The Unfairness That Equalization And The Tax Cap Is Creating….

The Unfairness That Equalization And The Tax Cap Is Creating…..The following email has been sent to Mayor and Council of the CBRM. We will provide their response to you when we receive it and we hope everyone is eager to hear their reply. Dear CBRM Mayor and Council: We have been hearing some discussion in the community that Mayor MacDougall and Council have started dialogue with the province about removing the tax cap. Is this a fact? The NSEF would very much like to be a part of this discussion and we would like to be heard on a few points of interest. The first point is that equalization comes to the province for a simple, straight forward purpose and that is “making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.” (Section 36.2 of the Canadian Constitution) Now, we want to formally ask you a few questions: Why does CBRM have residents paying $6000 and $7000 per year for property taxes in a struggling municipality when equalization is provided so that we are not overtaxed as Canadian citizens? How is the government of Nova Scotia allowed to claim surpluses of this funding while the CBRM residents have outrageous property tax bills compared to the rest of the province and country? How long do you intend on looking the other way, as elected representatives of the people? Do you believe it is fair that CBRM, new homeowners, are paying these high property taxes when residents in HRM enjoy a low property tax bill all while they have an abundance of services and infrastructure at their fingertips? The citizens of CBRM and rural Nova Scotia deserve much better representation from our elected officials (municipally, provincially, and federally) with regards to “equalization fairness” and you all know that is a fact. Mayor MacDougall, please take this email as an early request, for time to speak in council, about this subject whenever council is prepared for the discussion surrounding the dreaded tax cap. Regards, Rev. Dr. Albert Maroun Charles Sampson & The NSEF Board Members

Posted by
Share your news and events for free on

2,385 4


Log In or Sign Up to add a comment.
Allie Macinnis Follow Me
The discussion on removing the Tax Cap started long before Amanda became Mayor — CBRM is not alone in wanting this Cap removed — they now have a Government in place that will bend to their demands — let’s not forget the Real-estate companies are the lobbyists that want the cap removed — Equalization is not a common topic among our new council as I’ve been told 🤷🏻‍♂️
Mike Johnson Follow Me
The Tax Cap does need to go. Any tax system where 70+% of the taxes are inaccurate is inherently unequal and unfair. Plus, the Cap not only stifles new business development and residential investment, it hurts Seniors as well because it lowers the value of their existing property while making all new construction and affordable housing more expensive. (The Cap needs to be phased out however in order to mitigate the challenge to those on fixed income, and some assistance may be required.) The Houston government has provided CBRM with $15 million in transfer funds while they re-negotiate the current arrangement. CBRM would be well served to apply that judiciously, having properly evaluated best long term benefits. One of these should be to lower both commercial and residential tax rates or use it to stimulate the local economy. So far the only suggestion that has been reported has been is to put it towards a new library for which there has never been a proper evaluation done of cost, location. or renovation. Gratuitously spending the additional funds in that fashion would not only be 'short changing' those struggling with high taxes but would send the wrong message to the Province. Btw, i am not necessarily against a new library; it just needs to be evaluated and funded through a separate process.
Charles Sampson Follow Me
Amanda never did make a commitment to fight for Equalization. She has political aspirations for herself and is a party loyalist. We are allowing our politicians to represent themselves.
Charles Sampson Follow Me
This council would like nothing better than to remove the CAP. This council never had the political fire in "their" belly to challenge the provincial or federal governments who have created the need for the CAP in the first place. It is because of the corruption involved in the political manipulation of these yearly federal billions of Equalization transfers, the CAP emerged. People must remember, these Equalization Payments are generated because of specific deficiencies in tax capacity throughout most of this province, which are part of the formula. Governments have been manipulating these funds without addressing the constitutional commitment they enshrined in OUR constitution regarding these transfers. The courts, which are political constructs, played their role in being the obedient servant to their paymaster. This obedience went to an extreme in a lower court overruling a 1950 constitutional Supreme Court of Canada unequivocal ruling on the ownership of our constitution: The constitution does not belong to Parliament or to the Legislatures, it belong to the country. This corruption is so deeply entrenched that people are dumbed down from demanding our governments behave in a way that reflects their rhetoric: that we are a country governed by the rule of law. So, I disagree the CAP must first be removed before this Equalization corruption is unravelled and have governments provide full transparency to all Nova Scotians for its distribution.

Facebook Comments

View all the LATEST
and HOTTEST posts

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.