Frances Bula header image 2

Bigger tax hike coming for Vancouver businesses in 2012

December 19th, 2011 · 16 Comments

For the last several years, Vancouver businesses have seen their taxes significantly lowered and even, in some years, frozen, as a result of the city’s policy of shifting the proportion of taxes between businesses and residents.

It appears that’s going to change significantly this year. Many people understood during the election that a new Vision council would do one final year of shifting a full one per cent, as it has the past couple of years. Certainly that was what I thought was being talked about. The difference between the two parties, as I comprehended it, was that Vision would only do one more year of the one-per-cent shift, whereas the NPA was promising to continue shifting for all three years.

As it turns out, Vision’s new budget is planning for only a .25 shift, because that, according to the financial wizards, is all that it will take to get the tax ratio in Vancouver to 48 per cent for commercial, 52 per cent for residential.

Last year, because the tax increase was so low, the one-per-cent shift meant that businesses saw essentially no tax increase. The year before that, it was extremely small.

This year, in contrast, they’ll see almost the same increase as the rest of the city, since the shift will be so low.

Be prepared for a lot of sturm and drang over this. The Fair Tax Coalition and business owners say that Vision Vancouver has misunderstood what was originally recommended by UBC professor Stan Hamilton five years ago — that he only said to stick with the 48-52 target and stop tax shifting if there was no longer a wide disparity between Vancouver and other municipalities.

Raymond Louie and others Visioners say that’s not true and they’re leaning heavily towards giving residential taxpayers a break for once.

The two sides will be battling it out as budget talks proceed apace for the next three months.

 

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Sean Nelson

    As a Vancouver property owner I support the idea of shifting the tax burden to be more in line with other jurisdictions. But I would have liked to see a more gradual shift than 1% a year. When you combine the that 2% difference with the increases to the overall budget, it can end up being a fairly significant jump.

    I’m not really knowledgeable enough to know whether the 48/52 split is “reasonable” or not, but if it isn’t I’d be willing to continue adjusting it at a rate of .25 or .5 percent a year until it is.

    I don’t particularly enjoy paying taxes, but I think my money is being better spent at the civic level than it is by the senior governments, and I want to support the local businesses that are part of what makes Vancouver a great place to live.

  • Roger Kemble

    . . . it can end up being a fairly significant jump.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/gary_mason/somebody-needs-to-be-talking-about-bcs-debt-load/article2275817/

    . . . Yup Sean @ #1 looks like just what it needs . . .

  • Bill

    I’m sure businesses will be so impressed with the liveability of the “Greenest” city, they will be more than happy to overlook their property tax cost when deciding where to locate.

  • Brenton

    You can drop the sarcasm. Businesses look at more than tax rates when considering where to locate. Unsurprisingly, things like transportation, healthcare, and an available workforce are as important to many businesses.

  • Silly Season

    I am going to say this very quietly.

    I think that we are screwed. With land costs being what they are, and the City seeing multi-family condos as a panacea for all that ails us, tax-wise, (more) business will be chased out to the more affordable ‘burbs.

    I’m sorry. But we cannot survive as a city of nail salons and restaurants. We cannot build more transit—hell, we can’t operate what we currently have, due to lack of funding tof servicein this this area, because the relatively low cost of residential property tax here is not going to be enough to do that.

    Look at other city centres that actually have business centres. Those are the kinds of places that can justify more public transit.

    We cannot do that if we don’t have bigger businesses here. And @Brenton, businesses will not locate here because of the land costs that make leases unnaffordable (never mind impossible as developers rush to build condos over commercial buildings). Never mind that 40% of the people who currently come to the downtown to work ARE FROM THE ‘BURBS, not from here.

    I wonder if Larry Beasely has had any second thoughts about what he has wrought in the downtown peninsula?

    Now, we are into the next gen of starry-eyed planners at City Hall, who think that by building condo towers, all our problems will be solved.

    I refer you to a Twitter post by Frances: http://www.grist.org/cities/2011-12-12-cities-not-quite-as-awesome-as-we-like-to-think

    Our problems, especially our sustainability problems, on too many fronts, may just be beginning.

  • Bill McCreery

    Inciteful take Silly Season. Your question should be answered.

    Where are we going as a city? What kind of a city do Vancouverites want to have? Condo city? Industrial city? Office city? Balanced city? What is balanced? A green city? What is a green city? What is a green city in the context of uses? How do we optimize these to achieve one of the above?

    It would be nice if ‘we’ had these conversations wouldn’t it? Is someone having these conversations? Where? Who?

  • Everyman

    @Brenton 4
    Unsurprisingly, million dollar shacks are probably on business owners’ radar too. And that of their prospective employees.

    Oops, sorry, sarcasm.

  • Bill

    Brenton #4

    I wasn’t suggesting that businesses only care about the tax rate but rather they do not care about whether or not Vancouver is the “Greenest” city. The city should focus on the issues they can control (healthcare and climate change are not issues the city can control but taxes are). Transportation should have as an objective of moving the most people in the fastest means possible at the lowest cost and not the goal of reducing the number of CO2 producing cars.

    If meeting all these objectives happens to also result in being the “Greenest” city then great but it should be a by product and not the goal.

  • rf

    What Brenton is trying to say is that if you made $300,000 working your butt off last year, you are part of the 1% and should have to pay your fair share.

    But if you are a D.P.D.B. – (Douglas Park Douchebag) and your now live in a $2million house that went up $300,000 last year…well then you are a different kind of millionaire and you deserve a tax break.

  • Julia

    city spending run amuck.

    My employer deals with the city on a regular basis. We have 6 Christmas cards from city councillors, (3 identical picture) all mailed at the cost of .59 each.

    Would a private company do such a stupid thing?

  • Andy

    Julia – Private companies do plenty of stupider things then “waste” $3.54 in postage.

  • Julia

    no… $3.54 in postage, $6.00 in cards, $20 in labour to sign, label and stuff those 6 cards. That makes it $29.54

    I consider that stupid.

    Kerry Jang sent an email so they have the technology.

  • Andy

    Okay Julia but even so $29.54 isn’t the biggest civic waste of money worthy of outrage, not everyone wants email, and your original contention was that this was some sort of purely civic malfeasance that the private sector would be incapable of.

  • brilliant

    Quite frankly, e-mail Christmas cards suck.

  • Max

    @Andy#13:

    $29.54 times how many recipients?

    I highly doubt Julia was the only one to get the ‘cards.

    It all adds up, and our tax dollars could go to far better use.

    And it is far from being ‘green’.

  • Julia

    Andy, Brilliant… yes the Christmas card issue is a red herring but it is a simple illustration of not being very motivated to save money. Assume there were another 1,000 recipients of 6 Christmas cards. that is $29,540. Send 1 card with 6 signatures on it… I would.. you would, your boss would and spend the savings on something worthwhile. That is my only point with the card subject. Easy to see, easy to understand.

    There was a very expensive Services Review done in 2009 by Sierra Systems. Wonder why nobody has heard how the Hall is doing with the recommendations on cost savings and efficiencies. Saw in the Courier a few weeks back that a woman had to file an FOI request to get a copy of a report and sections were blanked out.

    WHY?