- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
Remember Cllr. Fox's famous quote? He said "that most people living on larger properties have made a lifestyle choice, and they are not unwilling to pay the extra Township is asking."! 
Err.. Charlie, methinks Mr. McTaggart may not agree with you!
Charlie, let me paint a clearer picture for you. I believe he is even saying that his tax load increases may force him and his family to leave and be forced to change his life style! Where do you recommend he move to? Hope? (No pun intended).
The Famous Fox quote which he will have to live with in about 12 months(I'm sure he will have his new opponents repeat it over & over again to him), was mentioned in a LFP posting in January and in the local press during which Cllr. Richter last attempted to help out the Township taxpayers when she said that "Council has declared war on the Township taxpayer".
To see this previous LFP posting go to the following link;
http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/2...-they-
want.html
Another classic from your own archives, and my personal favorite from Mayor Alberts very own township bureaucracy is this blurb,
'But it’s reassuring to note the compassion expressed in this year’s Township of Langley “Frequently Asked Questions About Municipal Taxes” document which states: “It must also be remembered that taxes are based on wealth, and the perceived ability to pay. It is generally understood that those who own homes with high assessment values would be able to access that wealth by selling their home.” '
which you wrote about on July 9th.
http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/2...e-
property.html
Renters don't have added annual large expenses such as water supply and septic systems repairs and other retrofits either. It's not worth it anymore because of the growing big municipal tax increases on top of these other costs to live on an acreage. Even Wiilouhby's small cereal box size row homes have these no extra cost subsidised services provided by the municipality and much lower tax increases too. They even have close by subsidised transit services as well. We don't have any. We will be forced to sell our home because of 4 to 7 thousand dollar taxes and increasing each and every year in our area.
LFP,
What you seem to not understand is that Mr. McTaggart, through his substantially increased equity in his house has a much greater financial capacity then he did in 2002. If the numbers presented are correct he now has an unrealized capital gain of THREE QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS in under five years. For him to complain that his taxes have gone up in that case is absolutely ridiculous. As someone who clearly has NDP/Liberal leanings LFP I don’t understand how you can sit there and complain that the richest amongst us shouldn’t pay their share of taxes. For you to say “Mr. McTaggart's property assessment has jumped so much that he now even lost his $570 home owners grant making the matter even worse” is the worst kind of pandering...the man just made $742,000 by sitting in his home!!!
As for your complaint that “These people still have to live somewhere with their families...What about the seniors on fixed income?” My response is simple. If you wish to continue living in a fully paid for million dollar asset there are plenty of simple ways of making that asset work for you. If you are a senior and you want to live in your house for the next 15- 20 years try a reverse mortgage. It is not like you are eating away at your nest egg. You are instead capitalizing on a windfall capital gain. Any competent financial advisor can show them a half-dozen ways to make use of the VAST SUMS OF MONEY they have made, not through hard work but through the happy growth in the capital equity in their houses.
As for your later comment “Do the recent North American headlines about 'credit crunch' and mortgage losses ring any alarm bells?” That statement in and of itself clearly demonstrates that you do not understand what is happening in the US market? I would advise that you sit down with a competent economist and have her explain to you what a sub-prime mortgage is, how a derivative works and why the housing market, while slumping is not crashing. Of note, the West Coast Market in the US (including Seattle) is not suffering from the price slump because the banks in Washington State didn’t finance the sub-prime market to the same extent they did in the Southern states.
To summarize, I am amazed that someone with left leanings (as you seem to have LFP) would go to bat for folks who through no extraordinary effort of their own have come into huge sums of money. If these folks consulted a competent financial professional she would be able to help them manage their windfall profits while still enjoying the comforts of their homes.
LFP,
As a matter of interest I just did the math (using a reverse mortgage calculator). If Mr. McTaggart chose to use a reverse mortgage to pay his entire property tax bill (not the increase but his entire bill) it would take him 22 years to use up the increased equity that he earned in 2007 alone.
Why is it that you are always so anal on both blogs and a Mr know it all.
The guy is a darn pastor XXXXX, and probably;
-does not earn as much as you,
-lucked in on a great deal 17 years ago on his house,
-has a family kids, dog etc,
-has a substantial mortgage still,
-other debts, car, etc,
-knows he can't get the same life style for his family anywhere else,
-knows that even small one bedroom condos sell for 250 to 400 thousand,
-he has other bills probably kids costs for college etc,
-and now he has to pay $6700 annually or broken down $559 a month just for property taxes!!!!!
Not everyone is a double income, no kids (or starting off only toddlers parents) d.i.n.k. like you and Bxxxxxx that probably just envys the poor guy's equity which you guys havn't got yet!
The thing he probably will end up doing with his equity is to guarantee a long term retirement home space whicxh will probably cost 3 to 6 thousand a month for him and his wife!
Meanwhile he like all of us has to make do with our middle income salaries and lots of bills, expenses and TAXES!
I can't stand big mouth, know it all PROFESSIONAL yuppies any more without saying something anymore.
Signed, FED UP
Edited By Siteowner
Look at it from the solution outward. Everyone has housing and is content. How did it happen? Through technocracy, how else could it have happened? Everyone is still the same person but the solution arrived. You're already living big time in my technocracy world. Are you denying it? Buying electronics all made elsewhere yet you are still anti-Walmart for your comfy goods? You want to keepr hiring young people on construction sites that hammer twice as fast as a senior? Get over it. Only the robotic arm will help you into the future, bought by people who didn't fail at math all through school.
On top of it all Blair, financial experts stated in the Vancouver Sun this week that to do a reverse mortgage is definitely the last thing you should consider. It all sounds very nice but there are pitfalls in everything when you do the homework.
Right now you are a cocky yupee just starting out, but mark my words, you will be a senior one day(its inevitable) and you will see things differently then you do today.
Fed up,
No please, tell me what you really think, you leave me struggling to figure out where you stand.
Well where to begin, you call me a “know-it-all”, I would challenge that assertion. Put simply, the reason I speak with authority on selected topics is that I choose to comment on those topics about which I have direct personal knowledge. If you dislike what I have to say then feel free to challenge the information I present. No suppositions, no “probably” just simple facts.
Let’s get to the personal insults part. I am neither a yuppie nor a d.i.n.k,. I’m not “jut starting out” as willy seems to think but rather I’m over 20 years out of high-school and into my third career. I sit right in the center of the middle class. I don’t particularly envy the Reverend I simply aspire to reach his level of financial security.
Regarding my post itself I note that throughout your screed you don’t actually challenge any of the information I presented. So let’s summarize. The Reverend may indeed be one of the nicest family men you know, with a handful of kids all needing braces and a university education. However, at this time he has at his discretion more financial resources than are in the possession of over 90% of the general populace of North America...don’t even get me started on where he ranks internationally. Yet in the same paper where I read about homeless people living in parks and the mentally ill being left to suffer without treatment I also get to read about a man of the cloth who is complaining about a magnificent bounty that has fallen into his lap, through no particular skill or expertise of his own (but because he had the good luck to purchase property in an area that is now booming).
Of note willy, please re-read the article in the paper. The people making the comments weren’t financial experts, one was “a local member of the Canadian Association for the Fifty Plus" and the other was “a staff lawyer for the law studies centre” and they recommend against reverse mortgages because they eat into the equity in your home and increases substantially over time (compound interest in reverse). Happily for the reverend he has such a stupendous equity in his house that he could easily afford the degradation...as I noted above, if he wanted to he could pay his taxes for 22 years on the equity built up in 2007 alone. Thus my point, that the Reverend give up some equity in his house for peace-of-mind...for the rest of his natural life. No Fed up he won’t end up penniless unless you consider $600 000 dollars in equity penniless. Alternatively, were he a family man needing cash well at this point based on the increased equity he has built up in the last five years he could sell his house and buy a brand new 3000+ sq ft place in Willoughby outright and still have enough money left over to send his kids to the best university in Canada and still never have to worry about having the cash to pay his property taxes.
It's pretty tough to spend you equity Blair. Mr. Taggart's good luck with his real estate buy brings him quite an increase in his fixed cost of living, and he probably was not looking for either. It doesn't seem right that he should have to change his lifestyle because of his good luck, but it does look like his good fortune has a negative side to it. Better to buy a lottery ticket where the winnings are not taxed? Not yet anyway!
Blair, Not financial experts? Well, they have more knowledge about the subject than you or me, so I consider them experts compared to us.
So Jordan won't respond but XXXXXX instead one of his 'Jordan's Junkies" 'LIBERALLY" throws around the red scare that everyone is a red commie who dosn't agree with Jordan and his Junkies.
Edited By Siteowner
Ah, don’t you love the voices of the anonymous?
As a matter of record I did not call anyone a commie. I did point out my perception that LFP and the site owner lean towards the left end of the political spectrum. This should come as no surprise to anyone who has paid attention to this blog especially since the site owner did run for MP under the Liberal banner in the not-too-distant past. My point was not to challenge their politics but to note what I perceived as an inconsistency between the traditional position of the left-leaning parties towards taxation (that a progressive tax system should draw proportionally more taxes from the wealthy and less from the poor) and LFP’s approach to this story.
As to my political leanings, well I’m a free agent. I am no politician’s acolyte. Politically I am right between Cllr Richter and Cllr Bateman and don’t tend to agree with one much more than I agree with the other.
Of note, Willy, I would argue that you aren’t in a position to judge my level of financial acumen. You may know less about financial planning than “a local member of the Canadian Association for the Fifty Plus", but I’m not sure on what basis you can decide that I share your level of knowledge and training.
It's just an observation Blair, but I have seen a many friends who started out as vocal NDP voters back when we were all younger. A few of them have become quite wealthy in latter years, and you've got to hear their political rhetoric today to believe they are the same people. I bring this up because it is human nature to achieve, and it is also just as natural to resent the interuption or destruction of that which was achieved. I know that you treasure your diploma, as you should, and that you would be upset if it was suddenly deemed void. In your mind you would still know that you have succeded, but a part of you would be very resentful.
People striving to have their dream home, are simply ordinary folks like the rest of yourself, and taxing away the joy of their particular success should not fall under the ugly umbrella with the logo: "We are in the upper income bracket, so nail us". When it comes to housing, there are many in my age group that have paid $40,000 or so dollars for properties that are now worth a million or more, but we are not rich by any means, and an increase in our fixed cost is very hurtful.
Methinks,
I understand where you are coming from. When you buy your first house it has huge sentimental value and if after 20 years its value has increased to a state that it is worth a million bucks then the threat of having to pay taxes on the assessed value ($1.1 million) rather than your perceived value ($40 K + sentiments) seems unfair. The difficulty lies in the progressive basis of our taxation system used to fund our democracy. Simply put, we, as a nation, have decided that those with more assets should help support those with fewer assets. The difficulty lies in the fact that your assets are in the form of equity in your personal dwelling and are therefore less liquid than say a venture capitalist with a big bank account. The problem our society has is that ultimately whether you have 1 million in cash or 1 million in real estate you still have 1 million in assets. So while you may not feel rich, you actually ARE rich. Thus while high property taxes may seem regressive, since the property taxes are based on assessed values they are classically progressive. If as individuals you want to change the social contract to say that property owners shouldn’t pay the same taxes then be aware that all you do is create a tax shelter that will ensure that the rich simply store their assets in real estate. Were that to happen you wouldn’t want to guess how high this would drive property values.
So now comes the problem, as a consequence of this whole house-rich-cash-poor scenario we have people who are being taxed at rates beyond their apparent means. Unfortunately, until we, as a nation, can renegotiate our social contract we have to accept that some house-rich-cash-poor individuals are going to be caught in the net of progressive taxation. Of course a number of financial instruments exist that allow individuals to obtain cash based on the value of their equity. The critical feature in all these instruments is that in exchange for cash you lose equity. The problem with this is that, in your case, equity and sentiment are interlocked. Having a fully paid-up mortgage gives you peace-of-mind. Sadly, for that I can’t help you. Unless you can get your assessment changed you will have to give up some peace-of-mind as the price of BEING wealthy, whether you FEEL wealthy or not.
You reveal a lot Blair with your comments about Mr. McTaggart and his ilk with your comment;
"the VAST SUMS OF MONEY they have made, not through hard work but through the happy growth in the capital equity in their houses."
and your;
"the man just made $742,000 by sitting in his home!!!"
and your;
"for folks who through no extraordinary effort of their own have come into huge sums of money."
Three clear jabs at mature and long term home owners. Statements like no hard work, sitting at home, no extraordinary work and finally luck, are uncalled for and in my opinion cross the line to unjustified attacks on this mature segment of our community. You have no idea what they went through to secure their assets! Does envy ring any bells?
These people generally have owned and maintained their homes for 10s and 20s of years. Save your barbs for those that during that same time have speculated and year after year bought/sold and profited by flipping essentially professionally with no capital gains taxes paid at all! They have probably made much more in capital gains tax free as gypsy property nomads than the much more community oriented MacTaggart types that you seemingly chastise for not being these gypsy nomads! In essence your recommendations to them are mostly to re-consider becoming gypsy property nomads as well! Great for a stable, concerned and socially contributing community don't you think? But then your retort simply would be that this comment proves my left leanings! LOL!
This Editor has to agree with a lot of the counter points made by other contributors as well that you obviously can not or most likely will not understand especially methinks when he says;
"but we are not rich by any means, and an increase in our fixed cost is very hurtful."
Finally your political personal commentary is so far off base it is ludicrous. Cllr. Richter once told me that the fed reform party asked her to run for the abbotsford/langley riding and finally she thought that going Liberal under Paul Martin was the right thing for her because of his more fiscally strong position that she has always supported. So if she was left wing Blair why would the reformers have pursued her?
Also when you say you are politically between Jordan Bateman and her, think about what you are saying because Bateman must then obviously be a left winger more than Richter. This is pretty much proven because of all his council lavish budget voting patterns and he even often first moves motions of way out of control spending, taxing and borrowing whereas Richter has always demonstrated the dramatic opposite spectrum end of dramatic fiscal conservative policies! Where does that put you? Murky as heck?
You obviously are not watching and understanding what's really going on. You are obviously caught up on the "Jordan's Junkies" venom about Richter (love the J & J definition, thanks anom). It patently is just that, venom. This Editor tires at the pathetic definition political label efforts of many especially Jordan's Junkies.
Blair, the age old definition of right, left & center has been compressed and dramatically narrowed over the years and clearly very much blurred. One finds that many politicians can no longer be easily defined in those categories any more. So be very careful when you try to make your points using your unsound political biases in future.
In my my opinion Richter is socially in the center and fiscally a right winger. Bateman is fiscally far on the left and socially far on the right obviously using your poor definitions! Some may say that he runs hot & cold!
So be more carefull when you so loosely spread your personal and inaccurate assessments around in the future.
Blair,
If you have a fat bank account you don't get taxed every year for it.
A house is basically shelter and does not deliver earnings. While it appreciates in value relative to the other costs of living, it is atill something that cannot be spent without borrowing against it, and paying interest on the loan (more fixed cost). Granted the lines can get blurred a bit, and there are no perfect "for examples". I'm aware that things like capital gain complicate the issue, but the road has big bumps in it still.
The $40,000 figure relates to a modest home in 1973 (mine), and at that time in the boonies of the day. My first home 10 previously was sold at a heavy loss due to a downturn in the Quebec economy (Separatists). That's just tough, and goes with the territory along with the ups and downs of home ownership. The local municipality did not refund my taxes!!! Your comments about sharing the load with other tax payers has merit, but what has happened to real estate values in recent years was not something that was anticipated, or even wished for, given that we still need that roof over our head, and downscaling is often not in the cards.
The city of Westmount (Now taken over by the Montreal Metro district) was managed like a well oiled clock at one time. Their method of taxation was to tax the square footage of the lot, and build what you like. A beautifully rich city was the result, and everyone was taxed fair and equally. Montreal has plundered that little utopia since they took it over.
So there are more equitable ways of taxing a community, such as the example above, without killing any of the geese that deliver the golden eggs. Thus far I have not seen anyone with imagination in any municipality, come up with anything but the standard tax and grab system.
I once lived in a city where newly developed areas were taxed at a higher rate to cover related infrastructure upgrades. As the years passed, their taxes became comparable to the city average. This idea has been rejected without more than a hint of interest by local politicians.
Our municipalities should not ask more from the established residents, for what is only equal to what the benefits are to new arrivals. Management based on the status quo is really not management at all IMO. What we are discussing is no exception, and there is no reason to follow methods of taxation that were initiated before the wheel was invented. I know it's a tall order, but some form of integration with higher levels of government might help level the playing field.
Methinks,
If you have a fat sum in your bank account then it was taxed at some point before it got there. If it was derived from wages then it was taxed through income taxes; if obtained through inheritance then inheritance tax took its cut. As well any increase in that sum (interest, dividends etc..) is taxed annually as income. Even an RRSP is simply a deferral. At some point you will be paying taxes, just, presumably, at a lower rate. Increase in equity based on capital appreciation is taxed through capital gains tax, which is only applied once a fixed asset is sold.
As for your comment that a house is for shelter, that is not really true. Virtually every house owner also sees the equity in their house as their nest egg..heck that is where the expression comes from. That is why folks who have paid off their houses are so loath to borrow against that asset and thus put themselves back into mortgages.
As for your comment about progressive taxes you are wrong there. Progressive taxes are a relatively new invention. It is said that Adam Smith was the first really determined purveyor of the progressive tax. Flat taxes were the rule in historical times but I’m not sure if this is really the venue to go over the rise of various taxation regimes. Suffice it to say that you are right, many different regimes exist. The progressive approach, is currently in vogue as it is considered the least-worst form of taxation.
I guess I was being polite Blair.
Just because you have an answer for everything doesn't mean you're right. I would far rather take a lawyer's and a member for the Canadian Ass. for over 50's opinion than someone off a 'blog'.
Blair,
You are forgetting that Mr. McTaggart's house was bought with after tax money. Yes, individuals pay capital gains tax, but only when they unload the asset that aquired those gains. Mr McTaggart's asset is becoming an intolerable expense.
Nest eggs are supposed to be for rainy days. In this case Mr. McTaggart's rainy day is the result of having a nest egg.
I think I will just hit the sack for the night, and dream about how I will apply my masterful economic skills to my prosperous business of Anvil Repair. It's one of those nitch businesses!
LFP,
Nope I’m not envious, I was however brought up with the traditional Canadian belief that hard work and risk should be rewarded. Conversely I was taught that when rewards appear as windfall they should be relished but not lorded over others. I have a disdain for those who inherit fame and/or fortune and then pretend that they somehow earned their place in the world. As a consequence of my upbringing I have come to believe that one should never complain when through no particular effort of your own riches come your way. Take your spoils and be discrete and never, complain because the world has dealt you a good hand.
As for your statement “Save your barbs for those that during that same time have speculated and year after year bought/sold and profited by flipping essentially professionally with no capital gains taxes paid at all!” Why would I disparage individuals who took risk in order to make their fortunes. In order to avoid capital gains these individuals had to have used the houses as principle residences otherwise they would be forced to pay capital gains tax.
Regarding my political commentary, if you can explain where I am mistaken in the following statements please do: In 1996 Kim Richter ran in Langley in the provincial election under the banner of the NDP. In 2004 Kim Richter ran in the federal election under the banner of the federal Liberals. In 2006 she publicly supported Michael Ignatieff for leader of the Liberal Party of Canada (and was thus still a federal Liberal). So when I write that she has NDP/Liberal leanings where did I go wrong? Was there a second Kim Richter running for the NDP in 1996? Did a different Kim Richter run for the Liberals in 2004? Was it a different Kim Richter getting described in the Vancouver Sun as a “big fish” supporter of Michael Ignatieff in 2006? It seems a bit disingenuous to ignore a person’s recent past when describing their political affiliations?
As for Cllr. Richter’s voting record, you are quite correct (which would make me wrong by the way) she is not liberal in her fiscal voting pattern, that being said she isn’t the conservative you claim either. Cllr Richter’s voting record seems at the outset to be financially conservative, however, based on my examination of the record I would suggest that she lacks consistency in her application of that conservatism. Last year she voted against a market rate for an airport lease for a big user and then turned around and voted for a similar rent for a private individual. She was fiscally conservative with the Grandstand but then suggested that the Township support an application for $500,000 from a social agency that had not even gone through the effort of completing an application for the funding. Strictly speaking financially she isn’t a Liberal/NDP type instead she meets the classical definition of a Populist.
Willy,
You weren’t being polite, you were being presumptuous. You can either believe me or not but since you don’t know my background it seems a bit disingenuous of you to make statements about what I know or don’t know. I feel that I have built a reputation on this site for being honest and writing factual statements. Sure I have strong opinions, but the information I present as facts are easily checked for their veracity. While you may disagree with my opinions, I have yet to see you challenge any of the factual information I have posted to date.
Methinks,
At this rate my entire lunch is going to be spent typing.... but anyways. I have not forgotten that Mr. McTaggert’s house was bought with after-tax money. That is why the initial principal of the house is shielded from taxation when the house is sold. Only the capital gains are taxed, much in the same way that interest on your savings are taxed but the principal in your saving’s account is not.
As you suggested, maybe the Township needs to look at another way to tax residences. I would suggest that the fairest way would be to tax based on an average assessment over your period of residence. Thus if you’ve lived in a house for one year you pay based on that value. If you’ve lived in the same house for five years then your tax is a five-year average of the assessments. That would allow longer term residents to benefit from lower taxes based on their historical contribution to the community. That would probably address LFP’s concern about people flipping houses. It would be necessary to limit the number of years used in the averaging (say five or ten years max) but that is up to the pencil pushers to work out.
Item:1 Blair I believe Richter's stance on airport lease rates is justifiably more critical of major corporations getting subsidized and at the same rate as any independent small time individual tenant.
Item:2 I believe Richter supported $500k to help finance an arson caused replacement building for a long term recognized and valuable non profit established Langley org. that cares for the communities social needy and DOES something about it as opposed to just talking and politiking about it! I would argue that a Langley Community Services investment helps minimize policing and other social services township costs in the long run. I also believe it is the right thing to do!
I pointed out, which you conveniently forgot, that the good ole boys on council on that very same day voted $500k EXTRA to fund a gold plated building for dogs! Which she voted against because it was over budget (and the boys voted for) and of questionable public value. In fact her comment after that vote was that if the good ole boys voted $500k for dogs welfare why did they not vote $500k for people's welfare(the good ole boys voted against LCS except one)? Gosh your really spouting like Jordan's Junkies more and more Blair!
Item 3: Re your original retort where you in my opinion for all intents and purposes essentially called me a financial retard when you said about me that;
"itself clearly demonstrates that you do not understand what is happening in the US market? I would advise that you sit down with a competent economist and have her explain to you what a sub-prime mortgage is, how a derivative works and why the housing market, while slumping is not crashing."
,amongst other non complimentary things you said about this Editor, I would like to remind you that when the US economy sneezes the rest of the world's economy is also prone to catching it's virus!
So yes Blair I do understand all the things you say I don't understand. In fact my comment was a pointed reference to dangerous financial harbingers as a result of the sub prime mortgage scandal caused credit crunch! What goes up can go down!
Just read today's G & M to see the ripple effects that should start to cause us some concern globally and perhaps yes nationally.
http://www.reportonbusiness.com/...ry/robNews/
home
and here;
http://www.reportonbusiness.com/...TPStory/
robNews
Quite frankly Blair I feel insulted with what you said about my financial acumen. I have to agree with the other writers on this string that your approach on commentary has over time not only become much more righteous and above reproach but that your derision of many including this Editor is way out of line often times now. Blair believe me when I say that I am very confident and comfortable of my knowledge on financials and economics!! My Harvard and Boston School of business economics classes do come in handy from time to time! (Now you've got me flaunting this credentials garbage too!!) I believe that an apology is in order! And perhaps even an adjustment is recommended as well!
PS: I was told by a very reliable source that LCS was told by the township that they did not need a formal application at the time! As such no application was provided! The application comment is just another ole boys club smokescreen justification for a bad politically motivated decision. In fact these very large historical applications have rarely been formal especially with these long term respected orgs. So please Blair stop regurgatating (spelling lol) 'good ole boys club' misinformation and misleading nonsense please. The real politicos know exactly why the good ole boys voted against LCS! Your not in the loop obviously and obviously in my opinion being used as a convenient puppet to help spread this nonsense and self serving 'good ole boy's club' convenient cover up propoganda.
LFP,
Regarding items 1 and 2: I didn’t express an opinion on Cllr. Richter’s votes I merely referred to them as an indication that her political leanings are those of a populist. She is clearly not a doctrinaire which should be viewed neither as good nor bad, just informative. You note you were informed by a personal source the LCS was told it didn’t need to fill out the paperwork. That information isn’t in the public domain and as a result I was not privy to it. My information is derived from public domain sources both newspapers and blogs. I’m not repeating ‘good old boy’s’ memos, just what I have read myself. The public record is the public record, once again this is neither good nor bad. Regarding the other grant for the animal shelter. First and foremost I did not "forget " about it. It simply wasn't relevant to the point I was making. I, personally, wasn’t a fan of that grant but it did have the benefit of having been processed according to Township requirements.
Regarding item 3, I didn’t call you a financial retard, I did, however feel that you were either deliberately or accidentally construing a specific financial situation in the US to imply that the residential housing market in Langley was about to crash. If I am wrong please feel free to correct me but that is how I read that sentence. Based on your reported credentials I can only presume that you understand the fundamental basis for the housing crunch in the US, which then begs the question, what is the basis of your belief that it will result in a crash of the market in Langley?
Regarding today’s Globe and Mail articles the final line of the first report clearly states “The bank has said the transactions are a routine occurrence at the end of quarters.” The second article also notes “For now, though, there are not yet many signs that more expensive short-term credit is hurting in Canada”.
Regarding the comment: “your approach on commentary has over time not only become much more righteous and above reproach but that your derision of many including this Editor is way out of line often times now”. I would argue that the tenor of my comments reflects the noxious nature of the commentary sent my way. I will admit I got a bit hot under the collar with your comment about the US market but for the most part I feel I have tried to be reasonable and factual. Still over the course of this thread I have been called “anal” a “Mr know it all” a “dink” a “yuppie” “cocky” “big mouthed” one of “Jordan’s junkies” a spewer of “venom”, having “unsound political biases” a “puppet” and envious. Through it all I have only asked that those who disagree with me simply point out where I am wrong. My comments have concentrated on financial matters. Normally a pretty dry topic and so I was really surprised to see the venom sent my way. It isn’t righteous and derisive to hope that those people who are insulting you incessantly could at least present some facts to back up their personal insults.
As for other threads, the reason I speak with authority when I post is that I stick to those topics about which I am knowledgeable. You don’t see me commenting randomly on Susan’s articles she clearly knows her stuff and I read her reports with interest. I didn’t comment once in “Muriel’s Thoughts” section and you will see that almost all my comments on Cllr Richter’s articles are positive and supportive. Most of my comments have been reserved for your postings and those of Kathleen. Regarding your posts I have disagreed heartily with you on Afghanistan and frankly find your badgering of Bateman rather tiring. Through reading the Township minutes last night I was surprised to note that his and Cllr. Richter’s voting records are remarkably similar. It’s a funny human trait that we heap our heaviest scorn on those most similar to ourselves. I am my most authoritative when replying to Cathleen. That is understandable since those few threads of hers on which I have commented dealt specifically with areas where, frankly, I am an authority. I’ve spent 15 years working 8-10 hours a day developing a knowledge base on the topic and as such I feel pretty comfortable speaking from authority.
On a more general level, throughout these threads I have always tried to reply to my critics but have noticed that when I ask you a question, it is often ignored or deflected. Certainly that is your right, but as you can imagine that I find it rather annoying and it makes you look like you aren’t interested in discussion but rather empty political rhetoric. As for the other commentors you will notice that I reserve most of my derision for those who choose to insult me ANONYMOUSLY. I post under my real name. In these posts I have revealed my full name, my occupation and anyone with a computer and some time can find my home address and my life story. If someone wants to know how I come to know something I tell them. In reply I am faced with the nameless and the faceless who insult me, and belittle me all from the shadows, never putting their heads up to expose their faces to the light of day. I will post information that is readily verifiable and am insulted by the nameless who tell me I am wrong but appear too lazy to even check to see if I have my facts straight. How can I not show derision to someone who would insult me from the safety of anonymity? In civilized nations people don’t carry out discussions from behind masks and the last time I checked this was still a civilized nation.
Put simply, my intention is to show deference and acknowledge the expertise of those who demonstrate mastery of their subjects; to admit I am wrong when I am confronted with facts that contradict my thesis; and return scorn to those who anonymously insult me.
Edited By Siteowner
Blair,
You are wrong about the appreciated value of your home being taxable when you sell. If that were the case we would all be in big financial trouble. Those who inherit your house after death would pay a tax though.
If your home is part of your business, or even a working farm, the tax man could have a very different view.
Your comments about taking a fresh look at what might be wrong with property taxes would be a blessing if they became a reality. We must all remind ourselves that when people are educated, it only provides them with a better ability to think. Until they do so, they can only repeat what has already been established.
The flat tax method that you are not in favour of, may have more merit than you think it has, but let's save that for another day. Besides, there are people who know more on the subject that both of us. It would be nice to hear their opinions.
A word of advice, do you think that perhaps you may feel belittled and insulted because your opponents in written debate also feel equally belittled and insulted by your strongly contrary editorial opinions and their characterization of their editorial opinions? Single word labels are leveled only at editorial opinions and are solely a result of editorial opinions.
Being presumptous as Willy suggests in your comments are sometimes much more insulting in many respects than labels such as I mentioned when you suggested I was economically challenged and that I should get economic professional counseling.
Perhaps an adjustment by all is in order. I regret this, but as you just said, you also got hot under the collar and did react as reflected in your opinions subtle or otherwise and obviously so did others perhaps, maybe not always as subtle as you.
I will be more diligent in preventing more of this chicken & the egg endless loop sparring.
Also finally on another note, I regret that some of words used may give wrong and erroneous impressions that I certainly do not and can not agree with at all nor wish to see being used any more.
In a nutshell some debate is better than no debate. Just look to Township Council for an example of the latter!
Blair - you are making too much sense of life and the way it operates....realize on this blog with that approach, you will never, ever be right or appreciated, after all Richter is the queen and can do no wrong, according to the LFP editor ( a family member). I wouldn't waste my time with this blog and the prevailing attitude.
Why are you here then, with it? Just having a peek or are you a spy? Or are you just wasting your time like you're wasting mine?
With It ! We missed your cheerful, unbiased and progressive commentary! It reminds me how much I missed having shingles!
Maybe Kim should buy Rev. McTaggart some lunch and talk about property taxes and the next election.
Commenting by HaloScan
