Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Property Taxes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by kcantor View Post
    Originally posted by Medwards View Post
    I live 0.8 km away from my work. Are you proposing I move downtown Kcantor?
    i didn’t suggest you move. i just pointed out that you don’t pay your share of the cost of the municipal services you consume. neither do i. no single family and virtually no residential taxpayer in the city does. which means you and i are no less of a leech - and maybe even more so - for the city than alkeli.
    Well, I'm contributing to at least a large share of what I consume. Arguably, alkeli is not contributing anything at all, or very little, but still consuming.
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Medwards View Post
      Originally posted by kcantor View Post
      Originally posted by Medwards View Post
      I live 0.8 km away from my work. Are you proposing I move downtown Kcantor?
      i didn’t suggest you move. i just pointed out that you don’t pay your share of the cost of the municipal services you consume. neither do i. no single family and virtually no residential taxpayer in the city does. which means you and i are no less of a leech - and maybe even more so - for the city than alkeli.
      Well, I'm contributing to at least a large share of what I consume. Arguably, alkeli is not contributing anything at all, or very little, but still consuming.
      For the record I do still currently live in the city's suburbs, the plan is to move out.

      So what am I consuming exactly that I don't pay for? If I'm going into the city, it's to shop and spend money at Edmonton businesses. I pay exactly all the same things as everyone else except for the overprices property taxes. Smart choice if you ask me. Do I feel guilty about it? Not at all, and no amount of immature name calling will. I still spend money in the city and have season tickets to the Esks, Oilers and Broadway Across Canada at the Jubilee. All for which I also pay for my own parking by the way.

      Maybe you should suggest building a wall around the city and Trump up this city so that everyone from Morinville, Gibbons, Devon, Leduc, Sherwood Park, St Albert and all the other small towns won't be able to enter the city without paying a toll for the privilege of entering a city for which they don't pay anything towards. How dare they enter our city to spend money and purchase good or go see a doctor, shame on them. I guess that's the kind of city you want.

      Thankfully you're not running the show, and I couldn't care less what you think.
      Last edited by alkeli; 29-08-2018, 10:44 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        I really resent the leech idea.

        I'm outside the city, yet have spent hundreds of thousands of my own dollars promoting and doing what I can to take this place to the next level. The return I get from the city is significantly less than my investment, unless broken promises and finding the easy no have value I can take to the bank.

        Add the huge industrialization out my way that completely eviscerates my land value, yet all this is allegedly going to make Edmoton better, and I have two words for anyone who says I don't pay my fair share.

        The balance of trade between me and the CoE is grossly one sided.
        President and CEO - Airshow.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Medwards View Post
          Originally posted by kcantor View Post
          Originally posted by Medwards View Post
          I live 0.8 km away from my work. Are you proposing I move downtown Kcantor?
          i didn’t suggest you move. i just pointed out that you don’t pay your share of the cost of the municipal services you consume. neither do i. no single family and virtually no residential taxpayer in the city does. which means you and i are no less of a leech - and maybe even more so - for the city than alkeli.
          Well, I'm contributing to at least a large share of what I consume. Arguably, alkeli is not contributing anything at all, or very little, but still consuming.
          if you are both contributing equally to edmonton businesses in your employment and your shopping habits and those businesses are in turn supporting and subsidizing edmonton home owners, then a case could be made for alkali subsidizing your taxes, not the other way around. he is contributing an equal share of the subsidies given to what you consume but the reverse is not true [at least after he implements his plan to leave the city].
          Last edited by kcantor; 29-08-2018, 11:31 AM.
          "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by RichardS View Post
            I really resent the leech idea.

            I'm outside the city, yet have spent hundreds of thousands of my own dollars promoting and doing what I can to take this place to the next level. The return I get from the city is significantly less than my investment, unless broken promises and finding the easy no have value I can take to the bank.

            Add the huge industrialization out my way that completely eviscerates my land value, yet all this is allegedly going to make Edmoton better, and I have two words for anyone who says I don't pay my fair share.

            The balance of trade between me and the CoE is grossly one sided.
            you raise another issue that hasn't so far been brought in to this conversation other than in the context of previous comments that the whole taxation issue is not as simple as some would like to make it.

            within the city commercial and industrial ratepayers subsidize residential ratepayers and that's typical for must municipalities. there's nothing wrong with that other than when the recipients of that benefit don't want to acknowledge it.

            there is a second imbalance regionally when you have large industrial users including those you reference in your neighborhood and those on refinery row and through the heartland that pay their share locally but certainly don't pay their share regionally. that's because the jurisdiction to which they pay often have relatively small expense bases and their share is less than it would be regionally or of they were in the city itself. this is perhaps an even larger issue than the local cross subsidizations because while they still contribute to that, the smaller overall tax base to which they are contributing means their taxes are disproportionately less than what they probably should be. the result here is that not only are their large taxpayers outside the city, those expected to continue to pay their share within the city are constantly lured to locations outside the city in order to reduce their tax burden which exacerbates the problem on two fronts.

            as previously noted, this is not a simple issue and there are lots of unintended consequences embedded within it as you so aptly pointed out.
            "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

            Comment


            • #36
              so why don't we all do what alkeli plans to do? Lets all move outside of the city borders to avoid paying taxes, and still get the benefit of being part of a big city, without having to pay for it. Detroit 2.0
              A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

              Comment


              • #37
                ...better yet, how about Edmonton actually eat its own dogfood and have a regional conversation about regional benefits where we speak as one?

                Moving out of the city does not mean people don't pay taxes. If we extend your hypothetical, then the new jurisdiction that would be created would have to pony up for new infrastructure and the cycle repeats.

                If this is to be a regional conversation as people constantly allude to, then Edmonton needs to be prepared to make it a true 2 way street. As of now, Edmonton does not. It gladly asks for money from others, but then plays the jurisdiction card when the opposite comes forth - at least in my experience. It is a lot more nuanced Medwards than how it is sometimes presented. I know my views are a lot different on this in 2018 than they were in 2000...given the experiences I've had with this forum, and with other initiatives. This resident is bearing 100% of the costs of services, plus 100% of the reduction in value due to industrialization, so you're going to have a hell of a time convincing me that Edmonton is somehow being taken advantage of...
                President and CEO - Airshow.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by kcantor View Post
                  (…)

                  there is a second imbalance regionally when you have large industrial users including those you reference in your neighborhood and those on refinery row and through the heartland that pay their share locally but certainly don't pay their share regionally. that's because the jurisdiction to which they pay often have relatively small expense bases and their share is less than it would be regionally or of they were in the city itself. this is perhaps an even larger issue than the local cross subsidizations because while they still contribute to that, the smaller overall tax base to which they are contributing means their taxes are disproportionately less than what they probably should be. the result here is that not only are their large taxpayers outside the city, those expected to continue to pay their share within the city are constantly lured to locations outside the city in order to reduce their tax burden which exacerbates the problem on two fronts.

                  as previously noted, this is not a simple issue and there are lots of unintended consequences embedded within it as you so aptly pointed out.
                  exactly. this is yet another nuance that is not taken into account, yet continues to rear its head in the annexation/regional co-operation conversations. It loops and loops around but never has any concrete solutions...

                  I can guarantee you Edmonton would have to take notice once they get the bill for the right infrastructure needed to support the millions of tons of yearly aggregate extraction just north of me, and the necessary infrastructure needed for this that should be borne by the region receiving the benefit...instead of having it trickle down to costing me...
                  President and CEO - Airshow.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Today on twitter, Ms. Stolte posted this article that visualizes the revenue generated by each neighbouhood in Dallas.

                    The key takeaway from the data was that "higher density generates more taxes than it costs in services." It would be nice to have a similar map demonstrating the tax base and expenditures in Edmonton and area.
                    Go down a few dark alleys.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by mnugent View Post
                      Today on twitter, Ms. Stolte posted this article that visualizes the revenue generated by each neighbouhood in Dallas.

                      The key takeaway from the data was that "higher density generates more taxes than it costs in services." It would be nice to have a similar map demonstrating the tax base and expenditures in Edmonton and area.
                      i think you might want to look at the map/data a bit more analytically.

                      while there is some benefit from higher residential density, almost all of the really higher revenue generation shown is from commercial development. in edmonton, that's distorted further by municipal policy that disproportionately allocates recoveries to commercial properties and away from residential properties meaning the gap here would be even higher. compounding that is the gap in dallas is arguably even higher than shown as segments of their commercial properties are considered underassessed in terms of market value (the exact opposite of what typically happens in edmonton).

                      it's also hard to compare the actual taxes paid in dallas directly with edmonton, particularly with residential taxes. while comparable housing is cheaper to purchase in dallas, their tax rates are considerably higher and further complicating any direct comparison is that property taxes as well as mortgage interest are tax-deductible in dallas so there is a lot of "apples to oranges" between them and us.

                      i think the only real "key takeaway" for edmonton is that "higher commercial density generates more taxes than it costs in services" regardless of where it is located in the city while "higher residential density may not be subsidized as much as lower densities when it comes to providing services". without making those distinctions, council will continue to make poor decisions and voters will continue to support poor decisions.
                      "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Also consider that Dallas is very distinctly divided north/south geographically, developmentally, socially, and economically south of the downtown core by a major interstate. It's quite a significant separation that Edmonton doesn't have.
                        I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by kcantor View Post
                          Originally posted by mnugent View Post
                          Today on twitter, Ms. Stolte posted this article that visualizes the revenue generated by each neighbouhood in Dallas.

                          The key takeaway from the data was that "higher density generates more taxes than it costs in services." It would be nice to have a similar map demonstrating the tax base and expenditures in Edmonton and area.
                          i think you might want to look at the map/data a bit more analytically.

                          while there is some benefit from higher residential density, almost all of the really higher revenue generation shown is from commercial development. in edmonton, that's distorted further by municipal policy that disproportionately allocates recoveries to commercial properties and away from residential properties meaning the gap here would be even higher. compounding that is the gap in dallas is arguably even higher than shown as segments of their commercial properties are considered underassessed in terms of market value (the exact opposite of what typically happens in edmonton).

                          it's also hard to compare the actual taxes paid in dallas directly with edmonton, particularly with residential taxes. while comparable housing is cheaper to purchase in dallas, their tax rates are considerably higher and further complicating any direct comparison is that property taxes as well as mortgage interest are tax-deductible in dallas so there is a lot of "apples to oranges" between them and us.

                          i think the only real "key takeaway" for edmonton is that "higher commercial density generates more taxes than it costs in services" regardless of where it is located in the city while "higher residential density may not be subsidized as much as lower densities when it comes to providing services". without making those distinctions, council will continue to make poor decisions and voters will continue to support poor decisions.
                          I think that you might want to focus on reading comprehension and not putting words in my mouth.

                          All that I was pointing out, was that I found the data visualization used in the Dallas example useful, and, I think that something like this would be useful in understanding where revenue and expenditures are coming from and going to in the Edmonton area. I know there are important differences between the cities. However, in the Dallas example, the evidence does demonstrate that if you remove the commercial revenue, higher residential density is correlated with higher revenue generation and vibrancy.
                          I would like to see the comparable data visualized in Edmonton.
                          Go down a few dark alleys.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            i don't think i put words in your mouth or misread your post...

                            you posted that "higher density generates more taxes than it costs in services" and that was what i responded to. if that higher density is just residential, it's an inaccurate statement for dallas and even moreso for edmonton which what i was pointing out in my response. the statements in quotes in that response were emphasis statements by me, not attributed to you or meant to be attributed to you and if you took them that way i apologize for that.

                            like you [i'm assuming], i'm in favour of increased density done well for both commercial and residential development in edmonton and the linked data helps demonstrate why we should be pursuing it but what you thought you may have pointed out [and with which i would not disagree] wasn't what you said in our post and i still think making those distinctions is an important one if we are going to make good decisions on what constitutes good development with good taxation outcomes for the city and for taxpayers.
                            "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X