Tony Clements

[mikedavid00]

Hey, if you want the government to spend money it has to increase taxes. Is that too complicated for you to understand?

And national daycare would cost a LOT of money. Possibly our 4th largest expendature when factoring in tecaher unions.

We don't have the money for such things. It was a voting ploy, not a reality or never will be a reality.

[margrace]

So what about the large properties, some on the rivers and lakes, that have enough land to sell off hay and then they claim farm status and pay very little taxes. Is this fair in your assessments.

[guyser]

So what about the large properties, some on the rivers and lakes, that have enough land to sell off hay and then they claim farm status and pay very little taxes. Is this fair in your assessments.

They can claim farm status only on the hectares they are using for such purposes.

So in your roundabout way, you have agreed that cottagers fund a lot of what goes on in Parry Sound Muckoka Bancroft Haliburton. I thought you would agree eventually

[margrace]

In talking to local people this morning the consensus is that you pay for the privilege of living on the water.

[Renegade]

So what about the large properties, some on the rivers and lakes, that have enough land to sell off hay and then they claim farm status and pay very little taxes. Is this fair in your assessments.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. In my view, taxes should be paid based upon services consumed. If large properties consume a large amount of services they should pay proportionately more taxes regardless of if they are a "farm" or not.

So now, I'd appreciate a straightforward answer, do you believe it is fair for real-estate taxes to be based upon the services consumed instead of upon the valuation of the property. It is a straightforward question, so try a straightforward answer. Yes or no? If not why not?

[Renegade]

In talking to local people this morning the consensus is that you pay for the privilege of living on the water.

What does it really matter what the consensus of local people are? People pay a price on a property for a variety of reasons, the proximity to water, the neighbourhood, the schools, the size of the house, the location, etc. The priviledge they pay for is reflected in the price they pay for the house? Why should it be in the level of taxes when they don't consume any more services than a property not on the water.

[Saturn]

In talking to local people this morning the consensus is that you pay for the privilege of living on the water.

What does it really matter what the consensus of local people are? People pay a price on a property for a variety of reasons, the proximity to water, the neighbourhood, the schools, the size of the house, the location, etc. The priviledge they pay for is reflected in the price they pay for the house? Why should it be in the level of taxes when they don't consume any more services than a property not on the water.

For the obvious reason that those who can afford a property on the water can afford to pay more in taxes. You can't ask people living in a dilapidated shack to pay as much as someone living in a multi-million dollar mansion.

[guyser]

In talking to local people this morning the consensus is that you pay for the privilege of living on the water.

And that is called preaching to the choir. Let me guess, if I walked into a church and asked the congregation if they are religious , whats the chance they say no?

And I do pay, as others do for the privilege of living on the water. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the amount over and above the "normal" range for that luxury . THAT is the question.

So please tell me , what is an acceptable "luxury" tax for waterfront property ?

As for your assessment , that is your fault you were hosed so bad. I can assume you live nowhere near Richmond Hill , so why accept that as a benchmark for comparison to your property? It goes beyond ridiculous to become...well almost a falacy. Put in your claim against MPAC and send in the forms to get a hearing and fight the issue. They more than frequently amend taxes downward once you can show them the real facts. They use a computer model that is not realistic for every property in this province. Show them the error.

And I see you do not dispute that your town in subsidized by cottagers. Well at least we are moving together on this.

[Renegade]

For the obvious reason that those who can afford a property on the water can afford to pay more in taxes. You can't ask people living in a dilapidated shack to pay as much as someone living in a multi-million dollar mansion.

So assuming the dilapidated shack and waterfront property consume the same level of services, you'd agree then is what you are asking is, that those with a waterfront property to subsidize the services provided to those in the shack?

[Saturn]

For the obvious reason that those who can afford a property on the water can afford to pay more in taxes. You can't ask people living in a dilapidated shack to pay as much as someone living in a multi-million dollar mansion.

So assuming the dilapidated shack and waterfront property consume the same level of services, you'd agree then is what you are asking is, that those with a waterfront property to subsidize the services provided to those in the shack?

First the dilapidated shack and the waterfront property cannot consume the same level of services, but even if they did, then yes - the owners of the waterfront property should pay more.

[geoffrey]

Bigger question here Saturn, one I can't answer:

Why are those in the shack entitled to the money of the richer mansion dwellers? Honestly answer that.

[Saturn]

Bigger question here Saturn, one I can't answer:

Why are those in the shack entitled to the money of the richer mansion dwellers? Honestly answer that.

A couple of obvious reasons are that those in the shack:

- don't have the money (do you want 90-year-old Mrs. Smith out on the street?)

- if they pay more then the shack may turn into ruins and the lawn into a jungle, consequently reducing the value of the nearby mansions and the quality of the whole neighbourhood

[geoffrey]

- don't have the money (do you want 90-year-old Mrs. Smith out on the street?)

Do they need my TV too? How about my car? Where does poverty start and end? I think Canada sets the bar too high. No one dies of starvation in Canada.

- if they pay more then the shack may turn into ruins and the lawn into a jungle, consequently reducing the value of the nearby mansions and the quality of the whole neighbourhood

There is an argument here... that if they aren't taken care of they'll cost more in the long run through crime, ect. ect..

But is the answer to coercively take my money to give to them. What's the deal? Why is that fair? I earned mine, why can't they earn theirs?

Do people have no responsibility to themselves? Does an able bodied person have the right to take my money? Do I have the right to force him to work for it?

[Renegade]

First the dilapidated shack and the waterfront property cannot consume the same level of services,

Sure they can. In fact the shack could consume more. For example what if the shack had garbage pick-up, sewer infrastructure, and snow-clearance of the road but none of those services existed for the waterfront property. What if 10 people lived in the shack but only 1 in the waterfront property?

but even if they did, then yes - the owners of the waterfront property should pay more.

What you are saying is that you think real-estate taxes should be used as wealth transfer mechanisms to confiscate money from those percieved richer to those percieved poorer.

Your original premise may not even be correct. There are seniors who have downsized into much smaller condos, and have accumulated wealth through a lifetime of savings. There are newly started couples just having kids who have large mortgages on houses. The new couples are less able to afford the house and are less wealthy than the seniors in the condos, yet you would redistribute wealth to the seniors in the condos because they are percieved to be poorer.

Using the value of houses as wealth redistribution mechanisms seems to me unjustified. My neighbour can have $3M in the bank and I can have $1. We don't force him to redistribute wealth to me simply because he has more in the bank. There is virutally no other asset which we try and redistribute wealth based upon its value. Why should houses be different?

- don't have the money (do you want 90-year-old Mrs. Smith out on the street?)

If she doesn't have the money, she can't afford to stay in the house. What if it were rent we were taking about instead of real-estate taxes? If she couldn't afford to pay, she'd be out regardless of the consequences. Mrs. Smith can apply to the available charities or programs to help her pay her taxes.

- if they pay more then the shack may turn into ruins and the lawn into a jungle, consequently reducing the value of the nearby mansions and the quality of the whole neighbourhood

There are municipal laws which regulate the care of the lawn and the overall state of the house. In many cities if the property degrades to a certain level the city can hire contractors to bring up the level of the property to appropriate standards and add the bill to the taxes. If they can't pay the city can seize the property and auction it off, ultimately it will end up with an owner who can afford the property, thus benefiting the entire neighbourhood and city.

[margrace]

In the areas where I live there used to be many farms. These farms became losing propositions years ago and where put for sale. Lots of them Have at least one side of the farm on some form of water. People came in from the south or overseas and bought these properties dirt cheap.

There also is a provision that farms are not taxed the same as houses, therefore they get much cheaper taxes. These people who came in obviously knew that, they make sure that they rent the farm land out or sell enough hay off it to meet the minimum requirements for low taxes. Some with over a hundred acres pay less than $50 a year I have been told. This may be hearsay but I do know they get lower taxes and have the same income as many of the cottagers with much smaller lots.

[Saturn]

- don't have the money (do you want 90-year-old Mrs. Smith out on the street?)

Do they need my TV too? How about my car? Where does poverty start and end? I think Canada sets the bar too high. No one dies of starvation in Canada.

No, nobody dies of starvation precisely because of the wealth distribution effects of our current system. But people do freeze to death in the streets. In parts of the world where the wealth distribution mechanisms are weaker plenty of people starve to death.

- if they pay more then the shack may turn into ruins and the lawn into a jungle, consequently reducing the value of the nearby mansions and the quality of the whole neighbourhood

There is an argument here... that if they aren't taken care of they'll cost more in the long run through crime, ect. ect..

But is the answer to coercively take my money to give to them. What's the deal? Why is that fair? I earned mine, why can't they earn theirs?

Do people have no responsibility to themselves? Does an able bodied person have the right to take my money? Do I have the right to force him to work for it?

The answer is not to coercively take money and give it to them. Do you coercively take money from me to pay for your education? The answer is for people to realize that paying the money results in benefits to them and that the alternative is worse. People also ought to realize that they are able bodied only roughly half their lives and during the other half when they are not so able bodied they end up taking money from others.

[Renegade]

In the areas where I live there used to be many farms. These farms became losing propositions years ago and where put for sale. Lots of them Have at least one side of the farm on some form of water. People came in from the south or overseas and bought these properties dirt cheap.

There also is a provision that farms are not taxed the same as houses, therefore they get much cheaper taxes. These people who came in obviously knew that, they make sure that they rent the farm land out or sell enough hay off it to meet the minimum requirements for low taxes. Some with over a hundred acres pay less than $50 a year I have been told. This may be hearsay but I do know they get lower taxes and have the same income as many of the cottagers with much smaller lots.

If they bought properties cheap, good for them for recognizing the opportunity and capitalizing on it.

As I have already said, this problem could have been avoided by taxing farms and houses both based upon the services they use. People will naturally look for and use "loopholes" when you start to use the tax system as a way to promote a prefrential way of life.

[guyser]

For the obvious reason that those who can afford a property on the water can afford to pay more in taxes. You can't ask people living in a dilapidated shack to pay as much as someone living in a multi-million dollar mansion.

What about those who have inherited the waterfront property, which many many do? What then? Plenty of them have been forced to sell due to the spiralling taxes.

Plenty of cottages were bought when property was the same whether in town or on waterfront. Now the price spirals ever upward and some are forced to sell due to massive tax grabs.

And you would be very hard pressed to find anyone who would not agree to pay a little more in taxes to have the waterfront , most love their place and will do so freely. The grab is what bothers most.

How about this, say you have a public beach across the road from you. Do you realize that they are taxed as waterfront? How can that be fair? What about my neighbour to my right about 400 m away. His cottage is on a high cliff , approx 150+ feet high, think rock face. So, he is taxed as waterfront the same as anyone who has a nice level lot with a sand beach.

What particularly irritates is that we pay and pay, but yet our services, non existent as they are, can only be utlized for little more than half a year. So essentially , we will use far less services as anyone who lives in town no matter how you slice it. And before anyone comes back on this point, yes I do understand my use or lack thereof is my problem and should not be factored in, but at least make some consideration.

And mansions have nothing to do with this argument, for the most part these are small cottages, they are just worth a fortune.

[Saturn]

The grab is what bothers most.

What particularly irritates is that we pay and pay...

What irritates is that grown, intelligent people who are perfectly well positioned to live within their own modest yet perfectly sufficient means, try to live outside of those means and then go blaming "someone else's" kids, or "someone else's" school, or "someone else's" government, "someone else's" this and that and everything besides their own lack of ability to manage their own financial matters for their financial problems.

[guyser]

The grab is what bothers most.

What particularly irritates is that we pay and pay...

What irritates is that grown, intelligent people who are perfectly well positioned to live within their own modest yet perfectly sufficient means, try to live outside of those means and then go blaming "someone else's" kids, or "someone else's" school, or "someone else's" government, "someone else's" this and that and everything besides their own lack of ability to manage their own financial matters for their financial problems.

Come now, I would not take you for a chicken, why not come right out and tell me what you want to say ? See I would not want to have your message misunderstood.

[Saturn]

What irritates is that grown, intelligent people who are perfectly well positioned to live within their own modest yet perfectly sufficient means, try to live outside of those means and then go blaming "someone else's" kids, or "someone else's" school, or "someone else's" government, "someone else's" this and that and everything besides their own lack of ability to manage their own financial matters for their financial problems.

Come now, I would not take you for a chicken, why not come right out and tell me what you want to say ? See I would not want to have your message misunderstood.

I said it quite clearly. "Grown, intelligent people who are perfectly well positioned to live within their own modest yet perfectly sufficient means" (like you), should know what they can afford and whether it's worth their money to own it. Wanting something that you cannot afford should not translate into accusations of being ripped off by someone else and if you can afford it, then pay for it and enjoy it. If you think that costs of owning the property exceed the benefit you derive from it, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to hold that property, now does it?

[Renegade]

The answer is not to coercively take money and give it to them.

Yet, that is exactly what you advocate.

Do you coercively take money from me to pay for your education?

If I'm using a state-subsidized school, yes I am. I'm simply using government as my coercive agent to collect the funds.

The answer is for people to realize that paying the money results in benefits to them and that the alternative is worse.

If they realize that, then they will voluntarily give. We call that charity, not taxes.

People also ought to realize that they are able bodied only roughly half their lives and during the other half when they are not so able bodied they end up taking money from others.

If people realize they are able-bodied for half their lives, they should save for the other half. They shouldn't be expecting to be taking money from other during the half they can't work.

[Renegade]

If you think that costs of owning the property exceed the benefit you derive from it, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to hold that property, now does it?

That's exactly what I said to the owner of the dilapidated shack we discussed earlier.

[guyser]

I said it quite clearly. "Grown, intelligent people who are perfectly well positioned to live within their own modest yet perfectly sufficient means" (like you), should know what they can afford and whether it's worth their money to own it. Wanting something that you cannot afford should not translate into accusations of being ripped off by someone else and if you can afford it, then pay for it and enjoy it. If you think that costs of owning the property exceed the benefit you derive from it, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to hold that property, now does it?

Why thank you for your succinct response. It is a shame that you exhibit little knowledge of what we are talking about.

I have no problem affording, and paying the money to keep the cottage. That was never in discussion. I could not afford to go out and buy a cottage that I currently enjoy as it would be prohibitively expensive. So , had I just bought a cottage knowing full well what it costs , yearly, then I would be a fool for whining.

But I am not complaing about that. I am talking taxes.

Here is some thing to mull over. Both cases involve permanent year round residents.

EXHIBIT A- The people who live on a lot above my lot have a deeded right of way to the lake. They are allowed to put a dock on the lake. Their lot is approx three times my size. They live there and have three kids. (deeded right of ways have been around for ever- instituted to ensure that farmers had water access for their cattle and farming)They are NOT taxed as waterfront

EXHIBIT B- Family across the road, at least 100 M from the lake. Lot is huge, no idea how far back it goes, but safe to say a lot more than mine.(Est is at least 10xs my lot)

So in both cases , why am I paying three times (at least) the property taxes they are?

[Saturn]

If people realize they are able-bodied for half their lives, they should save for the other half. They shouldn't be expecting to be taking money from other during the half they can't work.

Throw the baby out the window of the maternity ward unless he comes out with a bag of gold. Interesting thought but it's just not in the cards.