billonlogan
Active Member
well put!
|
|
|
well put!
Mooreton
New Member
I completely agree! There is a disheartening lack of foresight and strength in display at council. While there may be disagreement in the chamber, it should/can not delay decisions that are critically important. Eventually tough decisions have to be made, and in Toronto's case, its most often too late with even more adverse impacts for the city.
The cycle goes on. We know we have an unfair fiscal relationship with the province. We know we should not be the sole funders of social services in the city. The province, the federal government know this. And while things have improved under McGuinty's reign as premier, not enough has been done to alleviate the stress placed on Toronto's finances. It is still important to advocate for a more equitable relationship with the province, but of equal importance is improving our ability to raise revenues.
What's wrong with a vehicle registration fee of $60? You can think of it as one tank of gas (slightly less for larger autos).
A land transfer tax would be harder to accept, especially for first time home buyers. The problem that I have with the land transfer tax is not that the city wants to double it, but that the province currently receives revenue from it, through sales of residential properties within municipalities. It doesn't make sense that the province makes money off sales of properties that they do not own, control, nor associate with?
Chuck
Senior Member
They may use our roads, but they also help to fill up our restaurants, office towers, theatres, stores, and through fares alone pay for almost 10% of the TTC's operating budget. A road toll may only be a buck or two, but it's the thought that counts. I don't think it's a good idea to turn 50% of the GTA against Toronto.
syn
Senior Member
Wow. That sounds too drastic to be true. They're probably hoping a senior level of government will come to the rescue with the funding package.
Isn't there anything else the city can consider besides the LTT?
EnviroTO
Senior Member
How did Person B afford $4000 when he bought his house? If he can't afford $33/month how can he afford $4000 when he first buys? Of course you can afford things when you made a huge profit... but those people sitting on appreciating assets aren't the ones that are paying the tax. It is the people buying in to the market who are paying the tax. It is the people who are future Toronto residents moving to the big expensive city subsidizing people sitting in homes they have made a fortune on paying less tax per home dollar than those in the 905 and who don't want to pay more tax despite all the city costs are FOR THEM not for the people who aren't here yet.
Here is a different scenario for you. Guy out of university buys a used condo for $200k. Has to pay $2000 of this tax but he is just out of university... he can barely afford it. One year later he gets a good job in Alberta and has to sell his condo. He hasn't used more services than the average Molly & Joe living in single detached homes throughout the city, he is not more financially well off than those people, he was not even a voter when all this financial mismanagement put the city in the situation it is in today, yet for some reason he has to pay more tax? Why? Long term residents are the people who have benefited from below 905 tax rates and long term residents are the people who get the most value out of services that improve the quality of life in the city. Why wouldn't they be equally responsible for paying?
If this was a tax on capital gains for homes then it would be calculated on the difference in purchase price and sale price. That is an entirely different and non-property tax.
lordmandeep
Banned
Its a $3000-4000 tax and you have to pay it before you buy a home upfront.
It is not added to your house price, but is payed before you get the home.
Thats huge and would imo really hurt any chance of people moving to Toronto instead of the 905. It is short term gain but long term loss.
It is not added to your house price, but is payed before you get the home.
Thats huge and would imo really hurt any chance of people moving to Toronto instead of the 905. It is short term gain but long term loss.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
And what about folks like me who live in the 416 but work in 519 west of Milton? Due to VIA's scheduling, there's no way for me to get to work without driving.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
And then Grandma who bought her Beach(es) single detatched for $50,000 in 1950 and now plans to sell the house to pay for her retirement and gets $700,000 should pay capital gains? I think not. If you sell your principle residence for a profit, you shouldn't, and current don't, pay capital gains tax.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Admiral Beez:
She should shut it and count her blessings - considering the value of her property, she should have been paying far, far higher property tax instead (not to mention, she is likely a high service user).
If you truly want an "efficient" city not having to provide much in the way of social and other services, this is exactly one of the demographics that should discouraged from living in the city via policies. Tough medicine doesn't sound as palatable now, does it?
AoD
She should shut it and count her blessings - considering the value of her property, she should have been paying far, far higher property tax instead (not to mention, she is likely a high service user).
If you truly want an "efficient" city not having to provide much in the way of social and other services, this is exactly one of the demographics that should discouraged from living in the city via policies. Tough medicine doesn't sound as palatable now, does it?
AoD
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Come to think of it, kids are particularly troublesome as well - all those recreation programs sucks the money out of the city coffers. Give me DINKS and DINKS only.
AoD
AoD
EnviroTO
Senior Member
I'm not saying she should pay capital gains. The person I was responding to seems to believe that somehow the profits of house sales covers this new tax and paints it as almost a tax on profit. It isn't.
Grandma however has however benefited from city services for 57 years, she benefited when the city played silly games of below inflation tax increases, she benefited by the city remaining a desirable place to live, and she had the opportunity to vote for what has gone on over the last 57 years. She also has the option to sell her home and profit, whereas the person who has a problem buying a home in the first place in this city has nothing, not the asset nor the cash. Why should Grandma be saved from paying her share of this mess? She had a lot more to do with the city's financial problems than the person who is moving to Toronto and hasn't lived here yet. City council has been playing chicken to win Grandma's vote for years now.
JasonParis
Moderator
...although first time home buyers were to be exempt from the increase.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Enviro:
Playing devil's advocate aside, there are good reasons why one has to moderate property taxes, for the sake of acheiving some degree of socioeconomic balance within the city. That said, with the population increasingly housed in condos and apartments (the latter is taxed as commercial), there is no reason why residents in houses should continued to be favoured, especially considering a vast amount of services are disportionately devoted to their needs (garbage collection, snow removal, infrastructure, etc).
AoD
Playing devil's advocate aside, there are good reasons why one has to moderate property taxes, for the sake of acheiving some degree of socioeconomic balance within the city. That said, with the population increasingly housed in condos and apartments (the latter is taxed as commercial), there is no reason why residents in houses should continued to be favoured, especially considering a vast amount of services are disportionately devoted to their needs (garbage collection, snow removal, infrastructure, etc).
AoD
H
Hydrogen
Guest
They should shut down the Bloor line and replace it with buses that stop at Queen's Park.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
... if they bought in a new development (i.e. one that had just paid a huge amount of development charges and actually subsidizes the city more than this new tax would). If their first home was an existing dwelling (i.e. the bulk of actual houses in the city) then they would not have been exempt.
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Sure. But the city isn't balancing anything other than the needs of those who vote in the greatest number so as to protect their jobs. A user pay garbage system where the first allotment isn't included in property tax doesn't show any consideration for ability to pay. A bulk upfront payment on land transfer is not as affordable as a spread out property tax payment. Sales taxes on non-necessities or sin-taxes are probably the ones that are most fair, income taxes and property taxes being tied to amount of money a person has or makes are probably the middle ground, bulk lump sum payments on necessities which are tied to the amount of money a person is spending are worse, sales taxes on necessities worse still, and the worst of all in fairness would be flat fees or user pay on necessities that aren't tied to ability to pay or consumption at all. This council has gone to flat user fees and bulk up front charges on necessities to solve the cash crunch, and next up they are threatening to hit the TTC. I find it inexcusable.
The city should be sure they have exercised fiscal restraint, then they should use consumption taxes on non-necessities and property taxes to make up the difference. Downloading to the future tax payer is sad. I had no issue with the auto registration fee... at least those unable to afford it can avoid it by not having a car and a tank of gas size fee isn't too cost prohibitive.