Keep in mind taxes are mil rate times MPAC "value". While Toronto's mil rate is lower house prices are higher.... As an example I am paying over 6K in property taxes on a 1800 sq.ft house in Toronto. How does that compare to other cities?
While assessed values are way out of date (likely 1/2 to 2/3 of real give or take), in @ReSTored chart a $1M MPAC value in Toronto is over 6K, what does $1M buy one these days in TO?
Keep in mind taxes are mil rate times MPAC "value". While Toronto's mil rate is lower house prices are higher.... As an example I am paying over 6K in property taxes on a 1800 sq.ft house in Toronto. How does that compare to other cities?
While assessed values are way out of date (likely 1/2 to 2/3 of real give or take), in @ReSTored chart a $1M MPAC value in Toronto is over 6K, what does $1M buy one these days in TO?
This link has a larger table that includes tax on an average home. Toronto is very close to the bottom (SSM, NB and TB are cheaper). Much of the GTA is 25-50% higher. Now, that isn't a complete picture as Toronto has additional LTT so if you sell often, your effective tax rate would be much higher. For someone that remains in their house, I still maintain that Toronto tax rates are unsustainably low (which is supported by their consistent deficit).
Keep in mind taxes are mil rate times MPAC "value". While Toronto's mil rate is lower house prices are higher.... As an example I am paying over 6K in property taxes on a 1800 sq.ft house in Toronto. How does that compare to other cities?
While assessed values are way out of date (likely 1/2 to 2/3 of real give or take), in @ReSTored chart a $1M MPAC value in Toronto is over 6K, what does $1M buy one these days in TO?
Property taxes are progressive based on the value of your real estate (assumes a $2m dollar homeowner has a better ability to contribute, so she pays more than the $1m homeowner). The MPAC-assessed value and your municipal MIL rate that count. An 1800 sq' towhhouse in my hood would be taxed at $5000 if valued @$1.5M, and $7200 @$2M.
The real reason Toronto taxes are lower is Toronto spends more than it collects in taxes -- it's that simple -- the MIL rate is too low for the services voters are asking for. If you vote for a municipal gov't that wants to offer more cookies to your municipality - you should be expected to pay for it, all of it.
This link has a larger table that includes tax on an average home. Toronto is very close to the bottom (SSM, NB and TB are cheaper). Much of the GTA is 25-50% higher. Now, that isn't a complete picture as Toronto has additional LTT so if you sell often, your effective tax rate would be much higher. For someone that remains in their house, I still maintain that Toronto tax rates are unsustainably low (which is supported by their consistent deficit).
The average home price in Toronto they are using looks to include all housing, which means SFHs and condos and for all is sales price not accessed value. The ratio for condos to SFHs will be much higher in Toronto (pulling down Toronto's numbers) than most of those other cities. Again an imperfect analysis as condos are much smaller....
At the same time many of those city's numbers are completely unsustainably high if true. Does the average homeowner in Windsor really have the $10K to pay their taxes! In the end it looks like they are just taking average sale price (being a real estate site) and using it as the average accessed price from the data. Keep in mind MPAC values are way out of date and a house that sells for $400K+ in Windsor today is likely accessed at $160K or there abouts.
Which BTW would be a great idea, your taxes should be based on the MPAC value BUT if someone thinks a house is really worth $2M (buying) then they should pay taxes on the value they think it is worth... or MPAC whichever is higher. Buy a house with previous taxes based on $1M but pay $2M for the house, taxes are now based on $2M.
The average home price in Toronto they are using looks to include all housing, which means SFHs and condos and for all is sales price not accessed value. The ratio for condos to SFHs will be much higher in Toronto (pulling down Toronto's numbers) than most of those other cities. Again an imperfect analysis as condos are much smaller....
At the same time many of those city's numbers are completely unsustainably high if true. Does the average homeowner in Windsor really have the $10K to pay their taxes! In the end it looks like they are just taking average sale price (being a real estate site) and using it as the average accessed price from the data.
Which BTW would be a great idea, your taxes should be based on the MPAC value BUT if someone thinks a house is really worth $2M (buying) then they should pay taxes on the value they think it is worth... or MPAC whichever is higher. Buy a house with previous taxes based on $1M but pay $2M for the house, taxes are now based on $2M.
BC market value and taxed value are very close. Some people have sued the equivalent to mpac to increase their assessment. Deals normally happen around assessed value so a higher assessed value should get you a higher sales price.
This link has a larger table that includes tax on an average home. Toronto is very close to the bottom (SSM, NB and TB are cheaper). Much of the GTA is 25-50% higher. Now, that isn't a complete picture as Toronto has additional LTT so if you sell often, your effective tax rate would be much higher. For someone that remains in their house, I still maintain that Toronto tax rates are unsustainably low (which is supported by their consistent deficit).
For municipal politicians looking for money, property tax hikes are akin to licking the 'third rail'.
Politicians are always reluctant to ask taxpayers directly to pay for their promises or inefficiency costs. When they do, taxpayers usually put up a stink, in some cases that has career implications for the politician.
I think you saw that with Wynne, and you're gonna see that with JT. It happens at the local level too.
Property taxes are progressive based on the value of your real estate (assumes a $2m dollar homeowner has a better ability to contribute, so she pays more than the $1m homeowner). The MPAC-assessed value and your municipal MIL rate that count. An 1800 sq' towhhouse in my hood would be taxed at $5000 if valued @$1.5M, and $7200 @$2M.
The real reason Toronto taxes are lower is Toronto spends more than it collects in taxes -- it's that simple -- the MIL rate is too low for the services voters are asking for. If you vote for a municipal gov't that wants to offer more cookies to your municipality - you should be expected to pay for it, all of it.
So you're OK with wealth tax. Where does a retiree move to when their home doubles in price and they can't afford the taxes? They cash in but move away from their friends and family or go reverse mortgage.
Which BTW would be a great idea, your taxes should be based on the MPAC value BUT if someone thinks a house is really worth $2M (buying) then they should pay taxes on the value they think it is worth... or MPAC whichever is higher. Buy a house with previous taxes based on $1M but pay $2M for the house, taxes are now based on $2M.
MPAC valuation is only a relative value, it's used to compare the value of your property to other properties in your taxation area. It's the denominator that determines your share of the tax burden.
In the simplest terms, if you add the value of all MPAC valuations in your tax area, then divide that by your MPAC eval (use your valuation as the as the denominator), you have the percentage of the municipal costs you need to cover. Multiply that percentage by the city budget and that's your tax bill.
It would be both unfair and difficult to administer a tax system that resets the value of a property every time it is sold. Think about London, or Burlington cities having to deal with houses selling for 30% less than they did 18 most ago -- do those owners get a 20% reduction in taxes?
So you're OK with wealth tax. Where does a retiree move to when their home doubles in price and they can't afford the taxes? They cash in but move away from their friends and family or go reverse mortgage.
Imo, The obvious solution to that problem is similar to rent control. Smallish increases while you are in the house but a rate reset when it ceases to become your primary residence (you move out, you sell, you transfer to anybody other than a spouse for any reason). Let nobbie keep paying 6k plus a couple percent but the next owner of your home may pay 12. The new owner will know the approximate rate going in.
So you're OK with wealth tax. Where does a retiree move to when their home doubles in price and they can't afford the taxes? They cash in but move away from their friends and family or go reverse mortgage.
I didn't say I'm OK with a wealth tax. I said our property tax, like our income tax, is progressive - meaning those with higher values incomes and assets are asked to chip in more dollars.
When a retiree's home doubles in value, so do all the other properties in the area. The impact of that 'doubling' doesn't change taxes. you still pay your relative share.
Nothing wrong with a reverse mortgage... unless it belongs to your parents.
MPAC valuation is only a relative value, it's used to compare the value of your property to other properties in your taxation area. It's the denominator that determines your share of the tax burden.
In the simplest terms, if you add the value of all MPAC valuations in your tax area, then divide that by your MPAC eval (use your valuation as the as the denominator), you have the percentage of the municipal costs you need to cover. Multiply that percentage by the city budget and that's your tax bill.
It would be both unfair and difficult to administer a tax system that resets the value of a property every time it is sold. Think about London, or Burlington cities having to deal with houses selling for 30% less than they did 18 most ago -- do those owners get a 20% reduction in taxes?
For the last paragraph, the answer is NO, that is why I suggest the current assessed value or sale price--whatever is higher--and it would be no different if the house sold for less than the current MPAC value at anytime the system has been running in the past--but you can fight it. It also prevents buying from a buddy for $1 and being taxed on the new $1 value (being extreme). In the end the concept provides a bit of short term cheddar cheese for the cities and would also be another tool in the belt to reduce crazy bidding wars and speculation like the recent past. If you think it is worth $2M you pay taxes on $2M until it is actually worth $2M and then it starts to go up with everyone else.... If future market conditions change, well then you can fight the assessments just like today.
To be fair, I have in fact "fought" MPAC in the past and dramatically lowered my assessment. The entire system is past due on the next assessments (so I am not going to poke the bear at the moment) but I think I have a couple of good angles to do it again...
For the total system, like you noted, it is based on total revenue for the city and as MPAC goes up across the board mil goes down. But these one offs would give the city a boost (found money) until the next budget cycle and in theory lower other people's mil rates a small bit on the next budget cycle. Rinse and repeat.
But these one offs would give the city a boost (found money) until the next budget cycle and in theory lower other people's mil rates a small bit on the next budget cycle. Rinse and repeat.
That is an undesirable outcome imo. The longer you live in your house, the more tax paid diverges from fair market value tax? Your neighbours house being worth because of paperwork more should not lower your tax burden. I understand the argument about not driving people out of their homes, but lowering their tax burden is unwise imo.
Toronto is staying true to form. They came up with a new rental plan. Mandatory rent control on all dwellings, hope for 65,000 new affordable dwelling and anticipated $30B bill should be covered by others.
OAKVILLE- Oakville residents are currently looking at a 4.28 per cent property tax increase for 2024 if a staff-prepared draft budget is approved by the mayor and council.
Toronto is staying true to form. They came up with a new rental plan. Mandatory rent control on all dwellings, hope for 65,000 new affordable dwelling and anticipated $30B bill should be covered by others.
That’s 460k/unit. Why not just give $200k to each of those 65000 families to use as a down payment? Saves 18 billion and hand them the long term ownership responsibilities.
I’m sure there are lots of condo builders that would build no frills condos for reasonable costs if they could be sold out at the time of approval.
That’s 460k/unit. Why not just give $200k to each of those 65000 families to use as a down payment? Saves 18 billion and hand them the long term ownership responsibilities.
I’m sure there are lots of condo builders that would build no frills condos for reasonable costs if they could be sold out at the time of approval.
Giving away money like that causes inflation and even worse has the government picking winners and losers. It would suck to be working your ass off and not qualify while deadbeats around you get a handout.
Now, if government kept a percentage ownership stake in the property and liened it so they got back what they needed when you sell that solves many issues. The details would be interesting. Does government get back 200k? 200k plus interest? A percentage of sale price? Can you buy them out? What if you improve property (or ruin it)?
Giving away money like that causes inflation and even worse has the government picking winners and losers. It would suck to be working your ass off and not qualify while deadbeats around you get a handout.
Now, if government kept a percentage ownership stake in the property and liened it so they got back what they needed when you sell that solves many issues. The details would be interesting. Does government get back 200k? 200k plus interest? A percentage of sale price? Can you buy them out? What if you improve property (or ruin it)?
I’d say that $200k would be public equity forever. Sell the place and 200k and it’s portion of any gains go back to the public.
My feeling is you make the home ownership part of the deal. Public housing is expensive to run for many reasons, mainly the inefficiency of govt management, but also because the residents have no interest, pride of ownership, or responsibility for upkeep. Let residents own that, not the public.
That’s 460k/unit. Why not just give $200k to each of those 65000 families to use as a down payment? Saves 18 billion and hand them the long term ownership responsibilities.
I’m sure there are lots of condo builders that would build no frills condos for reasonable costs if they could be sold out at the time of approval.
We're talking about social housing here, it's a gift from taxpayers. Social housing should be functional, economical to maintain, have good quality durable fixtures, be compact and purposely not luxurious.
I don't see why the city doesn't look at man camp-style accommodations. Durable, inexpensinve,, relocatable.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
