Former Mayor : Toronto = Crybabies

[GraphicMatt]

We could also put them up in front of our socialist healthcare Death Panels and get rid of those who are just a drain on the system! Think of the savings!

 

[js97]

We could also put them up in front of our socialist healthcare Death Panels and get rid of those who are just a drain on the system! Think of the savings!

Only if they don't pay their taxes!

 

[Glen]

though the taxes may be higher outside Toronto, i would guess the cost of buying a home of similar size/age/quality is cheaper. for example, a small house in toronto might cost 450k but the exact same house outside of toronto might cost 275k.

so not comparing assessments, taxes outside of toronto would be cheaper since the same house would be worth less.

pretend the house/property is exactly the same for argument's sake:

450k in toronto would cost $2749.16 a year in taxes

275k in vaughan would cost $2147.28 a year in taxes, plus the cost of the house is 175k cheaper to buy.

there's no need to raise property taxes in toronto. the values of our homes makes up for the lower rates.

Your guess would be wrong. The average residential assessment value in Toronto is less than Vaughan's, Oakville, Markham and Richmond Hills. Mississauga's is lower than Toronto's. Most of Toronto, north of Bloor, is indistinguishable from these areas in terms of density. Add to that relying on the 'smaller home should pay smaller taxes theory', is not realistic. The majority of city spending does not scale with density. If the issue of density and costs are of interest to you you might want to register for Adam Found's presentation ...

During the period from 1996 to 2001, the number of municipalities in Ontario fell from 815 to 447, a staggering 45% reduction. Provincial officials, consultants, and restructuring commissioners typically cited cost savings from economies of scale as a significant justification for municipal amalgamations. Others argued, however, that amalgamation results in larger bureaucracies, lack of responsiveness, cost increases, and many other problems associated with large local government.

Adam’s research estimates the relationship between costs and size in Ontario municipalities for a variety of municipal services. The results are used to evaluate the efficiency attributes of municipal amalgamation in Ontario, and specifically the claim that restructuring leads to cost savings.

http://www.imfg.org/

 

[Eug]

The argument that the average house price in Toronto is a lot higher is absolutely wrong.

If you were to take the average between the 416 and 905 you'd see the average house prices are very close ...

Toronto has many areas where the homes go for a lot less then the 905 average ... parts of Scarborough / North York / ... These tend to balance out the higher home prices in the more affluent areas.

The average detached home price in the 416 - and that includes Scarborough, Etobicoke, etc. - is just under $700000. The average detached home price in the 905 is just over $480000.
The average semi-detached price in the 416 is $493000. The average semi-detached price in the 905 is $338000.

Yes, you read that right: The average price of a semi-detached in the 416 is more than the average price of a detached in the 905. So, not even in the same league.

If you're to take overall averages (including tiny no-bedroom downtown condos), then the numbers are closer, but the difference is still significant. It's $477263 for the 416, and $407817 in the 905, a difference of 17%.

 

[Glen]

The average detached home price in the 416 - and that includes Scarborough, Etobicoke, etc. - is just under $700000. The average detached home price in the 905 is just over $480000.
The average semi-detached price in the 416 is $493000. The average semi-detached price in the 905 is $338000.

That also includes Forest Hill, Rosedale, Hog's Hollow, the Bridle Path etc.. While the 905 regions include East Gwillimbury, Brock, etc. What is next an essay about the injustice of a single family home at Bay and King not being affordable?

Perhaps this might serve as a better tool for comparison....

2009 single family detached median price average map

http://www.thestar.com/staticcontent/747051

As you can see for similar homes in similar areas the prices are ............. similar.

 

[Eug]

That also includes Forest Hill, Rosedale, Hog's Hollow, the Bridle Path etc.. While the 905 regions include East Gwillimbury, Brock, etc. What is next an essay about the injustice of a single family home at Bay and King not being affordable?

Quite frankly, I'm not sure what you're on about. Forest Hill is an expensive area, which brings up the average. Gee, go figure - a higher end area in an expensive city is expensive. However, even places like Leaside has rundown 50s bungalow teardowns going for $700000+, while detached homes in north Scarborough are a million bux. Meanwhile, Bay and King is just a bunch of condos.

There is no "injustice" in saying high priced places in the context of Toronto should pay more than low priced places in the context of Toronto. But to claim that Toronto's property taxes are lower than the 905 based on the mill rate alone is at best misleading.

As you can see for similar homes in similar areas the prices are ............. similar.

Not even close, as I've already illustrated. It's no surprise people are willing to move to the 905 and brave horrendous commutes even if they work in Toronto, because when they do, the houses get bigger and more modern. A ton of homes in the 416 are old and small bungalows... and bring down the average, yet the average prices for detached homes are still way, way higher in the 416 than the 905. What really brings down the average in Toronto are semis (which on average cost more than detached in the 905), townhouses, and of course condos.

No matter how you slice it, using the mill rates of the various muncipalities against Toronto is comparing apples to oranges, because the cost of equivalent housing is just so much higher than the 905.

 

[Glen]

There is no "injustice" in saying high priced places in the context of Toronto should pay more than low priced places in the context of Toronto. But to claim that Toronto's property taxes are lower than the 905 based on the mill rate alone is at best misleading.

I did not mention the mill rate, I mentioned the tax burden. You brought up the differences in values as an excuse. To which I provided a link to dispel that (http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-20057.pdf). Then you stated that comparisons are skewed by giving examples of home prices in the city which you think are demonstrative of the much higher prices in Toronto. Guess what, a bungalow in N08 is roughly the same price as Leaside ones. Detached homes in North Scarborough for a million and up, so what. Look at detached home prices in neighbouring south Markham.

No matter how you slice it, using the mill rates of the various muncipalities against Toronto is comparing apples to oranges, because the cost of equivalent housing is just so much higher than the 905.

Once again, you are the only one comparing mill rates. Look at the tax burden. Then have a look at spending per household. Toronto residents pay far less and get more. There is no way that you can spin that fact.

 

[Eug]

Heh. Last time I was in N08, there didn't seem to be too many tiny wartime bungalows there. Not all bungalows are created equal, which is the point.

Torontonians may pay less in a lot of instances, but they pay more for equivalent homes, even despite a lower mill rate. Your so-called proof is highly dependent upon the fact that so many Torontonians live in much smaller homes (esp. condos), which brings down the average assessment values.

So again, Miller's claims are at best misleading.

 

[Dan416]

But the cost of services is much higher in Toronto. Some of this is due to Toronto providing services (like transit) to 905 residents who don't pay taxes but, regardless, it costs far more to keep the City of Toronto going than it does any other city, even per capita.

And, honestly, the way our tax system works is such that if someone can afford to buy a more expensive house than they can afford to pay a progressively larger tax bill each year.

Where's the rolling eyes smiley when you need it? If 905 residents are paying HIGHER property taxes, how is it that Toronto residents are getting screwed? This is the stupidest argument I've ever heard, and you've repeated so many times it makes my blood boil every time. Because 416 is subsidizing 905ers taking the subway. You know, if one day ALL 905ers STOPPED taking TTC, TTC revenue would go down, but you wouldn't be saving any money from those trips not being taken. So it'd be lose-lose.

I'm so sick of hearing about shafted 416ers.

 

[GraphicMatt]

TTC fares do not cover 100% of operating costs. A subsidy is required to cover the difference. Toronto residents pay for that subsidy through taxes. 905 residents, even if they use the system daily to get to work, do not pay those same taxes.

I'm not trying to paint this as a 905-versus-416 turf war. I'm arguing for a regional/provincial approach to transit funding.

 

[Dan416]

TTC fares do not cover 100% of operating costs. A subsidy is required to cover the difference. Toronto residents pay for that subsidy through taxes. 905 residents, even if they use the system daily to get to work, do not pay those same taxes.

I'm not trying to paint this as a 905-versus-416 turf war. I'm arguing for a regional/provincial approach to transit funding.

This thread has already pointed out that 905ers already pay HIGHER taxes. So your point is moot.

 

[Glen]

Torontonians may pay less in a lot of instances, but they pay more for equivalent homes, even despite a lower mill rate. Your so-called proof is highly dependent upon the fact that so many Torontonians live in much smaller homes (esp. condos), which brings down the average assessment values.

Again with the mill rate, why to you persist in bringing it up? Look at tax amount in dollars. Forget everything about home prices, comparing them is not instructive. Look a municipal spending vs municipal tax burden. I did a comparison a while back with 2006 figures between Toronto and Mississauga/Peel. Using 2006 data from the Municipal Performance Measurement Program it shows that Toronto spent $8,422 per household in 2006. On the other hand Mississauga and the region of Peel combined, spent $3,848.29 per household.

So the average household in Mississauga pays more than $500 per year in property tax than the average household in Toronto and gets $ 4,573.71 less in services.

 

[GraphicMatt]

This thread has already pointed out that 905ers already pay HIGHER taxes. So your point is moot.

But that higher tax bill doesn't go toward the TTC operating subsidy.

This works both ways, it's just more pronounced with the TTC. If I live in Toronto but work in Mississauga and use Mississauga transit to get to work, I'm a 'drain' on that service.

This sort of imbalance is only going to get more pronounced until a funding model is developed that recognizes that municipal borders are basically irrelvant when it comes to transit.

 

[Glen]

Matt, think about what you are saying. You are suggesting that Toronto's taxes should be lower because it has cost savings via higher density. Yet when it comes to public transit, which is a prerequisite for dense urban cities, it should not incur the costs. Toronto receives the benefit from public transit, therefore should pay for it.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Matt, think about what you are saying. You are suggesting that Toronto's taxes should be lower because it has cost savings via higher density. Yet when it comes to public transit, which is a prerequisite for dense urban cities, it should not incur the costs. Toronto receives the benefit from public transit, therefore should pay for it.

I'm assuredly not saying that taxes should be lower. It's a fairly safe bet than in any conversation we're going to have about taxes these days, my position is that they should be higher.

The TTC provides regional benefits that extend far into the 905. That its operating subsidy rests purely on the backs of Toronto taxpayers is unfair and needs to be addressed.