← A Plan for Toronto | Money & Taxes
Money & Taxes
Property Tax Geared to Income
Property tax
Property Tax Geared to Income
A One-Year Freeze, Followed by Fairness Based on Ability to Pay
Toronto is becoming increasingly unaffordable. Property taxes, housing costs, utilities, food, transportation and everyday expenses are putting enormous pressure on families, seniors and people living on fixed or modest incomes.
A home may increase in assessed value, but that does not mean the person living in it has more money in their bank account.
A senior who bought a home decades ago may now live in a valuable property while surviving on a modest pension. A family may have experienced a job loss or reduction in income. A homeowner’s property value can rise substantially without their salary rising at all.
My proposal is therefore based on a simple principle:
Property-tax policy should recognize people’s ability to pay, not simply the value of the roof over their heads.
As Mayor, I would introduce a two-stage Property Tax Affordability and Fairness Plan.
1. Freeze residential property-tax increases for one year
For the first budget under my administration, I would propose no increase in Toronto’s residential municipal property-tax rate, subject to Council approval and adoption of a balanced City budget.
The freeze would give homeowners immediate breathing room while my administration undertakes a comprehensive review of City finances.
This would not mean abandoning public services. It would mean requiring the City to examine its spending before automatically asking residents for more money.
Toronto’s 2026 operating budget is approximately $18.86 billion, of which approximately $5.79 billion comes from property-tax revenue. The City’s 10-year capital plan is approximately $63.06 billion.
During the freeze year, my administration would undertake a comprehensive expenditure and value-for-money review focusing on major contracts, consulting expenditures, administrative duplication, procurement, project overruns, capital-project management, vacancies and unnecessary expenditures.
Essential frontline services, including transit, emergency services, housing, infrastructure maintenance and services supporting vulnerable residents, would be evaluated separately from opportunities to reduce waste and improve efficiency.
The results would be published for Torontonians to see.
2. Introduce Property Tax Geared to Income
After the freeze year, I would work toward a permanent Property Tax Geared to Income framework.
Toronto would continue to levy property taxes within Ontario’s municipal taxation system, but qualifying owner-occupied households would receive income-tested protection against future municipal property-tax increases.
I would ask City finance and legal staff to develop and cost a sliding-scale model for Council consideration.
An initial model for study would be:
Household income below $60,000: protection from 100% of the annual municipal property-tax increase.
$60,000–$80,000: protection from 75% of the increase.
$80,000–$100,000: protection from 50% of the increase.
$100,000–$120,000: protection from 25% of the increase.
Above $120,000: regular property-tax treatment.
These brackets are proposed starting points. Before implementation, they would be independently costed using Toronto household-income and property-tax data, and the final thresholds would be considered publicly by Council.
Income thresholds should also be indexed so that inflation does not gradually push households out of the program.
3. Protect seniors and people on fixed incomes
No senior should have to consider selling a longtime home simply because the neighbourhood became more expensive.
Toronto already recognizes this problem.
For 2026, the City’s Property Tax Increase Cancellation Program has a household-income ceiling of $62,000 and an assessment ceiling of $975,000, along with age/disability eligibility requirements. Toronto also operates a Property Tax Increase Deferral Program.
The City’s 2026 budget estimates approximately 12,000 households will benefit from existing property-tax relief programs.
My proposal would build on this existing infrastructure while examining how income-tested protection can be made available more broadly.
4. Expand the principle beyond age and disability
Financial hardship does not begin at age 65.
A 45-year-old parent who loses a job can face the same risk of losing a home as a retired homeowner.
A family earning $65,000 in Toronto can face serious affordability pressures even though they may not qualify for existing property-tax cancellation programs.
That is why I would ask the City to examine expanding income-tested protection beyond the existing senior and disability categories.
There is an important legal limitation that must be addressed transparently.
Section 283 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 expressly provides for deferral, cancellation or other relief from property-tax increases for low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities.
My administration would therefore ask the City Solicitor to determine how far Toronto can expand income-tested relief using its existing authority.
Where provincial legislation is required, I would formally ask the Government of Ontario to amend the City of Toronto Act to provide Toronto with broader authority to establish income-tested residential property-tax relief.
I will not promise a mechanism that Toronto does not legally have the authority to establish.
5. Design the program carefully
A household should not receive ongoing relief simply because its income happens to be low in one particular year.
The program would therefore be designed with safeguards.
City staff would examine an appropriate principal-residence requirement, property-value ceiling, household-income definition, anti-avoidance provisions and treatment of unusual circumstances.
The objective is to protect ordinary Toronto households facing genuine affordability pressures, not create a tax loophole.
Questions? Email bethechangeno1@gmail.com, call (647) 785-3729
6. Make applying simple
Toronto should not create another complicated bureaucracy.
The City already allows applicants for existing relief programs to have household income securely verified through the Canada Revenue Agency.
I would build on that system.
The goal would be a simple annual application with CRA income verification, clear eligibility requirements and an accessible alternative for residents who cannot apply digitally.
Residents should not need to hire an accountant to determine whether they qualify.
7. Renters must not be forgotten
More affordable property taxes for homeowners alone will not solve Toronto’s affordability crisis.
Renters also face increasing housing costs.
My administration would therefore develop renter-affordability measures alongside the property-tax program rather than claiming that homeowner tax relief automatically benefits tenants.
The principle should be consistent:
Housing affordability policies must protect people according to their economic circumstances, whether they own or rent their homes.
8. Small businesses need protection too
Toronto’s neighbourhood businesses are also struggling with rent, taxes, operating expenses and declining affordability.
Toronto already provides a reduced property-tax rate through its Small Business Property Tax Subclass; the City’s 2026 budget says the reduction applies to more than 28,000 small businesses.
My administration would review the effectiveness of this program and examine additional targeted relief for genuinely small and independent businesses, while ensuring that benefits intended for small businesses do not simply become subsidies for large corporations or commercial landlords.
9. Accountability before asking taxpayers for more
The principle behind this proposal goes beyond property taxes.
Before City Hall asks a family struggling with groceries, mortgage payments and utility bills for another dollar, residents deserve to know how the money already collected is being spent.
My administration would publish clear information about City spending, major contracts, capital-project costs, cost overruns and the results of expenditure reviews.
When additional revenue is genuinely necessary to maintain services, residents should be able to see why.
When savings can be achieved through better management, those savings should come before unnecessary increases.
The plan
Year One: FREEZE
Propose a one-year freeze on residential municipal property-tax increases while protecting essential services.
Year One: REVIEW
Conduct and publish a comprehensive review of City expenditures, major contracts, procurement and capital projects.
Year Two onward: REFORM
Introduce the broadest legally permissible income-tested property-tax relief program, subject to Council approval and detailed costing.
PROTECT
Give the greatest protection to lower-income homeowners, seniors and households experiencing genuine financial pressure.
MODERNIZE
Use existing CRA income-verification infrastructure to make applications straightforward.
SEEK PROVINCIAL AUTHORITY
Where Toronto’s existing legislation does not permit broader income-geared relief, formally seek amendments to the City of Toronto Act.
REPORT
Publish the program’s annual cost, number of households assisted, income distribution of recipients and impact on City revenues.
Freeze. Review. Reform.
My approach to property taxes is not simply about whether the annual increase is zero, two per cent or four per cent.
It asks a more fundamental question:
Who can actually afford to pay more?
I am proposing a one-year residential property-tax freeze while we examine City spending, followed by a new approach to property-tax relief based on household income and ability to pay.
Your home’s value can rise without your income rising.
A Toronto resident should not be pushed out of a longtime home simply because the value of the land underneath it increased.
Property Tax Geared to Income means protecting people’s homes while maintaining the revenues Toronto needs to provide the services we all depend on.
It is an approach based on affordability, fiscal responsibility, transparency and fairness.
Questions? Email bethechangeno1@gmail.com, call (647) 785-3729
Honest, accountable government
Honest, evidence-based budgets [City Hall delivers]
Multi-year budgets, repair-first capital, and no election-year gimmicks. Decisions made on evidence, with the books open.
Accountability for big projects & big events [City Hall delivers]
A live public dashboard for every major project (budget, forecast, changes, percent complete) independent gate reviews before a project advances or gets a top-up, and a full public accounting of World Cup spending. Where the city gets better value doing the work itself, I’ll bring it in-house with our own crews and local hourly hires instead of costly outside contracts, so public money buys results and local jobs, not contractor markups.
Clean government and open competition [City Hall delivers]
Lobbying transparency, no access-for-donors, close the dark-money loophole, and open, fair competition so small and mid-size businesses can win city work.
Audit first, then build on what’s underway [City Hall delivers]
Toronto already has major builds in motion, the Ontario Line, Scarborough Subway Extension, Eglinton Crosstown West, Gardiner rehab, and waterfront / Port Lands work. I won’t throw them out. I will put an engineer’s audit on schedule, cost, contracts, and delivery first, then finish what works, fix what doesn’t, and stop waste before we add new megaprojects.
Some of these are provincial Metrolinx projects. City Hall still owes residents a clear audit of city costs, local impacts, and whether delivery matches the promise.
Proof it can be done
New York just elected a mayor on this agenda
An affordability platform isn’t a fantasy. New Yorkers voted for one, and the fight to deliver it shows both what a city can do on its own and what it has to win from a higher government. Here’s how it maps onto my plan.
Drivers
New York: Won debt relief for taxi drivers and set minimum per-trip pay through the city’s own taxi commission.
My plan for Toronto: Use Toronto’s rideshare and taxi licence to require pay transparency, deactivation protection, and a fair-earnings floor.
Tax the rich to pay for it
New York: Is fighting to fund free buses and child care by taxing corporations and top earners, a fight that runs through the state capital.
My plan for Toronto: Tax what the city can reach (luxury and vacant homes, a commercial parking levy) and demand the province and Ottawa deliver their share.
Affordability
New York: Froze rents on stabilized units and is pushing to make buses free, the delivered wins and the ones still being fought for.
My plan for Toronto: Free TTC, homes you can own on public land, and affordable child care.
The honest part: some of these are already done, and some are still being fought for at the state level. That’s exactly the line my plan draws, what a mayor delivers, and what a mayor has to win from Queen’s Park and Ottawa.
More on this topic: Money & Taxes. All issues: A Plan for Toronto.
