Why not allow for deferrals that would be paid out at sale of the property? So a cap while the current owner remains in place (perhaps adjusted per your value gap proposal), with the unpaid portion to be recovered when the owner sells?
I believe that other jurisdictions have similar deferral programs, often targeted to seniors, though that comes with its own challenges. Could means test if needed.
The CAP sounds a lot like Prop 13. Is it inheritable if an owner leaves the property to a child upon their death?
We have such a program already (https://www.halifax.ca/home-property/property-taxes/affordable-access-tax-program). I think it’s telling that no one acknowledges it. Yes the CAP is similar to prop 13, but worse: you can sell to your family while keeping capped rates, and it applies to investment properties, so you can transfer an entire portfolio of properties inter generationally without a tax reset
A house is a house. A bigger house in a nice neighbourhood puts no more demand on municipal services than a smaller house, or even an apartment in a small building. Perhaps all houses and apartments should be taxed the same to spread the costs equitably. Where this breaks down is where a house is located on a large or very valuable piece of land. That’s the exact problem that gave rise to the cap system. Owners who wanted to stay put, did not want to sell off anything or borrow against equity to pay taxes on valuable land. I was unsympathetic to that at the time and opposed the cap. I still hate it, but now because it causes problems for buyers when they realize their tax bill will double, up from what already seems unreasonably high, in HRM at least.
I’m a fan of progressive taxation wherever possible. I think it’s quite nasty that municipal politics get bogged down into cost of service delivery debates instead of focusing on ability to pay
Such sweeping claims sound good, but if a $400k home was taxed at, say, $100k, wouldn't they be affected? In fact, their taxes would double! But I don't know if such a discrepancy is even possible or if it actually happens in practice.
Has the staff report Janet Steele requested been presented to Council?
Why not allow for deferrals that would be paid out at sale of the property? So a cap while the current owner remains in place (perhaps adjusted per your value gap proposal), with the unpaid portion to be recovered when the owner sells?
I believe that other jurisdictions have similar deferral programs, often targeted to seniors, though that comes with its own challenges. Could means test if needed.
The CAP sounds a lot like Prop 13. Is it inheritable if an owner leaves the property to a child upon their death?
We have such a program already (https://www.halifax.ca/home-property/property-taxes/affordable-access-tax-program). I think it’s telling that no one acknowledges it. Yes the CAP is similar to prop 13, but worse: you can sell to your family while keeping capped rates, and it applies to investment properties, so you can transfer an entire portfolio of properties inter generationally without a tax reset
A house is a house. A bigger house in a nice neighbourhood puts no more demand on municipal services than a smaller house, or even an apartment in a small building. Perhaps all houses and apartments should be taxed the same to spread the costs equitably. Where this breaks down is where a house is located on a large or very valuable piece of land. That’s the exact problem that gave rise to the cap system. Owners who wanted to stay put, did not want to sell off anything or borrow against equity to pay taxes on valuable land. I was unsympathetic to that at the time and opposed the cap. I still hate it, but now because it causes problems for buyers when they realize their tax bill will double, up from what already seems unreasonably high, in HRM at least.
I’m a fan of progressive taxation wherever possible. I think it’s quite nasty that municipal politics get bogged down into cost of service delivery debates instead of focusing on ability to pay
Such sweeping claims sound good, but if a $400k home was taxed at, say, $100k, wouldn't they be affected? In fact, their taxes would double! But I don't know if such a discrepancy is even possible or if it actually happens in practice.
Right, but there aren't really any of those (yet). Can see on the second chart basically all properties below $400k would be completely unaffected.
(Or at least the value basis for the taxation would double, which isn't necessarily the same thing as tax needing to be paid, I guess.)
Would be an even bigger change, and the CAP functions as an anti land tax in some ways. I’d rather try to fix the property tax system we do have