guyser Posted September 12, 2011 Report Posted September 12, 2011 What sucks about this whole scene from my perspective is that Ford ran on the platform that he wouldn't cut services. This is obviously a promise he can't keep. I suppose people were naive for believing him. He said he'd lay off the donuts too but his Lardship still cant. If there really is a $700,000 shortfall, no amount of "trimming" will make this problem go away. Deep cuts have to be made. Raise property taxes , they are far too low. Quote
Boges Posted September 13, 2011 Report Posted September 13, 2011 He said he'd lay off the donuts too but his Lardship still cant. Raise property taxes , they are far too low. I'm sure they will but by how much? 10-20%? Rob Ford can't do that, not what he was elected to do. Quote
Black Dog Posted September 13, 2011 Author Report Posted September 13, 2011 I'm sure they will but by how much? 10-20%? Rob Ford can't do that, not what he was elected to do. He wasn't elected to slash services either, but there you have it. Quote
Boges Posted September 13, 2011 Report Posted September 13, 2011 He wasn't elected to slash services either, but there you have it. Well this is the paradox he finds himself in. The truth is, during election campaigns people don't want to hear the honest truth. I suppose Kim Campbell was right about something. But I'm sure "Ford Nation" would be much more eager to forgive him if he cut services than if he raised taxes. People who are screaming right now likely didn't vote for him in the first place. Quote
Black Dog Posted September 13, 2011 Author Report Posted September 13, 2011 (edited) Well this is the paradox he finds himself in. The truth is, during election campaigns people don't want to hear the honest truth. I suppose Kim Campbell was right about something. People who voted for Ford because they believed a word he said deserve everything they get. But I'm sure "Ford Nation" would be much more eager to forgive him if he cut services than if he raised taxes. People who are screaming right now likely didn't vote for him in the first place. Well, its "Ford Nation" who stands to lose the most from these service cuts, so we'll see about that. As an aside, does anyone else find it odd that despite the noises the Fordites made early in their term about giving voice to the suburban voter who was shut out during Miller's tenure, their agenda has been focused almost exclusively on downtown (subways, Jarvis bike lanes, the waterfront, etc.) The only concessions they've made to their base are either symbolic (like the Sheppard subway that will likely never be built) or transparent and counterproductive pandering (axing the VRT). Edited September 13, 2011 by Black Dog Quote
MiddleClassCentrist Posted September 14, 2011 Report Posted September 14, 2011 (edited) My favourite thing... about all of this "gravy"... is that it is all cuts to services for the poor. 700mill/5.1mil = $137 dollars of gravy per Torontonian. ... CONSERVATIVE FOREVER!!! AMIRITE? Edited September 14, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
MiddleClassCentrist Posted September 14, 2011 Report Posted September 14, 2011 Well this is the paradox he finds himself in. The truth is, during election campaigns people don't want to hear the honest truth. I suppose Kim Campbell was right about something. But I'm sure "Ford Nation" would be much more eager to forgive him if he cut services than if he raised taxes. People who are screaming right now likely didn't vote for him in the first place. Nah, I think that people are most accepting of a marginal tax increase if they keep services that make their community better... like helping the poor. Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
Boges Posted September 14, 2011 Report Posted September 14, 2011 Nah, I think that people are most accepting of a marginal tax increase if they keep services that make their community better... like helping the poor. Ford's already said he's willing to hike taxes about 3%. If you believe there really is a 700gr deficit then 3% or even 5% won't cover it. Quote
Black Dog Posted September 14, 2011 Author Report Posted September 14, 2011 Ford's already said he's willing to hike taxes about 3%. That's basically the rate of inflation, which doesn't even cover the shortfall from the 2011 property tax freeze. If you believe there really is a 700gr deficit then 3% or even 5% won't cover it. Correction: $774 million. Anyway, it'll be less than that, but still significant. It'd be less troublesome if Toronto's property tax rates were more in line with those of its neighbours in the GTA. And if his Lardship hadn't decided to freeze taxes for no particular reason last year. Quote
Boges Posted September 14, 2011 Report Posted September 14, 2011 That's basically the rate of inflation, which doesn't even cover the shortfall from the 2011 property tax freeze. Correction: $774 million. Anyway, it'll be less than that, but still significant. It'd be less troublesome if Toronto's property tax rates were more in line with those of its neighbours in the GTA. And if his Lardship hadn't decided to freeze taxes for no particular reason last year. You could blame that on David Miller too BTW. He could have brought taxes in-line with the rest of the GTA during his term, don't bet on Rob Ford doing it. I guess instead he did things like the $60 license fee and the land transfer tax. But when a single bedroom house next to a railway goes for $229,000 the burden of the average Toronto resident is still pretty high regardless of the actual rate. So the comparison isn't terribly fair. http://www.moneyville.ca/article/1052635--second-cheapest-house-in-toronto-has-everything-but-a-buyer Quote
Black Dog Posted September 14, 2011 Author Report Posted September 14, 2011 You could blame that on David Miller too BTW. He could have brought taxes in-line with the rest of the GTA during his term, don't bet on Rob Ford doing it. I guess instead he did things like the $60 license fee and the land transfer tax. But when a single bedroom house next to a railway goes for $229,000 the burden of the average Toronto resident is still pretty high regardless of the actual rate. So the comparison isn't terribly fair. Why is it that some alternate revenue generating schemes are bad (VRT, land transfer tax) while others, such as higher user fees or the one-time sale of city assets, are a-ok? Quote
Boges Posted September 14, 2011 Report Posted September 14, 2011 Why is it that some alternate revenue generating schemes are bad (VRT, land transfer tax) while others, such as higher user fees or the one-time sale of city assets, are a-ok? I never said it was bad. I would be peeved if my municipality tacked on $60 to my annual birthday walk of shame to the Service Ontario Kiosk though. But as someone who thinks drivers should pay more you probably think it should be $300+ eh? Quote
Black Dog Posted September 14, 2011 Author Report Posted September 14, 2011 (edited) I never said it was bad. I would be peeved if my municipality tacked on $60 to my annual birthday walk of shame to the Service Ontario Kiosk though. But as someone who thinks drivers should pay more you probably think it should be $300+ eh? I don't profess to know what a reasonable amount would be. I don't think $60 is particularly onerous, though. It would be great if that fee could be applied directly to infrastructure improvements rather than general revenue, but I'm not sure that's even possible. Point is, there's no reason for tax hikes or other alternative revenue generating tools to be off the table if the budget crisis is as bad as the Ford's claim, especially since the "spending problem" is nowhere near as bad as the fat man made it out to be in his campaign. In fact, IMO, no one should complain about high taxes unless they are willing to articulate what an acceptable amount of tax would be to them,, and what services they'd be willing to live without in order to enjoy that rate. Meanwhile: Rob Ford's support sinking faster than Rob Ford in a swimming pool. Edited September 14, 2011 by Black Dog Quote
guyser Posted September 14, 2011 Report Posted September 14, 2011 Meanwhile: Rob Ford's support sinking faster than Rob Ford in a swimming pool. Fat dudes float quite well ! What they cannnot do is swim very fast, so they get eaten up by the competition....or somesuch. The current is getting stronger. Quote
Smallc Posted September 14, 2011 Report Posted September 14, 2011 I like the childish attacks on Rob Fords weight. Real class being displayed here. Quote
Boges Posted September 14, 2011 Report Posted September 14, 2011 See being fat is a choice so it's cool. Gay jokes for Smitherman or going after him for his drug problems. Totally offside. Quote
guyser Posted September 14, 2011 Report Posted September 14, 2011 See being fat is a choice so it's cool. Gay jokes for Smitherman or going after him for his drug problems. Totally offside. Point(s) taken. Quote
MiddleClassCentrist Posted September 14, 2011 Report Posted September 14, 2011 I don't think $60 is particularly onerous, though. So why not just raise taxes an average of $137 a year? Surely 137 can't be onerous, maybe more annoying. Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
guyser Posted September 14, 2011 Report Posted September 14, 2011 So why not just raise taxes an average of $137 a year? Surely 137 can't be onerous, maybe more annoying. Because there is no equality in that. Eaising the taxes, which should be done for property owners, is a fair and balanced way to achiev the goals this city wants and needs. Of course it isnt that much money, but adding it on top of a prop tax bill for a $250g home is a big step, not so much the million dollar home. Quote
Argus Posted September 15, 2011 Report Posted September 15, 2011 Because there is no equality in that. Eaising the taxes, which should be done for property owners, is a fair and balanced way to achiev the goals this city wants and needs. Of course it isnt that much money, but adding it on top of a prop tax bill for a $250g home is a big step, not so much the million dollar home. The people in Toronto only have three choices. Raise taxes a lot to balance the budget. Cut spending a lot to balance the budget. Keep borrowing money your kids will have to pay for until you go bankrupt. If Torontonians are ready to turf their new mayor just because of the TALK of cutting services then they better either prepare for big tax hikes or bankruptcy. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted September 15, 2011 Report Posted September 15, 2011 Who needs the Riverdale Farm? Soon, kids will have the waterfront ferris wheel and mall Will the taxpayers be paying for the mall or ferris wheel or will it be paid for by their users? I'm guessing the latter. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted September 15, 2011 Report Posted September 15, 2011 Raise property taxes , they are far too low. Toronto's property taxes are the highest in Canada already. And property taxes are regressive, in that they hit lower income households much worse than higher income households. Also, the odd way property taxes are assessed in Ontario means renters pay at twice the rate as home owners. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted September 15, 2011 Report Posted September 15, 2011 Toronto's property taxes are the highest in Canada already. No they are not, the tax rate is the lowest around. The amount of tax may be the highest, but thats based on value , MVA. And property taxes are regressive, in that they hit lower income households much worse than higher income households. Also, the odd way property taxes are assessed in Ontario means renters pay at twice the rate as home owners. It is odd how renters are gouged, but that needs to be addressed too. Quote
Rue Posted September 15, 2011 Report Posted September 15, 2011 See being fat is a choice so it's cool. Gay jokes for Smitherman or going after him for his drug problems. Totally offside. Why? Says who? I give you permission to be politically incorrect. Oh wait here it is..what's the difference between George and Rob? Nothing. You can't turn yer back on either without getting screwed and they are both fat and addicted to coke. Quote
Argus Posted September 15, 2011 Report Posted September 15, 2011 No they are not, the tax rate is the lowest around. The amount of tax may be the highest, but thats based on value , MVA. So what? That just means you're carrying a higher mortgage. It doesn't mean you're making more money. The guy trying to pay for my house in Toronto whose carrying a mortgage twice the size of mine is finding it more difficult to pay it as it is. Slapping on ever higher taxes is just going to make it tougher. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.