Ford era begins in Toronto

[guyser]

It's blocked...now getting back to the Ford era..Cherry intentionally provoked and irritated the left - and to show you how stupid they are they went for the bait.

And Cherry now releases he was wrong to do so at the event.

[Black Dog]

And Cherry now releases he was wrong to do so at the event.

I loved how he kept referring to Rob as Doug. Out of the mouths of babes senile coots...

[guyser]

I loved how he kept referring to Rob as Doug. Out of the mouths of babes senile coots...

shows inviting him was a dumb move........the first of many no doubt.

[daniel]

Rick Mercer rants make more sense than Don Cherry. Don Cherry addresses Toronto City Council; now the RoC is back to laughing at us.

[Black Dog]

It's nice to see new TTC Chair and Ford puppet has been working hard to memorize the new lines Nick Kouvalis gave her.

“Ideally, we’d have transit on every major line. And it would be underground. But, you know, you do need to make choices. And what I do believe strongly is that we’re going through the right process,” she said. “We did have a referendum – it was the municipal election. … Transit City was not endorsed as the transit vision for Toronto.”

Link

Unless Stintz believes "stopping the gravy train" was actually Ford's transportation plan, she's eitehr mistaken or just lying.

[Oleg Bach]

I loved how he kept referring to Rob as Doug. Out of the mouths of babes senile coots...

All the baby boomers still look in the mirror and see a guy they can't trust because he might be over thirty. Surprise boomers! You are heading towards 70..and if you have not noticed _ Don Cherry is a senile crazy old man that was never that bright even in his youth...so I assume that Ford might have one weakness...dellusionism.

[Black Dog]

Battle to scrap car tax heats up

As a relative newcomer to T.O. and a non-driver, can someone tell me what the problem with this tax is, aside from the obvious fact that nobody like to pay taxes?

[nicky10013]

Battle to scrap car tax heats up

As a relative newcomer to T.O. and a non-driver, can someone tell me what the problem with this tax is, aside from the obvious fact that nobody like to pay taxes?

It's just the fact that no one likes to pay taxes.

[bloodyminded]

Battle to scrap car tax heats up

As a relative newcomer to T.O. and a non-driver, can someone tell me what the problem with this tax is, aside from the obvious fact that nobody like to pay taxes?

With a fringe of exceptions, nobody actually objects to taxes; the usual suspects screaming about taxes will generally support tax increases for certain things: military, increases in incarceration, etc.

Edited December 15, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Black Dog]

Ford's supporters will be happy to hear the vehicle tax just got killed in council. Of course the fact that it will cost $36 million more to eliminate it as of Jan. 1 instead of waiting until September is likely to be lost on the fiscal rersponsibility crowd...

[Black Dog]

It's just the fact that no one likes to pay taxes.

Well, if the online comments in the local newspapers are anything to go by, you're correct. it seems a good number of people out there are credulous dolts who believe that the city can find that $64M in lost revenue by looking under the seat cushions at city hall.

Why taxes like this matter.

Unlike many big North American cities, which have sales taxes and even income taxes to rely on to pay for transit and other services, Toronto relies mainly on property taxes. That worked well enough when it was a smaller place with less expensive operations. It is much harder now that it has become a megacity, especially since the provincial government saddled it with responsibility for things like handing out welfare.

Recognizing that Toronto was in a fix, and unwilling to “upload” many of the obligations it had imposed on the city, at least at the pace the city wanted, the provincial government did the city the dubious favour of giving it new taxing powers under the City of Toronto Act. City Hall studied a number of options, from liquor and cigarette taxes to an entertainment tax. The tax on car registration was deemed the easiest and cheapest to collect. City Hall used the same new powers to enact a tax on land transfers.

The idea was not to soak the taxpayer for the fun of it but to diversify the city’s sources of revenue, lessening its reliance on the property tax and helping to get rid of a chronic budget shortfall that has touched half a billion dollars a year.

Since Ford appears to be committed to choking off these sources of revenue based on the perception that the difference can be made up in "efficiencies" (clearly an idea derived from inhaling too much adhesive at his dad's sticker factory), it's only a matter of time before he's a regular fixture outside the doors of Queen's Park, empty Tim Horton's cup in front of him, begging for change.

Edited December 17, 2010 by Black Dog

[Shady]

Good. The tax should be killed. It's an unfair tax, and a disincentive for Toronto to attract people and business to the city. It's just another government grab into your pocket. It's funny that to some people, fiscal responsiblity always means increasing the amount of money government takes out of citizens pockets and the private sector in general. It rarely has to do with government spending, which always outpaces tax revenue, regardless of tax and their rates. We're always asked to do with a little less. Well, this time it's the governments turn. Locally, provinically and federally. They should all be ready to get by with a little less.

[Black Dog]

Good. The tax should be killed. It's an unfair tax, and a disincentive for Toronto to attract people and business to the city.

Unfair? It's a user fee, the kind conservatives usually love. As for the rest, prove it.

It's just another government grab into your pocket.

It's a revenue generator for a city that has precious few options in that regard.

It's funny that to some people, fiscal responsiblity always means increasing the amount of money government takes out of citizens pockets and the private sector in general. It rarely has to do with government spending, which always outpaces tax revenue, regardless of tax and their rates.

It may be that whatever hamlet you live in can balance the budget by not installing a traffic light at the one intersection in town, but spending at the municipal level, especially for a city of 2.5M people with aging infrastructure and precious few options for revenue generation, will almost always outpace revenue because cities cost a bundle to run. Toronto actually does pretty well in that regard compared to cities of its size, considering the hole it had to climb out of after its Harris-enforced amalgamation.

We're always asked to do with a little less. Well, this time it's the governments turn. Locally, provinically and federally. They should all be ready to get by with a little less.

Then people should be prepared to accept less from their government. But they don't, a political reality even Rob Ford's walnut-sized brain can comprehend. Why else is His Lardship guaranteeing no service cuts?

Edited December 17, 2010 by Black Dog

[Shady]

Unfair? It's a user fee, the kind conservatives usually love. As for the rest, prove it.

A user fee for using my own private property? What's next? A user fee for when somebody wants to use their television? Or computer? Or lawn mower?

It's a revenue generator for a city that has precious few options in that regard.

So what. It doesn't mean it's right.

It may be that whatever hamlet you live in can balance the budget by not installing a traffic light at the one intersection in town, but spending at the municipal level, especially for a city of 2.5M people with aging infrastructure and precious few options for revenue generation, will almost always outpace revenue because cities cost a bundle to run. Toronto actually does pretty well in that regard compared to cities of its size, considering the hole it had to climb out of after its Harris-enforced amalgamation.

Oh I know, hamlets like New York City can slow the rate of the growth of their budgets, and even make cuts, but poor Toronto just can't make that happen. Perhaps if city worker's salaries and benefits didn't soar way past inflationary levels, and were more in line with what the market would pay for their types of jobs, the budget might be a little easier to control.

Then people should be prepared to accept less from their government.

Most people would be. But there's a small, loud minority that would scream like hell. Mostly the city workers who's jobs would be effected.

[Black Dog]

A user fee for using my own private property? What's next? A user fee for when somebody wants to use their television? Or computer? Or lawn mower?

Do you have to register your TV and lawn mower? Do your TV and lawn mower require a vast government-funded infrastructure for you to use them?

So what. It doesn't mean it's right.

What do you mean "right"? Morally?

Oh I know, hamlets like New York City can slow the rate of the growth of their budgets, and even make cuts, but poor Toronto just can't make that happen. Perhaps if city worker's salaries and benefits didn't soar way past inflationary levels, and were more in line with what the market would pay for their types of jobs, the budget might be a little easier to control.

First off: please provide a cite on the wage comparison thing.

Moreover, this is pretty facile considering the context. In the first point, Ford has promised, nay guaranteed, no service cuts: you know the dramatic across the board cuts places like New York have made? As for the second, I'd also be able to take your point on city salaries more seriously if Ford wasn't planning a move that would result in dramatically increased salaries for TTC workers, (the TTC being the second largest non-mandated budget item in the budget).

Most people would be. But there's a small, loud minority that would scream like hell. Mostly the city workers who's jobs would be effected.

If that's the case, why is there no mention of the possibility of service cuts from the Ford camp? One would think that if people really supported a by any means neccesary approach to the budget, that would have been part of his campaign or at the very least not something he'd actively deny.

[Shady]

Do you have to register your TV and lawn mower? Do your TV and lawn mower require a vast government-funded infrastructure for you to use them?

That's what gasoline taxes and property taxes are for. You can't be this stupid.

I'd also be able to take your point on city salaries more seriously if Ford wasn't planning a move that would result in dramatically increased salaries for TTC workers, (the TTC being the second largest non-mandated budget item in the budget).

Well, then he's doing the wrong thing in that case. That's as bad as the car tax.

If that's the case, why is there no mention of the possibility of service cuts from the Ford camp?

I don't know. But like I said, the car tax is wrong, and so is the move resulting in increased salaries for TTC workers.

[M.Dancer]

Unfair? It's a user fee, the kind conservatives usually love.

The problem with this users fee, it lets thousands of users off without paying. The bedroon communities surrounding Toronto use the roads almost( if not as much, or more ) as I do. Yet I have to pay. I live and work a short distance from home but pay as much as a commuter who lives at the border, and again, the commuter driving in from Pickering or Oakville pays nothing.

I don't know if this is common, but I have heard of people renewing their license in places like Banmcroft or where ever they have a cottage and avoiding the tax altogether.

[M.Dancer]

Good. The tax should be killed. It's an unfair tax, and a disincentive for Toronto to attract people and business to the city. It's just another government grab into your pocket. It's funny that to some people, fiscal responsiblity always means increasing the amount of money government takes out of citizens pockets and the private sector in general. It rarely has to do with government spending, which always outpaces tax revenue, regardless of tax and their rates. We're always asked to do with a little less. Well, this time it's the governments turn. Locally, provinically and federally. They should all be ready to get by with a little less.

Make up your mind.

I also endorse the paying of taxes.

[Shady]

Make up your mind.

How so? Does endorsing paying taxes mean agreeing with every tax that bureaucrats come up with? Of course not. Is that hard for you to understand? If the tax doesn't get eliminated, of course I'd pay it. But it doesn't mean one can't disagree with certain types of taxes.

[Black Dog]

That's what gasoline taxes and property taxes are for. You can't be this stupid.

Property taxes go to the entire city budget (as did the VRT, but it shouldn't have: they screwed that one up), not just infrastructure. And 100 per cent of the federally administered gas tax goes to transit here in T.O.

Given your ignorance of these simple and easy to discover facts, who's the stupid one here?

It's fine to cut a tax on the grounds that it's uneccesary or unfair, provided you have a back up plan and a sound rationale beyond a personal objection to paying taxes. But that's not the case here.

The problem with this users fee, it lets thousands of users off without paying. The bedroon communities surrounding Toronto use the roads almost( if not as much, or more ) as I do. Yet I have to pay. I live and work a short distance from home but pay as much as a commuter who lives at the border, and again, the commuter driving in from Pickering or Oakville pays nothing.

I don't know if this is common, but I have heard of people renewing their license in places like Banmcroft or where ever they have a cottage and avoiding the tax altogether.

That's fine, but it's an argument for toll roads/congestion charges, not an argument against the VRT per se.

The VRT should have been designated for transit or infrastructure improvements (that $64M could pay for, like, 100 feet of Fordways!). That it was instead directed to general revenue was a gross oversight.

[Shady]

Property taxes go to the entire city budget (as did the VRT, but it shouldn't have: they screwed that one up

Ok, so Toronto screwed up. The city's been mismanaged. I guess that's Rob Ford's fault? And now you want to bail out the mismanagement by the city with new and more taxes. I don't agree with that idea. It's wrong, and unfair. Grow some balls, and make the necessary cuts in the city budget. Stop asking for more and more of people's money.

[Black Dog]

Ok, so Toronto screwed up. The city's been mismanaged. I guess that's Rob Ford's fault?

No it's Ford's fault for not having a realistic solution to the problem. Stay with it here.

And now you want to bail out the mismanagement by the city with new and more taxes.

The VRT was mismanaged, but is the city? Hard to say since no one, including Ford, has a good grasp on how much waste and inefficiency there is since no one has been able to quantify it. Ford himself has said his battery of cuts to city hall's budget (staffing, perks, plant watering) are purely symbolic, yet is convinced he can magically find $2.8 Billion in "efficiencies" without requiring cuts to key services.

I don't agree with that idea. It's wrong, and unfair. Grow some balls, and make the necessary cuts in the city budget. Stop asking for more and more of people's money.

This is, again, predicated on the unproven and frankly fantastical assumption that there's sufficient money to be found in the existing budget to cover not only everything within the existing budget (less the $300M or so the VRT and land transfer tax bring in) but also additional expenditures (ie. subways, more cops), cost increases the city has no control over (fuel costs, electricty, inflation) and whatever other increases neccesary to meet the needs of a city that is both growing fast and falling behind.

Even if the city was run as a well-oiled machine with a bare minimum of fat, the simple, incontrovertible realities of urban growth mean it needs every source of income it can muster just to keep it's head above water.

[Bonam]

Do you have to register your TV and lawn mower? Do your TV and lawn mower require a vast government-funded infrastructure for you to use them?

Technically, yes. The TV requires electricity. The Lawn mower also requires either electricity or fuel. Governments have their fingers deep in the distribution and infrastructure related to both electricity and fuel.

[bloodyminded]

Technically, yes. The TV requires electricity. The Lawn mower also requires either electricity or fuel. Governments have their fingers deep in the distribution and infrastructure related to both electricity and fuel.

Yes, but it's not like it's an interference, against industry wishes. Big business and government are a nexus, a collusion.

Edited December 18, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Black Dog]

The Ford giveth and the Ford taketh away

Just a few days after handing out a gift to car-driving taxpayers, city council is poised to Scrooge Toronto residents in the new year.

The city announced Monday that council’s budget committee will consider a 3% hike in garbage rates and a long-planned 9% water-rate increase in January.

...

If approved, the bin fee hike will shave the annual rebate for owning a small bin from $10 to just under $3.

The hike would boost the cost of a medium bin by $8.93 to $47, a large bin by $12 to $145 and an extra-large bin by $14 to $204.

A typical single-family home in Toronto paid $547 for water this year; a 9 per cent increase would push the annual bill up by about $49 to $596.