Queens Park thinking of allowing other municipalities to tax land tran

[Icebound]

... but this report: http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/introduction-of-land-transfer-tax-in-other-cities-carries-huge-cost-new-report-1.1937803#

... gives us all the reasons why it is a bad idea.

Of course, the MAIN reason (unstated) why it is a bad idea, is that land transfer taxes go to the city for gravy things like transit and sidewalks.

If we could only eliminate it, the price of resale houses would go up approximately an equivalent amount, and that would mean extra money in the realtor's pocket, to spend on essentials like manicures and Carribean vacations.

[overthere]

The whole notion of land transfer taxes is utterly stupid. If municipalities and provinces need money, just raise municipal property or provincial income tax levels and deal with their fiscal issues honestly instead of stifling people from moving and distorting the value of homes. They add absolutely nothing to the transaction.

By contrast, Alberta has no municipal taxation on sales of houses because they have nothing to do with the deal. The province charges a $65 minimum fee on a sale, which can run all the way up to a couple hundred bucks if it has multiple instruments to be registered. The only purpose of the fees is to operate the land titles system which is a provincial responsibility.

[guyser]

Municipalities are realizing the gravy train can continue when it comes to taxation.

Along with the LTT, municipalities are also telling homeowners to they must purchase the Shore Road Allowance if they so much as put in for a permit to repair a deck, or some variation of same, even if said repair is 200 feet from any Shore Road Allowance.

Owned a summer home for a hundred years? Guess what, you likley do NOT own the 66 foot strip starting from the high water mark (HWM est in 1850 or so). It means anyone can travel across said strip, and/or in fact set up camp. (Thankfully no one does) That dock and boathouse you have on the water? You actually dont own the land you put it on.

The NDP govt of years back gave municipalities the ownership of this land. Now they are trying to get owners to purchase this land. Any dicussion of amounts is fraught with peril.

Perhaps you are locked in by high rocky cliffs on both sides of a 500 foot beach...pay the man.
Or, on top of a cliff ? Pay the man.

Maybe you are a non-profit kids camp owner, can you afford $10 a sf price? In one case on my lake that would amount to $300,000 purchase. Not gonna happen.

The Muni's got the land for free, and they sure want to profit off it.

Heres the hook that is particularly gauling.....I want to put in a deck off the 66 ft allowance, and my nieghbours up the lane and whom are not waterfront want to do the same thing. My deck will cost in excess of $5000 more than his.

Idiocy reigns !

[Keepitsimple]

The whole notion of land transfer taxes is utterly stupid. If municipalities and provinces need money, just raise municipal property or provincial income tax levels and deal with their fiscal issues honestly instead of stifling people from moving and distorting the value of homes. They add absolutely nothing to the transaction.

By contrast, Alberta has no municipal taxation on sales of houses because they have nothing to do with the deal. The province charges a $65 minimum fee on a sale, which can run all the way up to a couple hundred bucks if it has multiple instruments to be registered. The only purpose of the fees is to operate the land titles system which is a provincial responsibility.

Bingo. Quit trying to fool the taxpayers. Tell us what is done with our money. Tax us fairly. Spend it wisely. Stop the shenanigans.

[TimG]

The whole notion of land transfer taxes is utterly stupid.

We have a huge problem in Vancouver with offshore buyers snapping up condos and leaving them empty. It may bring lots of money into the city but it also inflates real estate prices way beyond what people who actually work here can afford. At some point governments have to look after the interests of people who need to live in the city. Taxes on transfers to offshore interests is one way to discourage such sales.

[guyser]

At some point governments have to look after the interests of people who need to live in the city. Taxes on transfers to offshore interests is one way to discourage such sales.

Hmm....are you normally flippy floppy on issues or just this one?

Cuz ya know, youve argued long and loud about citizen interests not being worth a pinch of coon shite when it comes to big business.

Lemme guess.....cant buy a condo in Van City..right?

Edited July 30, 2014 by Guyser2

[TimG]

Lemme guess.....cant buy a condo in Van City..right?

I am set - I already own property and would see my asset values drop if laws that I suggest were brought in.

I am just looking at the big picture and don't see the current trends as good for the city.

Edited July 30, 2014 by TimG

[guyser]

Thanks TimG , by not answering the salient parts....answers it succinctly.

[TimG]

Thanks TimG , by not answering the salient parts....answers it succinctly.

Not sure what you are getting at. I answered the only relevant point you made. The rest was a silly strawman with no connection to anything I have ever said.

[guyser]

Not sure what you are getting at. I answered the only relevant point you made. The rest was a silly strawman with no connection to anything I have ever said.

...except the numerous examples on MLW.

We could start with train cargo...and then go plenty of other places.

But thats ok, sometimes ya gots to flip flop. No worries.

[TimG]

We could start with train cargo...and then go plenty of other places.

All that means is you could not understand the point I was making... No worries. I am used to people on this forum ignoring what I say and inserting their own prejudices. Edited July 30, 2014 by TimG

[guyser]

All that means is you could not understand the point I was making... No worries. I am used to people on this forum ignoring what I say and inserting their own prejudices.

I know what you mean. Sheesh, sometimes it's pretty bad huh?

But ya know, that other thread and how moving dangerous goods through the centre of towns and cities, I dont recall any of ....

I am just looking at the big picture and don't see the current trends as good for the city***.

Like I said, its all good, gots to flip flop on some things ya know. No worries.

***I wonder if anyone in Lac Magantic said this in the past?

[overthere]

We have a huge problem in Vancouver with offshore buyers snapping up condos and leaving them empty. It may bring lots of money into the city but it also inflates real estate prices way beyond what people who actually work here can afford. At some point governments have to look after the interests of people who need to live in the city. Taxes on transfers to offshore interests is one way to discourage such sales.

IAnd in the meantime you delight in screwing the many multiples more Canadians who wish to relocate to BC, or anybody who sells to a family member, or in fact anybody at all who wants to purchase a home.

Utterly stupid and regressive. I'm going out on a limb and guessing one of your several NDP govts thought that one through.

I believe it's known as The Welcome To BC tax. It might be the first time you get screwed for nothing in BC, but it won't be the last.

Edited July 30, 2014 by overthere

[TimG]

IAnd in the meantime you delight in screwing the many multiples more Canadians who wish to relocate to BC, or anybody who sells to a family member, or in fact anybody at all who wants to purchase a home.

A 5% tax that reduced prices by 10% would leave everyone actually wanting to live and work in Vancouver much better off. The losers would be people (like me) who already have property but that is the point: prices have gotten so disconnected from reality that something needs to change.

[guyser]

A 5% tax that reduced prices by 10%

Magically that would happen?

Cuz ya know....they tried that in Van, still have it in fact. What was the long term result? 499% increase in home prices.

Well that should make first time homebuyers ecstatic !

[TimG]

Magically that would happen?

Depends on whether the tax was structured in a way that would discourage foreign speculators. If it was not structured properly then it would accomplish the opposite of what I hope and make housing even less affordable.

[guyser]

Depends on whether the tax was structured in a way that would discourage foreign speculators. If it was not structured properly then it would accomplish the opposite of what I hope and make housing even less affordable.

1% on first $230G's and 2% on the rest. Aimed at speculators and the such.

Didnt work then, wont work now.

[overthere]

It's a ripoff money drug that politicians are addicted to, and apparently they have some citizens discussing the irrelevant details instead of discussing the substance of the tax itself.

What proportion of BC sales are to Asian non-residents?

Note of course that any future resale of that property by a non resident is subject to a 30% withholding tax while the persons file is reviewed by CRA.

If it is simply Canadian residents buying the property, that opportunity is available to anybody and does not deserve to be taxed in any case as long as it is a prinicipal residence.

[Topaz]

It should be a "choice" and NOT a law because some smaller communities would be hurt, where real estate is becoming stalled.

[overthere]

It should be a "choice" and NOT a law because some smaller communities would be hurt, where real estate is becoming stalled.

If municipalities are offered a choice, I can guarantee that 100% of them will be milking this teat, and tout suite.

The appeal to the province is that they can take the opportunity of new tax revenue at the municipal level to slash provincial kickbacks to those towns and cities. It will also mute the whine level briefly.

But for citizens in general it is a punitive and pointless piece of shit.

[Icebound]

The Land Transfer Tax is so onerous to Toronto's real estate market that the June-to-June downtown core prices increased 11.6 percent for detached.... at over a million per, average.... although number of units fell slightly. But condo and row-house numbers increased about 10% or slightly more.

Repealing the LTT would do little to change the price of a house.... but it would give the seller and realtor a bigger share of the pie.... and since most suggestions for replacing the revenue involve increasing property taxes.... that means that widowed grandma in her 1200 square foot bungalow will be dinged extra to subsidize a real-estate-agent's fees, and to add a little extra to his client's million-plus sale.

I might be tempted to treat RENOVATION BUSINESSES a little bit specially, but only if they register the business as such.... and when they buy a house, that would be a tax-deductible expense, and when they sell it, a taxable income. ... and apply the LTT only upon sale by the business, and not on the purchase by the business. Or treat it like the GST... payable, but refundable for qualified business.

But if you buy a house as a principal residence, renovate it and flip it, you are already benefiting from not paying tax on the capital gain. LTT for you.

[GostHacked]

Gold digging corrupt control freaks. That is government. The nickle and dime'ing sure add up.

[Big Guy]

With a population of about 6 million in 2008, the GTA is Canada's largest metropolitan area and accounts for about half of Ontario's population.

Perhaps it is time to declare the Province of GTA and give the new “Province” all of the responsibilities and advantages of setting up its own tax system.

That would make GTA the second most populous province after Quebec and keep Ontario (without the GTA) third on the list.

[overthere]

Depends on whether the tax was structured in a way that would discourage foreign speculators. If it was not structured properly then it would accomplish the opposite of what I hope and make housing even less affordable.

I say again, unless you are buying and selling the house as a principal residence the owner(foreign or not) will have to pay capital gains, income tax and GST on the transaction.

In addition, if you are a non resident the sellers lawyer will be required to retain in trust 30% of the sale price until CRA approves the tax situation on the property.

Repealing the LTT would do little to change the price of a house.... but it would give the seller and realtor a bigger share of the pie.... and since most suggestions for replacing the revenue involve increasing property taxes.... that means that widowed grandma in her 1200 square foot bungalow will be dinged extra to subsidize a real-estate-agent's fees, and to add a little extra to his client's million-plus sale.

The LTT is paid by the buyer to the govt, not to the realtor or the seller. Any extra costs such as provincial or federal land taxes, CMHC fees, inspections appraisals etc are cash expenses borne by the buyer and all of them serve to limit the affordability of a home and the possibility of qualifying for a mortgage.

Your entire post is mainly gibberish, BTW..

[Topaz]

I wonder in the near future, if people will say no to buying a house and go rent and put their extra money into investments and a expensive car? Of course, if that did happen the demand would be so high, the rents would probably go up.