Dear Editor:
I am, without prejudice, expressing my personal feelings of the unfair, inadequate and discriminatory manners in which revenues for provincial and municipal governments are collected.
The Cochrane mayor and each member of the council will receive a copy of this open-to-the-public missive. Premier Ralph Klein and Banff-Cochrane MLA Janis Tarchuk among others will also receive a copy.
So, stand by whilst I vent my spleen!
Something other than the usual cursory glance at my property tax and assessment billing reveals the necessity to query and/or object to most of the contents believe it or not. I will take each one as they appear on the invoice thereby keeping each one separate for the benefit of each authority, the respective MLAs, councillors, ombudsman or whomever.
I will commence with the current assessment figure of my small, one-bedroom condominium in the amount of $200,900. This figure stems from three years ago when a unit within the complex of 32 bungalow-type units, of the same structure as mine, sold for $179,000 inclusive of various additions and renovations but which nevertheless set the assessment value of my abode.
At the time and up to quite recently, certain aspects from that selling price and the amount for taxation were ignored when aside from each unit in our complex there were investments made from the monthly “donations” averaging $100 per month over 10 years or so known as the Capital Replacement Reserve Fund — in each case amounting to something like $12,000 or so per unit over that period and cannot be cancelled or withdrawn for any reason other than for future expenses such as roofing, major maintenance or repair and insurance.
Any new owner of a unit takes over at a negotiated price, as I would expect, and should include the investments-in-waiting which should not be used in assessing like units. Investments in preparation for future use can be maintained and are never looked to for taxation when “after-tax” dollars are used for this purpose.
Therefore, with the current assessment (including my contributions over 10 years or so of my occupancy) being $200,900, which obviously is in excess of a fair figure, I look forward to any adjustment accordingly because of the fact that these assessments included investment amounts over and above the property value and used by governments for rating purposes. I cannot afford to write-off these kinds of amounts should I sell my abode.
But in the meantime, as I do not intend to sell, I would appreciate attention to this matter, the first of my complaints, with a balance to follow.
The next complaint concerns a matter which evaded my attention over the years when I was more affluent than I am today, with no cause to “count my pennies” as I have to do currently. It is about this .1800 tax rate for requisition collection to yield to you $36.16!
For what? I have been told that it is a charge for collecting the Alberta school foundation tax for the province! Is someone kidding me? Or is a second statement for the town allegedly correct that it is to compensate the town for the evasion of tax payments by certain bodies? This is beyond my comprehension and understanding if this is the correct answer.
How does one avoid paying taxes? And then such as me and along with others foot the bill for the shortage? Also with any late payments and penalties paid, does this not ease the shortage situation? How are any shortages calculated which have occurred over the last 20 years or so? And how is it so identical to the amounts charged yearly?
I am mystified as I know of no other jurisdiction which utilizes this type of “money grab” to allegedly compensate for shortage of revenue which should never occur because the governing factor I believe is the mill rate established annually.
The law can take care of any and all tax defaulters, right? I, a veteran pensioner on a fixed income, am contributing part of my pittance to satisfy the town’s shortage when it has access to an unlimited supply if a right and proper system is used whereby every income earner — excluding a home which is a liability and not an asset — subscribes towards the expenses of running this beautiful town.
At present, due to a most impractical, discriminatory and illogical system, only a portion of the income-earning citizenry pay property taxes whilst the majority of those who do not due to legal exemption, and those who decide not to participate, revel in the benefits which I pay for but do not receive. (As a matter of fact, because it became essential for my wife and me to live in separate residences and because of the present cock-eyed property tax system, each of us pay the school foundation tax in full — double the norm, out of our combined fixed pensions).
This raises the question of whether our province and/or any of our councils were and are aware of this travesty of justice and fair-play or simply happy with the status quo which I am not! Why should they not be happy when “free rides” on taxes and benefits are available to them too? Let us have a system which would tax income to obtain the same amount of revenue at reduced costs to those of us who are footing the bills currently.
Taxes are for application on money, not on dwellings! What have homes to do with the costs of education when homes are already costly to possess and maintain? How can they be considered assets when using synthetic evaluations which serve only to increase property tax demands? They are pure and simple liabilities.
I feel municipal taxes should be on some fixed basis and not a fluctuating one — perhaps by the frontage lineal footage and allow the mill rate to adjust to the needs.
I will terminate this epistle by complaining again to the town over its refusal to consider giving a “break” to condominium residents who pay full municipal taxes but do not receive the same kind of service tendered to all non-condominium residents. To charge a fee for any goods and/or service not produced is scam-like, and regardless of the vague title composed by the town, does not alter the simple fact that a tax is charged in full but a full appropriate service is not tendered.
We now pay $1,680 per year to relieve the town of it responsibilities with no consideration whatsoever. My belief is that the retention of such offensive, illogical and discriminatory laws is due to the apathetic attitude displayed in the past over a number of years, by the provincial and municipal governments who seem to favour the easy way out by adopting and leaning on the status quo.
Below are the grievances which hopefully will remind those in authority that they were elected, appointed and employed to give attention towards consideration, satisfaction, mental and physical comfort to those in need.
1. Excessive assessment due to inclusion of investment value.
2. Requisition collection.
3. Homes being liabilities and not assets.
4. All income earners to pay education tax.
5. Double tax applied to married couples.
6. Monies from income and profits should be taxed.
7. Municipal tax to be applied on lineal frontage, as an example.
8. Municipal tax on condominiums being scam-like.
9. Status quo — to be silent and to accept is to condone.
I am only one — an 84-year-old ex-paratrooper seeking what I fought seven years for — seeking fair and equal treatment, and not handouts. Cannot my municipal government consider the plight of pensioners? Both other levels do to some extent.
Cyril Marshall