# Property Taxes skyrocketing... For what reason???



## kork (Jun 9, 2012)

Okay, someone help me out here.

We live in Ontario in the GTA. Our home is assessed at $400k and it's not much of a home. It's 1200 square feet and 60 years old. The kicker? We're paying $5200 a year in property taxes. 2 years ago, our home way assessed at $336k and we were paying $4400/year. Over the next 2 years (by 2020), our property taxes will jump up to $6k a year with the phased in MPAC assessment.

And it pisses me off for one reason. It doesn't pass the "sniff test." 

While city council dances back and forth between a 2.5 and 3% property tax increase this year (which it is every year) I'm looking over at the MPAC assessment saying "uhhh, this new arbitrary number is going to push increases into the double digits!" 

If MPAC's assessment is increasing taxes double digits, should a municipal tax not decrease so that the increase averages out? I don't mind my property taxes going up, but double digits every year is ridiculous! I could sell my place and then move to another place, but all the other taxes have gone up too!

It seems like it's just a filthy money grab. Why are more people not enraged by this??? Our home is 1200 square feet and between heat/hydro/property taxes, etc we're over $1000/month!


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Well, when you keep asking the government to give you things the money has to come from somewhere. Municipal governments aren't allowed to borrow money, so everything has to be paid. Imagine if the provincial and federal government couldn't borrow money and you had to actually pay instead of their borrowing from your kids. 

To get some idea, divide the deficit by the population and see how much more you should be paying every year. Then you'll understand why some of us hate it when people get bribed by the elected government...


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

Uh, municipal governments in Ontarion can and do borrow. I believe they can't run a deficit for operating budgets but borrow for capital projects. They then have to build debt repayment into future operating budgets.
City of Toronto owes 3- 3.5 billion IIRC.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Sorry, I meant deficits (I was thinking borrowing to balance the budgets and cover up how much they are really spending). You are correct about the borrowing for capital projects.


----------



## fireseeker (Jul 24, 2017)

kork said:


> It seems like it's just a filthy money grab.


Two thoughts:
1) Politicians can't put tax money right into their pockets. So where is this money grab going? Your municipality is getting it, and using it pay for policing, swimming pools, garbage pickup, etc. If you think your police are overpaid or that there are too many swimming pools, then maybe that's what you should be complaining about.
2) You say nothing about whether you think your assessment is accurate. I'm going to guess that it is, given you say it's $400K and it's a house and it's in the GTA. That's pretty modest for a GTA house. If you've been accurately assessed as compared with your neighbours, then the only issue is overall municipal spending.
This is an older link, from 2014, but it may give you a sense of how your particular municipality lines up with others in the GTA:
http://www.torontomarkhamrealestate.com/property-tax-rate-gta


----------



## kork (Jun 9, 2012)

fireseeker said:


> Two thoughts:
> 1) Politicians can't put tax money right into their pockets. So where is this money grab going? Your municipality is getting it, and using it pay for policing, swimming pools, garbage pickup, etc. If you think your police are overpaid or that there are too many swimming pools, then maybe that's what you should be complaining about.
> 2) You say nothing about whether you think your assessment is accurate. I'm going to guess that it is, given you say it's $400K and it's a house and it's in the GTA. That's pretty modest for a GTA house. If you've been accurately assessed as compared with your neighbours, then the only issue is overall municipal spending.
> This is an older link, from 2014, but it may give you a sense of how your particular municipality lines up with others in the GTA:
> http://www.torontomarkhamrealestate.com/property-tax-rate-gta


It's more a question of "did everyone's assessment go up" and "if my taxes are going up double digits each year, is it the same for all other residents of Ontario?"

I believe that my home's value has gone up only because of everyone else's property going up, not because I've done something. It seems like a windfall of $$$ for the gov't.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

kork said:


> Okay, someone help me out here.
> 
> We live in Ontario in the GTA. Our home is assessed at $400k and it's not much of a home. It's 1200 square feet and 60 years old. The kicker? We're paying $5200 a year in property taxes. 2 years ago, our home way assessed at $336k and we were paying $4400/year. Over the next 2 years (by 2020), our property taxes will jump up to $6k a year with the phased in MPAC assessment.
> 
> ...


I think when MPAC assessment is phased in, that the overall *average *tax bill remains constant by the associated adjustment of the mill rate. It's designed to be a wash for the average homeowner. Fortunately for some, their taxes will go down and unfortunately for others their taxes will go up more than the majority of homes who will suffer no appreciable change. The theory is that overall, the city isn't gouging, but a few may indeed suffer. This happens when a particular area appreciates greater than the average.

You can compare your property to other property assessments to see if it's unfair and you are able to file an appeal if you think you have a case.

ltr


----------



## Big Kahuna (Apr 30, 2018)

like_to_retire said:


> I think when MPAC assessment is phased in, that the overall *average *tax bill remains constant by the associated adjustment of the mill rate. It's designed to be a wash for the average homeowner. Fortunately for some, their taxes will go down and unfortunately for others their taxes will go up more than the majority of homes who will suffer no appreciable change. The theory is that overall, the city isn't gouging, but a few may indeed suffer. This happens when a particular area appreciates greater than the average.
> 
> You can compare your property to other property assessments to see if it's unfair and you are able to file an appeal if you think you have a case.
> 
> ltr


Yes-MCAP values are notoriously inaccurate-it is quite likely the assessment could be reduced after an appeal if it is shown to be unreasonable after looking at comparables in the neighbourhood.


----------



## kork (Jun 9, 2012)

like_to_retire said:


> I think when MPAC assessment is phased in, that the overall *average *tax bill remains constant by the associated adjustment of the mill rate. It's designed to be a wash for the average homeowner. Fortunately for some, their taxes will go down and unfortunately for others their taxes will go up more than the majority of homes who will suffer no appreciable change. The theory is that overall, the city isn't gouging, but a few may indeed suffer. This happens when a particular area appreciates greater than the average.
> 
> You can compare your property to other property assessments to see if it's unfair and you are able to file an appeal if you think you have a case.
> 
> ltr


But nothing in our city has gone down. From my understanding, every home has skyrocketed in value at around the same level our has. Nobody has sen their taxes go down...


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

The only way you will see a higher than average assessment is if you have been getting off easily for a few years. It should all average out over a long period.


----------



## fireseeker (Jul 24, 2017)

kork said:


> But nothing in our city has gone down. From my understanding, every home has skyrocketed in value at around the same level our has. Nobody has sen their taxes go down...


It sounds like you are confusing your house's assessed value with your property tax bill. They are not the same and they don't necessarily move together -- sometimes not even in the same direction.
Yes, GTA house values have skyrocketed, everywhere. They have skyrocketed for old houses and for new houses, for basic houses and for luxury houses, for condos and for single-family homes. 
The question is, is your tax owed going up by more than the rough rate of inflation. You mentioned earlier a 3% tax increase, which would be roughly flat in real terms (taking into account inflation). 
Don't immediately assume because council says taxes are going up by 3% and you see MPAC says your home is worth 20% more than three years ago that your tax bill is going up by double figures. It almost certainly isn't. As LTR pointed out, the mill rate is usually adjusted so the effect on an average-priced home is neutral.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

When buying a home you do not want to buy a home in a city where there is a lot of renters. Politicians will stick it to the home owners & landlords in such locations & not the renters to get the votes. Someone has to pay for all the social programs. When interest rates rise property taxes will rise to pay the higher interest on the debt. City workers get paid for zero work on stat holidays plus how many retired city workers for every employed worker ?


----------



## kork (Jun 9, 2012)

fireseeker said:


> It sounds like you are confusing your house's assessed value with your property tax bill. They are not the same and they don't necessarily move together -- sometimes not even in the same direction.
> Yes, GTA house values have skyrocketed, everywhere. They have skyrocketed for old houses and for new houses, for basic houses and for luxury houses, for condos and for single-family homes.
> The question is, is your tax owed going up by more than the rough rate of inflation. You mentioned earlier a 3% tax increase, which would be roughly flat in real terms (taking into account inflation).
> Don't immediately assume because council says taxes are going up by 3% and you see MPAC says your home is worth 20% more than three years ago that your tax bill is going up by double figures. It almost certainly isn't. As LTR pointed out, the mill rate is usually adjusted so the effect on an average-priced home is neutral.


That's what I was told by the city a couple years ago when I inquired. Mil rate should be adjusted to account for the increase in MPAC assessment to level out. However, that's not been the case... We bought our home 7 years ago and have the assessed value was for the purchase price. It's gone up yearly since then and then from 2016-2020 has nearly doubled in value (in 4 years, between 2016 and 2020 the taxes will have increased nearly 45%).


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

kork said:


> That's what I was told by the city a couple years ago when I inquired. Mil rate should be adjusted to account for the increase in MPAC assessment to level out. However, that's not been the case... We bought our home 7 years ago and have the assessed value was for the purchase price. It's gone up yearly since then and then from 2016-2020 has nearly doubled in value (in 4 years, between 2016 and 2020 the taxes will have increased nearly 45%).


Are you disputing the assessment then? Have the actual sell market values in your area actually gone up that amount? If not, you have grounds for an appeal. If so, then you have to accept you made a good investment.

ltr


----------



## kork (Jun 9, 2012)

like_to_retire said:


> Are you disputing the assessment then? Have the actual sell market values in your area actually gone up that amount? If not, you have grounds for an appeal. If so, then you have to accept you made a good investment.
> 
> ltr


Yes, the amounts have all gone up. I'm not the only one who's value has gone up. They've all gone up about the same. But everyone's property taxes have gone up the same (from what I understand). Doesn't that create a huge surplus of money at the city level?

If my home went up in value and nobody else's because it's awesome, then, like you said, great investment. However, if everyone is going up at the same rate... then I don't get it? Should it not be a yin and yang type balance? For example, my home goes up, hurray! good investment. But for mine to go up, someone else's should go down if the taxes level out, no?


----------



## qatest (Mar 23, 2018)

Hi, This is just a test! please disregard! thank you!


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

kork said:


> Yes, the amounts have all gone up. I'm not the only one who's value has gone up. They've all gone up about the same. But everyone's property taxes have gone up the same (from what I understand). Doesn't that create a huge surplus of money at the city level?
> 
> If my home went up in value and nobody else's because it's awesome, then, like you said, great investment. However, if everyone is going up at the same rate... then I don't get it? Should it not be a yin and yang type balance? For example, my home goes up, hurray! good investment. But for mine to go up, someone else's should go down if the taxes level out, no?


That balance is the way it's suppose to work. They do their assessments and then look at the average and adjust the mill rate and voila the city drags in the same overall tax from its citizens. But, like we said, not everyone is at the average, so yes it's a yin and yang. Some peoples taxes go down and some go up. The city doesn't just magically end up with a windfall.

You're annoyed because you're one of the people who basically had an incorrect assessment for many years. The whole MPAC thing is trying to correct that. You have basically underpaid for many years and now you'll pay more for the correctly assessed home.

ltr


----------



## kork (Jun 9, 2012)

like_to_retire said:


> That balance is the way it's suppose to work. They do their assessments and then look at the average and adjust the mill rate and voila the city drags in the same overall tax from its citizens. But, like we said, not everyone is at the average, so yes it's a yin and yang. Some peoples taxes go down and some go up. The city doesn't just magically end up with a windfall.
> 
> You're annoyed because you're one of the people who basically had an incorrect assessment for many years. The whole MPAC thing is trying to correct that. You have basically underpaid for many years and now you'll pay more for the correctly assessed home.
> 
> ltr


I don't understand how I could have an incorrect assessment. The house was listed for sale and we bought it at list price. I suppose we could have underpaid for it back then, but I don't think so? We bought it the day it hit the market and was a dual offer. Our home is assessed right at the same mark for every other average home bought for the price in our area. Bought a house in 2011 for $300k? It's now worth almost $500k and same with the rest of the city. Some higher, some lower... We're right in the middle but have seen a meteoric increase in taxes. Oh well, I'm looking to do the re-assessment with MPAC to try to find some relief.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

kork said:


> Oh well, I'm looking to do the re-assessment with MPAC to try to find some relief.


It does appear that something is not right for sure. You're smart to get a re-assessment with MPAC.

It will be interesting to see how that works out for you.

Hopefully, you check back and apprise us of the results.

ltr


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Ontario is looking @ adding another stat holiday. Holiday (Holyday) the church to become popular used to issue holy days throughout the year @ one time was up to 150. The government seams to be following their lead making it look like they are giving everyone something for nothing though someone has to pay the piper for stat holiday pay that produces nothing.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

lonewolf :) said:


> Ontario is looking @ adding another stat holiday. Holiday (Holyday) the church to become popular used to issue holy days throughout the year @ one time was up to 150. The government seams to be following their lead making it look like they are giving everyone something for nothing though someone has to pay the piper for stat holiday pay that produces nothing.


Canada is generous with paid holidays, however we rank very low in total amount of paid time off with 10 days of paid vacation and 9 holidays for a total of 19 days. The average of first world countries is more like 25-30 days.

I also remember a study showing that productivity actually increased with more time off. Obviously there's a limit to that theory, I'm not sure where you hit a point of diminishing returns.

From working a manual job, I can say that having an extra day off each month makes a pretty big difference. I remember it was a long time between New Years and Easter without having a long weekend. Even a normal weekend was often less with forced overtime. After a few weeks, you just feel drained and less productive, than if you actually had more time off.

I think North America is slow to grasp the concept that working more doesn't mean accomplishing more. Mostly because the people making the decisions don't do much work, except sitting at a desk.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Well, we could fire everyone giving them all more time off and just hand out UBI. Canada could then be the most productive country in the world!!!

Seriously, we live in a country without limits. If you want more time off, why not figure out a way to develop some passive income to replace a day's labour? With some dividend stocks and a little time and discipline, getting a single day's pay wouldn't take long or be much of a sacrifice. 

Then, take it to the next level, reinvest that income and produce more income...do it enough and you'll have a paid week off...then a month...then maybe even financial freedom. 

I don't understand the idea that employers need to GIVE people things. What happened to people DOING things? 

The job and pay are an agreement, a contract as it were, between employee and employer. I want you to do this, and am willing to pay that. If you agree, you do the work and I give you the pay. If you don't agree, you're free to go elsewhere and do something different, we don't force you to work. 

If no one is willing to do the work for the pay, the employer needs to change the terms until it appeals to someone. Why would an employee, who has agreed to do something for a certain pay, suddenly get to change their mind. The employer can't technically fire the person for breaking the contract and offer the job to someone else because the government is mandating the paid holiday, he just has to agree and lose money. The employee still feels hard done by usually, even though they are free to seek employment elsewhere...most don't. Easier to complain. 

We are tuning into quite the "hand out" country...certainly not a "can do" country. I find productivity come from attitude, not pay or vacations.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

Just a Guy, you went off on a bit of a tangent there. You said "I don't understand the idea that employers need to GIVE people things." I take that to mean we should get rid of all paid time off. It sounds like you're strongly against increasing the amount, so I'd guess you'd be in favour of reducing or outright eliminating it.

My question was what amount is optimal for productivity, keeping in mind that we live in the real world where people don't always make the best choices or feel as in control as you imagine in your version or reality.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I'm against legislating it. If you and I negotiate days off that's one thing. It's like legislating minimum wages or other things that are forced on people. Personally I don't pay minimum wages and I give vacation pay and days off, but that was agreed on between me and my employee, not told to me by someone with no interest or idea about my business.

As for people making bad choices or not seeing opportunities, how does that become my responsibility? There is nothing repressing them, in most cases, except themselves.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

It was not that long ago there was wage & price controls. This resulted in benefits being offered to get the best employees now companies are having trouble paying the pensions. Now the government says if your not worth min wage you cant work go start your own business & you can work for less then min wage.

Back on topic if interest rates rise property taxes will need to rise to pay the extra interest charges. Though will that really work? people will flee to where taxes are lower


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Vancouver $2500 property tax for 1 million of value no wonder why the foreign home buyers like Vancouver


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

lonewolf :) said:


> Vancouver $2500 property tax for 1 million of value no wonder why the foreign home buyers like Vancouver


The ratio is not relevant. If RE prices doubled across the board, there'd still be no reason to increase the actual taxes paid. The mill rate would simply be halved to bring in the same amount of tax revenue. It plays out a similar way all over this country. The more appropriate measure for comparison is to compare taxes across municipalities for the same type of dwelling. Take a 3 bedroom bungalow for example. If taxes on it in Vancouver are $2500 and taxes on it in small town Canada are $3000, it simply means Vanvouver is either more efficient at delivering services on a per capita basis, has a stronger proportion of commercial and industrial tax base to work from, or is not delivering the same level of services as small town Canada.

The most likely answer is proportion of business (commercial and industrial) tax base, and a reason why municipalities provide incentives for business to locate in their municipality. I have been trying to promote that concept in our municipality but most residents are 'tone deaf' to understanding the need for more density and more business in the tax base.


----------



## Koogie (Dec 15, 2014)

Makes you wonder when "fairness" will come to property taxes like it has to income taxes.

If a rich man across the street from me owns a 5MM house and I own a 500K house, shouldn't the property taxes be bracketed so that he pays a higher percentage rate ?

It's only fair. Don't the rich homeowners of this country want to pay their "fair" share ? Maybe also a surtax above 5MM value. Oh, and a health tax on top. Oh, and a carbon tax too since his house has a bigger footprint. And a gender tax, since he isn't the right gender(s).


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Koogie said:


> If a rich man across the street from me owns a 5MM house and I own a 500K house, shouldn't the property taxes be bracketed so that he pays a higher percentage rate ?


While his mill rate will be the same, his tax rate will be 10x higher to support water and sewage and education. Maybe police and fire too.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Koogie said:


> ...If a rich man across the street from me owns a 5MM house and I own a 500K house, shouldn't the property taxes be bracketed so that he pays a higher percentage rate ?...


Yours is a bad example of fairness/unfairness, and indicates a common misunderstanding of how property taxes are assessed.

Most provinces have moved to market-value appraisals. If the rich man owns a house whose market value is 5M, and you own a house whose market value is 500k; the rich man's property taxes will already be *10X *yours. Because the tax is the mil rate (that applies to everyone) times the assessed value (which is property specific).

Your argument would be more relevant if both of you owned houses of the same value. You would each pay the same taxes, but they would not be proportional to your income or "ability to pay". This is why the property tax is often called a "regressive" tax.

The rich man is having an indirect affect on your tax bill. By building a $5M palace, he is contributing to "gentrification" of your neighbourhood, which raises your property value, thus increasing your property taxes, irrespective of your income.


----------



## Koogie (Dec 15, 2014)

I misunderstand nothing. Perhaps you should slow down and read more carefully.

I am saying why aren't property taxes changed to be BRACKETED like income taxes. We're soaking the rich on their incomes. Why not soak them on their properties too.

Is it fair that my shack and Bill Morneaus villa both pay the same mill rate ?

Shouldn't he have to pay more in "fairness" because he is richer ?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

How is that more fair?

Spend your life doing nothing and live off the ones who don’t? Maybe you and sags should be roomies. 

Trust me, I already pay a lot more property taxes than most of the people in the world because I own more property. There are very few ways to reduce property taxes.


----------



## Koogie (Dec 15, 2014)

Good god. It was sarcasm. 

Haven't you been paying attention to Shiny Socks and Villa Morneau telling us the rich should pay more since it is "fairer" ??


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Sorry, been reading to many sags posts...some people are serious.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Employment is a contract between employers and employees, except at the minimum wage level where some employers require legislation for them to honor "another" important contract.

That "other" contract is between the employer and society at large, which allows the employer to operate by using infrastructure paid for by society.

That expensive infrastructure ......hydro, water, sewers, roads, police, hospital and fire services, allow the businesses to operate and prosper.

If the employer isn't going to provide jobs that pay a living wage..........why would we give them access to our infrastructure or consumer markets.

I suppose you think society has an obligation to make your business profitable. Some people do believe that business should pay nothing and owes nothing to employees or society. 

They just want to be corporate free loaders.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Incidentally, wealthy people have a higher marginal tax rate, but very few pay the prescribed rate of taxes.

Most wealthy people have access to expert advice to lower or divert their taxes until they pay nothing or next to it every year.

Some of the wealthiest corporations pay no taxes at all and I suspect some wealthy individuals pay very little if any.

Raising the tax rate for wealthy people is a poor way to raise revenues. The better way is to eliminate tax reduction loopholes.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

lonewolf :) said:


> Vancouver $2500 property tax for 1 million of value no wonder why the foreign home buyers like Vancouver


As others have pointed out assessed value has little to do with taxes. My home in Metro Vancouver is pretty much worth what the average home is worth, according to monthly statistics produced by RE Board of greater Vancouver. If I extrapolate 1M of my actual assessed value to what I paid in total taxes it amounts to $3642 not the $2500 you cite.

Regardless, if assessed values in Metro Vancouver dropped by 50% do you think we could continue to run our cities (Schools, Police, Fire, Sewers, etc.) on 50% of the tax, no they just double the mil rate.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

Koogie said:


> I misunderstand nothing. Perhaps you should slow down and read more carefully.
> 
> I am saying why aren't property taxes changed to be BRACKETED like income taxes. We're soaking the rich on their incomes. Why not soak them on their properties too.
> 
> ...


I understand you're being sarcastic...……………… but in BC there are now brackets! Assessed Value between 3-4 M now incurs extra .2% and above 4M its .4%. A friend of mine lives in housing assessed at 8M in Vancouver and had to pay an ADDITIONAL 18,000, on top of his regular tax bill.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Sags, I believe you’ve stated you’re a renter, please stay off the infrastructure us tax payers paid for. 

Last I saw, any corporation which owns real estate pays property tax and there are no loopholes in property tax. Since you don’t pay property tax, please don’t use their sidewalks or roads when you come to use their services. 

As for tax loopholes, you clearly don’t understand how the tax system works. In order to get a tax credit, you need to spend more money than the credit is worth on society. Even a donation to a political party only qualifies for a 95% tax credit (so it costs you 5% more than you get back). Nothing gives you a better tax break than political contributions.

Now, do corporations/the rich benefit from going direct to the market instead of giving it to the government? Most likely, but they certainly don’t get to keep the cash...unlike the deadbeats at the poor end of the scale who don’t contribute anything to the tax base. Perhaps your fury is misguided, since the real tax dodgers are not who you think. You seem to think society is obligated to give you and others handouts so you can sit at home and do nothing. They just want to be freeloaders. Go out and make some money like the rich/corporations.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Koogie said:


> I am saying why aren't property taxes changed to be BRACKETED like income taxes. We're soaking the rich on their incomes. Why not soak them on their properties too.


Property value is not a perfect correlation with income. There is always a penniless widow living in the family home of 65 years which value has skyrocketed due to gentrification but who has no income to pay the consequent taxes. Progressive valuation taxes would really mess up folks like that. There are places in the states where they have income-linked property taxes, but the effect there is that all the rich people move out. There's also a fair share of transfer-to-spouse/children, transfer and lease-back and other shenanigans possible.


----------



## Koogie (Dec 15, 2014)

Retiredguy said:


> I understand you're being sarcastic...……………… but in BC there are now brackets! Assessed Value between 3-4 M now incurs extra .2% and above 4M its .4%. A friend of mine lives in housing assessed at 8M in Vancouver and had to pay an ADDITIONAL 18,000, on top of his regular tax bill.


Gah, I was unaware. BC... the leader in innovative new ways to tax people to death. Plus you already have the carbon tax. The gender tax can't be far behind.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

gardner said:


> Property value is not a perfect correlation with income. There is always a penniless widow living in the family home of 65 years which value has skyrocketed due to gentrification but who has no income to pay the consequent taxes. Progressive valuation taxes would really mess up folks like that. There are places in the states where they have income-linked property taxes, but the effect there is that all the rich people move out. There's also a fair share of transfer-to-spouse/children, transfer and lease-back and other shenanigans possible.


Most municipalities have programs for these cases. Some just put a lien on he house until it’s sold, interest free, so that it gets paid after the person dies. Others have grant programs. Not many old ladies lose their houses to taxes anymore.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Here is a related article on the province siphoning off property taxes from the municipality.

https://www.straight.com/news/10901...ty-surtax-undermines-cities-and-affordability


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Just a Guy said:


> Trust me, I already pay a lot more property taxes than most of the people in the world because I own more property.



sorry :biggrin: have to pause here for the big laff of the day

this was a poster who until recently classed himself among the top 1% of canadians by wealth, thanks to his numerous property "companies" & his squadrons of managing "lawyers" who administered the same to his every beck & call

but behold how he has advanced, in only a few short years, to become one of the most important RE investors on the planet


.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Didn’t say that, I said I own more than most. Pretty safe to say as most people only own one house. Actually, if we’re talking the world, then most people don’t even own one house. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate

Also, there is a clear definition of what it takes to be in the 1% of wealthy Canadians...surprisingly it doesn’t take much relatively speaking...maybe you should look it up. To be a world wide 1%er only takes about 1M usd in assets. Technically it’s takes a little more than double that to be a Canadian 1%er. 

http://www.freedomthirtyfiveblog.com/resources/median-and-average-net-worth

People really need to read my footer.

Statement of facts doesn’t mean bragging.

P.S. never mentioned lawyers either. Personally I don’t like them. But thanks for making up “facts” as usual. You must really miss carver man since you drove him and others away with your personal attacks.


----------



## robfordlives (Sep 18, 2014)

My taxes have gone from 1650ish in 2002 to about 3700 this past year in Alberta and the city split out waste and some other fees onto the city owned utility so that understates the increase by about $300 per year as well. Once I hit 65 in Alberta we have the choice to defer the taxes until sale of property which is what I will probably do as who knows how enormous they will be at that time


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

You either live in a rapidly growing municipality that needs to front end load infrastructure or one that is losing tax base. Given the numbers you quoted, that ia a CAGR approaching circa 5%. 

Generally, taxes need to go up circa 3% just for labour and material cost increases unless a municipality can disproportionately attract more commercial and industrial tax base. Three percent means doubling every 24 years. 4 percent would double every 18 years. Seniors who don't accommodate inflation in their retirement plans could be hooped. Most people today have no concept of what double digit inflation, that we had some decades back, really feels. My non-COLA'd DB pension that I started 12 years ago definitely doesn't go as far as it did back then and we've been in a period of very mild inflation.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

You can appeal your assessed values. It can pay off. It doesn’t drop your taxes proportionally, but it can help. I appeal all my properties every couple of years. I’ve never lost an appeal, but I do some research first and have good comparables. Also, with the numbers I’ve got it can add up even if I only get a little off each property.


----------

