|
Post by Dean Robinson on Oct 13, 2006 8:49:07 GMT -5
The Homestead Act what is it and how does it work,
QUEEN'S PARK - Erie-Lincoln MPP Tim Hudak introduced his Private Member's Bill, the Homestead Act, 2006, today to bring real protection to Ontario homeowners facing rapidly increasing property assessments. The Homestead Act, if passed, will cap residential property assessment increases at five percent per year as long as home ownership is maintained. It will also support homeowners who make improvements to their homes and provide a property tax reduction for seniors and the disabled.
"Working families, seniors and young people are facing higher taxes, higher home heating costs, increased user fees and escalating energy costs in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario," said Hudak. "Rapidly increasing property assessments and resultant property tax increases are simply unaffordable to the beleaguered Ontario taxpayer."
Property assessments have skyrocketed in recent years, particularly in the recent 2006 assessment notices. The average assessed home in Ontario leapt from $179,151 in the 2003 taxation year to $232,883 in the 2006 taxation year. This past year, the average provincial assessment increase in the Residential Tax Class was 14.35 per cent, with many municipalities reporting increases of 15-35 per cent. Individual homeowners have been shocked to receive assessment increases of over 100 per cent.
"Homeowners need a much more predictable and transparent assessment system. Seniors are increasingly challenged by the growth in their tax bill. Sadly, many are being forced to sell the homes they built and maintained for decades." said Hudak. "The Homestead Act will support the Canadian value of home ownership."
Among others, the three primary benefits on the Homestead Act, 2006 include:
* A cap on residential property assessment increases for tax purposes at five percent per year as long as home ownership is maintained
* The ability for Ontario homeowners to make up to $25,000 in home repairs, alterations, improvements or additions without facing an increase in their property assessment
* Seniors and the disabled would not pay property taxes on the first $10,000 of assessed value for their principal residence.
"Seniors are very worried that they will be unable to stay in their homes because of the unrealistic property assessments," said Judy Cutler, Director of Government and Media Relations with the Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP). "The Homestead Act will do much to allow seniors to stay in place, as so many of them choose to do."
The Homestead Act would cover all residential property including cottages. It would also allow the 5 per cent cap to remain in place if the owner were to transfer ownership to a child or spouse. Finally, the Bill would require MPAC (Municipal Property Assessment Corporation) to maintain a record of the current assessed value of the land and provide a copy to landowners within 24 hours, free of charge.
The system of province-wide Current Value Assessment (CVA) was designed to bring fairness to Ontario taxpayers. In the current environment of rapidly increasing residential assessments, proper protections for homeowners are warranted.
Ontario Ombudsman André Marin is currently reviewing MPAC as a result of the tremendous public outcry on the issue. To date, the Office of the Ombudsman has received over 3500 complaints from residents across Ontario. Ombudsman Marin's report will focus on the alleged lack of transparency in the property assessment system and the integrity and efficiency of the decision-making process. The report is expected in March, 2006.
Similar legislation to cap increases in residential property assessments exists in Nova Scotia, Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon and Texas.
-30-
Further information:
Tim Hudak (416) 325-8454
I did personaly call Tim this morning and am totaly impressed with this bill. This is another reason you would or should Vote for People like Dean Robinson & Darren Nessbit Both these two Men have spent hours lobbying at Queens park, As councilliors for your city you can bet that they will fight to get this bill passed
|
|
darren
Junior Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by darren on Oct 13, 2006 22:40:09 GMT -5
I would just like to say that both replays have very valued points, I don't know much about this bill yet so I can not say I'm in support of it or Not.
But what I will say is that I am in support of the people in Sarnia, and if that mean putting pressure on the government,OK
What ever option is to be picked, its should benefit the PEOPLE OF SARNIA!
Sincerely Darren Nesbit
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Oct 14, 2006 8:26:29 GMT -5
Thank you for posting Glenn As I see it any relief that would be put on the table NOW is a thing. the Elderly and the Disabled are losing there homes.
Yes The Act has a few points that can be amended to help the upper middle class but as far as the Elderly and Disabled it is a start to being able to keep the homes they built.
Glenn I'm not sure if it my connection or your web site but your home page is not being found, I'm sure that the readers of our site would like to research the Freedom Party's Platform a little more in depth.
I believe that in order to serve the public I should and will go to the table with an open mind, and research the facts..
Also Darren I miss typed your Name Sorry
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Oct 14, 2006 22:18:58 GMT -5
Hi Glenn Well your interest and your post has has created a loyal Freedom Party member. Im looking at registering with your party next week. the following is a cut and paste from the partys platform. SCRAP PROPERTY TAXESHave you earned money to purchase a home in Ontario? If so, you paid income-tax on those earnings before you used some of what was left to pay for the house. Yet, an Ontario home buyer who has paid off his mortgage is not the real owner of his house in any practical sense, even though his name is on the deed. The reason? If he does not continue to pay the property tax year after year, the government will evict him and sell the house. In other words, property taxes turn the government into the home owner’s landlord, and they force the home-owner to pay rent (in the form of property taxes) to keep the house he has already paid for with after-tax dollars. Stop to think about that for just a second: even after you have worked for years to pay off your mortgage, you are still required to pay the government for the rest of your life in order to keep living there. If you leave the house to someone when you pass away, that person has to keep paying the government - for the rest of his or her life - to keep the house. Even worse, as the value of your house increases, you are likely to find your property tax payments getting bigger. And, even after you retire - or should you become unable to work - you will still have to come up with property tax money to rent your own house from the government in order to continue living in it. Renters are affected too. If you are a renter you pay double rent, in a sense. Out of the money you give to the landlord each month, one part is kept by the landlord, and the rest is property tax that the landlord will hand over to the government. In reality, you are paying two landlords: the government and the person whose name is on the deed to the house that you rent. The bottom line: just like owners, renters pay property tax. There are other problems with property taxes. For example, many of the municipal services that are paid for with local property taxes are used or consumed by people who do not live in the municipality and do not pay for the services: visitors, tourists, commuters etc.. Those who live in the municipality end up subsidizing out-of-towners. It is simply not justifiable. Property taxes are wrong. Nobody should have to fear that the government will evict them from the house that they have already bought and paid for with after-tax dollars. Those who use or benefit from the government services provided by a municipality should share the cost of those services whether or not they live in the municipality. There are better, more ethical, and more economically sound ways to finance government than by imposing property taxes. Arguably, the best way is by taxing consumption. With a consumption tax, those who are of modest means - those who consume less - pay less tax. Consumption taxes also decrease the extent to which local residents pick up the tab for visitors, tourists and commuters, because visitors, tourists and commuters pay consumption taxes (e.g., a sales tax). A McKeever government will: 1. scrap Ontario’s taxation of property; 2. convert Ontario’s PST into a broader-based value-added tax, and lower the PST rate as necessary to make the conversion revenue-neutral; 3. give to each and every Ontario municipality the discretion to add a municipal premium to the PST within its respective geographic borders. The province will collect each municipality’s premium through already-existing provincial collection systems, and remit the revenues to the municipalities in which they were paid. To discourage abuse and ensure accountability, municipal and regional governments will be denied the power to undermine tax-rate competition between municipalities via legislative, contractual, or other methods. These three steps in the right direction will create a fairer system of municipal taxation for home-owners and renters alike. Please Visit this site who knows maybe you will be in line with me to be come a registerd Freedom Party card holder to www.sarnia-lambton.freedomparty.on.ca/
|
|
|
Post by fumanshu on Oct 29, 2006 17:32:21 GMT -5
The Homestead Act is just a band-aid solution to the real problem: the concept of property as a form of taxation. Taxing property is unethical and economically unsound. There are numerous problems with taxing property. Think about these points for a second: - If you have paid for a home in Ontario you have paid for it with earnings that have already been taxed (income tax), so a property tax is really a double tax on your income. The same can be said for consumption taxes (PST & GST) and sin (gas, tobacco, and alcohol) taxes. You purchase goods and services with earned dollars that have already been taxed (income tax) and you're taxed again when you spend your earned and taxed income. So the argument that property taxes are bad for this reason, doesn't hold much water. You could look at it that way. Or you could look at it this way: You're paying rent on the road that leads to your house, wages of the police that protect your property, usage fees for the sewers that carry waste away from your house, wages for the trash collectors that carry garbage away from your house, electricity bills for the street lights that keep your house out of the dark, etcetera. The reality is that you never really own your home anyway. Even if you didn't pay property taxes, the government still retains the power to relocate you. Ask the people that once lived where our hospital's new parking lot is. If you don't pay your mortgage, the bank will evict you. Do you hear people complaining about mortgages being unethical? Of course not. People know the risks of property ownership when they sign on the dotted line. If you're not comfortable with the risks and costs of home ownership, you should rent your home from someone that is comfortable with the risks. And I expect that you'll probably counter with the argument that homeowners have no control over the amount of their property taxes. I expect that you will counter by saying that property tax increases are unforeseen costs that could cost people their homes. But again, the argument doesn't hold a lot of water. Rising interest rates on mortgages have probably cost more people their homes than property taxes ever have. If you pass away with an unisured mortgage on your property, the inheritors of the property will have to continue paying the mortgage as well. This is really a rather lame argument from you. Homes are an asset that can be liquidated. You only have to pay taxes on property if you own it. If you sell it, you pay no property taxes. And if it's your primary residence, you pay no income taxes either. This is true. However, homes are assets. If the value of your home increases, you realize a material gain. If the property is your primary residence, you may sell it and pocket the appreciation without having to pay any income tax. Yeah, so? Are you suggesting that those who own income properties, are entitled to free services from the city? I don't think so! If you own properties for the purpose of earning income, then property taxes are a cost of doing business. Just as regular upkeep and maintenenace are costs associated with owning property or operating a business. Owning property is not cheap. That's just the way it is. Life's unfair. That's just the way it is. If you're a high income earner, your income taxes subsidize services that low income earners receive and don't pay for. The fact that not everyone pays the same level of taxation, is what makes taxation as fair as it can be. If you operated a restaurant, would you think it unfair for a business owner to have to pay for things like utensils, tables, chairs, menus, etcetera? Why should the restauranteur have to pay for things that the customers use? Because that's what you have to do to get people to come to your restaurant. Do you really expect to attract tourists or visitors to a city where all roads were toll roads? Do you think that people would come to a city that nickel and dimed them for everything they did or wanted to do? That would be a sure way to turn an otherwise thriving community into a ghost town.
|
|
|
Post by Carlos Murray on Oct 29, 2006 20:03:27 GMT -5
Hey y'all! I do have a lot of personal opinions regarding the "Homestead Act". But for some reason this string has widened the page so that I have to slide back and forth in order to read people's posts. (I think it was "Glenn" that posted a link that caused the page to widen?)
I'm so sorry. But I just find it too annoying to have to slide back and forth. Please go back and edit that post so that I can read the page without so much difficulty. -----
FWIW I don't see the Homestead Act as having so much to do with people signing on the dotted line for a Mortgage. It has more to do with people that are in the situation my Mother is in.
When my Father built his house in 1962. At that time it cost $16,000 for the property and house together. And, in those days, Mothers didn't work outside the home.
For 25 years my Father paid $109 per month on the Mortgage. And he had to deal with increases in utility costs.
When my Dad retired, he had his full pension from Imperial Oil. And my Mom had only her Old Age pension. That total was livable for them when they were both alive.
But when my Dad died in 2001, my Mom was reduced to part of my Dad's Pension and her own Old Age Pension. (My Mom never worked outside the home. That was the way things were done back then.)
The Property Taxes alone (NOW!) are more than the original Mortgage payments were when they bought the house. But, in my Mom's case, she has to come up with the full amount regardless of the fact that my Dad is no longer here.
I personally think that the Homestead Act should have a "Suffrage" clause, (Ask my what "Suffrage" is of you like?) to assist with not only Property Taxes. But also to include utilities.
No-one (from the single income era) should be expected to come up with increased utility costs when their pension isn't increased in a proportionate manner.
(Just my own opinion!)
Peace! DG
|
|
|
Post by fumanshu on Oct 29, 2006 20:50:11 GMT -5
What I meant by "signing on the dotted line," was that homeowners ought to reasonably know that they're incurrng some risks and unforeseen costs in choosing to purchase a home. These are the "costs" of owning a home. They're not predictable and they're subject to wide variation.
When you purchase a home, you cannot expect that your monthly mortgage payment will always be $500 per month. You cannot expect that your property tax payment will always be $1500 per year. You cannot expect that your monthly utility bills will remain at a fixed rate for the duration of your home ownership. Costs rise, and payments to mortgages, taxes, and utilities vary accordingly. When you purchase a home, you must be prepared for the likelihood that you may one day be unable to afford your home. That's just the law of the jungle.
While I can certainly understand that circumstances make it difficult for people to afford their homes at times, this entire argument seems to be focused on casting blame. Essentially, we're wanting to blame others because we can no longer afford our homes. Unfortunately, we can't do that because economic realities are not the fault of others -- there are no scapegoats.
If you lose your job and are unable to make your mortgage payments, is the bank supposed to make special allowances for you? Is the bank supposed to give you a special lower interest rate because you're now unemployed and can't afford to make your mortgage payment? Absolutely not! Homes are investments just as stocks and bonds are investments. If you owe the bank money, you're expected to dip into your investments. And this often means selling or refinancing your home. That's just the way it is.
I would expect that the same should apply for property taxes. If you're a retired person or couple that can no longer afford your home, you need to make some decisions. Do you sell your home and move into a condominium or apartment? Do you sell your home and buy a smaller home with a lower tax burden? Do you sell your home and spend the proceeds living it up in your golden years?
There are many options available to people that find themselves in dire straits. It's sad sometimes, but you roll the dice and take your chances. There are no guarantees with purchasing a home. And that's what I meant by "signing on the dotted line".
I don't believe that there is anything unfair or unethical about property taxes. Personally, I believe property taxes are a better alternative to consumption taxes. But that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by Carlos Murray on Oct 29, 2006 22:23:10 GMT -5
(((fumanshu))) I see that we are of differing opinions on this. But that is where the idea of Suffrage comes in. As I see it. Forcing my Mother to move to another place of residence would pretty much be like sentencing her to a "Death Penalty". I personally think that forcing her to move into some kind of home for the elderly would take away her will to live.
My question is, "What has she ever done that would make her deserve that?"
|
|
|
Post by fumanshu on Oct 29, 2006 22:51:36 GMT -5
(((fumanshu))) I see that we are of differing opinions on this. But that is where the idea of Suffrage comes in. As I see it. Forcing my Mother to move to another place of residence would pretty much be like sentencing her to a "Death Penalty". I personally think that forcing her to move into some kind of home for the elderly would take away her will to live. My question is, "What has she ever done that would make her deserve that?"Are you a Rolling Stones fan, Carlos? Are you familiar with the song, You can't always get what you want? Well, if you're familiar with the chorus, you know that you get what you need.I'm not familiar with your mother's circumstance, and I did not at all mean to imply that your mother should be moved into an old age home. As a matter of fact, I don't believe I even mentioned old age homes as an alternative. Though they most certainly are. I don't want to talk about fantasy nor do I want to indulge in naive wishful thinking. I merely want to state the reality and hope that you are able to grasp the gravity of the realities that we are all forced to face. And the simple reality is that we cannot choose to live outside our means. I realize that your mother hails from a time when it was not commonplace for a person or couple to plan and prepare for their future. The idea that one would need more than a pension in retirement was light years away from everyones conscious understanding of reality. However, the dreams of yesteryear somehow managed to bring light to the nightmares of the present. This is just reality. So who do we fault for changing times? Was it your mother's fault? Your father's fault? The government's fault? Whose fault was it? I'll agree that it was not your mother and father's fault. I'm reluctant to place the blame at the foot of government. At least, I'm reluctant to place the blame at the foot of the current governments. So whose fault is it? Who deserves the blame? If your mother doesn't deserve it, who does?
|
|
|
Post by fumanshu on Oct 31, 2006 14:41:15 GMT -5
The argument holds water when your election platform includes scrapping the Ontario income tax as well. The FPO policy is to scrap BOTH the Ontario Income Tax and the Property Tax. A tax on Income punishes productivity and a tax on property punishes ownership. Both are a violation of property rights and economically naive.The argument still doesn't hold water. The argument was that a homeowner is double-taxed on their property. They are first taxed on their income, and then again on their property. The argument doesn't hold water because, scrapping income taxes would mean that you're no longer double taxed at the provincial and municipal levels. If income taxes and property taxes are the basis for your suggestion that homeowners are double taxed, then just the elimination of one of those taxes would make the argument a moot point. Also, the provincial government has no control over federal income taxes. The argument just doesn't hold water. No matter how you slice it. You don't have to own the roads, police, or sewers in order to make the case. The point is that you do use those services, and that those services have to be paid for. The bottomline is that those services add value to your property. Of course, if you don't want to use and pay for those services, then I'm sure the city would be willing to make a deal with you. If you wanted to disconnect your home from the sewers and store your bodily waste in buckets in your basement, then by all means. You could have a private contractor come to your home once a month or so to remove the buckets of excrement. Heck, you might even save a few dollars. And if you don't want to pay for streetlights, fine. But when your house is broken into because criminals have the cover of darkness, don't call the police. If you're not paying property taxes, then you're not entitled to protection and investigation by the police services. However, if you wanted to hire the police to investigate on a contract basis, then by all means... You might even save a few dollars. And the roads aren't really a service that add any value to your home, right? So property owners shouldn't have to pay for those, right? It would be unfair to ask property owners to pay for the roads that lead their homes. I'm sorry, your argument is just a whole lot of nonsense. That is correct. You are not talking about financing of a home. You are talking about ownership of a home. And if you don't make your mortgage payments, guess what? You no longer own your home. The bank owns your home. By the same token, if you no longer pay your property taxes, the city owns your home. Your argument really boils down to a lot of people wanting everything for free. And ya know what? If everybody gets everything for free, then nobody gets anything. It's really quite simple. Yes, it is another topic. But pray tell... I have my head around what you're saying. I just believe that what you're saying is wrong and misleading. Property taxes are not rent. You are not renting anything with your property taxes. You are paying for services that add value to your property. A property that is protected by a fire department is of greater value than one that isn't. A property that has a police service protecting it, is of greater value than one that isn't. A property that is illuminated by street lights is of greater vale than one that isn't. A property that benefits from sewage and garbage collection is of greater value than one that isn't. A property that is serviced by roads is of greater value than one that isn't. The city adds value to your property through a vast array of services. It is not unethical for a city to expect property owners to pay for these services. Again, the services provided by the city contribute to the valuation of your property. An unserviced property has significantly less value than a serviced property. If your property realizes market appreciation, it is not because you own it. Property's appreciate in value for a whole host of reasons. Let me give you some examples: The city has a park near your home. This is a selling feature for your home. The city must maintain that park. It is not unethical or unfair for the city to expect homeowners in that neighbourhood to contribute to maintenance of that parkland. The city has well lit and well maintained roads in your neighbourhood. This is a selling feature of your home. It is not unethical or unfair for a city to expect the homeowners to contribute to the costs of maintaining those roads and streetlights. The city has public transit that makes routine stops in front of your home. This is a selling feature of your home. It is not unethical or unfair for the city to expect you to contribute to the costs of paying for public transit. All of these services contribute to the marketability of your home. They add value to your home and make your home easier to liquidate in the free market. Your argument just doesn't hold water. Right! We all know that rents would go down if the city stopped levying property taxes. Pinch me. I think I'm dreaming.
|
|
|
Post by fumanshu on Oct 31, 2006 16:09:19 GMT -5
I'm familiar with the Ontario Income Tax... I'm also familiar with the fact that the Federal Government collects the Ontario Income tax... I'm also familiar with the fact that the Federal government collects Income Tax on its own behalf as well.
If the Freedom Party is elected to power, which they won't be, but I'll indulge your fantasy, they can scrap the Ontario Income Tax!!!
There will still be Income Tax!!! The Federal Government will still collect Income Tax on its own behalf!!!
If you scrap property taxes, will landlords lower the rents that they charge their tenants? No!!! They'll pocket the extra income! So how do renters benefit from your scheme?
Well, they might benefit from lower income taxes because there is no longer a provincial income tax! But, they will derive no savings from their rent. And when you consider that many renters pay little or no provincial income tax in the first place, renters receive no tax savings whatsoever!!!
Oh, but wait, low income persons will now have to contend with a consumption tax that they won't be able to afford!!!
Brilliant!!!
The Freedom Party gets my vote for sure! Not!
|
|
|
Post by fumanshu on Oct 31, 2006 16:50:34 GMT -5
Oh, one other question I have for the Freedom Party. If the Freedom Party were to eliminate Ontario Income Tax, how would you implement the Tax Credits that Ontarians currently receive?
For example, low income earners are able to apply a percentage of their rent toward their income taxes. So the low income earners would really be screwed under your scheme.
And what about other tax credis that are available for people with mortgages? The Federal Government doesn't give tax breaks for interest paid on mortgages, but the provincial government sure does.
I expect that you will say that these tax credits would still be passed on to citizens through a fairer consumption tax. But who is the consumption tax fairer for? The wealthy? It sure as hell isn't fair for the low income earners. Instead, you get a lot of retired persons and single mothers forced to pay additional consumption taxes on things that were previously not taxed or taxed at a much lower rate!
So how do single mothers and retired persons on fixed incomes benefit? Through the elimination of Ontario Income Tax? Hardly! These people already pay little to no Ontario Income Tax. Through savings on their rent? Don't make me laugh. If you think that landlords are going to begin cutting rents because they don't have to pay property taxes anymore, you're dreaming!
Low income people are going to pay the same rents that they have always paid. They are going to save little to nothing on their Ontario Income Tax... because they never really paid Ontario Income Tax to begin with... and they're going to get nickel and dimed to death with consumption taxes!
And the really low income earners that depended on Ontario tax credits to give them an income tax refund every year, will lose that big cheque that they had used for buying school clothing and such for their underprivileged children... Oh, but it gets better... Not only will they lose that little bit of helpful money, but the little money that they would have otherwise had, will have to be spent on consumption taxes...
That's right! Single mother of two who used to buy school shoes for her children with her Ontario Tax Credit refund cheque, now has to tell little john and jane that they can't have the $100 dollar shoes that their friends wear cuz she can't afford it... but the kids understand. They say that they can get by with the $40 dollar shoes... But mommy has to tell them that they can't have the $40 dollar shoes either because she didn't get an income tax refund this year... and because of the new consumption taxes, those $40 dollar shoes now cost $52... So little john and jane will have to make do with the same pair of shoes they had been wearing for the last twelve months...
The Freedom Party's platform just really sucks!!! For a lot of reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Oct 31, 2006 17:30:59 GMT -5
Under Our Current Provincial Government those family's that receive any form of welfare or an ODSP have lost half of their federal child tax benefits,
It's clear to me that both of you fumanshu and Glennh are loyal to your Provincial parties. I'm looking for some comments as a taxpayer and a Children's Rights Advocate as to how we can fix this.
These parents are losing, correct if I'm wrong but its around $120 a month for a single child. Thats a total of $1440 a year, seeing that Ontario is the only province that is doing this how would your parties deal with this...
|
|
|
Post by fumanshu on Oct 31, 2006 17:40:55 GMT -5
I don't have a party that I'm loyal to, Dean. I support ideas and objectives -- not parties! The Freedom Party, in my opinion, is a total waste of time and effort. They're a bunch of naive wishful thinkers that have no grounding in reality.
And as far as my signature goes, Glennh, it's the message not the man! Unfortunately a lot of people are unable to distinguish between the two. Would the Bible be any less relevant if it were believed to be authored by the Devil? Probably! But the interesting thing is that the message would remain the same even if it were the word of the Devil! Strange, huh?
I hear arrogant blowhards say all of the time, "There's nothing wrong with the message; it's the messenger." And I shake my head in disbelief every single time. Why? Because the problem is neither the message nor the messenger... The problem is the envious fools that cannot stand someone else having a better message than they have. That's the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Oct 31, 2006 18:05:24 GMT -5
thanks Fu I do respect your opinions and thoughts any idea as to what we can do about the child tax benefits
|
|