Counterpoint: Question #15
The Lindsay Post is running a weekly series of questions, with answers by both the "Yes" and "No" sides of the issues.

---

Question #15:
How will your system ensure fairer taxation?

---

Two-tier is more flexible, and is best of both worlds

      If ten people were shipwrecked on a desert island on Monday, by Saturday they would probably have established some form of government. By next Tuesday, they would be sending out the first tax bills.

      Unfortunately, paying taxes is not optional (Try ignoring your tax bill and see what happens.) Under penalty of law, we must render unto the taxman his due.

      What makes paying taxes even moderately palatable is getting value for money, and tax fairness: We want to know (1) what are we getting for our tax dollars? (2) How much are we paying compared with other, similar taxpayers? And (3) are our taxes being spent wisely?

      Which system of government, one-tier or two-tier, will best address these concerns?

      (1) Taxes are the price we pay for government services. Fair taxation means getting, and paying for, only the services you want, at a price you can afford. It means not paying for services you don't get, or services you don't want.

      How can the one-tier mega-City offer "fair" taxation? To do so they must give everyone the same level of service, otherwise, taxpayers see that they are paying for someone else's services and will demand the same for themselves. The result is a levelling-up of services to the highest, most costly level. That would be fine, if money was no object. Unfortunately, for most of us, that's not the case.

      The "No" camp will tell us that area rating will achieve tax fairness. Sorry folks. Been there, done that, and it hasn't worked. In spite of (or perhaps because of) a two million dollar investment in computers and software, area rating is apparently too complicated to administer. In 2002 City Council voted to eliminate area rating for streetlights and sidewalks. Crowds of taxpayers attended that meeting, spilling out into the corridors where they watched the proceedings on closed-circuit TV. They couldn't believe what they saw. City Council ignored them. These people will be voting "Yes."

      We had the purest form of area-rating before amalgamation. It was called the two-tier system If people in Sturgeon Point wanted historical streetlights, it was up to them: they were the only ones paying for them.

      (2) Your taxes shouldn't go up just so mine can come down. This is a key failure of amalgamation. In the mega-city there is only one general tax rate. This has resulted in unfair tax shifts, made even worse by provincial reassessments.

      Before amalgamation, with separate local tax rates for each municipality, Councils could compensate for increases in property assessments by lowering tax rates.

      (3) The third component of tax fairness is the wise use of our tax dollars. Before amalgamation nearly all of our tax dollars were spent on services and service delivery.

      The mega-City has spawned a huge bureacracy. More of our tax dollars are spent on administration, consultants and all of the baggage that goes with big government.

      Why is the two-tier system fairer? Because it's flexible. The one-tier structure is rigid: all services for this huge urban / rural / recreational area are administered from one central government. The two tier system combines the best of both worlds. Small local councils are accessable to their taxpayers, and can provide the services they want. Yet they can work together to achieve efficiencies. In fact, before amalgamation, the Victoria County "Who Does What Committee" had looked at fifty services delivered by either the upper-tier County or the lower-tier municipalities, and the municipalities had agreed on which level would deliver which service.

      Governments can't make taxes palatable, but at least they can make them fair. A "Yes" vote is a vote for tax fairness.