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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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
      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 2 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.