|
|
|
|
|
by emptybits
3620 days ago
|
|
> No income this year, fine, you're off the hook. Some locals are concerned that a disproportionate amount of the very highest value properties now being purchased are owned by those with no income. Poverty level. Asset rich, and rich in foreign cash. No income. When such owners (OR, often, their elderly and school-aged family) take up residence in Vancouver then the result is 1) a net loss in income tax to support social services (such as education and health care), plus 2) a net increase in the cost to deliver those services because of our new and impoverished residents. I'm not arguing for more property tax, but it's complex and very different than in the "good 'ole days". Not long ago, an asset-rich person could be assumed to have paid significant income tax into the public coffers during their life before they and their offspring drew down on public resources. Now, many do not. Food for thought? |
|
And really, how much money does an empty house need from the city? Street cleaning? Street maintenance? Some paperwork overhead? Except for the last one, they benefit all who use the street (the public), not just the property owner.
I think raising income tax is fairer than raising property taxes.
Incidentally, I think income tax bracket should be calculated on a rolling average income, not a monthly income (to prevent unduly punishing people who make large sporadic income)