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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 18 , Dec 1, 2000
      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 2 of 18 , Dec 1, 2000
        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
      • 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
          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
          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 4 of 18 , Dec 1, 2000
            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.