Taxes To Be Raised

User avatar
canadman
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 823
Joined: Jun 18th, 2005, 11:22 am

Taxes To Be Raised

Post by canadman »

As many had feared last year as a consequence of incorporation, Duane Ophus confirmed last night that Council (at least this Council) intends to raise residential property taxes by 5% per year for the next 5 years.

If you do the math that means that if today you pay $2,000 in residential property tax by 2013 you will be paying over $2,660 in property taxes, an increase over 5 years of 33%.

Many warned that with a limited commercial property tax base the burden of taxes will be shouldered by residential property owners (and those with higher property values paying the most $$$). It appears now this is the case.

I should point out that Peter Haslock spoke against a fixed increase noting that with the economy on a downturn it would need to be determined first whether or not home owners could afford such an increase. He suggested an increase should be based on economic conditions and that residents shouldn't just be forced to concede to a fixed 5% rise in property taxes year over year.

33% in increased property taxes over the next 5 years. And to think so many last year swore up and down that incorporation and increased property taxes wouldn't be synonymous.
"The road to hell is paved with concrete."
inquisitive
Fledgling
Posts: 341
Joined: Nov 8th, 2007, 6:01 pm

Re: Taxes To Be Raised

Post by inquisitive »

Didn't I hear that Premier Campbell is going to freeze property taxes? How does this affect our ability to manage our municipal business?
Also, another pre-election piece of candy...........the carbon tax will become a thing of the past.
HMM! I wonder if our municipal leader can give out a piece of pre-election candy?
forincorp
Posts: 19
Joined: Oct 12th, 2007, 6:47 pm

Re: Taxes To Be Raised

Post by forincorp »

I believe that it is the assessments that are going to be frozen, not taxes. We will be taxed on the same property value, but the rate of tax is set by the municipality.
inquisitive
Fledgling
Posts: 341
Joined: Nov 8th, 2007, 6:01 pm

Re: Taxes To Be Raised

Post by inquisitive »

Ah! It's the assessment that will be frozen. Thank you. Will that affect the work-load of the assessors? Nothing left to do? For a while, anyway.
User avatar
Nebula
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 16288
Joined: Jul 6th, 2005, 9:52 am

Re: Taxes To Be Raised

Post by Nebula »

canadman wrote:If you do the math that means that if today you pay $2,000 in residential property tax by 2013 you will be paying over $2,660 in property taxes, an increase over 5 years of 33%.


Your math is off a bit.

A. If you start with $2,000 this year, a five per cent increase will give you $2,100 in 2009. Keep going and you get $2,205 in 2010, $2,315 in 2011, $2,431 in 2012 and $2,552 in 2013. That's close but not quite $2,660.

B. If someone is paying $2,000 in residential property taxes for their home in 2008 then that person, at best, is paying $1,000 to the municipality. The remainder is for school taxes, regional district levies, etc. That $1,000 could also include other municipal levies that do not necessarily rise with a tax increase.

If the full $1,000 saw a five per cent increase per year then by 2013 the person would be paying $1,276 per year on that portion of property taxes for about a 28 per cent increase overall.
You cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not use reason to arrive at.
User avatar
Glacier
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 33225
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Taxes To Be Raised

Post by Glacier »

writerdave wrote:A. If you start with $2,000 this year, a five per cent increase will give you $2,100 in 2009. Keep going and you get $2,205 in 2010, $2,315 in 2011, $2,431 in 2012 and $2,552 in 2013. That's close but not quite $2,660.


Also, last time I checked inflation was 3.1%, so your actually only getting a tax increase of 1.9%.
User avatar
Bestside
Guru
Posts: 5897
Joined: Apr 29th, 2007, 1:03 am

Re: Taxes To Be Raised

Post by Bestside »

writerdave wrote:
canadman wrote:If you do the math that means that if today you pay $2,000 in residential property tax by 2013 you will be paying over $2,660 in property taxes, an increase over 5 years of 33%.


Your math is off a bit.

A. If you start with $2,000 this year, a five per cent increase will give you $2,100 in 2009. Keep going and you get $2,205 in 2010, $2,315 in 2011, $2,431 in 2012 and $2,552 in 2013. That's close but not quite $2,660.

B. If someone is paying $2,000 in residential property taxes for their home in 2008 then that person, at best, is paying $1,000 to the municipality. The remainder is for school taxes, regional district levies, etc. That $1,000 could also include other municipal levies that do not necessarily rise with a tax increase.

If the full $1,000 saw a five per cent increase per year then by 2013 the person would be paying $1,276 per year on that portion of property taxes for about a 28 per cent increase overall.

Right, and taking the increase of $276 on the overall "tax" amount of $2,000 that is an increase of 13.8%.
"Conservatives have whipped themselves into spasms of outrage and despair that block all strategic thinking" - David Frum
User avatar
canadman
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 823
Joined: Jun 18th, 2005, 11:22 am

Re: Taxes To Be Raised

Post by canadman »

recedingglacier you're not seriously attempting to justify a 5% annual property tax increase are you?....lol
"The road to hell is paved with concrete."
User avatar
Glacier
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 33225
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Taxes To Be Raised

Post by Glacier »

canadman wrote:recedingglacier you're not seriously attempting to justify a 5% annual property tax increase are you?....lol


I don't know enough information about the budget to say if its warranted, but if that is what it takes to pay for city services, so be it. Its better than going into the red.
User avatar
Bestside
Guru
Posts: 5897
Joined: Apr 29th, 2007, 1:03 am

Re: Taxes To Be Raised

Post by Bestside »

canadman wrote:Many warned that with a limited commercial property tax base the burden of taxes will be shouldered by residential property owners (and those with higher property values paying the most $$$). It appears now this is the case.

That is somewhat bogus. Westside is an exurb / bedroom community to both Kelowna and WFN. We are a very frugal group of residents... we don't live beside an oil patch or a silicon valley where we can demand outlandish spending, paving the streets with gold and ramping up our taxes.

Commercial property taxes are supposed to be revenue neutral. The cost of servicing a town centre where the business base is, in by far the majority of cases, is subsidized by the residential property tax payer. The residential property tax payer is then paid back with creation of jobs by the local business community, so that they can afford to pay their residential property taxes, and support the local business. There is a cycle... They are good for one another. In many cases the community gives incentives to business to locate there, and that becomes a much larger expense for the residential property tax payer. However, when you live in an exurb / bedroom community, the expense of job creation and cost of infrastructure is somewhere else, so the exurb property tax payer benefits. The benefits are larger for exurbs with a population of 50,000 or less. As the population rises the government starts to do bigger and more expensive things. Google Dr Bish Victoria for some good reading.

Kelowna was not going full out to have us amalgamate for anything less than subsidizing their property taxes. That is why Victoria is always campaigning to fold the surrounding exurb municipalities into their boundaries. The exurb municipalites surrounding Victoria, except for Esquimalt, have far lower property taxes that Victoria wants to tap into. Esquimalt does not have lower residential taxes because it has such a high industrial component, and that is an example of a high business component going hand-in-hand with higher residential taxes.

Anyone who thinks Kelowna was going to subsidize Westside residential taxes with amalgamation is dreaming, plain and simple. Kelowna had the electoral system (no ward system) to do whatever they pleased with us.

canadman wrote: And to think so many last year swore up and down that incorporation and increased property taxes wouldn't be synonymous.

Who claimed that? I never heard such a thing. Perhaps what you are referring to is the Findlater and WGC studies and Prosser report that studied how much Kelowna taxes would be impacted under amalgamation, given the narrow parameters of Governance components. There was no consultant study done to determine how much it would cost for Westsiders to amalgamate with Kelowna.

They tried to con us on amalgamation and it almost worked. The studies for status quo and incorporation both said property taxes would increase under those options.
"Conservatives have whipped themselves into spasms of outrage and despair that block all strategic thinking" - David Frum
User avatar
Glacier
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 33225
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Taxes To Be Raised

Post by Glacier »

Great post Bestside. Does that mean that Kamloops will have lower taxes than Kelowna because the city limits extend beyond any suburbs. Hence the reason Kamloops is the largest city in British Columbia by area.

Return to “Westside”