high taxes...

really when the city "boomed" in 04-07 the taxes collected by the city basically doubled

or did they drop the rate in those years?

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by rage2

Yea, but those property taxes are paid vacant or not before the additional people came. There's no revenue growth for the city. With the halt on suburban development, there's no new property tax for the city in that direction either.

So the tax system is broken? City should probably look into fixing that then rather than half assed stop gap measures

Originally posted by codetrap

As it stands right now, it costs the city more to service a home than they take in. That's why "urban sprawl" is so bad

Pretty sure Rage has debunked this myth time and again.

[n1zm0]

I pay property tax through my mortgage and it went up $50 or so all of a sudden, I guess this was the reason?

[jwslam]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
You: Hello there, I'd like to park my car
Parking Guy: Nice car, what is that, a Mercedes?
You: Yep, finally saved up for one! Took me a few years, but I worked hard and saved a little bit of my paycheck each time until I had enough!
Parking Guy: Ok, well parking is 78$
You: But everybody else is paying 15$
Parking Guy: Yeah, but you bought a nice car... so obviously you need to pay more... asshole. This is what you get for hogging all the car spaces with your car.
You: It is the same size as every other car, how am I....
Parking Guy: Whatever man, I don't have a nice car, do you see me driving a Mercedes? Why do you even need a Mercedes, obviously you need to pay more so people like me can pay less for parking
You: Uh... that makes no sense at all, and what is it to you if I drive a Mercedes?
Parking Guy: Pffff, you know what... why don't you take your car somewhere else. I wish all of you "nice car" assholes would take a hike and make parking more affordable for everybody else.
You: Um ok... but your lot will be less empty, and without premium clients to subsidize your poor ones you will be worse off
Parking Guy: *NA NA NA NA NA NA* I can't hear you...
You: Fuck this, I'm parking in Cochrane today

Technically that already is the case; that's a bad example. Your car costs you more in depreciation, it costs more when that asshole next to you dings it, it costs more to change your windshield when that stone chip hits and you need to replace it with one with rain sensors, ...

Opening a can of worms: better example would be if my new liver costs $50 and yours costs $200 even though we both are getting the same service (talking public health care). Where's the fat people tax for fat people who are prone to more illnesses? Where's the smoker tax (going directly towards health care, not per cig)?

[ercchry]

Originally posted by jwslam

Technically that already is the case; that's a bad example. Your car costs you more in depreciation, it costs more when that asshole next to you dings it, it costs more to change your windshield when that stone chip hits and you need to replace it with one with rain sensors, ...

Opening a can of worms: better example would be if my new liver costs $50 and yours costs $200 even though we both are getting the same service (talking public health care). Where's the fat people tax for fat people who are prone to more illnesses? Where's the smoker tax (going directly towards health care, not per cig)?

no its just bad all around. a car is already a luxury item to begin with. everyone needs shelter, everyone needs food. basic food, no taxes. "luxury" food, taxes. basic house, low taxes, luxury house, more taxes

[sputnik]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
I don't think so... my house has about 100 feet of frontage, and I use less of everything than your average single house with 25 feet. I am even putting down drout resistant grass so I don't have to water much.

Your water and sewer is already usage based. With the exception of the flat-rate houses in the city.

I was referring to the property tax bill being calculated based on frontage.

If you have a 100ft wide lot, you have 100ft of road, sidewalk, sewer, water and other infrastructure to be maintained by the city. Police, fire, libraries and other city services are often based on a sq/km measured catchment so a community of 100ft wide lots will need a police station or fire station to cover the same area that could be filled with 25 ft lots. Imagine if you are area was filled with condos. Sure you might need wider sewer and water pipes and perhaps another cop or two in the police station, but in reality the costs are not directly proportional to the number of people living in the area. Density is cheaper.

Additionally basing property tax bills on how valuable your house is or how many bedrooms you have is a pretty stupid calculation.

How is someone with a swimming pool, a double garage, a designer kitchen or a finished basement a greater burden to city services like snow clearing or libraries?

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
You: Hello there, I'd like to park my car
Parking Guy: Nice car, what is that, a Mercedes?
You: Yep, finally saved up for one! Took me a few years, but I worked hard and saved a little bit of my paycheck each time until I had enough!
Parking Guy: Ok, well parking is 78$
You: But everybody else is paying 15$
Parking Guy: Yeah, but you bought a nice car... so obviously you need to pay more... asshole. This is what you get for hogging all the car spaces with your car.
You: It is the same size as every other car, how am I....
Parking Guy: Whatever man, I don't have a nice car, do you see me driving a Mercedes? Why do you even need a Mercedes, obviously you need to pay more so people like me can pay less for parking
You: Uh... that makes no sense at all, and what is it to you if I drive a Mercedes?
Parking Guy: Pffff, you know what... why don't you take your car somewhere else. I wish all of you "nice car" assholes would take a hike and make parking more affordable for everybody else.
You: Um ok... but your lot will be less empty, and without premium clients to subsidize your poor ones you will be worse off
Parking Guy: *NA NA NA NA NA NA* I can't hear you...
You: Fuck this, I'm parking in Cochrane today

So if your car is four cars wide you should only be charged for one spot?

My argument is that property taxes should be charged the same way we pay for parking spots. If your house can fit into one "spot" you pay 1x the rate. If it needs four spots you pay 4x the rate.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[jwslam]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

My root point is that sometimes something like a house or a car is actually the result of careful financial planning... not an indication of excessive wealth. So it isn't fair just to start taxing people on what they own.

We already pay tax on our income, then again when we buy something in the form of GST. Our after tax assets should be left alone, we earned them.

If they want to collect money from people to pay for city services, I have no problem; but there are more fair ways to do it.

This

Originally posted by ercchry
everyone needs shelter, everyone needs food. basic food, no taxes. "luxury" food, taxes. basic house, low taxes, luxury house, more taxes

So how does one get charged for luxury recycling, luxury sewage...

[ercchry]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

My root point is that sometimes something like a house or a car is actually the result of careful financial planning... not an indication of excessive wealth. So it isn't fair just to start taxing people on what they own.

We already pay tax on our income, then again when we buy something in the form of GST. Our after tax assets should be left alone, we earned them.

If they want to collect money from people to pay for city services, I have no problem; but there are more fair ways to do it.

so now its "careful planning" eh?

i have no issues with the "pay to play" format... live in excess, pay in excess

[ercchry]

Originally posted by jwslam

This
So how does one get charged for luxury recycling, luxury sewage...

if there was demand for such product im sure you could find it

[schocker]

Look what you crazy guys have done now!
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/toll-roads...ears-1.1808801
efffff thatttttt

[kenny]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
So the tax system is broken? City should probably look into fixing that then rather than half assed stop gap measures

Pretty sure Rage has debunked this myth time and again.

Yes, tax system is broken and is one of the few things that Nenshi has constantly reiterated that I agree with haha. Too bad the Province is not allowing it or granting any new taxing powers.

WR plan is to help by sharing more provincial tax revenues but its something that is out of the City's control and could be taken away during budget pressures (balanced budget right?)