The Coast’s recent “opinion” piece on the tax reform issue contains a number of errors and misleading statements that need clarification.
Property Tax Reform started not because of a south end Halifax lobby effort, but because the existing tax system was not serving its citizens well. As has been well-documented, the value of one’s home has only a weak connection to municipal services or income. Based on what they saw as a deteriorating assessment-based tax system, regional council (almost unanimously) established a Tax Reform Committee to review the entire foundations of the tax system. Committee members came from across the municipality.
That committee undertook extensive public consultation, research, analysis and public debate. Most of The Coast’s comments about the committee are factually incorrect or misleading. For instance, the committee never approved a two-kilometre local transit buffer, nor did it approve district-by-district solid waste tax rates. The cost of the Low Income Rebate is not an unknown. Its cost (an additional $7.2 million) was actually discussed at a public meeting more than 18 months ago. The continued use of the term “tax reform proponents” implies this was the Tax Reform Committee talking. In most cases such statements are incorrect or have nothing to do with the committee.
In its examples, The Coast carefully selects properties to show someone paying more. However, it fails to mention that some of these homeowners could be eligible for low-income rebates. This part of the proposal is a critical element that was rigourously analyzed and debated. With this rebate, the majority of low-income homeowners will pay less municipal property tax. Take, for example, the family cited in the article who is living on social assistance and have a home worth just over $100,000. The Coast claims their property taxes will rise more than 50 percent. However, a family with only social assistance and a $100,000 home in the urban area would pay less property tax, not more.
HRM has extensive information on tax reform online at halifax.ca/taxreform and will post additional details on The Coast’s “opinion” piece. While The Coast is entitled to its own “opinion,” I would challenge The Coast to provide more balanced reporting, less innuendo and more facts. As former US Senator Daniel Moynihan once said, you are entitled to your own opinion, but are not entitled to your own facts.
—Bruce Fisher, Manager of Fiscal and Tax Policy, HRM
Tim Bousquet responds: I was incorrect on the two-kilometre boundary, but that doesn’t change my point that whatever distance determines the fee, it is an arbitrary, debatable opinion, not a hard fact defining access to bus service. As for the proposed low-income assistance program, it’s probably unworkable, but if it’s such a good idea, why not run it under the existing tax system? That way, the cost of the program will be supported mostly by wealthy people, not working people, as Fisher proposes.
Related Stories
Why everyone loses under the city’s new property tax plan
This article appears in Dec 17-23, 2009.
“…will be supported mostly by wealthy people, not working people, as Fisher proposes.”
Huh, I thought wealthy people worked for a living too.
Normally I respect Tim Bousquet’s opinion very much but he has really dropped the ball on this one. Tim is obsessed with sensationally creating a fake class war. Bruce Fisher should be commended for standing up to TB’s oped piece and for having the foresight to correct an outdated and unfair taxation system. I fully support this reform even if it will cost my family slightly more.
Thank you Bruce for a balanced response.
Tim, your socialist rhetoric is past it’s expiry date. Obama’s approval ratings are dropping, the Copenhagen Climate talks have fallen apart and the general distrust of the left/enviromentalists is at an all time high. It is too late to circle the wagons and rally the red troops.
Use your mind, not your bleeding heart, to judge tax policy.
If any change to the tax system is made, some people will pay more and others will pay less, assuming it is a zero-sum change. So there will always be a story about people’s taxes going up. One solution would be to combine it with an overall decrease in the rates, but that would mean less revenue. I do not see a happy way out of this.
One of the problems as I see it, living in the county. Is for those of us who only see a garbage truck once every 2 weeks. the occassional snowplow…well after all the paved roads are plowed, is seeing an increase in our tax bills for nothing rendered.
We have our own wells & septic systems paid for & maintained by each of us out here, there’s no sidewalks & no bus service & we actually like it that way.
I know I ,nor do any of my neighbors want a bus system out here. Even if my lover & I lived in the city, the bus system doesn’t work for us, I often finish work at 1:30,2 even 3 am…what bus is running then ?
She works as a bartender & when they close after 1 to 2 am there’s no bus for her & her bar is on a major bus route !
So saying we live close to a bus route & then to tax people extra for this is assinine IMO.
IF you offer a service & we can’t use it even if we want to…why should we have to help subsidize the system by paying an extra tax ?
Is it completely outrageous of us tax payers to demand that Politicans of every governing level to learn to operate within their means & if they can’t then instead of incresing taxes…get rid of a bunch of our top heavy civil servants jobs. Cut back on new vehicles for every city employee. take away free cars & all the free perks of any kind.
We have way to many MLA’s in this province get rid of half of them even better allow only 1 for every county & one for the capital city of the Province…reduce the city councillors to half of what we got now & think of the millions & millions that could be saved !
Or to look at it another way, the millions & millions of dollar LESS that have to be raised to balance the books.