Raise the Hammer

Z Jones, >> Total B.S. JonC's numbers only show that actual taxes paid are pretty uniform across the GTA.

Great, if communities can bring in "pretty uniform" tax revenue per property using varying tax rates, then there is no reason not to cut them?

>> Are property values higher because tax rates are lower, or are tax rates lower in because property values are higher, are tax rates whatever they have to be to ensure an actual tax bill similar to the rest of the region?

So now you're not sure what you think. Then why do you find it necessary to throw around insults.

>> You certainly haven't done anything to prove that it's the first alternative instead of the second, the third, or something else entirely.

Nor have you proved that lowering tax rates would reduce tax revenue? Therefore, if the numbers we actually do have, indicate that lower tax rates have limited effect on revenue, there is no rational reason not to start reducing them. If lower tax rates can bring in similar amounts of revenue per property, why not reduce them and allow the value of Hamilton properties to go up?

>> In fact as JonC points out (and you conspicuously ignore) you pay less property tax in Hamilton than in other cities since our properties are a lot cheaper - so people should be flooding into Hamilton to take advantage of our lower costs.

You do understand that you are contradicting yourself again, right? If Hamilton has higher tax rates, according to your reasoning, this should mean the city gets more revenue, not less. Perhaps you should clear this up in your own mind before you throw around any more insults.

>> If your harebrained theory about property taxes were true, people WOULD be flooding into Hamilton, since as you keep saying when costs are cheaper "many more people want to own property in Hamilton".

>> THIS ABSOLUTELY AND DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS YOUR THESIS.

This is what I actually said..."Similarly, if you cut property TAX RATES, you would increase the amount of demand for Hamilton property. For example, if you have a 180K home in Hamilton and the city decides to cut the tax rate from 1.65% to 1%, this makes owning property cheaper and the result is many more people wanting to own property in Hamilton."

Notice how I didn't say anything about current low property values attracting new buyers. The reason I didn't say this is because the market has already discounted the overall costs of living in Hamilton, which is why property values are as low as they are. Just because prices are currently low relative to richer communities doesn't mean properties are undervalued.

However, if the city reduced the TAX RATE on properties, this would affect the underlying value. The reason is because the new total cost of owning a property (current lower price PLUS new lower tax rate) would now be less than other jurisdictions. Furthermore, lower tax rates would increase the profit margins of current property owners, allowing them to keep their buildings in better shape, allowing them to charge higher rents and have lower vacancies.

>> HAMILTON ALREADY HAS CHEAPER TAXES THAN TORONTO, MISSISAUGA, and OAKVILLE and those cheaper taxes have not translated into "many more peple wanting to own property in Hamilton

We don't have cheaper taxes, we actually have higher taxes silly fellow. For example, on a $200,000 mortgage, you pay $3,300 in taxes if you live in Hamilton, but in Burlington, you only pay $2,200. That's why people are willing to pay higher prices for a home in Burlington, because the city takes less of their income in taxes. Do you get it yet? $3,300 is actually a bigger number than $2,200.

>> So in conclusion, either you're dishonest or you're an idiot.

Great wrap up of a completely nonsensical rebuttal. You are arguing against lower tax rates because you feel that they would lead to less money for the city and yet in the next breath you tell us that Hamilton property owners actually give the city less in taxes, even though they have higher tax rates.

Which is it, are high tax rates better at producing revenue for the city or are low tax rates? Take your time with this one, I don't want you to hurt yourself, you already seem a little frazzled.