Cape Breton: Taxed to Sleep (And How We Wake Up)

Taxes. We all hate them, and we all need them. 

At the end of the day, regardless of your politics... you have to acknowledge their necessity. A left wing NDPer and a right-wing Conservative have one thing in common - both require a large source of tax revenue to govern the way they see fit. Our municipality, the CBRM, is no different. The city provides waste disposal, fire fighting, police, all sorts of safety inspections, water, community halls, road repair... several decades of waterfront development... snow removal, etc.

So how do we pay for all that?

Well, some of it is paid for by fees and permits - hall rentals, building permits, business fees, etc. Some of it is paid for by the transfer from the provincial government (a huge source of local controversy that I encourage you to come out and discuss with everybody tomorrow night).

The rest of it comes from property taxes on business and homes: a little over 103 million dollars worth in 2016/17. Now, I find property tax really interesting (have I mentioned I'm a gigantic nerd?) but for those who do not, it is basically when you pay a portion of the value of your property every year to the municipal government as a form of tax. 

There's two main problems with our property tax: the first and most obvious being that it is killing business in our towns. Businesses pay more than twice as much as everybody else in the CBRM, and they pay more when they're "downtown". This has resulted in a downward spiral: businesses pay so much in property taxes that, combined with the poor local economy, a few of them go bankrupt (or move away). This means the value of their business (their property) goes down... which means the CBRM has less tax money to work with.

What does the CBRM do to make up this gap? Well, its not politically popular to raise taxes on people's homes too much, and it's not politically popular to cut spending on critical services like police or snow removal... so we hike up business taxes again, restarting the whole damaging cycle. Every year that goes by the economy gets worse, and taxes get higher. How can business survive, let alone thrive and grow?

The second problem is less obvious, but just as sinister - our property taxes punish our successful businesses. Let's say you're a really successful Cape Breton company - so successful that you need to build a HUGE extension on your property. How does the CBRM reward you for your contributions to the community? Simple: we charge you more taxes. You see, your business built that beautiful new extension, which increased the value of your property, so... pay up! Oh, and thanks for the jobs, please don't leave!

This doesn't just apply to businesses (although they have it worse than anybody) - if you improve your home, you can expect a higher tax bill as a reward. Built a new garage? Expect some new taxes too. Want to rent out your basement apartment for a little extra cash? You're giving some of that to the city my friend!

Well that all sounds pretty terrible... but what can we do about it? We NEED taxes, right?

We do - especially if we want extremely expensive services like the police or snow removal. Luckily, there's another way to collect taxes like this, and it's not a lot different from how we do it now. It's called the Land Value Tax (we policy dorks call it the LVT for short) and it might be just what the doctor... would have ordered, if they hadn't shut down the hospital. 

It's used in some of the most crammed cities and countries on earth (Hong Kong, Singapore) to ensure what little land they have is used productively... and it's also used in many post-industrial cities and towns (not unlike the CBRM) all over the world, for the reasons I outline below.

What is it? 
Well, a property tax is a tax on the value of your property - the land it sits on, the buildings on it, the neighborhood it sits in, everything. A land value tax is when we collect the same amount of tax, but solely on the value of the land your property sits on. Basically, its a tax on the value of land as though it didn't have anything on it. 

Why would this be better? That's almost the same thing, isn't it? 

Almost - but not quite. If you build a garage, you've increased your property's value, which increases your property taxes. But if you pay an LVT instead... nothing changes. Your land will still be worth more or less the same value, and you'll therefore pay more or less the same taxes. 

So when you start to think about it... it makes a HUGE difference. Instead of punishing success, a land value tax punishes... doing nothing. Under the current property tax system, low-value landlords (aka "slumlords") who don't fix up their property actually get a discount - their property isn't worth much, so they pay less tax. Under a land value tax system, "slumlords" have to pay the same amount as every other landlord in their area. Since you can't change as much rent for a "slum"... landlords actually have an incentive to make their properties nicer. Making a property nicer requires buying things... which improves the local economy. Sounds like something we could use, eh?

Have you ever driven around and noticed all the empty/derelict plots of land in our towns? Well, under our current tax system, the landlords of these properties don't really have any incentive to DO anything with them. They're not worth much, they don't cost a lot every year in terms of property taxes... so their owners wait, hoping that property values go up and they can sell the land for more money. This is known as land speculation - and its a far from ideal situation for the CBRM, which desperately needs productive economic activity, yet it is extremely common.

But under a land value tax? Well, those empty plots of land suddenly cost a lot more - instead of the tax burden being placed on the entire property, only the land is taxed - meaning empty plots of land are, all of a sudden, expensive. The owners will either have to try to use the land to make money by, say, building businesses or homes (something we desperately need more of) or they'll sell the land for cheap to someone who will.

Sounds too good to be true. What's the catch? Well... the value of empty land will probably go down, by a lot. Been holding on to an empty/rundown plot of land for a few years? Well, a land value tax will cause its value to drop, to the point where you'll want to either use it or sell it. This means that the "enemies" of this tax tend to be very large landowners, especially those who own a lot of empty or extremely low-value (those "slumlords" again) properties. However, its a booster shot for the productive homes and especially businesses of the local economy - because improving your property doesn't cost you more in taxes.

Would this fix all of our problems? No... but taxes stink, and this one has a decidedly better smell. 

Posted by
Receive news by email and share your news and events for free on goCapeBreton.com
SHOW ME HOW


1,396 10
https://capebreton.lokol.me/cape-breton-taxed-to-death
Gov Political Commentary

10

Log In or Sign Up to add a comment.
Depth
Joe Ward Follow Me
This is the right kind of thinking. FYI - When a Property Valuation Services Corp expert presented to Council on the topic of removing the tax cap, they advocated for a 7-year phased out removal, and cited New Brunswick as having used that method. When Councillor McDougall asked the "expert" what the results were with that removal, the PVSC presenter didn't know... My point is that even the (supposedly) most knowledgeable sources on these topics aren't always up to speed. Therefore, it makes sense that when people haphazardly introduce systems like these without modelling them for several years (presuming they know how to do so), we get issues like the one we face now with tax cap "distortions" that cause an unfair property taxation system that has adverse effects on the real estate market. WIth that said, I like the idea of the LVT. I've thought about a concept like that before that would be focused only on prime commercial districts (in theory) like downtown Sydney. At first glance, if applied throughout the municipality on residences as well as businesses, LVT would have very adverse effects upon introduction. The reason is that the gross tax revenues would have to be the same. A million dollar home on the same lot size/area as a shack would then have to share the burden equally, making it more affordable for the more valuable property (including home/building), and unaffordable for the low end property/building. Perhaps it is intended only for commercial properties. I think it could potentially have positive effects in some of our downtowns. Unfortunately, the Municipal Government Act (in the absence of an evolved charter) doesn't allow us much flexibility in creating alternative taxation systems.
Ryan Campbell My Post Follow Me
This is intended as a VERY simple introduction to the concept - my god, nobody be implementing policy based on my writing hahaha, talk to an economist first. Also, my last entry contained the word "stupid" more than I'm used to using, so writing about taxes was cathartic. In practice, LVTs are either phased in (such as the case of the national Danish LVT, which was much lower on implementation) or simply made to represent an increasing percentage of your normal tax assessment over time (this is common in the US, so for example you'll pay 90% property taxes, 10% LVT, and increase the amount of the LVT as the economy adjusts). The main problem, if you tried to implement it all at once, is that it would probably increase property values in downtown cores... and make empty/very rural land worth very little. That's bad for one reason - mortgages. These things need to be gradually phased in, and geography needs to be considered, as it is for the property tax. I'm woefully unfamiliar with the nitty gritty of how our local government works - you've given me some reading to do there. Hopefully I've made a few people think about taxes here - if so mission accomplished, cause that's a tough sell haha.
Joe Ward Follow Me
These systems are complex, for sure. I've done quite a bit of brainstorming while purposefully ignoring the limiting MGA. One I like is simply collapsing tax to zero for new residential development for x years to root people here (who are thinking of leaving), bring people here (who would like to return or would consider the move), and stimulate the construction economy, while lowering property values on older homes gradually, and making them more accessible to the lower income families who struggle to achieve homeownership. I have a draft article somewhere on alternative changes to the tax cap that I never finished, but I'd like to get that published soon as well. Thank you for sparking this topic. We need more people thinking about policy changes and their potential effects. Those are the kinds of discussions we don't have enough of, IMO.
Mathew Georghiou Follow Me
Brilliant contribution :-)
Nigel Kearns Follow Me
Great piece and thoughts here Ryan. The "land speculation" comment has been a well discussed issue in the downtown area. Most of the property owners are not even here, so ultimately care not. Very much enjoying all your contributions here, please keep it up!
Joe Ward Follow Me
Adding new taxation capabilities into the CBRM charter is an essential item. It's one of our best levers. Ryan, you may know if there's a similar policy in use to what I'll describe next. What I'm thinking of is a dual-taxation rate for commercial zones that distinguishes between properties that are (a) actively in use for commercial activity, versus those (b) only being held by an investor/owner for speculation. Since those in category b are controlling space in a commercial zone, prohibiting other prospective businesses from utilizing it, while not boosting commercial activity, they would be taxed higher. Exceptions would be made for those preparing for the commercial activity. E.g. If a commercial building had a 1.5-year build time, it could celebrate the preferred rate (a) as soon as shovels break ground, with work progressing without interruption (beyond seasonal constraints), as it is actively preparing to launch a commercial venture. This would have similar effects to your LVT scenario, as it inflates the costs (via taxation) of holding properties that aren't producing an income.
Brian Linden Follow Me
I've always liked the concept of LVT, but I also understand Joe Ward's point that it would be complex to implement, and breeds the issue of unequal burdens of tax on the poor. I do, however, think that we might be able to mitigate that by having a dual LVT and Occupancy tax system, which would allow the land and property to be taxed differently, this way, we can bracket one based on expenditure vs income and the other on land value. It would also further spread the burden of taxes and might bring down rent a little if renters paid their fair share of taxes and made that process of markup based on property tax addition more transparent (ie. require landlords to clearly explain how much of their rent is occupancy tax). But that was just a passing thought I had while reading the comments. Carry on as though you were normal :)
Ryan Campbell My Post Follow Me
It's a good passing though! From what I can tell, this is almost always the way in which it is actually used in local government - the exception being the *insanely* dense cities of East Asia who essentially require land be productive, and Denmark nationally (for similar reasons). Other places (mostly in the US, UK, and Australia iirc) have it make up a percentage of the assessment as you've suggested - the main reason being that it severely lowers the price of unproductive land otherwise, and land is a major commodity in those areas.
Brian Linden Follow Me
Sydney actually used to have a system something like this on the business end of things. It was called a Business Occupancy Tax, but it was removed and amalgamated into the property tax sometime in the early 2000's. I think the idea was the increase property tax to compensate for the reduction in occupancy tax revenue to try to encourage business to come to the municipality. It was a bad idea, but here we are.
Jack Tyler Follow Me
Ryan, I run Canada's premiere Nationalist podcast, The Ensign Hour. I really like your insight into Cape Breton and this is a part of Canada that needs broader exposure. Would you like to be a guest on our show? If so, please email me at [email protected]. as well, search for Ensign Hour on youtube to listen to our previous episodes. I really would appreciate more of Canada being made aware of all the insane things happening on the Rock.

Facebook Comments

View all the LATEST
and HOTTEST posts
View

Share this comment by copying the direct link.

  • Our Sponsors

Using this website is subject to the Terms of Use that contain binding contractual terms.