First of all I have to say I agree in theory everybody
should pay their taxes on time plus their credit card bills, bank loans,
utility bills etc, etc.
Unfortunately, the world is not perfect and sometimes for
whatever reason people can’t pay their bills on time. That is why banks, credit
cards, utilities and yes various levels of government (Including
municipalities) get to charge penalties. Personally, I don’t have a problem
with that if I am not going to pay a bill on time it should cost me more.
The issue is always are the rates being charged fair? How do
we determine fair? Well in my mind you do it by comparing to what other people
in the same field charge.
If it’s a credit card and the average rate is 10% I don’t
have a problem being charged 10%. If it’s a utility company and the average
late charge is 2% I don’t mind being charged (hold on) 2%.
So how does our municipalities 52% rate for being late
compare? Is it fair? Let’s take a look at what the competition (other
municipalities) are charging.
Town of Pincher Creek 22%
Didsbury 18%
City of Red Deer
12%
Gibbons 26%
MD of Bonnyville 10%
MD of Greenview 18%
Ponoka 28%
Rocky View County
Mayerthorpe 12%
Bashaw 12%
Taber 12%
Olds 18%
Two Hills 12%
Coalhurst 18%
Vermillion 12%
Brooks 26%
That’s just 26 examples of municipalities that I could find,
on average they are charging 15.9%. Now I am sure there are municipalities out
there charging higher and lower rates if somebody wants to send me those
examples I would gladly add them and adjust the average number accordingly. Do I
think there is any way possible to bring that 15.9% average any where close to
our 52%. I think the question of fairness has been answered.
15 comments:
I am not too sure why this is coming up again. I think it has kind of been beaten to death already.
But I am not too worried about tax penalties as I pay my taxes every month. And in the real world if you do not pay your taxes too bad. If everyone paid every month there would not be a problem.
The reason it came up now is twofold.
One there was two requests at the last council meeting (1 accepted 1 denied).
Two because a number of people have spoke to me about this issue.
Two requests for what?
Dear Anon @5:04
The difference between you and Dean's position is that you are an 'exploiter', whereas Dean is a 'warrior'. An exploiter is self-explanatory, so we won’t go there. “Warriors are not what you think of as warriors. The warrior is not someone who fights, because no one has the right to take another life. The warrior, for us, is someone who sacrifices himself for the good of others. His task is to take care of the elderly, the defenseless, those who cannot provide for themselves, and above all, the children, the future of humanity.”
It’s too bad we only have exploiters on council, when what this community desperately needs is more warriors.
JP
9:05
Sorry about that there was two requests for tax penalties to be waived.
No one will ever convince me that people should be able to avoid paying taxes for 2 to 3 years. What is everyone did that - who would be paying for garbage pick up, snow removal, etc. Ridiculous attitude. And who would get waived, someone on councils friends or relatives. Nothing good about it.
Under the previous system people were paying 20%. Now some of these rocket scientists felt that people were not paying their taxes. Due to them investing their money elsewhere. Good sound logic.
For 10:11 you don't get to avoid paying taxes for nothing.
Even under the old rate if you did not pay for 3 years on a $2000 bill. You would rack up at least $2000 in penalties. Sounds like a windfall for the municipality to me.
Lets get back to the issue at hand the rate charged by our municipality is it in line with what other municipalities charge?
Steve
2 requests out of all the entire CNP taxpayers = non issue.
taxes are not new, they are not a surprise every year, no excuse for not paying, try not filing income tax and see what happens.
make the interest rate 100%, everyone should/will pay on time then.
Dean, if you are going to compare penalty rates with other municipalities, perhaps you should also compare the uncollected taxes with other communities. I believe it was the latter issue that got Council's attention. It seemed we had a few chronic offenders, and if it takes a higher penalty to get their attention, then go for it. I agree with others who have expressed that everyone must pay their taxes -- period.
8:08
So the few people in the Crownest Pass that get into difficulty. Should all be nailed because one developer failed.
Look at the numbers for back taxes up until about three years ago they were very consistent. (Coincidence) I think not.
I have asked the question previously do you think those 80-90% of the outstanding back taxes are going to get paid weather you charge 20%, 50%, 500% I don't think so. So what will the municipality have achieved nothing but nailing the small percentage of taxpayers who will eventually pay. You have to feel good about that.
Watch for the tax sales coming up this fall there will be no better proof of the above.
I sure open the municipality as not showed these back taxes as an outstanding receivable on there books because very shortly the properties will be worthless.
Well, nobody should have more than a year without paying taxes. And whatever happens, happens. There will always be people wanting houses here. As more and more people reach retirement they will be selling their big houses and coming here away from all the stress. And still have money in the bank. It is all good.
It is in the CNP best interest if people pay their taxes late.They get to collect all of that extra interest with no risk of not being paid. They are gouging though. Think of a credit card company when they charge around 20% is that not high. 50% is more like a mafia type rate and really is not fair.
The only reasons I can think of as to why they raised this so high are that they were hoping for a 1 time cash infusion hoping that all of the late taxpayers would quickly pay up(Short term thinking as they would be better off collecting the interest over the long term).The other reason may have something to do with the Bridgecreek properties, having them owing the CNP as much as possible and maybe having the land go back to the municapality in back taxes alone.
If you go and look at the municipal financial statements for the last five years. There is not one year where tax recovery is under budget.
Therefore 10:57 you are right they are looking for a quick cash infusion. Which is indeed short term thinking, I will use the comparison of credit cards, those companies don't get rich by people paying their balance off every month.
The Bridgecreek properties probably 80% of the outstanding back taxes how many of those do you think will get paid?
Alberta Municipal Tax Class Action
2012 - Commencing in February, Merchant Law Group LLP has launched class action lawsuits against the following municipalities, on the allegation that the same municipalities have charge usury interest rates on unpaid civic property taxes (THE CITY OF CALGARY, THE CITY OF EDMONTON, THE CITY OF AIRDRIE, THE CITY OF BROOKS, THE CITY OF CAMROSE, THE CITY OF COLD LAKE, THE CITY OF FORT SASKATCHEWAN, THE CITY OF GRANDE PRAIRIE, THE CITY OF LACOMBE, THE CITY OF LEDUC, THE CITY OF LETHBRIDGE, THE CITY OF MEDICINE HAT, THE CITY OF RED DEER, THE CITY OF SPRUCE GROVE, THE CITY OF ST. ALBERT, THE CITY OF WETASKIWIN, THE MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF FOOTHILLS, THE MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF ROCKYVIEW).
If you are a current or past property owner in one of the above municipalities and wish more information on the outcome of these class actions, please contact our lawyers at info@merchantlaw.com or join our contact list for the Alberta Municipalities Class Action.
Raising the penalty from 20% to 50% did not bring in any new money. The move provided a little opportunity for some grand standing and nothing more. Everyone agrees that paying taxes on time is the best way to go. Anyone who has argued, or thought, that 20% was not enough of a penalty, is not living in a real world. If you discounted the Bridgecreek and the River Run properties, the tax roll delinquencies did not look so out of proportion to what happens elsewhere. In fact, it would be best to discount the taxes payable from these properties for a foreseeable future. We should not spend money which we are not likely to get. When the previous council raised the minimum tax payable to $500 – it at least brought in some new cash – without so much grandstanding. When this council manages to bring in some new taxes, then things will look up. Until such time, they should concentrate on not spending money.
Post a Comment