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

RE: [carfree_cities] Something for everyone....

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.