It started innocently enough. Concerned that rapidly increasing and uneven property assessments were resulting in big tax increases for homeowners, three years ago HRM councillors established the Tax Reform Committee and charged it with finding a better way to fund government.
Along the way, however, the committee went off track. It embraced the concept of a “fee-for-service” tax system and ran with it. The resulting proposal, if enacted, would have been the most radical transformation of a municipal tax system ever undertaken in North America. Owners of high-value properties would have each seen annual tax cuts of thousands of dollars, with the lost revenue made up by increasing taxes on more modest homes. It was a tax system that right-wing American Libertarian types can only dream of.
But in recent weeks many councillors grasped the social implications of where “tax reform” had led them. With admirable courage—they now face a potential electoral backlash from their wealthy constituents—those councillors voted Tuesday to kill the “tax reform” proposal outright.
That doesn’t mean there will be no future attempt to tweak the city tax code—a relatively small transit tax comes up for review in April, and some councillors vow to bring the fee-for-service system forward one bit at a time, over coming years—but a wholesale, one-fell-swoop radicalization of tax policy is off the table for the foreseeable future.
Sometimes, our politicians do the right thing.
Related Stories
Why everyone loses under the city’s new property tax plan
Power elite strike back with bogus statistics
This article appears in Jan 28 – Feb 3, 2010.
Tim, did you see how butthurt Citizens for Halifax got?
I can send you their release if you didn’t get it.
It’s great. Magnificent even. The tax system isn’t perfect, but it’s certainly better than what was proposed.
The votes were surprising, all of Dartmouth against it, along with the North End and the Mayor no less. Meanwhile, all of Halifax was for it.
I didn’t REALLY think that they would adopt fee-for-service, I know there was a great deal of fuss about it, at least here at the Coast someone was paying attention! But I think that ultimately it’s one of these things like a “flat” income tax that may SEEM “fair” at first glance, but don’t hold up to further scrutiny.
One thing that IS clear though, is that there needs to be more attention paid to the imbalance in tax bills found within communities. Two houses side by side may pay radically diffrerent amounts because one house is a new build, and is automatically assessed to current market value, sometimes even before completion (!)…
….A homeowner that wants to add a bathroom, or a humble extension may choose to avoid going through the proper permitting procedure in order to keep from having his assessment jacked up…This can lead to do-it-yourself “improvements”, often a recipe for disaster.
I know of an old widow living on a fixed income in a humble bungalow whose total bill has skyrocketed because the neighbourhood has been “improved” by a few monster homes…how is this fair? Is her only option to appear hat in hand in front of HRM and plead poverty?
Suddenly in the last generation or two, it’s become ‘fashionable’ to live down near the water. When my folks built on a South Shore cove in 1972, eveyone said “Why would you want to live down by the old stinky fish plant? Buy a lot in the suberbs!” Now everyone and their dog wants to live “near t’water” and so their humble home is taxed through the roof. Sure, the value is up…but that’s just paper – what should they do, sell out to a developer and buy a motorhome?
Is THAT our solution? Let’s have all the rich folk in the nice locations, paying the high taxes…and the rest of us can live in the slums and be happy to pay less?
I would like to see some sort of adjustment that IS based a bit on fee-for-service. How many people live in the house? Is it an “above” or “below” average sized house for the neighbourhood?
Let’s not just assume that we’re “sticking it to the rich” by having a ‘progressive’ municipal tax rate, based on property assessment alone, like some modern day residential Robin Hood…
I like the UK model actually, which is fee-for service council tax, yes, but it does vary a bit by neighbourhood and property size…
Yah for that! Yaah for G..l..o..r..i..a!
To the music of ‘Gloria’ by the Trogs…….Come on everyone!!!
G..l..o..r..i..a! Gloria!
G..l..o..r..i..a! Gloria!
Let’s dance!
G..l..o..r..i..a! Gloria!
Some say you can’t stop progress. I believe it’s true.
Powder man points out the sad dilemma of the old widow.
If the old widow sold the house, she could afford renting a nice place ’till her passing.
Assessment value municipal taxing IS a fair foundation to the tax system.
Following that, fee for service should be factored in to form the bottom line, to a point.
I don’t ride the bus, but I should pay for it, as everyone should; users pay again at the door.
Every time a house is sold, is not a fair benchmark for assessments since the other assessments aren’t accurate in the first place, but it doesn’t matter since the tax rate is floating anyway, as long as all assessments are equally inaccurate, it’s all good.
Some try to smoke and mirror the the truth,…..sorry…..
FACT: the assessment reflects the asset value you hold,
it’s kinda black ‘n white that way.
The well-to-do pay. The poorly-off don’t. That is a primary cornerstone to our society structure. It is fair. It is just.
The well-to-do Halifax crowd tried to pull a fast one on us poor smucks.
It failed.
Why?
G..l..o..r..i..a! Gloria!
G..l..o..r..i..a! Gloria!
Let’s dance!
G..l..o..r..i..a! Gloria!
OMG Smee!
Too funny