Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P.
Nobody should pay more in taxes than they absolutely need to. That is where self-interest lies. Individuals know better where to spend their hard-earned income than govts do.
The existing capped system is inherently more fair than an uncapped system. Someone buying a house in this market clearly has the ability to pay not only for the price of the house but also the annual tax bill. Neither of those figures would be a surprise to the buyer. Meanwhile the pensioner on a fixed income who happens to have a house in a hot area that is now worth a lot more than it was when they were at work, or the fisherman's widow who who lives on the coast line on a property that is suddenly worth much more but has little income, do not have the ability to pay a tax bill based on uncapped assessments. Sounds very fair to me.
|
If you believe that "nobody should pay more in taxes than they absolutely need to", then how can you possibly justify one owner paying more than another who owns an identical property next door?
The idea that "the existing capped system is inherently more fair than an uncapped system" simply does not stand up to reason or logic.
The fact that a buyer might be aware of what the taxes on his newly-purchased property will be and that he has the ability to pay them has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the assessment is fair. Neither does the inability of another owner to pay taxes because the value of her property has increased. Determining fairness on the basis of the circumstances of every individual owner would, by definition, be unfair in itself because it would inevitably create patent inequities. A system in which tax liability is determined by ability to pay: think about the practical implications of a system like that for a minute. Thankfully, it would be a practical impossibility to implement anyway.
The system has to be "fair" to ALL who are assessed; the way to achieve that is to assess ALL properties at, or as near as possible to, market value at a particular date - which is exactly what the system which existed pre-cap was designed to do.
Addressing the inability of individuals to pay their tax bills because of rising property values (or for any other reason, for that matter) needs to be addressed on the taxation side, as a matter of municipal tax policy, not on the assessment side. And there are ways to do that. One approach is to defer an individual's tax liability until the property is sold or otherwise changes ownership, to then be paid out of the proceeds of that disposition. That both ensures that the municipality gets the tax revenue owed it and allows the owner to retain the property in the meantime. Of course, another more obvious solution in a rising market is simply to sell and reap the windfall!
But under the assessment cap system, I'll ask again: how can you possibly justify one owner paying more than another who owns an identical property next door? Especially if they have equal ability to pay, which seems to be your focus?
By the way, in the interest of accuracy this page should be renamed “Assessment cap favors Nova Scotia’s wealthy”. The relevant legislation caps assessments, not taxes.