[TrickyRicky]

Nice summary. For me as a resident of the Old City of Toronto however my tax burden has skyrocketed based on the relative change in assessed property value that has in essence shifted the residential property tax burden towards the inner city. This shift is being phased in of course but even with the phase in (which would otherwise see my taxes jumping in the 20 something pecent range) my taxes rose 4.6% between 2008 and 2009.

I would be curious to see a residential property tax density map (geographic mapping of tax dollar production).

 

[taal]

Another large misconception ... 'property values in Toronto are lot higher then surrounding regions' ... this is used by many to account for the lower property taxes residents face in Toronto i.e. we should pay less because our homes are worth more ..

The actual value of property compared to the 905 is very close to the 416 there's about a 50,000 dollar difference in the average house price ... what many forget is the 416 is not the old city of Toronto, but all of Toronto. I dare anyone to find homes in the 905 that are cheaper then what you can get in some parts of Scarborough / parts of North York ... all of this offsets the higher priced homes along Yonge..

Regarding the comment above, the increase in your assessment value has nothing to do with the city, that's MPAC's job.

Also, as pointed out on the excellent post a page back, higher property values should decrease the mill rate ... ?

 

[Glen]

Like I said above, the actual increase in income from residential taxes is only 2.5%. There's an additional 1.5% tax increase on top of the 2.5% as part of a plan to shift the tax burden off of businesses and on to homeowners, bringing the total to 4%. This pro-business move was implemented by Miller (not Lastman) and he has to face the flak for it every year. But if he hadn't, people would have given him flak for not helping business... damned if you do, damned if you don't. Heck, people gave him flak for not making the transfer larger!

David Soknacki was the one whom put the ball in motion re ETBC.
The ETBC program has already been modified twice because it was too little too late. Despite the program the Economic Development committee still argued for the need to implement a city wide TEIG program...........


http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/ed/bgrd/backgroundfile-8924.pdf

It is estimated that Toronto still has 54,000 fewer jobs than 17 years ago while the 905 Region has added over 700,000 new jobs. There continues to be a low market interest in building new industrial and smaller scale office projects in the City when it is easier and more profitable to build residential developments in a hot market or lower risk smaller buildings in the suburbs.

To develop retail space on one of Toronto's most vibrant streets even requires tax reductions. Adam Vaughan has been trying to get tax relief for retail space on 611-625 Queen St. West, even though retail development is not approved for the TEIG program.

To suggest that Miller is dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn't, hides the fact that half measures please no one.

 

[urbandreamer]

This 4% thing is silly. Raise taxes 10% every 5 years and make it the Law.

 

[CDL.TO]

David Soknacki was the one whom put the ball in motion re ETBC.
The ETBC program has already been modified twice because it was too little too late. Despite the program the Economic Development committee still argued for the need to implement a city wide TEIG program...........


http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/ed/bgrd/backgroundfile-8924.pdf

To develop retail space on one of Toronto's most vibrant streets even requires tax reductions. Adam Vaughan has been trying to get tax relief for retail space on 611-625 Queen St. West, even though retail development is not approved for the TEIG program.

To suggest that Miller is dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn't, hides the fact that half measures please no one.

Glen,

Talking factually (ignoring opinions about the goods and bads of the ETBC program), if I said that it was "implemented during Miller's tenure", do you feel that my post is fully accurate?

 

[Glen]

Glen,

Talking factually (ingnoring opinions about the goods and bads of the ETBC program), if I said that it was "implemented during Miller's tenure", do you feel that my post is fully accurate?

Yes it would be fully accurate, yet not overly informative. By going out of the way to inform readers that it was not implemented under Mel Lastman's tenure but omitting that it was started under his may be misleading.

I also think that your explanation of the workings of property tax need clarification. When the city states that property taxes are going up 4%, they are referring to the burden, not the mill rate (aka tax rate). when you stated "To answer the question, NO it does not mean that the tax rate is being increased by 4%. That isn't how property taxes work. It's clear that 95% of the population does not understand how municipal taxes work and this is contributing to the annual anger over tax increases." When the city makes such announcements, it never speaks in terms of tax rates, it does so in terms of tax burden. As you showed, they will then make the necessary adjustments to the tax rate (mill rate) in order to generate the the 4%additional revenue. But to be clear, this year, like those before, every residential tax payer will, on average, be paying 4% more than last year.

 

[CDL.TO]

I also think that your explanation of the workings of property tax need clarification. When the city states that property taxes are going up 4%, they are referring to the burden, not the mill rate (aka tax rate). when you stated "To answer the question, NO it does not mean that the tax rate is being increased by 4%. That isn't how property taxes work. It's clear that 95% of the population does not understand how municipal taxes work and this is contributing to the annual anger over tax increases." When the city makes such announcements, it never speaks in terms of tax rates, it does so in terms of tax burden. As you showed, they will then make the necessary adjustments to the tax rate (mill rate) in order to generate the the 4%additional revenue. But to be clear, this year, like those before, every residential tax payer will, on average, be paying 4% more than last year.

The whole darn point of my post is to get across the idea that "When the city states that property taxes are going up 4%, they are referring to the burden, not the mill rate (aka tax rate)". The original question that I responded to makes it clear that people tend to be most familiar with the way income and sales taxes work and assume property taxes work the same way, so when the media reports every year that "taxes are going up" they assume it means "the tax rate is increasing".

When a strong economy results in higher tax revenues for the Federal Government , you don't typically hear people complain that it means that the tax burden increased because on average, everyone is paying more taxes.

 

[Archivist]

CDL, thanks for your exhaustive explanations. They are much appreciated and provide real insight.

 

[js97]

So much spin... but at the end of the day, we are all paying more property taxes.

I'm waiting for the vehicle registration tax to go up to $100 dollars,
garbage disposal fees to go up,
Water utilities to go up,
Permit Parking to go up,

user fees for parks and rec fees to go up

oh,

let's not forget an increase in parking tickets issued.

overtime for the meter maids

 

[TrickyRicky]

"Regarding the comment above, the increase in your assessment value has nothing to do with the city, that's MPAC's job."

Taal, I'm aware of that but my intention is not to direct blame. The intent of the thread (I think) morphed into a discussion about the political implications of how tax increases are communicated. I was merely pointing out the fact that how much your taxes actually go up is based presently more on where you live. People really only care how many more dollars they have to pay, they could care less how it is calculated.

Looking at it from a larger picture property costs (as opposed to property tax) are increasing at a much greater rate than a discussion of the mill rate. Note new garbage costs (separating garbage was not a revenue neutral exercise), water rates on average increasing 10 percent per year, hydro, user fees etc. I'm curious to know if the cost of operating property has ever rose faster in the cities' history? I'm not necessarily even complaining. I believe in paying the full costs of services now in the present but I happen to be capable of doing so. Why a larger picture view may add value to the discussion is that the rate of tax increase or decrease is largely irrelevent if services are being included or excluded from one year to the next.

 

[lead82]

Property taxes are very complicated and do not really reflect the burden a property puts on the city. Taxes are in fact lower in 905 than Toronto if you divide the tax paid by the amount of land area of a property. In my opinion, condo owners are over-paying property taxes and single family homes are under-paying. It is costly to service single family homes on winding suburban roads, to provide garbage, water, electricity, transit.

Mid-rise, townhomes and high-rise owners don't own that much property, and their buildings are a far more efficient use of land and can be serviced with much lower costs. Toronto has a lot of McMansions, and people seem to have lots of money to build these ugly monster homes, so why shouldn't they contribute more to make the city a better place. They need to pay their fair share.

 

[simuls]

Property taxes are very complicated and do not really reflect the burden a property puts on the city. Taxes are in fact lower in 905 than Toronto if you divide the tax paid by the amount of land area of a property. In my opinion, condo owners are over-paying property taxes and single family homes are under-paying. It is costly to service single family homes on winding suburban roads, to provide garbage, water, electricity, transit.

Mid-rise, townhomes and high-rise owners don't own that much property, and their buildings are a far more efficient use of land and can be serviced with much lower costs. Toronto has a lot of McMansions, and people seem to have lots of money to build these ugly monster homes, so why shouldn't they contribute more to make the city a better place. They need to pay their fair share.

I completely agree. The city needs to implement tiered taxation. If intensification is what they want, then burdening multi-unit residential building with a massively disproportionate tax burden is unfair. It shouldn't just be based on property value, it should be based on what you use. Already, condos pay for garbage services that most don't receive, their infrastructure uses far less water/sewage, christ, you name it, a condo uses way less of it than any other type of property. It's done elsewhere and it would be nice to have it done here.

...and while I'm on the subject of taxation, considering there is very little land left to build on in the core of Toronto and most people are moving to these condos, the tax burden is also unfair in terms of LTT for both Ontario and the City of Toronto.

 

[Archivist]

I'm all in favour of an ugly tax. We could get Urban Shocker to patrol the streets of our fair city and slap additional tax levees on eyesores. No appeal process. Anywhere from 2% (the bad Quadrangle) to 10% (Cheddington).

 

[Glen]

Property taxes are very complicated and do not really reflect the burden a property puts on the city. Taxes are in fact lower in 905 than Toronto if you divide the tax paid by the amount of land area of a property. In my opinion, condo owners are over-paying property taxes and single family homes are under-paying. It is costly to service single family homes on winding suburban roads, to provide garbage, water, electricity, transit.

Mid-rise, townhomes and high-rise owners don't own that much property, and their buildings are a far more efficient use of land and can be serviced with much lower costs. Toronto has a lot of McMansions, and people seem to have lots of money to build these ugly monster homes, so why shouldn't they contribute more to make the city a better place. They need to pay their fair share.

I think that condo owners should be served by little police and fire officers. Who drive around in VW Beetles or even modified Tonka Toys. The should have little libraries, parks, buses and subways, all paid for by their little taxes. Maybe the could even have their own tiny perfect Mayor like David Crombie.

Please have a look at where your tax dollars go. While I agree that garbage collection should not be paid by condo owners whom are served by private companies, most city services are not impacted meaningfully by density.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What frustrates me on Toronto property tax hikes is how the mayor always uses the tax rates of suburban GTA areas to defend his tax policies. I don't care if Mississauga has a lower tax rate, I don't live in Mississauga. What I want is a mayor who is aggressive in defending the taxpayers of the city to ensure value for money. The mayor should be all about providing good services for the least amount of money. Instead we've got a mayor who has increased the city's budget every year, a council that voted itself a pay increase just before negotiations with the unions.