Ce ek So, ee ee ONLY TWO THINGS ARE CERTAIN —DEATH -~ “AND TAXES —BUT IN VANCOUVER SOMETHING CAN BE DONE TO Lift tax load off homeowners By WILLIAM STEWART friend ofoursasked us the A other day, “How come ‘there is no big roar this year about tax increases. The Van- couver Province reports tax increases of up to 100 percent this year and many irate cit- ._izens are writing in express- ing their anger and dismay? Why is there not a big pro- test movement like the one the ratepayers movement led last year?” We asked our friend to glance back through the pap- ers during the big assessment fight last year and the year previous when the city fa- thers had shifted more than $1 million of the tax load from big business to the homeowner, and find out how many editorials there had been wailing over the plight of the poor taxpayer. He did this and found that with the exception of the Pacific Tri- bune he could not find any. This is true and there is a reason, for it. We are, of course, opposed to the manner in which the tax load is distributed be- tween the federal govern- - ment, provincial government and the municipalities. We are - equally opposed to the inequi- table distribution between the homeowner and big business in Vancouver, but this does not blind us to the difference between the objectives of the - Vancouver Province in_ its _ synthetic tax campaign for the homeowner this year, and the real interests of the ratepayers. In reply to the Province request for examples of tax increases, there have been a number of letters-to-the-editor from irate taxpayers siidw dig the amount of their tax in- crease this year. Taking the _ examples given in the Pro- vince letters-to-the-editor, and working back from their taxes to the value of the homes which they are speak- ing about we come up with _ this information. Home No. 5 $18,000: No. 2, $31,000: No. 3, $65,000; No. 4, $48,000; No. 5, - $20,000: No. 6, $62,000: No. 7, the increase in assessment alone was $15,000: No. 8 the value of the home was $10,- 500 and the actual tax outlay was $10 less than last. year. You can see from this in- formation that with the ex- ception of home No. 8, which ~ $2,162 for land and was a low cost home and where the actual cash outlay for the taxpayer was $10 less than in 1962, the value of the homes complaining about tax increases were from $18,000 to $62,000 and averaged $39,- 000. @ With all due respect to the property owners of this cate- gory they are not Mr. and Mrs. Average Vancouver and this is precisely why the Vancouver Province is going to bat for them. In the centre of the Prov- ince’s line of vision is the homeowner grant. They want it eliminatec and replaced in- stead with corresponding in- creases in the _ per-capita grant. Here is what that would mean in dollars and cents for ratepayers in 1962. The $20 increase in the per- capita grant meant $1,500,000 for the homeowners in 1962. Had this $1,400,000 been giv- ento Vancouver as a per-cap- ita grant and applied to the mill rate, it would have meant a reduction of the gen- eral purpose mil] rate in the City by 2.16 mills. Taking the average assess- ment for the city for 1962 of $4,315 for improvements, this would have given that person (whose taxes were $272 in 1962) $11.81 relief against tax in- creases this year. However, since the actual tax increase for a person in that category was $20 their net taxes would have been up by $8.19 rather than remaining constant as they did by receipt of the $20 homeowner grant. On the other side, however, the homeowner for whom the Vancouver Province is speak- ing whose home was worth $62,000, would have received tax relief to the extent of $56.68. et aed It is easy to see why the Vancouver Province and bus- iness interest favour increased per capita grants as against the homeowner grant. We have taken the position previously, and were support- ed by the Goldenberg report on civic finances on municipal financial relations in 1951, that there should be a higher mill rate for larger and high- er priced properties. The homeowner grant, as it is presently constituted does His taxes we nt DOWN On the left is Mayor Bill Rathie wearing a big smile— and wel! he may. While tens of thousands of homeowners will be paying much higher taxes this year he will actually pay less. It was revealed this week that taxes on his large home - will be $9 less than last yeans\-: Four other city council mem- bers will also save money. The survey also shows that every city council! member got a reduction in assessment on building this year. size; 25% go part way towards achiev- ing that aim. e In the Province of Ontario there was legislation enacted in 1957 establishing an uncon- ditional per-capita grant to municipal governments which applies solely to the reduction of the tax levy against resi- dential and farm property. In addition in 1961 the Ontario government made special . grants for education purposes which were likewise applied. Thus there are two separate mill rates. For example in Toronto the education mill rate for 1961 was: residential 24.90 commercial 25.40. General purposes was: resi- dential 31.85, commercial 36.75. This has the same effect as the homeowner grant, except that it does not sufficiently discriminate in favour of the medium and lower priced homes. However, the addition of a basic exemption on as- sessments which is also in effect in Toronto meets that problem. Those who scream about the homeowner grant are well aware of this legislation in Ontario, but pretend that dis- crimination in favour of the small homeowner against commercial, industrial and high priced homes is some- thing which was invented in B.C. by some evil genius. We are well aware that the homeowner grant is used by the Bennett government as a political bribe to homewners. However its power as a bribe is that it really does go part way in meeting mounting costs facing the homeowner. It would be a victory for no one besides business and com- mercial interests if it were re- moved. The solution to the tax cris- is in Vancouver within the scope under control of Van- couver City Council lies in either a single graduated tax, which would provide exemp- tions in inverse ratio to the — revenue producing character ~ of the property. For example, 75% for an owner-occupied home in the lower cost brac- ket; 65% exemption for an owner-rented-out home; 55% for an owner-occupied duplex; 45% for a triplex; 35% for apartments up to a certain over such a size, and so on with business and industrial property. Lacking such an equitable approach to tax-problems, the expansion of the present bus- iness tax into a graduated business tax such as in effect in Winnipeg, which takes in- to consideration the revenue producing characteristics of the property not just its ren- tal value, could, as we have pointed out, produce $4.6 mil- lion for the City of Vancouver and only penalizes those who can afford to pay. The exten- sion of the general purpose mill rate to the machinery as- sessment would produce an additional $314 million and a See: Tift tax, Pg. 11 2 Ap ae aie A, 8 et The world As cartoonists see it een et =: PSR =e = he PRM _ ? a ey fa Fe TGs eee = & ia =e fj \ F AiclGceu F, Behrendt in the. Algemeen Handelsblad (Hoiland) = = z Th nl MN i} 2| | i i Ea i i \N \ ie g De Gaulle a ey. Wa and Adenauer: “The if ‘Matheny i the University of Minnesoia Daily devil!” Kamb in the Paris l’Humanité 4 : x x ‘ a ) ne ePt ea ae | DAVE MiAtHeay “This message will last 60 seconds. The missiles are?on their way. If you had started running at the beginning of this message, you might have made it.”"