It is nice that Mr. Katz is seeking another tax freeze but if costs are increasing in one area of infrastructure, another area will likely "feel the squeeze". As a homeowner and I am pleased that our properties are increasing in value after so many years lagging behind National averages. What I do not understand is why our property taxes are tied to the assessed value (the City of Winnipeg's opinion of Market Value) rather than the actual cost that the homes and commercial properties in their catchment utilize in comparison to other area's.
Why is it that the property owner is even likely penalized for maintaining their property therefore increasing the demand (which is the driver of market value) increasing their assessed value when they may not even be using the same percentage of infrastructure costs than another area. As an example, older areas have a back lane that adds additional cost to snow clearing and road repairs versus a newer community that does not. Areas of high appeal/demand as an example, likely do not have the same emergency services costs and yet pay more in taxes towards the costs supporting a higher demand area. There are property owners that do not even have children so they do not use the schools or community centre's but must still contribute!
Why not apply the property taxes on a user-fee basis so that actual use results in a fairer charge-back? Just because one home owner's property is worth more, does not necessarily mean that they earn more income (take senior citizens for an example who are on fixed income) so may not be in a financial position to "carry more of the load" as the system currently works. How much could we save in tax dollars by reducing the assessment department overhead?
Perhaps simply charging by frontage foot (times 2 if a back lane) and then dividing the use versus cost of City services by area using the voting constituency map is fairer than by assessed value as when looking at the assessment website they calculate lot square footage not frontage however the frontage is on the tax bill so the city already has that data and the frontage reflect the actual cost of road maintenance and snow clearing.
Isn't it time for our property taxation system to be more fair?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
+640x480+RIGHT+FACING.jpg)
1 comment:
I totally agree with you, Jeff.
I've never had children, yet have paid school taxes all my life. I am OK with contributing a percentage of the costs, but agree that a user fee should apply (i.e. parents should pay an additional amount on their property taxes per child in the public school system.)
Your blog is interesting and addresses issues we should all be thinking about. Thanks for your efforts to promote discussion.
Post a Comment