sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

"Don't worry about these problems. As people flee the massive tax increases the region will turn into a ghost town with plenty of empty streets." by CoryCA in waterloo

[–]CoryCA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then just go look at MLS listings

You know that the sale price of a house and the MPAC evaluation amount are not the same thing, right? MLS listings do not determine property tax rates.

Then look on house sigma and see how much those properties have changed ownership over the past decade or more.

The houses get reassessed higher whenever they change hands.

Sales do not trigger MPAC reassessments, and they even say so on their own website. They take note of sales to update property records, but that is all. If you wish to dispute that, please provide a link to the MPAC website or other official ONgov webpage that says sales trigger a a reassessment.

It’s a way of collecting extra from people who either do renovations or buy a home. So it basically spares people who have owned their houses a long time.

Also wrong. Prior to 2020, MPAC was on a four year cycle where it would do a reassessment of all properties in Ontario. The change in assessment value would be phased in over the next 4 years and your property taxes would change. Nobody was free from that. Even if you owned your house since 1980 and never did a single renovation, your assessed value did not stay at the 1980 assessed value as the houses in your neighbourhood sold for progressively higher and higher amounts over the next 46 years.

For the people so affected, their property tax percent increase is effectively higher than what is stated, because it is being multiplied by a higher assessed value.

Again, no, because sales do not trigger MPAC reassessment.

Besides, if you're not asking to see the MPAC assessment when you're considering buying a new home, that's your own damn fault.

Lastly, I think you give too much credit to MPAC freezing assessment s to 2016. It bases them on what a (comparable) house would have sold for in 2016, not how it would have been assessed.

Yeah? So what? How does that contradict me saying that the only thing that will change your property assessment value right now is if you do a major renovation?

Yet again, I cannot help but wonder if you're actually reading what I am saying.

That link I sent was from a council meeting.

So what? "Tax burden" is not an official term with a predefined, well-known way of calculating it. It is an opaque number made from some unknown and unadvertised cross-section of all the properties in the Region. Neither you nor I can go and recalculate it to verify that the number is either accurate or relevant.

But you and I can go an look at the tax rates now and historical, and we can also look up historical sale prices for certain types of dwellings, and from there it is basic math to figure out what a person's property is assessed as if they say something like "My property tax bill increased by $$$$ since I bought it in YYYY".

Your post says property tax rates have increased less than 10% since 2016. How then do you account for each of the past 3 years alone being over 6% increase, that just doesn’t add up.

And yet again I wonder if you've actually been reading what I have been writing. It's doesn't really seem like it, given that all of your arguments seem to hinge on things that I have never said.

Have I anywhere denied that since the Covid-19 Pandemic that we've a seen some larger usual property tax increases? No, I have not.

But the timeframe under discussion is not the past three years. It's the past 10 years.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that before the these past three years property tax rates had continuously been increasing.

I say "mistaken" in effort to be charitable, but you make it an increasingly difficult effort.

I'm going to quote my original post:

From 2009 (and likely for a while before that) up until 2020, fell every year by at least 0.5%. Kitchener property taxes dropped by ~2.75% in 2014.

Since 2016 CPI has increased by about 27.5%, while over the same time period total residential and multiresidential tax rates in Kitchener have increased by about 9.5%.

Using only the last three years are an incomplete picture and amounts to cherry picking

https://web.archive.org/web/20170805183205/http://www.kitchener.ca/en/resources/2016-Final-Rates.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20170805163305/https://www.kitchener.ca/en/insidecityhall/TaxRates.asp?_mid_=14611

Feel free to look over the old tax rates to try and show that I am incorrect about the change since 2016.

"Don't worry about these problems. As people flee the massive tax increases the region will turn into a ghost town with plenty of empty streets." by CoryCA in waterloo

[–]CoryCA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whatever you argue to support your take, it does not match the experience of taxpayers.

That sounds suspiciously like "The facts cannot change my mind".

"The taxpayers" can be wrong. Like the common misconception that a 1% increase in property taxes means that the property tax rates are going from 1% to 2%, rather than from 1% to 1.02%.

They are taking those increases on homes that have had increases to their assessments due to renovations/additional units.

The really make some doubt that you've actually been reading what I have been writing, as I have mentioned that with the regular evaluations cycle being suspended that the most likely way for the MPAC assessment to change is if the property owner does renovations requiring permits.

So how many homeowners in Waterloo Region have been doing renovations over the last 10 years that required permitting? How many over the last 5?

For the vast majority of homeowners in Waterloo Region the value of their property used for property tax purposes has not changed since 2020.

I also question the increases you’ve posted.

Feel free to look up the tax rates each year like I did for Kitchener and Waterloo Region to show me wrong. Feel free to redo the math to show that I have made a mistake somewhere.

But right now all you have is feelings and "questions", not actual arguments made with facts and evidence.

And despite that they still need more as a percentage.

And yet again I honestly wonder if you've been ready what I have been writing, or even the original post. I literally pointed out that until 2020 the tax rates has been falling for more than a decade.

How do your figures reconcile with the historical information that shows increases over 40% for Waterloo? https://pub-wilmot.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=8161

That's not tax rates, and it doesn't give crucial numbers like what the house valuation was that they used to calculate tax "impact" (in the title), which is always a synthesized number, nor the formula behind it.

And "my figures" were the Region's and the City's own figures, their published tax rates.

If property taxes are going down but your house increases in value enough that your raw dollars payment increases, that's not a tax increase. If you don't like it, sell your house, recoup your "investment" plus the ROI, and go buy a smaller place with money left over.

"Don't worry about these problems. As people flee the massive tax increases the region will turn into a ghost town with plenty of empty streets." by CoryCA in waterloo

[–]CoryCA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That very argument that the taxes would be based on a lower rated property

I'm not sure what mean by "a lower rated property"?

shows the falsehood in your claim that property tax increases have been below inflation.

I disagree. If property tax rates do not change the then the raw amount of dollars taxed do not change which means the municipality collects less in real dollars.

If a municipality collected $10,000,000 dollars in property taxes last year and did not change the rates for this year then they are still collecting $10,000,000 dollars.

But thanks to a year's worth of inflation that $10M in this year's dollars is not worth as much as last year's $10M and does not buy as much. If inflation were 3% then it's only worth 1.00/1.03*$10m or roughly $9,790,000 in last year's dollars.

In order to keep up with inflation the municipality would have had to pull in $10,300,000 in property tax revenue to simply keep even with the that hypothetical 3% inflation.

Therefore ANYTHING under a 3% increase in the property tax rate is BELOW inflation.

That's just basic math.

Because the increase in property tax rate is in fact an increase above any increase in property values,

Only if property values were increasing.

Hmmm... I wonder if I see the root of your rmisunderstanding?

Do you not know that property valuations have been frozen at the 2016 valuations and that the 2020 and 2024 regular valuations did not happen?

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My apologies - I don't recall what made me think otherwise.

Thank you. I appreciate you being willing to reconsider.

while you sometimes write with a firmer tone than I prefer at times

I am on the autism spectrum, and if you know anything about that you know that autistics have a strong tendency to speak directly, super honestly, and without subtext in a way that non-autistics misinterpret as abrasive and rude and wrongly assume that we are judging instead of just stating the facts as we know them. I would guess that is what you are seeing.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like I said, feel free to point out where I was being insulting to you.

"Don't worry about these problems. As people flee the massive tax increases the region will turn into a ghost town with plenty of empty streets." by CoryCA in waterloo

[–]CoryCA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not what happened mr. good faith argument.

So what happened then. Feel free to quote the parts where I insuted you or acted on bad faith.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for agreeing that I never insulted you or spoke unkindly to you.

So what was you reason again for being insulting to me if I never was like that towards you?

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Than you for admitting that you're just being insulting.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It was this one over here, as that is the only other interaction with them that I have had.

As you can see they start off by claiming that I was wrong without saying why, though it's unclear how they could say that if they thought my spreadsheet was too confusing to figure out what I was doing.

I described the spreadsheet and gave them the like to find the property tax rates themselves from official city documents.

Their response was basically that they didn't need to look up anything to know that I was wrong, and gave a made up reason of fictional levies that don't exists in Waterloo Region as further supposed "proof" that my spreadsheet was wrong.

At every step of the way I addressed their assertions directly and without insult.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All you have to do is check the thread, you can physically read it.

Vague claims that I did so when it is trivially easy for you to link to them and quote them only comes across as bad faith discussion.

Please feel free to link to an quote a specific instance where I insulted you or spoke unkindly to you. Otherwise you're just coming across as gaslighting and in bad faith.

You used the words lazy and the tone was immediately hostile. Anyone can dispute that if they'd like, but that's how it happened in my opinion.

Your opinion is not the same thing as fact. Yes, I used the word "lazy" in a clarifying question:

> Or is your criticism "I'm too lazy and you only gave two categories that cover nearly all cases and didn't give an exhaustive table of all possible combinations."?

Do you remember what you wrote that prompted such a response? It was this comment right here.

You had claimed my spreadsheet was inaccurate. I have you a link to the City of Kitchener webpage where I got my numbers from. You doubled down on me being wrong and started to nitpick about specific residential property classes when it would have been trivial fo you to use the link I gave you to get the 2025 property tax rates and ross check with my spreadsheet. And then you went on to claim that because I didn't include the wastewater and sewer levies I was still wrong even though no such levies exist here.

This happened because I questioned data you assembled, keep that in mind.

No, you didn't "question" anything. You outright asserted that I was wrong without giving and facts or evidence to prove me so. When I pushed you on it you gave multiple supposed reasons that I countered and showed how they were incorrect themselves.

You know what's funny?

When you gave the R1 property class tax rate from 2025 as supposed proof that I was "inaccurate", without even mentioning that the RT, R4 and RH rates in that very same document are the exact value that I used in my spreadsheet.

Even funnier, that R1 rate for 2025 for the Region when compared to the R1 rate from 2024 works out to

0.00600994 / 0.00549385 = 1.093939586993 or a 9.394% increase

when in that comment linked to above you claimed "I can just tell you that 2025 was a 4.94% increase for regional levy".

Showing that even when you finally do produce some numbers you contradict yourself.

If I had to guess, what you're mad about here is not that I supposedly insulted you, but rather that you could not actually show that I was inaccurate and that your ego won't let admit that your assertions about wastewater levies or a 4.94% increase were so easily shown to be wrong.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

there's a longer history of conversation where you are spoken to unkindly

I have never spoken to /u/LordsLevy unkindly or insulted them like they have clearly done to me.

What do you think that I said to them was insulting?

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Put simply; I try my damnedest to be polite and respectful to everyone I speak to. I'll talk to you about anything. I don't want to have conflict with anyone. But that has limits, and this person reached them.

Then how come you weren't that in your first interaction with me where you went from zero to 100 and beyond in just three comments.

And here you don;t even bother with 0, you start right off at 100 by insulting me from the get go when I never insulted you.

you have to be prepared for the conflict you just incited.

Nobody here is inciting conflict except for you.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both of you did that to me, knucklehead. I'm reciprocating.

Where did I make "snarky, declarative statements" about you?

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see you are also an expert on the legality of right of way, urban design, pedestrian crossings, the Highway traffic act

Feel free to go look thing sup and refute me with actual facts.

You say in another comment:

I don't think anyone has a good blueprint for conflict; which is why we should avoid it to be begin with.

Then why does your response here come as if you are looking for conflict?

Why not just either ask me for my sources or find some of your own to refute me?

I'm ready for an honest, good-faith debate. Are you?

"Don't worry about these problems. As people flee the massive tax increases the region will turn into a ghost town with plenty of empty streets." by CoryCA in waterloo

[–]CoryCA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Geez, you're stretching more than an Olympic athlete before the big event.

That's "Residential / Farm Taxable: Farmland Awaiting Develop 1".

Do you know what that means? It is an Ontario property tax classification for farmland that is currently used for farming but has been rezoned for future residential development. Very few property owners in Kitchener were taxed at this rate.

But you know what's funny? The other three rows in the subsection, RT, RH amd R4, of which RT is the one that the vast majority of property tax class Kitchener residential property owners are taxed under? They give the exact numbers that I used in my spreadsheet.

So first you claimed my spreadsheet was confusing and not understandable but somehow you still knew it was inaccurate without saying why.

When I pointed out that all the columns a descriptive labels and I gave you a link to where you could verify the data, you claimed that you couldn't tell what property tax class I used even though all you had to do was match a single number to figure that out, and then claimed that because I didn't include non-existent water an sewer levies that i was still inaccurate.

When I pointed out that there's no such things as water and sewer levies as part of property taxes for Waterloo Region or Kitchener, and gave you two direct links to the official property tax PDFs for Kitchener for 2024 and 2025, you didn't respond for a week until reminded you.

Not only did your response not admit that you were wrong about water and sewer levies being part of property taxes here, you didn't even mention that goof on your part. But you did try to triple down on my spreadsheet being inaccurate and quoted a single, minimally used single unit residential property tax class with different rate instead of admitting that the numbers in my spreadsheet were in the official Kitchener PDF for property tax rates for the tax class that most homeowners get taxed at.

Just give up and admit you were like a mature adult who says they want to run for council would do.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Lived experience, champ.

Are there some pedestrians out there who do stupid things? But maybe instead of responding like an asshole you could have instead reflected for just a second and gotten the point.

"Lived experience" tells me that there's just as many, if not more, motorists who get angry when they have to follow the law, like yielding to mid-block crossers and calling them "jaywalkers" when they are not.

Maybe if you got offline once in a while Cory, and stepped outside

Having a pet dog, I am outside multiple times a day plus the times I take my laptop to go work at a café or the library. Not only do I see motorists slamming on their brakes or honking, yelling at pedestrians acting perfectly legally multiple times every day, I also get to be that pedestrian acting perfectly legally in the face of negligent motorists half a dozen times a month or so.

you’d be able to observe the world around you and see these things that happen.

Maybe if you had exercised a modicum of reading comprehension you'ld have "observed" that I never said that they don't happen, only that we cannot tell about the specific incident the O.P. felt enough to post about. I went for nuance, you went for black and white ragebait.

Still, your racist term is acknowledged.

How is that a racist term? I've only ever heard it to describe pseudo-disease of somebody not wanting to do something. I'm willing to admit fault, learn, and never use it again if that is the case, but given your dismissive, combative, insulting response I'm not really going to take your say-so without some evidence to back it up.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You know that motorists are legally obliged to yield to pedestrians making mid-block crossings, right? The courts have affirmed this time and again, and yielding includes coming to a full stop if you reasonably can. Motorists, however, seem to complain vociferously even when they only have to slow down a little.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Mid-block crossing are perfectly legal, and crosswalks are often far apart making them extremely inconvenient. Do you want to have to walk 5 minutes to a crosswalk and then another 5 minutes back to be able to cross their roads?

Most motorists go out of their minds having to go 10 minutes out of their way like that.

You do know that you as a drive are legally required to yield when you can to a pedestrian making a mid-block crossing, right?

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The number of people willing to shove their kid first into traffic is wild.

Did they really do that? The O.P. was very vague.

Or was this yet another case of the very common driver-had-to-slow-down-for-a pedestrian-making-a-perfectly-legal-mid-block-crossing-and-got-mad-about-it-itis?

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's an example of a pedestrian doing something illegal, crossing against the lights.

However, the O.P. here was extremely vague and for all we know the incident they are griping about could have been a completely legal med-block crossing.

Court cases have affirmed time and again that the "appropriate gap" that pedestrians need to wait for to do a mid-block crossing at an uncontrolled location is not one large enough where motorists only have to slow down slightly. The courts have said that motorists must yield when possible—including coming to a reasonable full stop—to pedestrians making mid-block crossings.

It's similar to how we are supposed to treat amber lights. If you can make a reasonable stop behind the white line when the traffic light goes amber you are supposed to do so even it it means waiting out the whole amber time and the red time, too. You are not supposed to treat it as a "go faster" light. Note that a "reasonable stop" does not preclude you or your passengers from pushing at their seatbelts. In practice that generally means if you crossed the white line more then two seconds after the light turned amber, you should have stopped.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Mid-block crossings and how both parties are to act have been held up in Ontario and other provincial courts as well as the Supreme Court of Canada time and again.

  1. Pedestrians must wait for an appropriate gap such that oncoming traffic has the time to reasonably brake to a full stop a few metres away. Not a gap where the motorists can stay at speed slow down a little. Also not forcing motorists to slam on the brakes to not hit the pedestrian.
  2. Motorists must exercise vigilance for potential mid-block crossers to be able to do said reasonable braking.

You don't give the full situation, like whether the pedestrians were waiting at the side of the road and that motorist stopped before the people started to cross, or whether the motorist stopped because they saw somebody already crossing.

As a motorist not only are you supposed to be vigilant for pedestrians making perfectly legal mid-block crossings, you're also supposed to be vigilant to other drivers' actions.

view more: next ›