Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Can't afford it? Sell it

Winnipeg Free Press
Monday, March 26, 2007

Re: Bad deal for cottage owners, March 21.

Every year I hear cottage owners bemoan the fact that they have to pay an education tax for their vacation properties. Their argument is that they are not full-time residents, only use their cottage for weeks or months and have no children in the local school system.

My argument is always the same. If I inherited or chose to buy a home or condo in Winnipeg or Vancouver to use as a vacation home, do you think I would be exempt from paying education taxes on this property? Of course not.

As for taxing based on income, would it be fair to tax an individual who makes $300,000 per year and owns a $60,000 property more than a person who makes $40,000 and has inherited a $300,000 property? Again, of course not.

Bottom line -- owning a cottage or secondary residence is a great privilege.

If you can't afford it, sell it.

BRIAN NORRIS
Fort Frances, Ont.

Mr. Norris' argument misses the point. It's like saying "is it fair to rob from someone who has a lot of stuff more than a person who has a little stuff?". Either way, robbing is wrong. And either way, funding education through property tax, or any tax for that matter, is wrong. You might as well fund it from library fines, or movie rental fees. Property values are completely unrelated to the cost of education. You can have a family with three special need children living in a moderate neighbourhood paying $2,000 for education on their property tax bill. You can have a single senior with no children living right next door, and paying the same amount.

There's a movement to remove the property tax levy for education and fund education through "general revenues". This is like removing a diseased lung and replacing it with a kidney. Replacing one bad program for an even worse one. What the "Let's Pay Fair" crowd don't realize is that the reason they're able to drum up such support for their movement is precisely because education taxes are on people's property tax bill. People see it every year. Joe Senior living with no kids living on CPP sees every year the hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars the state takes from him for "education". Does anyone ever complain about how high payroll taxes are? What about health care taxes? Or alcohol taxes? Or gasoline taxes? Nobody complains about those. Why? Because they don't see them. They're hidden. Think about income tax, PST, and GST. Everyone complains about those, because they're visible. So the "Let's Pay Fair" crowd want to take the visible education tax and hide it in general revenue. So people can't see it. That's an even worse idea than funding it based on property values.

The best way to fund something is directly. When you go to Wal-Mart and buy a pair of jeans, you pay Wal-Mart directly and then take the jeans home. You don't just take the jeans, wait until the end of the year, then pay your mother, who pays your father, who pays your neighbour, who pays another neighbour down the street, who then pays Wal-Mart. Yet this is how we fund education. It's just a big shell game.

1 comment:

Aki said...

As a property owner with no kids, I have to disagree a bit.

Initially, yes, it seems right. For example, I want to think that cigarette smokers pay into a "smoking fund" and that is the only source of revenue for treating any smoking related diseases. If no fund, tough luck.

As such, and knowing that about 4/5's of my property tax goes towards paying for other kids' education, I used to think it's not fair that I pay these extra taxes.

But there are side benefits to an education system. Part of the value of a town comes from its education system (the main thing is location). This in turn determines property values.

My town has a pretty good (and probably pretty expensive) school system. But that's one of the primary reasons why my property is worth what it is. The kids around here are generally good. They don't vandalize everything. They play sports. They actually go to school.

If they didn't, I'd be in a town like the one two towns over. Location-wise not very different. Property value wise very, very different. They have a bad education system, terrible problems with crime, and property values have plummeted. To top it off, to deal with the high crime rates and high welfare costs, taxes there are extremely high - at least 2.5 times what I pay.

Given the choice, I'd rather live in a town with a good education system. And when I have kids, I won't have to move. How cool is that?