Abolish Property Taxes?

[Legato]

7 hours ago, August1991 said:

Rather confused here, guys.

=====

I buy a property. OK. Call this number paid $X.

I also agree to pay for regular monthly services, property taxes. Call this number $Y.

X can be zero, or Y can be zero. I'm confused.

Y is never zero, X can be zero.

Value of Y depends on which municipality, property location. acreage etc.

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, August1991 said:

Rather confused here, guys.

=====

I buy a property. OK. Call this number paid $X.

I also agree to pay for regular monthly services, property taxes. Call this number $Y.

X can be zero, or Y can be zero. I'm confused.

Y can't be zero in Canada.  There's no where in canada i'm aware of that doesn't charge property tax 

[herbie]

Oh FFS gst/pst/hst is a tax on sales.
Property taxes are a fee for ongoing services.

If you're stuck on the tax = a tax - all tax bad attitude you won't ever grasp how to pay for school, fire, police, water, sewer etc. No matter what you call it, you still have to pay it

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Oh FFS gst/pst/hst is a tax on sales.
Property taxes are a fee for ongoing services.

 

No, property tax is...  wait for it...  a tax.  It's not a 'fee'.  

All tax money goes to provide services one way or another.  This is just a tax. 

You may pay fees ON TOP of the tax. But it's a tax. 

I thought you said you knew how this stuff works?

[Legato]

In essence, the formula to calculate the property tax is Property Tax = Property Value Assessment x Municipal Tax Rate. For example, if a home is valued at $500,000 and the municipal tax rate is 0.5%, the homeowner would owe $2,500 in property taxes for the year.

[SpankyMcFarland]

My town does a great job with snow-clearing and the rest. Property taxes are my favourite taxes or maybe least unfavourite ones. They work and they don’t come with sinister follow-up letters years later threatening fines and imprisonment on some matter not previously discussed. Leave them alone. 

Edited October 17, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[herbie]

There were 4 properties on this horseshoe street that went up for tax sales last month. Two of them are rentals, where the owner didn't pay the tax and still collected rent for the 2 years. How does one get away with that shit?

Two others are in probate, family bullshit meant the survivors didn't do dick shit because there was no will and it's "too much trouble" and nobody wants to do or pay a dime, Equally absurd in my mind. The one guy who can pay for a lawyer simply won't because the brother who can't will get half. So no one paid the tax owed out of the estate and now both get nothing.

[eyeball]

On 9/4/2025 at 9:31 AM, CdnFox said:

Agreed. That's something people should agree on left or right,  the bigger the gov't the less we should be giving them power and money. Keeping it close to home helps keep it more accountable and more in tune with the actual taxpayer. 

Wow, that's so woke...takes me back to the heady days of fighting for local management of fisheries and forestry.

Good luck with it.

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Wow, that's so woke...

Literally the opposite of woke  Woke Wants to give more power to the government especially the bigger the government   

I admire your consistency, even if it is your consistency in being wrong

 

Quote

takes me back to the heady days of fighting for local management of fisheries and forestry.

You mean when you used to argue with the rubber ducky in your bathtub? I'm sure it must have been very exciting for you

[SpankyMcFarland]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

There were 4 properties on this horseshoe street that went up for tax sales last month. Two of them are rentals, where the owner didn't pay the tax and still collected rent for the 2 years. How does one get away with that shit?

Two others are in probate, family bullshit meant the survivors didn't do dick shit because there was no will and it's "too much trouble" and nobody wants to do or pay a dime, Equally absurd in my mind. The one guy who can pay for a lawyer simply won't because the brother who can't will get half. So no one paid the tax owed out of the estate and now both get nothing.

There should be proper enforcement there. All it means is that the rest of us have to pay more. My inner fascist would like to see properties confiscated under such circumstances.

Edited October 17, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[herbie]

They ended up doing just that.
In the first case I mentioned, after one year in arrears the town should've collected the rent until the tax and the next year's was covered.
In the second they will end up with the two properties (one home adjacent one undeveloped) and any assets like money will end up with the govt.

I another case they tax saled a home, no one bid on it, and they ended up booting out the tenants who squatted there for a year with no one to pay rent to, then tore it down at a cost of $15K. Didn't get their tax arrears, didn't try to takeover as landlords and missed out on $18K of rent, spent $15K and will be lucky to flog the lot if and when and for what? $25K?

There's too many inefficiencies there, like the latest stories of how the  senior's property tax deferrals are being used to the advantage of those most wealthy/

[John Stone]

On 10/17/2025 at 6:18 PM, herbie said:

They ended up doing just that.
In the first case I mentioned, after one year in arrears the town should've collected the rent until the tax and the next year's was covered.
In the second they will end up with the two properties (one home adjacent one undeveloped) and any assets like money will end up with the govt.

I another case they tax saled a home, no one bid on it, and they ended up booting out the tenants who squatted there for a year with no one to pay rent to, then tore it down at a cost of $15K. Didn't get their tax arrears, didn't try to takeover as landlords and missed out on $18K of rent, spent $15K and will be lucky to flog the lot if and when and for what? $25K?

There's too many inefficiencies there, like the latest stories of how the  senior's property tax deferrals are being used to the advantage of those most wealthy/

These people are free, they don't pay taxes.

course they don't have potable water, electricity, sidewalks, schools, sewage....... hygiene. 

[Shady]

On 8/19/2025 at 5:59 PM, LinkSoul60 said:

It's not weird at all.  It's how we pay for police, fire, emergency services, schools, parks, recreation and culture, water, garbage removal, etc...   You (or the bank) owns the home, but pay for these services.  Not sure what happens if you refuse to pay property taxes but doubt they would 'take' your home but rather put a lien on it or have you apply to defer your taxes with interest until you can pay them, or the home is sold. 

It doesn't have to be how we pay for police, fire, etc though.

[TreeBeard]

8 hours ago, Shady said:

It doesn't have to be how we pay for police, fire, etc though.

What would you replace property taxes with?

[Shady]

12 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

What would you replace property taxes with?

You could potentially replace it with a municipal sales tax, or income tax, something like that.

[Michael Hardner]

35 minutes ago, Shady said:

You could potentially replace it with a municipal sales tax, or income tax, something like that.

This would inevitably result in a regressive taxation system though.

1/2 of the city spends all of the money they earn, so they'd now be underwater by the sales tax amount.

The top earners would get a giant tax cut.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

This would inevitably result in a regressive taxation system though.

You can't just make that statement. Progressive or regressive are just words that the far left uses to make something sound good or bad but it doesn't actually have any real palpable meaning. It's more of an opinion

Eliminating property tax can significantly reduce the barriers to entry for less wealthy people into ownership.

And while the top earners would get a significant tax cut, the biggest tax cut would actually be to the middle and lower classes. Not to mention the fact that it would make rents cheaper. When you think about it renters are the ones that have to pay that tax for the owner

The idea of getting rid of property taxes but quite frankly it is an idea that has some merit and would be worth exploring. @Shady does have some good points there and income, consumption and user taxes and fees might actually be a much fairer method of collecting taxes. 

The problem for the cities is they don't have the power to tax many things, property taxes and the insane fees and permit costs for building homes is their primary revenue.  THat would have to be addressed. 

[Shady]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

This would inevitably result in a regressive taxation system though.

1/2 of the city spends all of the money they earn, so they'd now be underwater by the sales tax amount.

The top earners would get a giant tax cut.

How would a top earner get a giant tax cut if there was a municipal income tax?  Regardless, there could be other ways of raising revenue.  I just don't think it's right that if you own your home outright, you still have to essentially rent it from the city in order to keep it.

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, Shady said:

How would a top earner get a giant tax cut if there was a municipal income tax?  Regardless, there could be other ways of raising revenue.  I just don't think it's right that if you own your home outright, you still have to essentially rent it from the city in order to keep it.

You'll see the following argument made frequently about virtually ANY tax cut that's not specifically targeted at lower income earners only:

"BUT - THIS IS A TAX CUT FOR ALL SO A RICH PERSON WILL SAVE 100,000 DOLLARS IN TAXES WHILE THE POOR ONLY SAVE 1,000, THAT'S NOT FAIR WHY ARE THE RICH GETTING A BIGGER TAX CUT!?!?!"

The short answer is the rich pay vastly more taxes.  If an 'average' person pays 20,000 in taxes and a rich person pays 2 million in taxes, of course any tax break is going to give the rich  person more actual cash.  

They will claim this is unfair, but they think it's just fine the rich person pays the vast majority of the taxes  

But what they often miss is that while the tax break is more savings to the rich, it usually represents LESS Of their disposable income. 

the rich tend to be able to shelter their money better, it's worth it for them to make the effort to do so.  So a 10 percent savings to them really isn't that much in comparison to their total income.  Whereas it's a huge amount for the average person paying regular tax rates. 

There's nothing wrong with the rich getting a tax  break but the left does not care for it. 

[TreeBeard]

3 hours ago, Shady said:

You could potentially replace it with a municipal sales tax, or income tax, something like that.

Why would I ever go to a town with a large sales tax when I can drive down the road?  Also, you’d get a bunch of businesses moving to the border of the town.  Dumb idea.  
 

An increase to provincial income tax might work.  But then it would be collected and doled out by the province.  And it would be a significant increase in income tax, which you would also whine about. 

[herbie]

It amazes me how the 1980s concept that taxes must be IN YOUR FACE like the GST must now be replaced by hidden taxes and fees tp accomplish the same thing is now the objective of the same conservatives.

When I was a kid the PST was referred to as the Medical Services Tax so you knew what it was intended to cover. Today the Transit Tax still refers to what it covers.
Property tax covers municipal expenses, leave it at that. There is no more acceptable method to cover that purpose.

[CdnFox]

47 minutes ago, herbie said:

It amazes me how the 1980s concept that taxes must be IN YOUR FACE like the GST must now be replaced by hidden taxes and fees tp accomplish the same thing is now the objective of the same conservatives.

 

It isn't. That's the libs. Industrial carbon tax for example drives up the costs of everything and you can't see it. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 

1. Progressive or regressive are just words that the far left uses to make something sound good or bad but it doesn't actually have any real palpable meaning. It's more of an opinion

2. Eliminating property tax can significantly reduce the barriers to entry for less wealthy people into ownership.

3. And while the top earners would get a significant tax cut, the biggest tax cut would actually be to the middle and lower classes. Not to mention the fact that it would make rents cheaper. When you think about it renters are the ones that have to pay that tax for the owner

 

1. It has a very clear meaning in economics: it means that the poor pay a higher percentage of their income than the wealthy. It's pretty disingenuous for you to claim that it's meaningless, or that it's an opinion.

2. 3. Even though I disagree with the first paragraph that I quoted above, I will ask you politely for a cite for points 2 and 3. 

You are right about bureaucracy and building taxes though.  Government needs to be run more quickly with less bureaucracy, but the politics of that itself is pretty tricky. The person who solves it will be a hero for all.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. It has a very clear meaning in economics: it means that the poor pay a higher percentage of their income than the wealthy. It's pretty disingenuous for you to claim that it's meaningless, or that it's an opinion.

That doesn't even make sense. So a tax is Progressive when poor people pay a higher percentage of their income than the wealthy?

Quote

2. 3. Even though I disagree with the first paragraph that I quoted above, I will ask you politely for a cite for points 2 and 3. 

For very wealthy person an average home purchased in one of the major metros cost so much smaller percentage of their overall income than it would for a person who's middle class and earning an average Canadian income.

Likewise the property tax on that property represents a much larger percentage of the average person's disposable income. This is calculated at the banks, it forms part of the affordability equation when people are looking to purchase a home.

High property tax rates make it more difficult for people of averaging income to afford the purchase of a home. Far more so than it impacts a wealthy person. In addition it can make it difficult for a person to retain their home. For example there were dozens and dozens of older people living in one of the more prestigious areas of Vancouver in the last decade who own their homes outright but were forced to move because property values went up so much that the newly calculated property tax on the value of their property was more than they could afford. So they were d-homed and had to move because they were no longer earning incomes and couldn't afford the increased property tax.

So as you can see the cut in property taxes would impact the middle classes far more favorably.

As to renters as I said renters inevitably pay the property tax one way or another. So even the lowest income earners are impacted by property taxes when they try and buy shelter even if they're not buying the property itself. Even a small increase in the cost of rental can have a massive impact on these people's bottom line, far more so than it would on a wealthy person.

Quote

You are right about bureaucracy and building taxes though.  Government needs to be run more quickly with less bureaucracy, but the politics of that itself is pretty tricky. The person who solves it will be a hero for all.

 

The solution is easy enough from a practical point of view but the reality is that most municipalities in cities have become absolutely drunk on the massive amounts of revenue that they rake in with the fees and processes involved in new home construction projects. It would require a provincial action to resolve that and it would be a political nightmare even though the solution itself is relatively simple

[Michael Hardner]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

1. So a tax is Progressive when poor people pay a higher percentage of their income than the wealthy?

2. For very wealthy person an average home purchased in one of the major metros cost so much smaller percentage of their overall income than it would for a person who's middle class and earning an average Canadian income.

3. Likewise the property tax on that property represents a much larger percentage of the average person's disposable income. This is calculated at the banks, it forms part of the affordability equation when people are looking to purchase a home.

4. High property tax rates make it more difficult for people of averaging income to afford the purchase of a home. Far more so than it impacts a wealthy person. In addition it can make it difficult for a person to retain their home. For example there were dozens and dozens of older people living in one of the more prestigious areas of Vancouver in the last decade who own their homes outright but were forced to move because property values went up so much that the newly calculated property tax on the value of their property was more than they could afford. So they were d-homed and had to move because they were no longer earning incomes and couldn't afford the increased property tax.

5. So as you can see the cut in property taxes would impact the middle classes far more favorably.

6. As to renters as I said renters inevitably pay the property tax one way or another. So even the lowest income earners are impacted by property taxes when they try and buy shelter even if they're not buying the property itself. Even a small increase in the cost of rental can have a massive impact on these people's bottom line, far more so than it would on a wealthy person.

7. The solution is easy enough from a practical point of view but the reality is that most municipalities in cities have become absolutely drunk on the massive amounts of revenue that they rake in with the fees and processes involved in new home construction projects. It would require a provincial action to resolve that and it would be a political nightmare even though the solution itself is relatively simple

First of all, I thank you for providing a fact-heavy post, even though it's not exactly a 'cite' but your own analysis.  I will endeavour to carefully provide my response, in expectation that we are already likely at an 'agree to disagree' point.

1.  Yes, exactly.
2. Yes.
3. I don't think that 3. follows from 2.  What we do know is that the less wealthy you are, the less you have for 'disposable' income, savings etc.  but let me continue to read this....
4. I did a 5-min calculation and my property tax is about 8.3% of my overall mortgage+city fees costs.  (I live in The City of Toronto).  That number would go down when you factor in electricity and insurance but there's a benchmark.  The thing you have introduced, though, is the question of "high" taxes.  

Even if you eliminate property taxes, the overall financial burden of maintaining the city remains the same - all other things constant.  So now, the question is where does the tax burden fall  ?  If it's based on a city sales tax, then that presumably taxes goods and services obtained from within the city cachement.  That's a big change, and aside from the question of "high" taxes, the question is "Where do the revenues come from under this new system ?"

It's not a simple question.

5. Yes, except those funds now have to come from somewhere else now.  Who pays more of their income to day-to-day local goods and services ?  Someone who has no money at the end of the month, or someone who has a lot ?  The former group would have to come from somewhere else.

1-minute Google search says $17B Toronto operating budget comes from taxes in 2025.  Our GDP is $430B but I suspect that amounts to everything we produce.  Still, that comes out to "Toronto needs 4% of GDP to get by".

Can the lowest income people afford a 4% hike and what would be the impact on local economy that way ?

6.  Very true and in fact I worked with Olivia Chow as a local/building representative in the 1990s (as a renter) so I know a little about this.  Here's the bone I can throw you to actually help your argument: renters pay a HIGHER property tax than home owners in many cases.  The formula is a little complicated as I recall, but it could mean that you're right, ie. the setup could be better for renters, ie. many low earners.

7.  Well, let me dust off my 'conservative' certificate for a second and say I absolutely agree.  But as someone who has worked in large organizations also, I will add: Canadian organizations on the whole are TERRIBLE at budgeting, ie. designing and making a budget.  

My mantra has always been that more public involvement in the details, such as harnessing the oversight powers of nerds like ourselves, would do wonders to keeping expenses down and deliveing value for $$$.

Good chat.