News   Apr 24, 2024
Latest Iteration of 50 Eglinton West Proposes 46- and 58-Storey Towers
 732     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Sustainability Month: Mass Timber Construction Showing Long-Term Economic Benefits
 956     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Aspen Ridge Freehold Townhomes at Crosstown in Master-Planned Community
 567     0 

New Land Transfer Tax

Yes, you're probably right. I imagine that the high-income earners that work downtown and live in areas such as the Annex, Forest Hill, and Rosedale will be aghast at paying this 1% tax. It will probably cause them to discuss moving to Whitby with their families in order to avoid paying this 1% tax.
 
luvbrka:

I highly doubt that the lack of such a one-time real estate transaction tax elsewhere would be sufficient incentive for those who desire the urban lifestyle to move to the suburbs. Comparing the hypothetical exodus scenario to the Montreal is a rather faulty analogy since it is the political situtation that lead to mass movement of individuals.

If you think that the quality of life after factoring in commuting time is superior, you should have moved out years ago.

AoD
 
luvbrka said:
My friend, first of all it will be more like a 2% tax...add that to the current 2% tax, and you get 4%....on the amount above $400,000.

And do you seriously think that there are not any beautiful places to live outside of the GTA? I mean, I guess you don't get out very much!!! Get off this chat board, and do a little lookin' around! For example, I hear Oakville is a complete dive! Hmmm, even has a beautiful waterfront, with lots of shops and restaurants and hey, even no airport! And go north, places like Richmond Hill, Aurora, by geepers you can go on and on!

I do work downtown and I will be glad to move out of the city and commute. Yes, I'll have to commute, but I'll also get a bigger house on a bigger lot.

Also, if more people move out of the GTA...maybe, just maybe head offices
could move out as well. They can be mobile you know....let's just consider what happened to Montreal.
Click to expand...

So according to your logic the most economically superior places are those that offer a low cost of living...such as Cleveland, Mobile, Regina, and Fargo.
 
RJR123 said:
Yes, you're probably right. I imagine that the high-income earners that work downtown and live in areas such as the Annex, Forest Hill, and Rosedale will be aghast at paying this 1% tax. It will probably cause them to discuss moving to Whitby with their families in order to avoid paying this 1% tax.
Click to expand...

Correct, and you must also be right in your assumption that most of the population of Toronto are filthy rich and not the opposite. Seriously, let's be a bit realistic and less exaggerative. I know it won't drive everyone away, but it will probably drive many with families who are slightly leaning towards living downtown, but could use the extra 2000 bucks or whatever to buy the furniture for their 300 000 dollar house. I'll say that my family is in the upper part of income earners and I think some of you guys' elitism is kind of sad. Then again none of you (including me) are probably planning to purchase a house any time soon so it doesn't concern you. It's just that I'd love to see all different kinds of people enjoy Toronto.
 
Seriously, anyone who ever bought a home knows that one percent is nothing
Click to expand...

uhh...that's not entirely true...one percent is something, especially when you must pay it, along with the provincial land transfer tax, at closing..the cost cannot be amortized over the term of the mortgage, it must be paid on the closing date.

To try and defend any additional tax in Toronto is just misguided. All taxes, whether they can be rationalized as helping out the greater population or not, are inherently a form of theft, by the state on its constituents. This one smacks of a desperate municipal government, grasping at straws.

The ones who will be hurt the most are not the 'flippers', but are the first-time buyers. Those without the cash will simply not qualify, and the market will lose some of those buyers.

As for Mayor Miller, I lose more and more respect for him as the days go by.
 
I support the city placing taxes on activities that the province already taxes up to the amount the province is currently taxing it. My reasoning is that the province has downloaded costs to the city, the only way to break even is to take the missing money from the same sources the province was taking it before. If the province doesn't see fit to lower its land transfer tax despite having downloaded onto the city then I think more blame should be placed on the province than the city. Why is the existing provincial land transfer tax legitimate but the city's proposed land transfer tax "smacks of a desperate municipal government grasping at straws"?
 
Hydrogen said:
That tax money is often poorly used by the various levels of government. The result is this: more taxes.
Click to expand...

I know for certain that taxes are down from what they were in the mid 90s. There was a definite reduction in taxes while Harris was in power, there was a tax reduction from the federal government under the Liberals, there was a GST cut by the Conservatives, and for years city council members won praise in many Canadian jurisdictions for at or near 0% property tax increases (on a tax which isn't calculated as a fixed % rate) when obviously the costs of living, property, labour, and everything else was still climbing. I'm not entirely sold on the idea city council is wasting money. I look out the window and see far more services being delivered by the city than I see me getting from the province. I see streets, sidewalks, fire, police, garbage, maintenance, street lights, stop lights, transit, parks, etc. For the province I see education out of old buildings which are falling apart, increasing university tuitions, and a healthcare system that can't keep up. I would give the province much lower grades for sure.
 
poppajojo said:
Correct, and you must also be right in your assumption that most of the population of Toronto are filthy rich and not the opposite. Seriously, let's be a bit realistic and less exaggerative. I know it won't drive everyone away, but it will probably drive many with families who are slightly leaning towards living downtown, but could use the extra 2000 bucks or whatever to buy the furniture for their 300 000 dollar house. I'll say that my family is in the upper part of income earners and I think some of you guys' elitism is kind of sad. Then again none of you (including me) are probably planning to purchase a house any time soon so it doesn't concern you. It's just that I'd love to see all different kinds of people enjoy Toronto.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that everyone is filthy rich. What I said is that anyone who would seriously re-consider changing plans from buying a $303,000 house in Toronto ($300,000 + 1% tax of $3,000) and move to Whitby because they are so offended by that 1% tax is not cut out to live here. If cost is your sole determinant, then don't live in Toronto.
 
poppajojo said:
What exactly are these many improved services city hall will provide to the home purchaser?
Click to expand...

For anyone who actually follows city finances, they would know that 1) Toronto has not been raising taxes at the rate that provincially mandated expenses have been increasing, 2) the rest of the GTA has been, and 3) we're essentially fucked this year without a massive cash infusion.

This tax prevents massive service cuts from occurring and allows the city to make minor cuts to service instead. This fee, and all other new fees, are exclusively to keep what we already have.

The city, this year (2007) has a choice of cutting nearly 50% of discretionary spending (not provincially mandated stuff) or raising $500M in additional revenue.

The entire road/highway maintenance budget is about $300M. The TTC subsidy from the city is about $150M.
 
yyzer said:
To try and defend any additional tax in Toronto is just misguided. All taxes, whether they can be rationalized as helping out the greater population or not, are inherently a form of theft, by the state on its constituents. This one smacks of a desperate municipal government, grasping at straws.
Click to expand...

I am not sure how you can equate taxation to theft - considering the bodies that levy them are legally mandated by its' constitutes and the constitution to do so. If they think that one can get something for nothing, they are living in la-la land.

As to Miller - he isn't a miracle worker - and quite frankly, what does one expect him to do? If he doesn't utilize the revenue tools that he is given, he is considered to be a wuzz for not wanting to offend his electorate; if he does, he instantly becomes a "tax and spend" commie in spite of the fact that a good chunk of operating and capital budget is simply state of good repair stuff. Like honestly, we've never had a tax increase in Mississauga.

AoD
 
yyzer said:
The ones who will be hurt the most are not the 'flippers', but are the first-time buyers. Those without the cash will simply not qualify, and the market will lose some of those buyers.
Click to expand...

Then first time buyers must have been frozen out for years, home prices having risen by more than 1% per year for several years now. And yet the market continues to be strong, especially among first time buyers.
 
Businesses are having their property taxes gradually reduced, with a corresponding phased-in shift of the burden to residential property tax payers. A typical small house such as mine has seen a rise in annual property tax from about $1,500 in 1990 to about $3,300 today, and services have been steadily cut over those years. I've seen no indication as to where this opportunistic, piggybacking tax-grab ( the city now introduces new residential taxes because it can, I guess ) will be spent, why it is justified, or how those who pay it will benefit.
 
rbt said:
For anyone who actually follows city finances, they would know that 1) Toronto has not been raising taxes at the rate that provincially mandated expenses have been increasing, 2) the rest of the GTA has been, and 3) we're essentially fucked this year without a massive cash infusion.

This tax prevents massive service cuts from occurring and allows the city to make minor cuts to service instead. This fee, and all other new fees, are exclusively to keep what we already have.

The city, this year (2007) has a choice of cutting nearly 50% of discretionary spending (not provincially mandated stuff) or raising $500M in additional revenue.

The entire road/highway maintenance budget is about $300M. The TTC subsidy from the city is about $150M.
Click to expand...

Therefore the services coming back to the home purchaser according to taxes payed is not proportional at all. A large part of the burden is being placed on them which is unfair. And also any money smart person would realize that 1-2% of a small amount may not be a lot, but 1-2% of a home purchase, which is most likely the biggest purchase of your life is a whole lot, especially when it has to be payed on the spot. I'm starting to question the money savviness of these posters and think that they are more along the lines of since I'm not purchasing a house I don't give a hoot.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top