New Land Transfer Tax

[spasongs]

But Miller will not even look at it.
Union/David = Love

I would love to hear more about how Madrid has built miles of Subway line without cost to the tax payer. Something involving bonds on land where it is going. I heard Miller also shot that one down.

 

[Jayomatic]

I think the media should be blamed for the majority of Torontonians who are uninformed about this tax. I just had the unfortunate task of watching Shelley Carroll getting phone calls on City Online from morons saying that city council shouldn't get paid until they balance the books.

The stupidity of the majority of the citizens in this city really is disappointing.

Ive seen numerous people just changing their msn names and starting facebook groups without even knowing what the transfer tax is. The moment i ask them why they oppose it they just always say they don't want more tax.

Last time I checked the majority of our taxes are federal and provincial taxes.

 

[ShonTron]

Last time I checked the majority of our taxes are federal and provincial taxes.

It's true, there's only one taxpayer and three different levels of government. Tax cuts through downloading (the legacy of Paul Martin and then Harris/Eves) only increase the financial pressures down the line. The feds are sitting pretty, it took a few years longer, but the province properly balanced the books but at the municipalities' expense.

There's just too many Toronto Sun readers and those who get their news only from 30-second long TV news stories packaged. I stopped watching TV news all together, but I do like the National.

 

[unimaginative2]

I completely agree, jayomatic and Sean. I was talking to a bunch of friends who were up in arms about the liquor tax the city was introducing, even though it wasn't even one of the options being discussed!

 

[Admiral Beez]

I stopped watching TV news all together, but I do like the National.

Oh, I really hate the National. They give you ten to fifteen minutes of headlines, and then forty to forty-five minutes of "indepth" time-filler feel good stories about some person's personal plight against some life obstacle. After ten minutes of the National I usually turn off the tube and hit the bed.

 

[Jdot]

Back to a post someone made (cant remember, not going to go back). It was mentioned that there is no difference in charging this one time land transfer tax and increasing the year by year tax charge when you consider the end result. The only difference is that most people would not be able to pay for it right away, making annual property increases a better idea.
That is assuming that someone is going to buy/sell. An increased annual property tax will definitly cut into the wallet of all land/property owners in the city each and every year. Most of the population DOES NOT MOVE every year, every other year etc. Many people stay for decades. Moving after several years and having to pay the transfer tax would have minimal effect, as the sale of a home typically net's the owner a lot more money than they owe in a mortgage. There really would be no negative, adverse effect on the homeowner. An increased annual property tax would cause many people to have to cut back on their daily expenses, and could even cause many to have to sell their homes as they could not manage guaranteed increased taxes.
I cant wait to see this implemented without question as soon as it is reviewed in several months after the provincial government laughs in Toronto's face.

 

[ShonTron]

It's more like 20 minutes of news (and these are usually longer than the usual 30 seconds if it's an interesting or important story) and then a 5-7 minute item (or their weekly talking heads feature) and then a 20-25 minute feature, which is often very good - like Patrick McKenna's trip to North Korea, but sometimes they are as bad as you say - it's a mixed bag.

 

[Chuck]

It's not police officers, buses, and rec centres that should be closed. It's the countless layers of bureaucracy lurking in the shadows and weighing those services down that have got to go. Having worked with the city myself, I can say with certainty that for every 3 people that are required to complete a task in the private sector, 4 people are employed by the City of Toronto to get the exact same job done.

When people say "trim the fat" they are not referring to bus drivers, firemen, and lifeguards. It's the countless layers of management, and those working at 75% efficiency simply because they can that need to unfortunately be let go. For argument's sake, there might be 5 people employed by the TTC at head office for every bus that's on the road. Maybe we could get by with 4 people.

 

[unimaginative2]

Admiral Beez, could it be that it's the only national media outlet that doesn't share your particular political viewpoint?

Jdot is right. The land transfer tax is not equivalent to property tax at all. The large majority of families buy and sell property every five or ten years at most. Most transactions are simply investors each flipping multiple properties every year. Taking a small cut of our frothy real estate market seems an extremely good idea to me.

Of course, the catch is that revenues from the tax are likely to fluctuate quite wildly with the market, and the city could see rather precipitous declines in revenue in a housing market bust. I can't really see revenues going up much from this point, either.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It's not police officers, buses, and rec centres that should be closed. It's the countless layers of bureaucracy lurking in the shadows and weighing those services down that have got to go. Having worked with the city myself, I can say with certainty that for every 3 people that are required to complete a task in the private sector, 4 people are employed by the City of Toronto to get the exact same job done.

When people say "trim the fat" they are not referring to bus drivers, firemen, and lifeguards. It's the countless layers of management, and those working at 75% efficiency simply because they can that need to unfortunately be let go. For argument's sake, there might be 5 people employed by the TTC at head office for every bus that's on the road. Maybe we could get by with 4 people.

I went to City Hall yesterday to change my on-street parking permit, and there were three folks in that department just sitting around. I say move all of that on-line and privately serviced and get rid or re-deploy those folks.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Admiral Beez, could it be that it's the only national media outlet that doesn't share your particular political viewpoint?.

Sorry if I misunderstood your syntax, but there aren't other national media outlets to choose from. Regardless, I'm perfectly happy with the newscast at CBC, and slightly OT, am quite enamoured with Nahlah Ayed (she's a cutie, http://www.cbc.ca/programguide/personality/?personality=Ayed,+Nahlah&program=The+National). But surely there is sufficient news in the country and/or globe to fit into a full 30 minutes without running these time-fill documentary pieces. That has a place, but not on the national newscast.

 

[ShonTron]

Taking a small cut of our frothy real estate market seems an extremely good idea to me.

That's what I liked about it - it's essentially a real estate equivalent of a Tobin Tax, that would have limited impact on families (similar to a Tobin tax's impact on long-term investors and RSPs) and more of a kick at short-term investors/flippers that's largely driving and screwing the white-hot market here.

 

[Hydrogen]

I think the media should be blamed for the majority of Torontonians who are uninformed about this tax.

It's not the responsibility of the media to teach anyone anything. It's not their business. Individual tax payers should inform themselves. If they don't, then they risk sounding like idiots - or worse.

That's what I liked about it - it's essentially a real estate equivalent of a Tobin Tax, that would have limited impact on families

How do you know it would have a limited impact on families? Do you know the fiancial situation of every family in the city? Concerning the flippers and investors, is this tax then to be viewed as a punishment for them? A tax on land transfers in the city will only drive the cost of purchasing up, and a highly speculative and expensive market will be good when they want to skim off the top.

 

[EnviroTO]

That's what I liked about it - it's essentially a real estate equivalent of a Tobin Tax, that would have limited impact on families (similar to a Tobin tax's impact on long-term investors and RSPs) and more of a kick at short-term investors/flippers that's largely driving and screwing the white-hot market here.

I doubt it. First of all I don't see the negatives for flippers who improve properties and sell them higher... people pay what they feel the property is worth comparing it to what else is available. Keeping property values low by keeping them undesirable and poorly maintained doesn't seem like a great plan. Secondly, I think investors which can buy properties they don't plan on living in can afford the tax much more than the people trying to get a home to live in. The investor is going to recoup their costs somehow.

 

[EnviroTO]

... That is assuming that someone is going to buy/sell. An increased annual property tax will definitly cut into the wallet of all land/property owners in the city each and every year. Most of the population DOES NOT MOVE every year, every other year etc. Many people stay for decades. Moving after several years and having to pay the transfer tax would have minimal effect, as the sale of a home typically net's the owner a lot more money than they owe in a mortgage. There really would be no negative, adverse effect on the homeowner.

It doesn't matter whether or not the population moves every year. The whole thing gets averaged out. If the same tax was spread across all residences on an annual basis the amount charged would be equal to what the average resident would pay moving the average amount of times. A resident which moves less often than the average would indeed pay less, and a resident which moves more often than the average would pay more, but the average person would pay exactly the same amount. The fact that most people don't move every year is already part of the equation because if people moved more often the city wouldn't need to set the land transfer tax as high because they would collect it more often and if people moved less they would need to charge more to get the same amount. Indeed if this tax reduces the frequency of land transfers the city will need to raise taxes further making it a self-defeating tax.