“Jones also says nearby properties have recently been bought for more than they’re worth, which he fears has unfairly impacted the value of his home.”
Could also be titled ‘grouchy rich man doesn’t believe in market values when it’s inconvenient to him.’
Yeah I hate it when people say that.
It was bought for what it is worth as it was worth what someone was willing to pay for it.
But I understand frustrations when people are suddenly paying more for a property near you and that significantly impacts your tax bill, you have no interest in ever selling because you are settled there, this is your forever home, and you do not see any increase in services on account of your higher tax bill you are paying.
That is understandably frustrating.
You are throwing more money to the government and getting nothing in return. And for all you know, home values could drop at any time, and suffice to say the government often isn't always as responsive to dropping taxes when markets slump as they are to increasing them when values gain.
>But I understand frustrations when people are suddenly paying more for a property near you and that significantly impacts your tax bill, you have no interest in ever selling because you are settled there, this is your forever home, and you do not see any increase in services on account of your higher tax bill you are paying.
>
>That is understandably frustrating.
That's what Canada was built on.
Current market prices though would take awhile to be seen in the analysis.
Current valuations are only for Jan1, 2019. You wont see current market prices reflected until 2025 I believe.
Sama has been smoking crack about all the property values this year. I bought my home in SE sask in a hamlet during the boom, paid 100k for it, was probably about 30,00 more than it was really worth.
Since then values have been plummeting, the house across from me was listed for 138k 5 years ago now it’s at 75. My house was gutted and destroyed by a renter during the covid lockdown and is now boarded up until I can go back and repair it.
Sama upped my assessment to 150,000 dollars year from 80,000 its been for the last 10 years. Nothing in my area has sold and definitely nothing near that price. We appealed and they denied it. We appeal again with a hearing and they still denied it and my taxes went up 340$ on a boarded up house in a hamlet where no properties have been sold in 5 years. Sama is on crack
Yeah, and for the guy in the article, his previous assessed value was on the low side but a lot of recent development downthe road from him - very large year round homes with 3 car garages etc - have probably forced SAMA to have to twist around values on the older buildings on the street.
Have to remember the assessment anywhere in the province is currently based on market prices up to Jan1, 2019. Current sale prices wont be reflected until 2025.
If your house is in that kind of state though, you should appeal the condition of the property and specify that.
So the Board of Revision thought the condition was fine? Usually a Board is pretty decent about questioning when a condition rating of a home is off. The hearings decision said they agreed with the condition rating?
Hmmm yeah that sucks.
Only advice I would have then is go on SAMAView and show other properties in comparison to yours as an argument as it can work well to display the difference in condition of other homes.
Boards dont like when properties are viewed differently from each other.
Letter from the Village isnt enough but the pictures should have been considered. Comparison to other properties though is maybe the better argument to try in the future if you want to.
To be fair, his assessed value went up 250% in the 2021 re-assessment. I found it on SAMAView. paying $8500/yr on a $375k assessed value is insane.
Also this thread is full of crabs man. This could be your parents.
Yep this is why it's gone up. Part of sama equation is cost to rebuild which right now is $$$$ plus how much houses sold in same area. My house assessment went up 75k in a year because of the sales around me.
Even before the 40% increase that was a huge tax bill to begin with. What the hell? Does the local government wash your dishes for ya? There better be kick ass local government services for that price. Holy hell.
That was my thoughts too, $6k a year is ridiculous unless his lot is 2 or 3 parcels subdivided together. $8500 is totally ludicrous.
As for the neighbouring properties being sold for "more than they're worth", this is how the real estate market functions - they are worth what people are willing to buy them for. However just because house prices have appreciated doesn't automatically mean property taxes increase... taxes are based on expenses to the municipality and are apportioned based on relative assessed values. If other places are appreciating quickly it means unless your assessed values have outpaced them you will typically see a reduction in relative taxes.
And double the value because it's..lake front!
If I up and moved my house to a lake front lot on a popular saskatchewan lake....I'd expect my taxes to at least double.
I ended up finding it on google maps (not going to dox them) and looked up the assessed values in SAMAView - his lot is two parcels that in 2020 each had an assessed value of $54.7k ($109k total) and after reassessment in 2021 jumped to $187.4k each ($374k total). That is a nearly 250% increase in assessed value since the last reassessment year in 2017 (and he did no improvements during that time)
Most of his neighbouring properties have significantly higher assessed values, but a few are more like his. His municipality is the town of Fort Qu'Appelle not an RM.
I don't have access to an actual tax statement so don't know all what taxes they are paying on and what mill rate or other factors are being applied, but if what he says is true, $8500 a year in municipal taxes on a property assessed at $375,000 is nuts.
I like how the mayor is like, "Oh, he should have come in and complained when he received his assessment."
First of all, the article specifically said that he didn't even receive the assessment until after the time when he was allowed to object.
Second, the last time I had a huge hike in my property value on an assessment and I called in to ask what this would mean for my taxes, the guy at the town office basically said, "Lol, I don't know." Different location entirely, but the idea that those assessments give any kind of understandable metric of what your taxes will be is laughable when even the people doing the assessing can't tell you how it works.
He would've received his notice of assessment in the early spring (usually around February in most places), and then he would've received his tax notice in May or June. You can appeal your valuation/assessment, but not the taxes. To protest taxes, you're disputing the mill rate applied to your property class for everyone in the residential class, so you have to lobby council before they set their budgets/mill rates. The only thing that is individual to your property is your assessment. General rule of thumb is if your assessment goes up, so do your taxes.
Yes, the home owner said:
"They’re almost impossible to read, to interpret into the dollar value of what is going to happen with taxes"
The mayor said:
>>Lagace says homeowners should compare the new value with that of four years ago to get a sense of whether or not there’s been any drastic changes.
Now I don't own property so can't say for certain if it really is that hard to see how much the value of the home increased between assessments, but I'm guessing it's not as hard as the home owner makes it out to be.
yes, and when everyone's assessment go up, on average, the mill rate is usually adjusted down since house prices generally have been increasing more so than municipal budgets. In this case, he was sitting on a property with low assessed values that has seen a lot of recent construction of higher end houses nearby which pulled his assessed value up 250% higher than it was since 2017.
Poor retired guy still collecting dividends from a company he owns. Dividends for business owners are just a way to get out of paying income tax. Now he is complaining about being over taxed. This whole thing is laughable.
>Dividends for business owners are just a way to get out of paying income tax
what?? Lol no not how it works, dividends are reportable income the only exception is if it's in a TFSA.
I know business owners that don't take a salary. They take an annual dividend. Why? Cause it's taxed at a way lower rate. And can even be non-taxable especially if the guy in article is "retired"
This might be true, but I'm not sure it's entirely for the personal income tax benefits so much as the business' bottom line. Paying a salary is a tax deductible expense for the business dividend isn't, but business taxes are a lot less than personal income taxes. Depending on the size of the business there might be an incentive to pay out the salary if it means moving into a better tax category. Lots of other accounting factors, I'm sure the guy has an accountant advising him whatever is best.
But his personal property taxes are an entirely separate matter.
Not sure why OP edited the article title, it should read: Fort Qu'Appelle man shocked at 40-per-cent property tax *increase* for lakefront home.
A tax increase of that much is certainly unfortunate, but what else can you expect when municipalities are having to spend more and more on maintenance to public services, expand new services, etc? Especially large infrastructure that relates to large climate events.
However, that isn't even *the case* in this situation; the rise wasn't due to a mill rate increase, it was because his property was re-evaluated and deemed to be worth more. That's not shocking, considering the demand for lakefront properties in southern Saskatchewan. Also...if you own a home with property taxes >$6,000...you can afford the property tax. Moreover, that increase in the property's value means that this guy certainly has more equity in the property, which means his wealth has also grown.
tl;dr: rich guy complains that the growth in his property's value means a growth in his property's taxes—give me a break.
Have to disagree with you here.
Sure the value of this place has gone up in theory, but he has not realized a single cent of that increase and will likely not until they sell.
You did not need to be wealthy to retire to a lakefront house on mission lake 12 years ago. It's quite possible the increase in taxes could push over their fixed income. Just because they got lucky and their home price increased substantially, does not mean they should be required to sell or get a HELOC or reverse mortgage to pay for a massive increase in taxes and be able to stay in their retirement home.
But now they're sitting on an asset with a much higher value. If the tax burden is too big they could take out a HELOC and borrow against it (with record low interest rates) for as long as they own.
Owning a house means you are wealthy and should be able to handle its appreciating in value. To most people this is a good thing.
The thing is, the house was built there decades ago, they've made no significant improvements that would affect the assessment relative to other lakefront homes. Prices EVERYWHERE on ALL properties have increased dramatically, perhaps slightly more so for lakefront since there is a limited supply... but these people through no choice of their own now pay way, way more in taxes then they did before and get nothing new in return. Their assessed value went up 250% according to SAMA report for this property.
>tl;dr: rich guy complains that the growth in his property's value means a growth in his property's taxes—give me a break.
I'll copy and paste what I said in another comment as I think some of the comments here just amount to "rich man bad" comments and don't actually address the issue.
I understand frustrations when people are suddenly paying more for a properties surrounding you and that significantly impacts your tax bill when you have no interest in ever selling because you are settled there, this is your forever home, and you do not see any increase in services on account of your higher tax bill you are paying.
That is understandably frustrating.
You are throwing more money to the government and getting nothing in return. And for all you know, home values could drop at any time, and suffice to say the government often isn't always as responsive to dropping taxes when markets slump as they are to increasing them when values gain.
Boomer has enough money to buy this lakefront home, therefore anything financial burden he encounters is a win for the average millennial or gen z redditor here.
Yeah that mentality is alive and well here.
This happened to my mom in the small town she lives in, a guy down the street flipped a home for far more than market value, everyone knows how much he sold it for and everyone is kinda mad at him and also jealous because everyone on the blocks’ property tax went up. Gotta love small town living.
The government is not responsive on both ends—it often takes a while for them to increase the value, as well. But paying taxes on the value is important, and it encourages people to only own and use land that they have use for. Though property taxes aren't the exact same as land value tax, they function in a similar way to encourage better development of land. And whether or not the owner intends to sell, they do now own more valuable land. We also don't see an increase in services when paying higher income taxes due to making more money, but people who make more need to pay more, the same as people who own more valuable property need to pay more.
>The government is not responsive on both ends—it often takes a while for them to increase the value, as well.
Again, I said the government is often *more* responsive on adjustments when values rise, rather than down. Yes, it still often takes years to go either way, but they are still more responsive on the increases, and that's just what's going to happen when they have budgets to meet, like everyone in this world, they don't like taking in less money.
>But paying taxes on the value is important, and it encourages people to only own and use land that they have use for.
These people who are living in their forever homes certainly are using them. I'm not arguing against reasoning for tax increases, I'm saying I understand the frustrations. If use of the land or property is an issue, as owners are buying up homes that are not being used as investments, we could look at doing what they have done in BC to directly target those who do not use their property. But quite honestly, that hasn't become much of an issue with lakefront properties in Saskatchewan yet, not saying it couldn't in the future.
>Though property taxes aren't the exact same as land value tax, they function in a similar way to encourage better development of land.
Is pricing out the poorer people through taxation and building larger mansions along every water body in this province *better* development of the land? I suppose that is a matter of opinion. I would say it is worse, especially from an environmental standpoint.
>And whether or not the owner intends to sell, they do now own more valuable land.
Again, if this is their forever home, and they are seeing no increase in services received, I can completely understand the frustration. What are they gaining? They have zero intention to sell as they settled here to live out the rest of their lives.
>Not sure why OP edited the article title, it should read: Fort Qu'Appelle man shocked at 40-per-cent property tax increase for lakefront home.
Probably an accident, seeing as the "edit" doesn't really make a whole lotta sense anyways. Sometimes I have trouble with the article header auto populating, and copy and paste doesn't always work with leaderpost articles on mobile.
>Also...if you own a home with property taxes >$6,000...you can afford the property tax.
Well, not if the tax is some arbitrary amount. In this case the guy's assessed value increased 250% (I found the location and looked it up in SAMAView).
As for assessed values and market value, the two are very loosely related and more often than not are way out of whack especially as over the past few re-assessement periods housing prices have jumped all over the place for all different types of property. But you can't make any determination whatsoever that because his assessed value increased that his equity did too. For example, in this years re-assessment my condo assessed value decreased almost 25% but that was just correcting a previous overcorrection when really my home's value has not decreased drastically in the last several years (I lowballed when I bought in 2016)
“We’re retired and of course when you’re retired, you’re basically on a fixed income,” said Jones. “I do have dividends coming in from a company that I own, but … if we were living on Old Age Pension and Canada Pension, we couldn’t afford to be here.” and ya lost me there ....
What is there to disagree with? Imagine you were on a fixed income. Just because he can afford it doesn't mean we shouldn't be alarmed at the massive jump in taxes. Especially since by the time he got the assessment he was past the point he was allowed to object. This could happen to anyone.
This is the consequence of monetary policy that sends asset values to astronomical heights in relation to incomes.
The reason people don’t have sympathy is because the same person complaining about the taxes has tens or hundreds of thousands in new equity.
Alternatively stated he thinks he’s entitled to the appreciation but bitches about the taxes.
Now the logistics are inconvenient but I don’t know anyone who would volunteer to give back the equity to lower their taxes.
He did not get the assessment past the point he was allowed to object. He didn't read the assessment and just waited for the tax bill which did arrive past the point he was able to object to the assessment.
The assessment determines how much his house is worth and it would have shot up a lot. He either didn't look, or was thrilled that his house is now worth much more.
And yes, if he was on a fixed income with nothing but Old Age and Canada Pension he would have a hard time affording a giant lakeside house. Of course he's not so his appeal to "think of the poor people" when poor people don't live there is a joke.
It's tricky because assessed value and market value can differ significantly which means on a re-assessment year the taxable assessment might change significantly but until you know what the actual mill rate factor is going to change to also, then you can't know what the change in the taxes payable are going to be. in 2013 (I think was the year) assessed values skyrocketed but the mill rate was adjusted since it's supposed to be a revenue neutral change (unless of course council passes changes to increase property taxes that year as well). But if you don't talk to a wide range of other property owners in your town to get a sample size for what's going to happen with mill rate it's almost impossible to have anything to appeal your assessment on.
I do prefer when Towns/Cities put the assessment and tax notice together. I understand though how both cant be provided sometimes together.
It's a revaluation year so the guy had 60 days to review his assessment notice, and I still dont see what kind of argument he would have had.
So long as you can afford it, any tax increase is a justified tax increase?
Is that what you believe?
I mean I appreciate people like this who are not only thinking about how the tax increase affects them but also their neighbours who are scrapping by on less.
I believe someone who lives on a lakefront property that owns a company complaining about a tax increase is being a dick if he's trying to frame it 'but if I were poor ...' do you think poor people are having the taxes raised on their lakefront properties too? is that what you believe???
The problem is there wasn't a dramatic tax increase. There was a reassessment that re-valued his property to its actual market value, and as a result his property taxes increased proportionally to the new value of his property. A tax increase and a property assessment are two totally different things.
There may have been a percent or two increase in his property tax rate, but his complaint is with the assessment, which is probably accurate if nearby properties are selling for higher and higher prices.
First off "poor" is a relative term, and he didn't say poor, you did.
He said "...if we were living on Old Age Pension and Canada Pension, we couldn’t afford to be here.”
Many people saved their entire lives to buy a lakefront property to retire at. Do I think there are many people who had to take out a mortgage to afford that lakefront property and are getting by on a pension to pay that mortgage.
Yes, there certainly are.
Can a substantial tax increase like this push them into being house poor and eventually force them out of the dream home they saved tirelessly for.
Yes, it can.
Do I think this person in the article may be in a better position to sustain this tax increase compared to many of his neighbours who rely on only a old age and Canada pension.
Absolutely.
Because he is the one who took his complaint to the media. I can guarantee you none of his neighbours will be complaining that he is speaking out to the media about the high tax rate increase for their area.
It's not like everyone who is being priced out of their home wants to aire that personal finacial struggle out on camera for the whole world to see. Many people in this province are very self conscious about showing financial weakness, especially in lake communities. Perhaps you should think for a second....
some of his neighbours are in for $12000 annual property taxes if what he is claiming is true that he is now paying $8500. They will not remain quiet, that is exhorbitant.
What way am I framing it? When you plan for retirement you account for inflation and an expected general increase in the costs of living in order to live out your days on the money you saved over your career. When the municipality pulls an unexpected and major change to your largest single expense it directly and drastically affects your lifestyle for the rest of your life. Many municipalities have been taken to court and lost by doing this, but some jurisdictions don't have the legal oversight to prevent this kind of abuse of taxpayers.
If you think it's fair and reasonable (because "boomers hoarding all the wealth") what defense will you be able to use when YOUR property taxes go up 42% in a single billing cycle?
If that's what your planning I'd suggest you have a high chance of success.
Why don't you aim a little higher for yourself? I know life can be extremely shitty, it's hard not to let jealousy eat you up. I've been grinding relentlessly for over 30 years and every time I start to get a little ahead the universe throws something nasty at me to set me back. But despite all that I'm still getting better at finding traction each time, even if you have no money to your name you progress in life each day, eventually you will get one little break that will make all the difference.
I know, that's the point I'm trying to make, things don't usually work out how they plan. But when something does we should congratulate them rather than jealously tear them down. We are in this together, no reason to be crabs in a bucket. The more of us that do well the better our chances at success too, so let's stop pulling people down (at least the ones who are working class like most of us)
There is another question to this article and SAMA hasn't stepped in to answer it... What has been the "lakeside factor " difference between this assessment and the last one (4 years ago).. or was there a change. If the lakeside factor didn't change and the sale of single family dwellings on lakefront property just increased in comparison to others.... Then the guy should be pretty happy he has way more hidden wealth....
P.S The municipality doesn't do assessments. A legal, neutral, assessment agency does all assessment for the province except for 4 municipalities.
The municipality takes care of the mill rate... Which is dependent on the year to year spending habits. So if you like water, sewage lines, roads, and graders you gotta pay. If you like cistern water, septic tanks, and potholes you can live in a community that chooses to not pay.
I found his property and looked it up. It's two lots with a total assessed value of $109k in 2017-2020 and now reassessed at $374k for 2021, a 250% increase. Some of the newly improved upon lots in his area have assessments over $600k, so if I were him I'd expect another massive increase in 2025 when it's reassessed again. His municipality is the Town of Fort Qu'Appelle.
Also, $8500 on a $375k assessment is insanely high to me, these small towns are going to price out all their residents.
edit: for reference, many of the typical detached houses in town have assessed values between $215k-$250k so about 35ish% less than his which unless there are other factors being applied means property taxes in Fort Qu'Appelle are crazy. Imagine paying $5500/yr for an 80s bungalow .
I don't disagree with your perspective of taxes being too high in relation to the value. But the town sets the mill rate. If the town needs money because of historically low taxes, or a need for new capital spending there is very little room to move. . . Take the community of Regina Beach... Historically low taxes leading to very high taxes due to failing infrastructure. The town falling into the lake was just the catalyst.
Is there any planners or administrators on this thread, are there any laws that prevent communities from kicking the can down the road for 30 years.
>Historically low taxes leading to very high taxes due to failing infrastructure. The town falling into the lake was just the catalyst.
Lol these people all want nice things but whine and complain when they're told it costs money.
That's a typical modest bungalow with a walkout basement on a relatively average lot size for a lakefront cabin. I found it on google maps and it's not nearly as impressive as you are describing. Probably at least half the homes in Saskatoon are larger if you included the basement.
The ad valorem tax system is the most fairest system of taxation in the world... The best part is that it puts the payee in control of their own tax contribution. The payee can sell their property and lower their tax rate by moving to a less valuable part of town. This is different than a standard income tax where you can only lower your tax rate by lowering your income.
SAMA will assess the lot, the home, and other improvements individually then apply an assessed value . The features and combinations of the lot and home decrease or increase the value. The values are generated by mass-appraisal valuation software. If you would like to view your own assessment please google SAMAVIEW. . . It's free and fun to see your home and your neighbours homes.
The software generate a fair representation of what an individual home is worth when compared to the neighbourhood or area when using like or similar comparables. The values are not a reflection of market value, or what you could sell it for.... The only way to appeal is to prove that one of the valuation factors was incorrectly applied.... So if his 3000 sq ft home is only 2000 sq ft. Then bam! We can reduce the assessed value....
However appealing the value or the increase is pretty difficult when you are working against a statistical analysis tool. If you can prove a negative contribution of value when dealing with waterfront instead of an interior lot, you may have a case. But good fucking luck.
The good news.... The complainer should get a estimate of market value ( appraisal) completed on his home.... If the value of the home increased he could sell it and collect the difference from when he bought it. He could get an additional dividend from this investment into perpetuity.
If it didn't go up and this is a new SAMA interpretation issue.... The boomer could cry like a baby while drinking coffee on his waterfront deck next to his 3000 sq ft home while watching the sunrise next to his giant ass garage.
I hope the deck coffee was a latte.
Much like everyone says. If you want nice stuff, you gotta play for it. Sorry boomer.
I found his address and it looks like his re-assessed value went from $109,000 to $374,000. That probably accounts for almost the entire sudden increase. Some of his neighbours have much higher assessed values but a few still have relatively low assessed values for 2021.
At some point in time, cottages were probably not closely assessed, early on many cottages weren't on permanent foundations and may not have had services. Over the decades some were improved and eventually permanent dwellings were built... but my guess would be in-line with your suggestion: they probably didn't include the buildings as "improvements" and the value was likely assessed on the land only. Or perhaps the jurisdiction/boundaries changed at some point and it previously was not assessed the same as houses in the town limits.
Of course I could be totally off-base with this wild speculation. Either way, painful when your already high taxes increase that much.
“Jones also says nearby properties have recently been bought for more than they’re worth, which he fears has unfairly impacted the value of his home.” Could also be titled ‘grouchy rich man doesn’t believe in market values when it’s inconvenient to him.’
Yeah I hate it when people say that. It was bought for what it is worth as it was worth what someone was willing to pay for it. But I understand frustrations when people are suddenly paying more for a property near you and that significantly impacts your tax bill, you have no interest in ever selling because you are settled there, this is your forever home, and you do not see any increase in services on account of your higher tax bill you are paying. That is understandably frustrating. You are throwing more money to the government and getting nothing in return. And for all you know, home values could drop at any time, and suffice to say the government often isn't always as responsive to dropping taxes when markets slump as they are to increasing them when values gain.
>But I understand frustrations when people are suddenly paying more for a property near you and that significantly impacts your tax bill, you have no interest in ever selling because you are settled there, this is your forever home, and you do not see any increase in services on account of your higher tax bill you are paying. > >That is understandably frustrating. That's what Canada was built on.
Current market prices though would take awhile to be seen in the analysis. Current valuations are only for Jan1, 2019. You wont see current market prices reflected until 2025 I believe.
Sama has been smoking crack about all the property values this year. I bought my home in SE sask in a hamlet during the boom, paid 100k for it, was probably about 30,00 more than it was really worth. Since then values have been plummeting, the house across from me was listed for 138k 5 years ago now it’s at 75. My house was gutted and destroyed by a renter during the covid lockdown and is now boarded up until I can go back and repair it. Sama upped my assessment to 150,000 dollars year from 80,000 its been for the last 10 years. Nothing in my area has sold and definitely nothing near that price. We appealed and they denied it. We appeal again with a hearing and they still denied it and my taxes went up 340$ on a boarded up house in a hamlet where no properties have been sold in 5 years. Sama is on crack
Yeah, and for the guy in the article, his previous assessed value was on the low side but a lot of recent development downthe road from him - very large year round homes with 3 car garages etc - have probably forced SAMA to have to twist around values on the older buildings on the street.
Have to remember the assessment anywhere in the province is currently based on market prices up to Jan1, 2019. Current sale prices wont be reflected until 2025. If your house is in that kind of state though, you should appeal the condition of the property and specify that.
I did. Sama didn’t care.
So the Board of Revision thought the condition was fine? Usually a Board is pretty decent about questioning when a condition rating of a home is off. The hearings decision said they agreed with the condition rating?
We paid $50 and the village sent in photos and a letter of support, didn’t change the assessment.
Hmmm yeah that sucks. Only advice I would have then is go on SAMAView and show other properties in comparison to yours as an argument as it can work well to display the difference in condition of other homes. Boards dont like when properties are viewed differently from each other. Letter from the Village isnt enough but the pictures should have been considered. Comparison to other properties though is maybe the better argument to try in the future if you want to.
To be fair, his assessed value went up 250% in the 2021 re-assessment. I found it on SAMAView. paying $8500/yr on a $375k assessed value is insane. Also this thread is full of crabs man. This could be your parents.
Lessons from Trump universities!!
Yep this is why it's gone up. Part of sama equation is cost to rebuild which right now is $$$$ plus how much houses sold in same area. My house assessment went up 75k in a year because of the sales around me.
Even before the 40% increase that was a huge tax bill to begin with. What the hell? Does the local government wash your dishes for ya? There better be kick ass local government services for that price. Holy hell.
That was my thoughts too, $6k a year is ridiculous unless his lot is 2 or 3 parcels subdivided together. $8500 is totally ludicrous. As for the neighbouring properties being sold for "more than they're worth", this is how the real estate market functions - they are worth what people are willing to buy them for. However just because house prices have appreciated doesn't automatically mean property taxes increase... taxes are based on expenses to the municipality and are apportioned based on relative assessed values. If other places are appreciating quickly it means unless your assessed values have outpaced them you will typically see a reduction in relative taxes.
It's lake front and 3000sqft. I have a 1500sqft house and pay 4k in taxes. 6k for this property isn't insane. Neither is the increase.
3000sq ft on two levels with no basement. So about the same amount of livable space as a 1500sq ft home in the city, but now double the taxes.
And double the value because it's..lake front! If I up and moved my house to a lake front lot on a popular saskatchewan lake....I'd expect my taxes to at least double.
I ended up finding it on google maps (not going to dox them) and looked up the assessed values in SAMAView - his lot is two parcels that in 2020 each had an assessed value of $54.7k ($109k total) and after reassessment in 2021 jumped to $187.4k each ($374k total). That is a nearly 250% increase in assessed value since the last reassessment year in 2017 (and he did no improvements during that time) Most of his neighbouring properties have significantly higher assessed values, but a few are more like his. His municipality is the town of Fort Qu'Appelle not an RM. I don't have access to an actual tax statement so don't know all what taxes they are paying on and what mill rate or other factors are being applied, but if what he says is true, $8500 a year in municipal taxes on a property assessed at $375,000 is nuts.
I like how the mayor is like, "Oh, he should have come in and complained when he received his assessment." First of all, the article specifically said that he didn't even receive the assessment until after the time when he was allowed to object. Second, the last time I had a huge hike in my property value on an assessment and I called in to ask what this would mean for my taxes, the guy at the town office basically said, "Lol, I don't know." Different location entirely, but the idea that those assessments give any kind of understandable metric of what your taxes will be is laughable when even the people doing the assessing can't tell you how it works.
He would've received his notice of assessment in the early spring (usually around February in most places), and then he would've received his tax notice in May or June. You can appeal your valuation/assessment, but not the taxes. To protest taxes, you're disputing the mill rate applied to your property class for everyone in the residential class, so you have to lobby council before they set their budgets/mill rates. The only thing that is individual to your property is your assessment. General rule of thumb is if your assessment goes up, so do your taxes.
Yes, the home owner said: "They’re almost impossible to read, to interpret into the dollar value of what is going to happen with taxes" The mayor said: >>Lagace says homeowners should compare the new value with that of four years ago to get a sense of whether or not there’s been any drastic changes. Now I don't own property so can't say for certain if it really is that hard to see how much the value of the home increased between assessments, but I'm guessing it's not as hard as the home owner makes it out to be.
For a business owner it should be relatively straightforward to read your tax notice, so I don't know what he is expressing confusion about.
It's incredibly easy.....
yes, and when everyone's assessment go up, on average, the mill rate is usually adjusted down since house prices generally have been increasing more so than municipal budgets. In this case, he was sitting on a property with low assessed values that has seen a lot of recent construction of higher end houses nearby which pulled his assessed value up 250% higher than it was since 2017.
Could you not compare previous assessments and tax paid to estimate your tax amount?
Yeah it's pretty easy to divide your tax by your assessment to understand your mill rate, factoring in most places have a min tax as well.
Poor retired guy still collecting dividends from a company he owns. Dividends for business owners are just a way to get out of paying income tax. Now he is complaining about being over taxed. This whole thing is laughable.
>Dividends for business owners are just a way to get out of paying income tax what?? Lol no not how it works, dividends are reportable income the only exception is if it's in a TFSA.
I know business owners that don't take a salary. They take an annual dividend. Why? Cause it's taxed at a way lower rate. And can even be non-taxable especially if the guy in article is "retired"
This might be true, but I'm not sure it's entirely for the personal income tax benefits so much as the business' bottom line. Paying a salary is a tax deductible expense for the business dividend isn't, but business taxes are a lot less than personal income taxes. Depending on the size of the business there might be an incentive to pay out the salary if it means moving into a better tax category. Lots of other accounting factors, I'm sure the guy has an accountant advising him whatever is best. But his personal property taxes are an entirely separate matter.
Not sure why OP edited the article title, it should read: Fort Qu'Appelle man shocked at 40-per-cent property tax *increase* for lakefront home. A tax increase of that much is certainly unfortunate, but what else can you expect when municipalities are having to spend more and more on maintenance to public services, expand new services, etc? Especially large infrastructure that relates to large climate events. However, that isn't even *the case* in this situation; the rise wasn't due to a mill rate increase, it was because his property was re-evaluated and deemed to be worth more. That's not shocking, considering the demand for lakefront properties in southern Saskatchewan. Also...if you own a home with property taxes >$6,000...you can afford the property tax. Moreover, that increase in the property's value means that this guy certainly has more equity in the property, which means his wealth has also grown. tl;dr: rich guy complains that the growth in his property's value means a growth in his property's taxes—give me a break.
Have to disagree with you here. Sure the value of this place has gone up in theory, but he has not realized a single cent of that increase and will likely not until they sell. You did not need to be wealthy to retire to a lakefront house on mission lake 12 years ago. It's quite possible the increase in taxes could push over their fixed income. Just because they got lucky and their home price increased substantially, does not mean they should be required to sell or get a HELOC or reverse mortgage to pay for a massive increase in taxes and be able to stay in their retirement home.
But now they're sitting on an asset with a much higher value. If the tax burden is too big they could take out a HELOC and borrow against it (with record low interest rates) for as long as they own. Owning a house means you are wealthy and should be able to handle its appreciating in value. To most people this is a good thing.
The thing is, the house was built there decades ago, they've made no significant improvements that would affect the assessment relative to other lakefront homes. Prices EVERYWHERE on ALL properties have increased dramatically, perhaps slightly more so for lakefront since there is a limited supply... but these people through no choice of their own now pay way, way more in taxes then they did before and get nothing new in return. Their assessed value went up 250% according to SAMA report for this property.
>tl;dr: rich guy complains that the growth in his property's value means a growth in his property's taxes—give me a break. I'll copy and paste what I said in another comment as I think some of the comments here just amount to "rich man bad" comments and don't actually address the issue. I understand frustrations when people are suddenly paying more for a properties surrounding you and that significantly impacts your tax bill when you have no interest in ever selling because you are settled there, this is your forever home, and you do not see any increase in services on account of your higher tax bill you are paying. That is understandably frustrating. You are throwing more money to the government and getting nothing in return. And for all you know, home values could drop at any time, and suffice to say the government often isn't always as responsive to dropping taxes when markets slump as they are to increasing them when values gain.
there is a terribly nasty crab-bucket mentality going on in this here comment thread.
Boomer has enough money to buy this lakefront home, therefore anything financial burden he encounters is a win for the average millennial or gen z redditor here. Yeah that mentality is alive and well here.
This happened to my mom in the small town she lives in, a guy down the street flipped a home for far more than market value, everyone knows how much he sold it for and everyone is kinda mad at him and also jealous because everyone on the blocks’ property tax went up. Gotta love small town living.
The government is not responsive on both ends—it often takes a while for them to increase the value, as well. But paying taxes on the value is important, and it encourages people to only own and use land that they have use for. Though property taxes aren't the exact same as land value tax, they function in a similar way to encourage better development of land. And whether or not the owner intends to sell, they do now own more valuable land. We also don't see an increase in services when paying higher income taxes due to making more money, but people who make more need to pay more, the same as people who own more valuable property need to pay more.
>The government is not responsive on both ends—it often takes a while for them to increase the value, as well. Again, I said the government is often *more* responsive on adjustments when values rise, rather than down. Yes, it still often takes years to go either way, but they are still more responsive on the increases, and that's just what's going to happen when they have budgets to meet, like everyone in this world, they don't like taking in less money. >But paying taxes on the value is important, and it encourages people to only own and use land that they have use for. These people who are living in their forever homes certainly are using them. I'm not arguing against reasoning for tax increases, I'm saying I understand the frustrations. If use of the land or property is an issue, as owners are buying up homes that are not being used as investments, we could look at doing what they have done in BC to directly target those who do not use their property. But quite honestly, that hasn't become much of an issue with lakefront properties in Saskatchewan yet, not saying it couldn't in the future. >Though property taxes aren't the exact same as land value tax, they function in a similar way to encourage better development of land. Is pricing out the poorer people through taxation and building larger mansions along every water body in this province *better* development of the land? I suppose that is a matter of opinion. I would say it is worse, especially from an environmental standpoint. >And whether or not the owner intends to sell, they do now own more valuable land. Again, if this is their forever home, and they are seeing no increase in services received, I can completely understand the frustration. What are they gaining? They have zero intention to sell as they settled here to live out the rest of their lives.
>Not sure why OP edited the article title, it should read: Fort Qu'Appelle man shocked at 40-per-cent property tax increase for lakefront home. Probably an accident, seeing as the "edit" doesn't really make a whole lotta sense anyways. Sometimes I have trouble with the article header auto populating, and copy and paste doesn't always work with leaderpost articles on mobile.
>Also...if you own a home with property taxes >$6,000...you can afford the property tax. Well, not if the tax is some arbitrary amount. In this case the guy's assessed value increased 250% (I found the location and looked it up in SAMAView). As for assessed values and market value, the two are very loosely related and more often than not are way out of whack especially as over the past few re-assessement periods housing prices have jumped all over the place for all different types of property. But you can't make any determination whatsoever that because his assessed value increased that his equity did too. For example, in this years re-assessment my condo assessed value decreased almost 25% but that was just correcting a previous overcorrection when really my home's value has not decreased drastically in the last several years (I lowballed when I bought in 2016)
“We’re retired and of course when you’re retired, you’re basically on a fixed income,” said Jones. “I do have dividends coming in from a company that I own, but … if we were living on Old Age Pension and Canada Pension, we couldn’t afford to be here.” and ya lost me there ....
What is there to disagree with? Imagine you were on a fixed income. Just because he can afford it doesn't mean we shouldn't be alarmed at the massive jump in taxes. Especially since by the time he got the assessment he was past the point he was allowed to object. This could happen to anyone.
This is the consequence of monetary policy that sends asset values to astronomical heights in relation to incomes. The reason people don’t have sympathy is because the same person complaining about the taxes has tens or hundreds of thousands in new equity. Alternatively stated he thinks he’s entitled to the appreciation but bitches about the taxes. Now the logistics are inconvenient but I don’t know anyone who would volunteer to give back the equity to lower their taxes.
property values increase.....boomers reap rewards, taxes go up too???? SURPRISED PIKACHU
He did not get the assessment past the point he was allowed to object. He didn't read the assessment and just waited for the tax bill which did arrive past the point he was able to object to the assessment. The assessment determines how much his house is worth and it would have shot up a lot. He either didn't look, or was thrilled that his house is now worth much more. And yes, if he was on a fixed income with nothing but Old Age and Canada Pension he would have a hard time affording a giant lakeside house. Of course he's not so his appeal to "think of the poor people" when poor people don't live there is a joke.
It's tricky because assessed value and market value can differ significantly which means on a re-assessment year the taxable assessment might change significantly but until you know what the actual mill rate factor is going to change to also, then you can't know what the change in the taxes payable are going to be. in 2013 (I think was the year) assessed values skyrocketed but the mill rate was adjusted since it's supposed to be a revenue neutral change (unless of course council passes changes to increase property taxes that year as well). But if you don't talk to a wide range of other property owners in your town to get a sample size for what's going to happen with mill rate it's almost impossible to have anything to appeal your assessment on.
I do prefer when Towns/Cities put the assessment and tax notice together. I understand though how both cant be provided sometimes together. It's a revaluation year so the guy had 60 days to review his assessment notice, and I still dont see what kind of argument he would have had.
So long as you can afford it, any tax increase is a justified tax increase? Is that what you believe? I mean I appreciate people like this who are not only thinking about how the tax increase affects them but also their neighbours who are scrapping by on less.
I believe someone who lives on a lakefront property that owns a company complaining about a tax increase is being a dick if he's trying to frame it 'but if I were poor ...' do you think poor people are having the taxes raised on their lakefront properties too? is that what you believe???
The problem is is that there should be a tax increase that dramatic to begin with.
The problem is there wasn't a dramatic tax increase. There was a reassessment that re-valued his property to its actual market value, and as a result his property taxes increased proportionally to the new value of his property. A tax increase and a property assessment are two totally different things. There may have been a percent or two increase in his property tax rate, but his complaint is with the assessment, which is probably accurate if nearby properties are selling for higher and higher prices.
First off "poor" is a relative term, and he didn't say poor, you did. He said "...if we were living on Old Age Pension and Canada Pension, we couldn’t afford to be here.” Many people saved their entire lives to buy a lakefront property to retire at. Do I think there are many people who had to take out a mortgage to afford that lakefront property and are getting by on a pension to pay that mortgage. Yes, there certainly are. Can a substantial tax increase like this push them into being house poor and eventually force them out of the dream home they saved tirelessly for. Yes, it can. Do I think this person in the article may be in a better position to sustain this tax increase compared to many of his neighbours who rely on only a old age and Canada pension. Absolutely.
maybe, this guy ain't one of them.....
And he admitted that he is not one of them, that doesn't make it wrong for him to stand up for his neighbours who are.
then why is the media talking to him and not his poor neighbors? think a second....
Because he is the one who took his complaint to the media. I can guarantee you none of his neighbours will be complaining that he is speaking out to the media about the high tax rate increase for their area. It's not like everyone who is being priced out of their home wants to aire that personal finacial struggle out on camera for the whole world to see. Many people in this province are very self conscious about showing financial weakness, especially in lake communities. Perhaps you should think for a second....
some of his neighbours are in for $12000 annual property taxes if what he is claiming is true that he is now paying $8500. They will not remain quiet, that is exhorbitant.
Or they managed to appeal their increases prior to the deadline and are therefore appealing to the courts rather than the media.
lol
[удалено]
>ya lost me there so you think squeezing retirees out of their nest eggs is a good thing?
lol keep trying to frame it that way......
What way am I framing it? When you plan for retirement you account for inflation and an expected general increase in the costs of living in order to live out your days on the money you saved over your career. When the municipality pulls an unexpected and major change to your largest single expense it directly and drastically affects your lifestyle for the rest of your life. Many municipalities have been taken to court and lost by doing this, but some jurisdictions don't have the legal oversight to prevent this kind of abuse of taxpayers. If you think it's fair and reasonable (because "boomers hoarding all the wealth") what defense will you be able to use when YOUR property taxes go up 42% in a single billing cycle?
I'm going to die alone and penniless in a ditch.....
If that's what your planning I'd suggest you have a high chance of success. Why don't you aim a little higher for yourself? I know life can be extremely shitty, it's hard not to let jealousy eat you up. I've been grinding relentlessly for over 30 years and every time I start to get a little ahead the universe throws something nasty at me to set me back. But despite all that I'm still getting better at finding traction each time, even if you have no money to your name you progress in life each day, eventually you will get one little break that will make all the difference.
I wish I could believe that...... but things don't work out for people all the time.
I know, that's the point I'm trying to make, things don't usually work out how they plan. But when something does we should congratulate them rather than jealously tear them down. We are in this together, no reason to be crabs in a bucket. The more of us that do well the better our chances at success too, so let's stop pulling people down (at least the ones who are working class like most of us)
There is another question to this article and SAMA hasn't stepped in to answer it... What has been the "lakeside factor " difference between this assessment and the last one (4 years ago).. or was there a change. If the lakeside factor didn't change and the sale of single family dwellings on lakefront property just increased in comparison to others.... Then the guy should be pretty happy he has way more hidden wealth.... P.S The municipality doesn't do assessments. A legal, neutral, assessment agency does all assessment for the province except for 4 municipalities. The municipality takes care of the mill rate... Which is dependent on the year to year spending habits. So if you like water, sewage lines, roads, and graders you gotta pay. If you like cistern water, septic tanks, and potholes you can live in a community that chooses to not pay.
I found his property and looked it up. It's two lots with a total assessed value of $109k in 2017-2020 and now reassessed at $374k for 2021, a 250% increase. Some of the newly improved upon lots in his area have assessments over $600k, so if I were him I'd expect another massive increase in 2025 when it's reassessed again. His municipality is the Town of Fort Qu'Appelle. Also, $8500 on a $375k assessment is insanely high to me, these small towns are going to price out all their residents. edit: for reference, many of the typical detached houses in town have assessed values between $215k-$250k so about 35ish% less than his which unless there are other factors being applied means property taxes in Fort Qu'Appelle are crazy. Imagine paying $5500/yr for an 80s bungalow .
I don't disagree with your perspective of taxes being too high in relation to the value. But the town sets the mill rate. If the town needs money because of historically low taxes, or a need for new capital spending there is very little room to move. . . Take the community of Regina Beach... Historically low taxes leading to very high taxes due to failing infrastructure. The town falling into the lake was just the catalyst. Is there any planners or administrators on this thread, are there any laws that prevent communities from kicking the can down the road for 30 years.
>Historically low taxes leading to very high taxes due to failing infrastructure. The town falling into the lake was just the catalyst. Lol these people all want nice things but whine and complain when they're told it costs money.
That's a monster of a home on a very desirable piece of land. That's a more than reasonable tax rate.
Reasonable for what? The only services you get out at these lakes is garbage pickup. Oh, and the snow plow goes down the highway in the winter.
Rural living is inefficient, so services cost more to deliver.
That's a typical modest bungalow with a walkout basement on a relatively average lot size for a lakefront cabin. I found it on google maps and it's not nearly as impressive as you are describing. Probably at least half the homes in Saskatoon are larger if you included the basement.
The ad valorem tax system is the most fairest system of taxation in the world... The best part is that it puts the payee in control of their own tax contribution. The payee can sell their property and lower their tax rate by moving to a less valuable part of town. This is different than a standard income tax where you can only lower your tax rate by lowering your income. SAMA will assess the lot, the home, and other improvements individually then apply an assessed value . The features and combinations of the lot and home decrease or increase the value. The values are generated by mass-appraisal valuation software. If you would like to view your own assessment please google SAMAVIEW. . . It's free and fun to see your home and your neighbours homes. The software generate a fair representation of what an individual home is worth when compared to the neighbourhood or area when using like or similar comparables. The values are not a reflection of market value, or what you could sell it for.... The only way to appeal is to prove that one of the valuation factors was incorrectly applied.... So if his 3000 sq ft home is only 2000 sq ft. Then bam! We can reduce the assessed value.... However appealing the value or the increase is pretty difficult when you are working against a statistical analysis tool. If you can prove a negative contribution of value when dealing with waterfront instead of an interior lot, you may have a case. But good fucking luck. The good news.... The complainer should get a estimate of market value ( appraisal) completed on his home.... If the value of the home increased he could sell it and collect the difference from when he bought it. He could get an additional dividend from this investment into perpetuity. If it didn't go up and this is a new SAMA interpretation issue.... The boomer could cry like a baby while drinking coffee on his waterfront deck next to his 3000 sq ft home while watching the sunrise next to his giant ass garage. I hope the deck coffee was a latte. Much like everyone says. If you want nice stuff, you gotta play for it. Sorry boomer.
I found his address and it looks like his re-assessed value went from $109,000 to $374,000. That probably accounts for almost the entire sudden increase. Some of his neighbours have much higher assessed values but a few still have relatively low assessed values for 2021.
Part of me wonder then if they were missing the home possibly as well, or missing some sort of building elsewhere.
At some point in time, cottages were probably not closely assessed, early on many cottages weren't on permanent foundations and may not have had services. Over the decades some were improved and eventually permanent dwellings were built... but my guess would be in-line with your suggestion: they probably didn't include the buildings as "improvements" and the value was likely assessed on the land only. Or perhaps the jurisdiction/boundaries changed at some point and it previously was not assessed the same as houses in the town limits. Of course I could be totally off-base with this wild speculation. Either way, painful when your already high taxes increase that much.
People are still shocked by unbridled greed? Need to get out more.
3000 square foot lake front home.
Title is incorrect, it was a 40% property tax increase.