It is assumptions like this that is ruining Toronto. Perhaps you and Dr. Shashi, the author of the original quote, should look at page 17 of this... Collaborating for Competitiveness - City ... PDF https://www.toronto.ca › 2017/08 › 8ea9... The residential tax base consumes more than it...

No pedantry here. Despite the quotation marks, you went on to provide a false definition of it's use in this context. Perhaps you work for the Provincial Finance Ministry. It would explain a lot.

No. That would be selling it at a discount. Selling it at a loss implicitly means that the revenue generated is less than the cost to produce it. We have been paying to have others consume our power at times. In no way can negative revenue be anything other than a net loss.

Last time I checked MPAC has one job. How properties are taxed is beyond their scope. Regardless of which method, the overburden on commercial properties is a direct result of under taxing residential. And until that is addressed, changing the method will not materially change the outcome.

Typically the MPAC values are close to what such properties would actually sell for. There is going to be a lot of media fed this message ( MPAC is the problem) yet few will actually look at whether this is correct. The problem is not in the MPAC valuations but rather the tax rates themselves...

That sound like it came straight from the the Tea Party or the GOP. If service work is low paying due to a supply / demand imbalance, why would an increase in 'higher skilled' employees not reduce wages in those areas as supply increases? And the idea that there is nothing in our tax system...

I doubt it will make any difference so long as ADM can keep paying off enough US politicians to keep tariffs in place that make it cheaper to sweeten with High Fructose Corn Syrup as opposed to cane sugar.

What a load of crap, Ian Young is an idiot.

The justifications used to argue that Toronto RE prices justified are no different than ones used elsewhere. From Dean Baker's book: Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy

The reason they started paying the extra $325 per month after being there for nearly five years is the question. Were they concerned with the optics? It also does not negate the PoV that they took advantage of a lower cost rental accommodation. One that many needy families would (and should)...

So market rent is not the average market price for something similar but rather what the Co-Op decide to arbitrarily label it. From the article that you linked to....... So what happened with Layton and Chow? Three months before the Toronto Star story broke in June 1990, they started paying an...

Um..Yes. Why would Jack and Olivia, three months prior to the initial Toronto Star report, voluntarily started paying hundreds of dollars more per month in rent?

The cheif economist is the CAAMP hasn't had a good look at the Canadian housing market. So not only is he a shill, but a lazy shill.

In the last twelve months Toronto has lost more than 20,000 Jobs while the rest of the CMA has gained more than 77,000. http://www1.toronto.ca/static_files/economic_development_and_culture/docs/Economic%20indicators/economic_indicators.pdf

Without indexing for inflation these numbers are near meaningless. For example taking inflation into account, the 90's had a decrease of 25%. Regarding the justifications you are employing for current and future valuations, I suggest you start reading from page 67 in this book...