News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.2K     1 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.1K     2 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 638     0 

Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

I agree in principle - but in the spirit of equity, the city should drop their commercial rate to a level comparable to the 905 municipalities as well.

AoD

100% agree. That's the only way that the non-downtown clusters will start growing again. If you look at the employment growth charts for Toronto there has been no growth for the past 10+ years outside of the downtown core (other than the Board of Education forgetting to count 25,000 employees and then finally counting them in 2016).

Why would I go to Etobicoke if I could build near the Airport and pay significantly less property tax? Thank goodness the province has mandated this slow transition to equitable commercial rates.

And for residential rates Toronto real estate prices are on average 25%-30% higher than the rest of the GTA. So when looking at Mill Rates Toronto's should be that much lower.

The other inequity in our tax rates is the large portion of old apartment buildings that pay commercial rates (after all companies don't pass costs onto consumers!!!). So the lower residential rate is partially funded by overcharging a portion of renters. Over time this inequity is being eliminated which will increase residential tax rate.

There are a lot of apartment buildings in Scarborough which have over time paid this unjust tax and they deserve some transit. I just wish someone would actually produce an unbiased report on the options. Every single report I've seen has a clear bias towards one option.
 
100% agree. That's the only way that the non-downtown clusters will start growing again.

It's the right thing to do, but I would be more guarded about the impact - lower relative taxes doesn't guarantee commercial development where you want it to happen (see development trajectory of MCC, for one).

AoD
 
What would make more sense IMO is to have different tax rates depending on where you're located in the city. There's no reason why a business downtown (as well as houses and condos in the city core) shouldn't be paying a premium tax rate for the privilege of being located there. There are a ton of reasons why homes and businesses outside of downtown shouldn't be paying the same tax rate when they don't get the same level of infrastructure (public transit service and easy access to the rest of the GTA).

The other inequity in our tax rates is the large portion of old apartment buildings that pay commercial rates

They don't pay commercial rates. They pay a rate called multi-residential, which in Toronto is ~3x higher than the single-residential tax rate. So essentially, a 2-bedroom apartment worth $400,000 pays as much to the city as a detached McMansion worth $1.2 million. It's not unusual for apartments to pay higher taxes (York Region is the only part of the GTA where they don't) but a difference that big is pretty abnormal.

Lower relative taxes doesn't guarantee commercial development where you want it to happen (see development trajectory of MCC, for one)

Markham? Sure, but that's really just an argument for lower taxes in the low-density inner suburbs and higher taxes in high-density areas. Markham has no problem attracting commercial development - it's actually a net importer of labour, with more people working in Markham than employed people living there - but most of that labour is in industrial areas and medium-density offices. It's hard to attract people to a downtown area that's a 5 minute bus ride from a train that'll eventually be running a whopping 4x/hour. But look at the development proposals at Jane and Highway 7. The subway's been built and suddenly development proposals are coming up, since there's better transit service and lower infrastructure.
 
What would make more sense IMO is to have different tax rates depending on where you're located in the city. There's no reason why a business downtown (as well as houses and condos in the city core) shouldn't be paying a premium tax rate for the privilege of being located there. There are a ton of reasons why homes and businesses outside of downtown shouldn't be paying the same tax rate when they don't get the same level of infrastructure (public transit service and easy access to the rest of the GTA).

That is not allowed under provincial law. In any case, are you suggesting that the moment BD gets extended to STC (never mind that SRT is somehow not considered "mass transit", but I quibble) a certain area in Scarborough should be paying a higher rate? Conversely, access to highways is a form of accessibility, but why don't I see any calls for differential taxation based on that? Not to mention accessibility is already measured, however vaguely, through value assessment from which taxes (not tax rate) is derived.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Taxes? If Toronto were to simply increase residential tax rates from their current rate to the lowest rate of the surrounding cities, that would generate an extra $260 million per year.

Sure, we *could* do that but we haven't done that yet; thus many things are still unfunded at this time.
 
That is not allowed under provincial law.

Then the city can ask for an amendment to the City of Toronto Act, like it often does (and is often granted). It would be hard for the provincial government to say no to lower tax rates in many of the ridings its trying to hold onto.

Conversely, access to highways is a form of accessibility, but why don't I see any calls for differential taxation based on that?

"Easy access to the rest of the GTA" includes highways...

Not to mention accessibility is already measured, however vaguely, through value assessment from which taxes (not tax rate) is derived.

Why don't we apply the same standard to income taxes then? With a flat tax, where low-income earners pay the same tax rate as millionaires and billionaires, wealthy people would still end up paying higher taxes despite having the same tax rate.
 
And for residential rates Toronto real estate prices are on average 25%-30% higher than the rest of the GTA. So when looking at Mill Rates Toronto's should be that much lower.

Strongly disagree with this. And never understand this sentiment.

You get far more benefit living in the 416. Why shouldn't you pay for it?

And incidentally, increasing taxes may actual help moderate the affordability everyone is always whining about.
 
Taxes? If Toronto were to simply increase residential tax rates from their current rate to the lowest rate of the surrounding cities, that would generate an extra $260 million per year.
I would begin levying a Land Value Tax personally.

And probably a Sales Tax.

Unfortunately, it is up to Queen's Park, not City Hall.
 
Then the city can ask for an amendment to the City of Toronto Act, like it often does (and is often granted). It would be hard for the provincial government to say no to lower tax rates in many of the ridings its trying to hold onto.

Are you kidding me? Are you aware of how long the fight was for a City of Toronto Act that provided additional powers to the city (with no powers that are really all that fundamentally challenging - e.g. power to levy income, sales tax)? How many city requested amendments to said act have you come across? Differential property tax rate is probably something they would never be open to - it's precedent setting, easy to abuse (precisely what you have said about lower property tax rates being popular - but swap that with councillors making the decision), and have questionable utility.

I have noticed that you specifically avoid to address the issue of how to deal with tying improvements to accessibility to adjusting tax rate in such a scenario. So I ask again - would you suggest that STC and area get a higher tax rate when BD extension opens? Or proximity to 401/404? Or the airport?

Why don't we apply the same standard to income taxes then? With a flat tax, where low-income earners pay the same tax rate as millionaires and billionaires, wealthy people would still end up paying higher taxes despite having the same tax rate.

The analogy isn't this - but an income tax rate that differs depending on where you live (Ottawa, Toronto, Thunder Bay, Cochrane, whatever) within a single province independent of income. Because that is what you are proposing. If that's what you want, you should propose separating from the City of Toronto and become a separate municipality - but don't come and complain about how whatever has been mistreated because x didn't get a subway - because whatever tax levy you impose for that project, it will be applied to your own newly independent municipality only.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Are you aware of how long the fight was for a City of Toronto Act that provided additional powers to the city (with no powers that are really all that fundamentally challenging)?

The City of Toronto Act wasn't one amendment. It was a massive omnibus bill that gave the city many new powers and responsibilities.

So I ask again - would you suggest that STC and area get a higher tax rate when BD extension opens? Or proximity to 401/404?

Higher than what they would pay without the extension and highway... of course! But that doesn't mean they should be paying the same tax rate as downtown. Just that a business right next to a subway stop shouldn't pay the same tax rate as one located at Kingston Road and St. Clair, especially once the area has been developed into a high-density urban centre.

And it's also worth noting (as public transit advocates looooooooooooove to point out) that a subway line can move way more people than a freeway, so I'm sure you'll agree that subway access should factor into differential property taxes much more than a freeway does.

The analogy isn't this - but an income tax that differs depending on where you live (Ottawa, Toronto, Thunder Bay, Cochrane, whatever) within a single province independent of income.

But it's still a flat tax. Someone in West Hill making minimum wage would pay the same tax rate as someone making six or seven figures who lives downtown. And FWIW, Toronto doesn't even have that flat tax... it has a regressive tax. The poor person living in a rental apartment pays a tax rate triple that of the rich person living in a luxury condo or detached house.
 
The City of Toronto Act wasn't one amendment. It was a massive omnibus bill that gave the city many new powers and responsibilities.

That's missing my point - you are implying that the CTA is something that the city can just request the province to change like it is their fiefdom - I am saying that a) it isn't and b) the process of getting the CTA to provide new, relatively peripheral revenue powers was an arduous one that happened partly because there was a new government that was sympathetic (and had to brand themselves as municipality friendly)

Higher than what they would pay without the extension and highway... of course! But that doesn't mean they should be paying the same tax rate as downtown. Just that a business right next to a subway stop shouldn't pay the same tax rate as one located at Kingston Road and St. Clair, especially once the area has been developed into a high-density urban centre.

So now you are going to micromanage a tax rate on a nebulous concept (accessibility) that you cannot define properly?

And it's also worth noting (as public transit advocates looooooooooooove to point out) that a subway line can move way more people than a freeway, so I'm sure you'll agree that subway access should factor into differential property taxes much more than a freeway does.

Unless you are a business of course - and not to mention, as car advocates love to point out, people in suburbs would still drive if they have the chance and "nobody take transit". So there.

But it's still a flat tax. Someone in West Hill making minimum wage would pay the same tax rate as someone making six or seven figures who lives downtown. And FWIW, Toronto doesn't even have that flat tax... it has a regressive tax. The poor person living in a rental apartment pays a tax rate triple that of the rich person living in a luxury condo or detached house.

Because property tax isn't income tax. Now if you want to argue that people living in apartment buildings shouldn't have to pay a de-facto commercial rate, sure, I'd agree with that - but that's a very, very different argument from a variable tax rate depending on one's location within a single municipality when you already have a market value assessment that takes into account geographical and other differences.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Strongly disagree with this. And never understand this sentiment.

You get far more benefit living in the 416. Why shouldn't you pay for it?

And incidentally, increasing taxes may actual help moderate the affordability everyone is always whining about.

So you are implying that someone living here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.829...4!1sV0PbHX0PIMwdWnvMS-_H2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

should pay 25% different than someone living here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.830...4!1sPXH7H4DW_9U1DoMRRNJIIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Can you tell me what additional services the house in the 416 gets? And every other house that is not on a subway nor in the downtown core (i.e. the vast majority of people living in Toronto)
 
So you are implying that someone living here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.829...4!1sV0PbHX0PIMwdWnvMS-_H2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

should pay 25% different than someone living here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.830...4!1sPXH7H4DW_9U1DoMRRNJIIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Can you tell me what additional services the house in the 416 gets? And every other house that is not on a subway nor in the downtown core (i.e. the vast majority of people living in Toronto)

That's arguing against a false argument though - the amount you pay is always driven by decision within the political unit, not the comparative cost of, and the spread of actual services rendered per se. It never had anything to do with fairness along the latter lines; nor is "fairness" a philosophical argument for it.

AoD
 
Last edited:
And for residential rates Toronto real estate prices are on average 25%-30% higher than the rest of the GTA. So when looking at Mill Rates Toronto's should be that much lower.
Toronto's rates should be lower. The problem is, they are a lot more than 25-30% lower than some neighbouring municipalities:

Compare (excluding the provincial education tax, which is the same everywhere)
2016 Residential
Toronto - 0.499973%
Brampton - 0.915025% (183% higher)
Pickering - 1.078145 % (215% higher)
 
Last edited:

Back
Top