Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Something for everyone....

Expand Messages
  • Richard Risemberg
    This interesting article covers a lot of the ground wehre some of our recent exchanges have taken place: the public/private conundrum, the densification of
    Message 1 of 18 , Nov 29, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      This interesting article covers a lot of the ground wehre some of our
      recent exchanges have taken place: the public/private conundrum, the
      densification of cities, the quesiton of ownership rights, and even
      religion. The "land value tax" appears to be an effective tool
      for inspiring rational and useful development. (An article on
      this specific subject will appear in the next issue of New
      Colonist, byt the way, so be ready.) Quote and link follow:

      "Land rent is socially created. Landholders, as such, do nothing to
      create or increase the value of land. Land values arise and grow due
      to population growth, community investment in infrastructure and
      public facilities and services, and as a result of advances in
      technology and general economic activity. It is both proper and
      imperative that the community recover for itself the value which the
      community as a whole, by its very existence, creates.

      "No one should be allowed to reap where he has not sown, especially
      not at the expense of others. Owning valuable land is a privilege;
      landholders should pay rent to the community based on, and
      proportionate to, the value of land they hold.

      "Most landholders have no qualms about raising rents they charge their
      tenants. But private landholders themselves are actually tenants of
      the sovereign public, and should be treated as such. They should be
      required to pay market-rate ground rents to the community through the
      land value tax, while taxes on houses, buildings, personal property,
      incomes, sales and commerce should be drastically reduced or
      abolished. Productive activity should not be penalized by taxation."

      http://www.progress.org/torah01.htm

      Richard
    • Mark Watson
      This specific topic is covered in both of these great books: The Car & the City http://www.northwestwatch.org/carcity1.html (last chapter, I think) Tax Shift [
      Message 2 of 18 , Nov 29, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        This specific topic is covered in both of these great books:

        The Car & the City
        http://www.northwestwatch.org/carcity1.html (last chapter, I think)

        Tax Shift [ http://www.northwestwatch.org/tax.html ] (pg 58)

        Quote from pg 58, "... shifting the (property) tax from (the value of
        buildings) to the (value of the land) aids compact development while
        suppressing land speculation, promoting productive investment, and tempering
        housing costs, especially for the poor. ...

        .... land speculation -buying land and holding it until its value increases-
        fails the public. It does not create any salable good or service; it
        prevents full use of premium sites, shunting development to less desirable
        locations."


        All of the N.E.W. book are excellent. They use the Northwest USA for
        examples, but the concepts are applicable everywhere.

        Mark

        ********************************************************
        Work to become, not to acquire

        Mark Watson __o
        `\<
        (o)/(o)

        mark_a_watson@... Seattle, WA, USA
        ********************************************************
        ----Original Message Follows----
        From: "Richard Risemberg" <rick...@e....net>
        Reply-To: carfree_cities@egroups.com
        To: carfree_cities@egroups.com
        Subject: [carfree_cities] Something for everyone....
        Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:34:55 -0000

        "No one should be allowed to reap where he has not sown, especially
        not at the expense of others. Owning valuable land is a privilege;
        landholders should pay rent to the community based on, and
        proportionate to, the value of land they hold.

        _____________________________________________________________________________________
        Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
      • Lanyon, Ryan
        I don t see how a land value tax would help cities, especially downtown cores. Downtowns tend to have a high land value due to scarcity. Higher taxes on this
        Message 3 of 18 , Nov 30, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          I don't see how a land value tax would help cities, especially downtown
          cores. Downtowns tend to have a high land value due to scarcity. Higher
          taxes on this land will push more business and development to the suburbs,
          where values are substantially less and availability is greater (in most
          cases). Tax on land value also does not reflect one's ability to pay, a key
          principle in providing a fair tax system.

          In Ontario, we recently moved to an actual value assessment for property
          taxes. Part of the problem is that those who purchased a property in an
          affordable neighbourhood many decades ago may now find themselves retired,
          on a fixed income, house paid off, but land values around them have
          skyrocketed. This is typical in middle class and affluent inner city areas
          that were cheaper in the 60s and have since been revitalized. The case of
          the widowed grandmother living in Ottawa's Glebe who can no longer afford
          her property taxes is commonly cited.

          Taxation based on land value does not adequately reflect the amount of
          services consumed, either. Suburban development requires more public
          resources, such as roads, sewers and transit, to sustain it. While the
          inner city provides more revenues and consumes services more efficiently, it
          is subsidizing sprawl in the suburbs. If fees were based on the width and
          length of roads, amount of water pipes and sewers, and costs of providing
          transit, perhaps there would be more incentive to build efficiently and curb
          urban sprawl.

          -RL

          Opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Richard Risemberg [SMTP:rickrise@...]
          > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 12:35 PM
          > To: carfree_cities@egroups.com
          > Subject: [carfree_cities] Something for everyone....
          >
          > This interesting article covers a lot of the ground wehre some of our
          > recent exchanges have taken place: the public/private conundrum, the
          > densification of cities, the quesiton of ownership rights, and even
          > religion. The "land value tax" appears to be an effective tool
          > for inspiring rational and useful development. (An article on
          > this specific subject will appear in the next issue of New
          > Colonist, byt the way, so be ready.) Quote and link follow:
          >
          > "Land rent is socially created. Landholders, as such, do nothing to
          > create or increase the value of land. Land values arise and grow due
          > to population growth, community investment in infrastructure and
          > public facilities and services, and as a result of advances in
          > technology and general economic activity. It is both proper and
          > imperative that the community recover for itself the value which the
          > community as a whole, by its very existence, creates.
          >
          > "No one should be allowed to reap where he has not sown, especially
          > not at the expense of others. Owning valuable land is a privilege;
          > landholders should pay rent to the community based on, and
          > proportionate to, the value of land they hold.
          >
          > "Most landholders have no qualms about raising rents they charge their
          > tenants. But private landholders themselves are actually tenants of
          > the sovereign public, and should be treated as such. They should be
          > required to pay market-rate ground rents to the community through the
          > land value tax, while taxes on houses, buildings, personal property,
          > incomes, sales and commerce should be drastically reduced or
          > abolished. Productive activity should not be penalized by taxation."
          >
          > http://www.progress.org/torah01.htm
          >
          > Richard
          >
          >
          > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
          > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
          > carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
          > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
        • Philip D Riggs
          How does actual value property assessment tax work? ******************************* Philip Riggs Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado
          Message 4 of 18 , Nov 30, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            How does actual value property assessment tax work?

            *******************************
            Philip Riggs
            Colorado State University
            Fort Collins, Colorado
          • Wilson, Jeff J
            ... From: Lanyon, Ryan [mailto:lanyonry@rmoc.on.ca] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 9:03 AM To: carfree_cities@egroups.com Subject: RE: [carfree_cities]
            Message 5 of 18 , Nov 30, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              -----Original Message-----
              From: Lanyon, Ryan [mailto:lanyonry@...]
              Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 9:03 AM
              To: 'carfree_cities@egroups.com'
              Subject: RE: [carfree_cities] Something for everyone....


              I don't see how a land value tax would help cities, especially downtown
              cores. Downtowns tend to have a high land value due to scarcity. Higher
              taxes on this land will push more business and development to the suburbs,
              where values are substantially less and availability is greater (in most
              cases). Tax on land value also does not reflect one's ability to pay, a key
              principle in providing a fair tax system.

              <snip>

              That's what I was thinking when I read this and is what led to prop. 13 in
              California. Unless a person sells his land, he is getting no benefit if the
              value of it rises, so why would you want to tax him. It makes more sense to
              me to impose a huge capital gains tax on it when he sells it instead (after
              adjusting for inflation).

              --
              To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
              To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
              carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
              Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
            • unno@uswestmail.net
              On Thu, 30 November 2000, Wilson, Jeff J wrote: ..Tax on land value also does not reflect one s ability to pay, a key principle in providing a fair tax
              Message 6 of 18 , Nov 30, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                On Thu, 30 November 2000, "Wilson, Jeff J" wrote:

                ..Tax on land value also does not reflect one's ability to pay, a key principle in providing a fair tax system.

                I think the founding fathers had it right, tariff's on foreign trade...


                Ronald Frederick Greek
                Attorney at Law
                Yuma, Arizona
                Signup for your free USWEST.mail Email account http://www.uswestmail.net
              • James.Jackson
                ... I don t know what an EC law student like myself would have to say about that... Watch the apostrophy... But anyhow, the postwar UK planning restrictions
                Message 7 of 18 , Nov 30, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  > I think the founding fathers had it right, tariff's on foreign trade...

                  I don't know what an EC law student like myself would have to say about
                  that... Watch the apostrophy...

                  But anyhow, the postwar UK planning restrictions did manage to a certain
                  degree to contain sprawl, but also succeeded in inflating land value in
                  those urban areas, leading to (very British) suburban culture as only
                  middle-class families could pay the rates, despite not living miles and
                  miles away from the city centre.

                  Need containing development necessarily lead to class segregation?

                  James.

                  --
                  James Jackson
                  Grey College
                  Durham DH1 3LG
                  --
                • Wilson, Jeff J
                  Actually Ryan Lanyon said that. I just agreed. ... From: unno@uswestmail.net [mailto:unno@uswestmail.net] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 11:48 AM To:
                  Message 8 of 18 , Nov 30, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Actually Ryan Lanyon said that. I just agreed.

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: unno@... [mailto:unno@...]
                    Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 11:48 AM
                    To: carfree_cities@egroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [carfree_cities] Something for everyone....


                    On Thu, 30 November 2000, "Wilson, Jeff J" wrote:

                    ..Tax on land value also does not reflect one's ability to pay, a key
                    principle in providing a fair tax system.

                    I think the founding fathers had it right, tariff's on foreign trade...


                    Ronald Frederick Greek
                    Attorney at Law
                    Yuma, Arizona
                    Signup for your free USWEST.mail Email account http://www.uswestmail.net

                    To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                    To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                    carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                    Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                  • Henning Mortensen
                    For that matter, our city hall keeps talking about a flat tax , anyone know what that entails. I haven t been able to get anyone to expand on it beyond that
                    Message 9 of 18 , Nov 30, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      For that matter, our city hall keeps talking about a "flat tax", anyone know
                      what that entails. I haven't been able to get anyone to expand on it beyond
                      that they think it is good.

                      I suspect it is a regressive thing. Please inform me.


                      >From: Philip D Riggs <mrphilgood@...>
                      >Reply-To: carfree_cities@egroups.com
                      >To: carfree_cities@egroups.com
                      >Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Something for everyone....
                      >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:37:32 -0700
                      >
                      >How does actual value property assessment tax work?
                      >
                      >*******************************
                      >Philip Riggs
                      >Colorado State University
                      >Fort Collins, Colorado
                      >
                      >To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                      >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                      >carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                      >Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                      >

                      _____________________________________________________________________________________
                      Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
                    • Henning Mortensen
                      I think the idea of the land value tax is that by taxing land you make it so that it doesn t make sense to just hold the land. Since you won t be taxed much
                      Message 10 of 18 , Nov 30, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I think the idea of the land value tax is that by taxing land you make it so
                        that it doesn't make sense to just hold the land. Since you won't be taxed
                        much more if you build a residence on it and you would then have a place to
                        live, or a place to rent out. Also since you could get ten times the rent if
                        you build an apartment and yet your taxes are not that much bigger, it
                        encourages density.

                        I don't know, to me it makes a lot of sense.

                        It also means that if you have a dilapitated building sitting empty you
                        would want to hurry and repair or rebuild it, since it still is costing you
                        a lot in land tax.

                        If as you state, the downtown's land prices are high, then either it still
                        makes sense to build on the land, or you would want to hurry and sell it,
                        driving prices down to the point where it does make sense to use the
                        downtown land. One thing this form of taxation really penalizes is the
                        developer who buys buildings, tears them down and puts in a parking lot.
                        Since the parking lot likely would earn only enough to pay the taxes, some
                        higher revenue form of land use would be considered.

                        Henning.


                        >From: "Wilson, Jeff J" <Jeff.Wilson@...>
                        >Reply-To: carfree_cities@egroups.com
                        >To: carfree_cities@egroups.com
                        >Subject: RE: [carfree_cities] Something for everyone....
                        >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:26:06 -0700
                        >
                        >-----Original Message-----
                        >From: Lanyon, Ryan [mailto:lanyonry@...]
                        >Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 9:03 AM
                        >To: 'carfree_cities@egroups.com'
                        >Subject: RE: [carfree_cities] Something for everyone....
                        >
                        >
                        >I don't see how a land value tax would help cities, especially downtown
                        >cores. Downtowns tend to have a high land value due to scarcity. Higher
                        >taxes on this land will push more business and development to the suburbs,
                        >where values are substantially less and availability is greater (in most
                        >cases). Tax on land value also does not reflect one's ability to pay, a
                        >key
                        >principle in providing a fair tax system.
                        >
                        ><snip>
                        >
                        >That's what I was thinking when I read this and is what led to prop. 13 in
                        >California. Unless a person sells his land, he is getting no benefit if
                        >the
                        >value of it rises, so why would you want to tax him. It makes more sense
                        >to
                        >me to impose a huge capital gains tax on it when he sells it instead (after
                        >adjusting for inflation).
                        >
                        >--
                        >To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                        >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                        >carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                        >Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                        >
                        >To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                        >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                        >carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                        >Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                        >

                        _____________________________________________________________________________________
                        Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
                      • Ronald Dawson
                        ... Well that s Mike Harris and the Nonsense Revolution (TM) for you. Dawson
                        Message 11 of 18 , Nov 30, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Lanyon, Ryan wrote:
                          >In Ontario, we recently moved to an actual value assessment for property
                          >taxes. Part of the problem is that those who purchased a property in an
                          >affordable neighbourhood many decades ago may now find themselves retired,
                          >on a fixed income, house paid off, but land values around them have
                          >skyrocketed. This is typical in middle class and affluent inner city areas
                          >that were cheaper in the 60s and have since been revitalized. The case of
                          >the widowed grandmother living in Ottawa's Glebe who can no longer afford
                          >her property taxes is commonly cited.

                          Well that's Mike Harris and the "Nonsense Revolution (TM)" for you. Dawson
                        • Ronald Dawson
                          ... Well tariffs on imports make sense on a federal level, but on a municipal level may be some form of income tax would be better? Dawson
                          Message 12 of 18 , Nov 30, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Ronald Frederick Greek wrote:
                            >>..Tax on land value also does not reflect one's ability to pay, a key
                            >>principle in providing a fair tax system.

                            >I think the founding fathers had it right, tariff's on foreign trade...

                            Well tariffs on imports make sense on a federal level, but on a municipal
                            level may be some form of income tax would be better? Dawson
                          • Lanyon, Ryan
                            In income tax terms a flat tax means everyone pays the same rate, regardless of income level. With property tax I imagine everyone would pay the same rate,
                            Message 13 of 18 , Dec 1, 2000
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In income tax terms a 'flat tax' means everyone pays the same rate,
                              regardless of income level. With property tax I imagine everyone would pay
                              the same rate, regardless of value. I'm not sure if it would be a flat tax
                              based on number of buildings, square footage, or size of the land. Flat
                              taxes in income are considered regressive because they do little to
                              redistribute wealth.

                              -RL

                              > -----Original Message-----
                              > From: Henning Mortensen [SMTP:henning_work@...]
                              > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 2:26 PM
                              > To: carfree_cities@egroups.com
                              > Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Something for everyone....
                              >
                              >
                              > For that matter, our city hall keeps talking about a "flat tax", anyone
                              > know
                              > what that entails. I haven't been able to get anyone to expand on it
                              > beyond
                              > that they think it is good.
                              >
                              > I suspect it is a regressive thing. Please inform me.
                              >
                              >
                              > >From: Philip D Riggs <mrphilgood@...>
                              > >Reply-To: carfree_cities@egroups.com
                              > >To: carfree_cities@egroups.com
                              > >Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Something for everyone....
                              > >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:37:32 -0700
                              > >
                              > >How does actual value property assessment tax work?
                              > >
                              > >*******************************
                              > >Philip Riggs
                              > >Colorado State University
                              > >Fort Collins, Colorado
                              > >
                              > >To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                              > >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                              > >carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                              > >Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                              > >
                              >
                              > __________________________________________________________________________
                              > ___________
                              > Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
                              > http://explorer.msn.com
                              >
                              >
                              > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                              > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                              > carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                              > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                            • Lanyon, Ryan
                              What s really great is that there s a provincially imposed ceiling on property taxes for commercial land, forcing the burden of cost (from downloaded
                              Message 14 of 18 , Dec 1, 2000
                              • 0 Attachment
                                What's really great is that there's a provincially imposed ceiling on
                                property taxes for commercial land, forcing the burden of cost (from
                                downloaded services!) to the residential tax base.

                                This discussion (and others) lead me to question the utility of a property
                                tax. Generally, it does not redistribute wealth as accurately as other
                                taxes, it is widely subject to economic cycles, and it does not address
                                one's ability to pay. Do municipalities in other jurisdictions levy income
                                taxes or sales taxes, in addition to property taxes? AFAIK, municipalities
                                in Ontario (and Canada) may only levy property tax and charge user fees for
                                services.

                                I suppose the other question is what do those taxes pay for? We've got more
                                'soft' services coming from the property tax base than we used to, competing
                                for scarce resources with 'hard' services (municipalities are not allowed to
                                run deficits anymore). The good news is that this had led to a tighter
                                evaluation of the need for new and expanded roads. The public is also much
                                more aware of how much the transportation system costs.

                                -RL

                                > -----Original Message-----
                                > From: Ronald Dawson [SMTP:rdadddmd@...]
                                > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 11:38 PM
                                > To: carfree_cities@egroups.com
                                > Subject: RE: [carfree_cities] Something for everyone....
                                >
                                > Lanyon, Ryan wrote:
                                > >In Ontario, we recently moved to an actual value assessment for property
                                > >taxes. Part of the problem is that those who purchased a property in an
                                > >affordable neighbourhood many decades ago may now find themselves
                                > retired,
                                > >on a fixed income, house paid off, but land values around them have
                                > >skyrocketed. This is typical in middle class and affluent inner city
                                > areas
                                > >that were cheaper in the 60s and have since been revitalized. The case
                                > of
                                > >the widowed grandmother living in Ottawa's Glebe who can no longer afford
                                > >her property taxes is commonly cited.
                                >
                                > Well that's Mike Harris and the "Nonsense Revolution (TM)" for you.
                                > Dawson
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                                > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                                > carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                                > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                              • Philip D Riggs
                                I don t know much about land taxes, but these ideas intrigue me. I have watched Colorado land values explode and don t like the resulting cost of established
                                Message 15 of 18 , Dec 1, 2000
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I don't know much about land taxes, but these ideas intrigue me. I have
                                  watched Colorado land values explode and don't like the resulting cost of
                                  established residents falling to the mercy of out-of-control housing
                                  markets. Arbitrary land value taxes seem to hurt the elderly too much.
                                  Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the nature of cyclical housing
                                  market economics mean no dependable long-term forcast of tax income. The
                                  flat tax idea based on land size would seem to me an insulation to create
                                  a better predicted city income.

                                  So for the carfree idea would a better tax scheme include such provisions
                                  as a flat tax rate per square foot of land plus a reduced rate per square
                                  foot of building for second to fourth floors and an increased rate for
                                  square footage above the fourth floor (or ban building above four
                                  floors)? Does anybody think this would move a city's development toward
                                  the ideal? Would this scheme plus land values increase class division in
                                  the city? Would this create an atmosphere of service equality throughout
                                  the city with all services paid from the same bag and no one high value
                                  part being more equal than others in city service spending?

                                  *******************************
                                  Philip Riggs
                                  Colorado State University
                                  Fort Collins, Colorado




                                  On Fri, 1 Dec 2000 09:55:16 -0500 "Lanyon, Ryan" <lanyonry@...>
                                  writes:
                                  > In income tax terms a 'flat tax' means everyone pays the same rate,
                                  > regardless of income level. With property tax I imagine everyone
                                  > would pay
                                  > the same rate, regardless of value. I'm not sure if it would be a
                                  > flat tax
                                  > based on number of buildings, square footage, or size of the land.
                                  > Flat
                                  > taxes in income are considered regressive because they do little to
                                  > redistribute wealth.
                                  >
                                  > -RL
                                  > > Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
                                  > > http://explorer.msn.com
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                                  > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                                  > > carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                                  > > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                                  >
                                  > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                                  > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                                  > carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                                  > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                                  >
                                • Henning Mortensen
                                  Thanks Ryan, That is how I took it too, but couldn t quite reconsile the valuation. Actually, I got some clarification on this last night. First off, they were
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Dec 1, 2000
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Thanks Ryan,

                                    That is how I took it too, but couldn't quite reconsile the valuation.
                                    Actually, I got some clarification on this last night. First off, they were
                                    talking about a "base tax". They wanted to set a minimum level of taxation
                                    that every homeowner pays. Basically this would raise taxes for low income
                                    families and lower them for high income families. Thankfully the idea was
                                    defeated by a margin of 8:3. I would like to know who the 3 Neanderthals
                                    were.

                                    Henning


                                    >From: "Lanyon, Ryan" <lanyonry@...>
                                    >Reply-To: carfree_cities@egroups.com
                                    >To: "'carfree_cities@egroups.com'" <carfree_cities@egroups.com>
                                    >Subject: RE: [carfree_cities] Something for everyone....
                                    >Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 09:55:16 -0500
                                    >
                                    >In income tax terms a 'flat tax' means everyone pays the same rate,
                                    >regardless of income level. With property tax I imagine everyone would pay
                                    >the same rate, regardless of value. I'm not sure if it would be a flat tax
                                    >based on number of buildings, square footage, or size of the land. Flat
                                    >taxes in income are considered regressive because they do little to
                                    >redistribute wealth.
                                    >
                                    >-RL

                                    _____________________________________________________________________________________
                                    Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
                                  • Henning Mortensen
                                    Thanks Ryan, That is how I took it too, but couldn t quite reconsile the valuation. Actually, I got some clarification on this last night. First off, they were
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Dec 1, 2000
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Thanks Ryan,

                                      That is how I took it too, but couldn't quite reconsile the valuation.
                                      Actually, I got some clarification on this last night. First off, they were
                                      talking about a "base tax". They wanted to set a minimum level of taxation
                                      that every homeowner pays. Basically this would raise taxes for low income
                                      families and lower them for high income families. Thankfully the idea was
                                      defeated by a margin of 8:3. I would like to know who the 3 Neanderthals
                                      were.

                                      Henning


                                      >From: "Lanyon, Ryan" <lanyonry@...>
                                      >Reply-To: carfree_cities@egroups.com
                                      >To: "'carfree_cities@egroups.com'" <carfree_cities@egroups.com>
                                      >Subject: RE: [carfree_cities] Something for everyone....
                                      >Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 09:55:16 -0500
                                      >
                                      >In income tax terms a 'flat tax' means everyone pays the same rate,
                                      >regardless of income level. With property tax I imagine everyone would pay
                                      >the same rate, regardless of value. I'm not sure if it would be a flat tax
                                      >based on number of buildings, square footage, or size of the land. Flat
                                      >taxes in income are considered regressive because they do little to
                                      >redistribute wealth.
                                      >
                                      >-RL

                                      _____________________________________________________________________________________
                                      Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
                                    • Henning Mortensen
                                      Ryan, In Canada, the taxation powers of government are rather precisely laid out in the constitution. The gist of it is that the federal government has huge
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Dec 1, 2000
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Ryan,

                                        In Canada, the taxation powers of government are rather precisely laid out
                                        in the constitution. The gist of it is that the federal government
                                        has huge powers of taxation, the provinces have much lower powers, and the
                                        lower levels of government have almost no power.

                                        I think the clearest indication of this is that everywhere but Quebec (who
                                        haven't ratified the constitution), the provinces can't charge any form of
                                        income tax, and thus have to get the feds to collect a tax on their behalf
                                        and forward it to them.

                                        As I understand it, the feds have the income tax, excise taxes, tarriffs,
                                        duties, and apparently also sales taxes. The provinces have, sales taxes and
                                        rolalty taxes on resources.

                                        I am not quite clear on what forms of tax the local government can charge,
                                        but given what they do charge, I would guess they only have the property
                                        tax.

                                        Now, clearly history has shown us that these constitutional limits on
                                        taxation have been ignored, bent, and mishandled (ie. the provincial income
                                        tax), so I may have the odd one of the above wrong.
                                        Henning

                                        >From: "Lanyon, Ryan" <lanyonry@...>
                                        >Reply-To: carfree_cities@egroups.com
                                        >To: "'carfree_cities@egroups.com'" <carfree_cities@egroups.com>
                                        >Subject: RE: [carfree_cities] Something for everyone....
                                        >Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:20:31 -0500
                                        >
                                        >What's really great is that there's a provincially imposed ceiling on
                                        >property taxes for commercial land, forcing the burden of cost (from
                                        >downloaded services!) to the residential tax base.
                                        >
                                        >This discussion (and others) lead me to question the utility of a property
                                        >tax. Generally, it does not redistribute wealth as accurately as other
                                        >taxes, it is widely subject to economic cycles, and it does not address
                                        >one's ability to pay. Do municipalities in other jurisdictions levy income
                                        >taxes or sales taxes, in addition to property taxes? AFAIK, municipalities
                                        >in Ontario (and Canada) may only levy property tax and charge user fees for
                                        >services.
                                        >
                                        >I suppose the other question is what do those taxes pay for? We've got
                                        >more
                                        >'soft' services coming from the property tax base than we used to,
                                        >competing
                                        >for scarce resources with 'hard' services (municipalities are not allowed
                                        >to
                                        >run deficits anymore). The good news is that this had led to a tighter
                                        >evaluation of the need for new and expanded roads. The public is also much
                                        >more aware of how much the transportation system costs.
                                        >
                                        >-RL
                                        >
                                        > > -----Original Message-----
                                        > > From: Ronald Dawson [SMTP:rdadddmd@...]
                                        > > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 11:38 PM
                                        > > To: carfree_cities@egroups.com
                                        > > Subject: RE: [carfree_cities] Something for everyone....
                                        > >
                                        > > Lanyon, Ryan wrote:
                                        > > >In Ontario, we recently moved to an actual value assessment for
                                        >property
                                        > > >taxes. Part of the problem is that those who purchased a property in
                                        >an
                                        > > >affordable neighbourhood many decades ago may now find themselves
                                        > > retired,
                                        > > >on a fixed income, house paid off, but land values around them have
                                        > > >skyrocketed. This is typical in middle class and affluent inner city
                                        > > areas
                                        > > >that were cheaper in the 60s and have since been revitalized. The case
                                        > > of
                                        > > >the widowed grandmother living in Ottawa's Glebe who can no longer
                                        >afford
                                        > > >her property taxes is commonly cited.
                                        > >
                                        > > Well that's Mike Harris and the "Nonsense Revolution (TM)" for you.
                                        > > Dawson
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                                        > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                                        > > carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                                        > > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                                        >
                                        >To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                                        >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                                        >carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                                        >Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                                        >

                                        _____________________________________________________________________________________
                                        Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.