Is It a Privilege Or a Right To Vote?

[dialamah]

Good, you agree that a renter is not responsible for property taxes on a property that you own - IOW, they don't pay property tax - you do! And, property tax has nothing to do with equity or mortgage. Quite often property tax is based on assessed value, but that is only a partial means to assess what the owner is able to pay. You're also saying that if your property tax jumps say 10%, you'd be unable to go to your renter and ask for 10% higher rent - why not? You should be able to if they are paying the taxes - right?.

What do you think the municipality would say if told them you'd pay half the taxes because your rental was empty half the year and therefore no renter to pay said taxes?

A little too convoluted for me. Why I would own property and then expect someone else to pay for it escapes me. Anyway, this idea that people who don't own property or don't work automatically vote for political parties that property owners and workers disagree with is silly. I'm both a property owner and I work, nonetheless I support parties who make social programs a priority. No doubt there are renters and unemployed who vote differently.

[Hal 9000]

A little too convoluted for me. Why I would own property and then expect someone else to pay for it escapes me. Anyway, this idea that people who don't own property or don't work automatically vote for political parties that property owners and workers disagree with is silly. I'm both a property owner and I work, nonetheless I support parties who make social programs a priority. No doubt there are renters and unemployed who vote differently.

They wouldn't pay for your property, no one is asking that. They would be paying their portion of municipal taxes - taxes to cover the garbage they have taken away, the sidewalk built in front of where they live, the fire dept., busses, the school systems, snow removal, water, infrastructure, street lights, nature trails, skating rink, park maintenance etc etc. You know, municipal fees.

This idea you have that paying property taxes is paying for your property is so wrong, it's stunning. And, by saying "Why I would own property and then expect someone else to pay", you're saying that you don't expect renters to pay property tax.

Speaking of convoluted, what is it you're saying? Renters do pay property tax or renters shouldn't pay property tax? Because, you've actually argued both sides now.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Hal 9000

[dialamah]

They wouldn't pay for your property, no one is asking that. They would be paying their portion of municipal taxes - taxes to cover the garbage they have taken away, the sidewalk built in front of where they live, the fire dept., busses, the school systems, snow removal, water, infrastructure, street lights, nature trails, skating rink, park maintenance etc etc. You know, municipal fees.

If the rent I charge them covers my payment for municipal taxes, garbage, sidewalk, fire dept, busses, school systems, snow removal, water, infrastructure, street lights, nature trails, skating rink, park maintenance - then they are actually paying their portion of all of this, via their rent. It may be listed on city rolls under my name, but it's still them paying. I would imagine any landlord would do the same, so i fail to see how renters aren't paying their fair share. Of course, if its the habit of landlords to rent out properties and not include those costs, then your argument would make sense.

This idea you have that paying property taxes is paying for your property is so wrong, it's stunning.

Property taxes are part of the cost of owning a home, along with mortgage, interest on that mortgage, strata fees if they apply, etc. I expect my renters to pay the rent, which ideally will include all of that, plus enough for any maintenance/upkeep.

And, by saying "Why I would own property and then expect someone else to pay", you're saying that you don't expect renters to pay property tax.

That was in response to your statement "What do you think the municipality would say if told them you'd pay half the taxes because your rental was empty half the year and therefore no renter to pay said taxes?"

I would have thought it obvious that if I fail to keep it rented, I can hardly expect renters elsewhere to pay the costs simply because it is a rental property.

Speaking of convoluted, what is it you're saying? Renters do pay property tax or renters shouldn't pay property tax? Because, you've actually argued both sides now.

The conversation went something like this:

You: the renters who pay no property taxes get to vote for frivolous things that the home owners are forced to flip the bill for.

Me: What landlord doesn't include property taxes in his rent???

You: None, actually.

Me: Asks for explanation .....

The explanation appears to be that because the property tax is charged to the owner, the owner is the one paying, even if the amount of the property tax is included in the rental that the owner charges. So, in your mind, the renter isn't paying these taxes, and they then make silly voting choices because they aren't paying the piper.

Which doesn't make any sense to me; it seems obvious that if the rental fee includes the property tax, the renter is in effect paying that property tax, even if the landlord writes the check. Thus, renters do pay property taxes, along with other things mentioned.

If you want to argue that some or many renters are unaware of the relationship between what they pay for rent and how much property tax might be on a given property, I could understand that argument. I might even agree with it.

[Big Guy]

When an individual is billed for a rental property, the bill is not broken down as to the details of how the homeowner established the charge. Some landlords may include property value increases and taxes in their calculation. Obviously, the profit margins are included according to the wishes of the landlord and the market. I do know that landlords do not establish the rent based on the expectation to lose money.

[dialamah]

When an individual is billed for a rental property, the bill is not broken down as to the details of how the homeowner established the charge. Some landlords may include property value increases and taxes in their calculation. Obviously, the profit margins are included according to the wishes of the landlord and the market. I do know that landlords do not establish the rent based on the expectation to lose money.

Exactly, so it may be true that renters are unaware that they are also paying property taxes and all the rest. It could be true in some markets that a landlord will charge rent to only cover the mortgage, but I don't think it would be common.

[Smoke]

A landlord sets the rent according to what the market will bear. Then they are only allowed to increase the rent annually by an amount (percentage) set by the government, supposedly based on COL increase. The cost of maintaining the property, the insurance and the property taxes are all fluctuating numbers that the landlord has to deal with. If the property tax goes up significantly, or major maintenance is required, or a ridiculous increase in insurance premiums (not uncommon) happens, the landlord can't just go and increase the rent to cover it. The landlord still has to abide by the annual increase dictated by the government. Now, there are situations where a landlord CAN increase the rent above and beyond the government mandated increase, such as when improvements are made to the property, but the landlord still has to have it rubber stamped by the government.

[Bonam]

Perhaps you will explain. If I were going to rent out my property, the rent would include covering the mortgage, city utilities, property taxes, insurance and any other costs associated with the property I'm renting out. That would essentially mean that the renter was paying property taxes, even if its in my name. Unless you are thinking that both the property owner and the renter should pay property taxes? Double dipping for the municipality?

The amount you can charge for rent is not based on your costs, but on the market supply/demand for rentals. Your mortage / tax / utility / etc cost is essentially fixed over time with relatively small variations in tax/insurance over time, but the rental market can change hugely from year to year. A big company in your city could go bust next year and a bunch of people could move elsewhere, leaving an oversupply of housing and rental prices could drop by 50%, regardless of your mortgage costs staying the same. Or a big company could open a new office in your city and attract thousands of new six figure earners to the area, and rental prices could double.

In some cities/markets, rents cover all of the typical landlord's costs and allow them to earn considerable extra cashflow. In other cities/markets, rents only cover a fraction of mortage costs.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Bonam

[Archduke al-Qaddafi]

A landlord sets the rent according to what the market will bear. Then they are only allowed to increase the rent annually by an amount (percentage) set by the government, supposedly based on COL increase. The cost of maintaining the property, the insurance and the property taxes are all fluctuating numbers that the landlord has to deal with. If the property tax goes up significantly, or major maintenance is required, or a ridiculous increase in insurance premiums (not uncommon) happens, the landlord can't just go and increase the rent to cover it. The landlord still has to abide by the annual increase dictated by the government. Now, there are situations where a landlord CAN increase the rent above and beyond the government mandated increase, such as when improvements are made to the property, but the landlord still has to have it rubber stamped by the government.

I don't understand why anyone in Ontario would get into this business, the regulations in your province are outrageous. The rules are more sensible in other parts of the country, and landlords can actually have some control over their investments.

[Big Guy]

I don't understand why anyone in Ontario would get into this business, the regulations in your province are outrageous. The rules are more sensible in other parts of the country, and landlords can actually have some control over their investments.

In Toronto and Vancouver, landlords have been making very comfortable profits on rentals while watching their initial investment (property) skyrocket in value. Remember that when housing prices skyrocket in a city, the amount they pay in municipal taxes stays relatively the same.

[-TSS-]

Do you think expats should have the right to vote? On one hand they are citizens, on the other hand they don't have to live by the laws of the country they are citizens of.

[The_Squid]

Do you think expats should have the right to vote? On one hand they are citizens, on the other hand they don't have to live by the laws of the country they are citizens of.

Canada does it one way (not allowed).... USA does it another... there's probably no right/wrong answer to that one. I can go either way on it.

[TimG]

Do you think expats should have the right to vote? On one hand they are citizens, on the other hand they don't have to live by the laws of the country they are citizens of.

No representation without taxation. If you are resident you at least pay taxes when you buy anything. Non-residents do not. However, if an ex-pat is maintaining their Canadian residency for tax purposes and reporting their world wide income to the CRA then they should be able to vote.

[The_Squid]

However, if an ex-pat is maintaining their Canadian residency for tax purposes and reporting their world wide income to the CRA then they should be able to vote.

i think the residency rules allow for plenty of leeway as they are. If you've been away less than 5 years and intend on returning then you can vote.

More than 5 years, then you don't get to vote.

Seems about right.