|
|
|
- Thread starter Edward Skira
- Start date
Edward
Senior Member
Harris Block would be a really funny choice!
jswag
Active Member
It would be a funny choice, but really quite insulting considering the damage his government did to cities during his tenure.
Art Vandelay
Active Member
As an urban enthusiast I am excited about the prospects of this building. But as someone who believes the size and cost of government threatens to destroy this city, I am appalled at the idea that such an expenditure is being considered. Yes, consolidating all ministerial offices at Queen's Park has its benefits but with all the new office space coming into this weak market, renting from the private sector would probably be much cheaper. This proposal is a testement to runaway government spending. You could argue naming the building after a man who worked so hard to trim the size of government would be an insult to the man not the bureaucracy.
If you think things were lean in the nineties when the Harris government grappled with a $12 billion NDP deficit, wait to see how tough things get as we grapple with a $24 billion McGuinty deficit. This project is DOA.
If you think things were lean in the nineties when the Harris government grappled with a $12 billion NDP deficit, wait to see how tough things get as we grapple with a $24 billion McGuinty deficit. This project is DOA.
Northern Magus
Active Member
There can only be one reason for doing this right now: the business case for finding significant cost savings from selling other sites and not paying rent to the private sector must be pretty overwhelming. And if doing this is the key to unlocking efficiency savings down the road, then bring it on.
Anyone who speculates that paying money to rent from someone else is cheaper than building your own tower on land you already own is purely thinking in the short term. But the bigger picture has to prevail.
Oh, in the interest of setting the record straight, during the 90s the Harris government not only had to "grapple" with an NDP deficit, but in its stupendous wisdom it actually exacerbated it by razing its revenue streams in the name of ideology.
As for a name, the Davis Block is probably odds-on. Quite fitting that it should be given to some canny infrastructure.
Anyone who speculates that paying money to rent from someone else is cheaper than building your own tower on land you already own is purely thinking in the short term. But the bigger picture has to prevail.
Oh, in the interest of setting the record straight, during the 90s the Harris government not only had to "grapple" with an NDP deficit, but in its stupendous wisdom it actually exacerbated it by razing its revenue streams in the name of ideology.
As for a name, the Davis Block is probably odds-on. Quite fitting that it should be given to some canny infrastructure.
Art Vandelay
Active Member
I really don't feel like making an argument for supply side economics. I will just point out that revenue increased not declined (as did government spending). I will agree with you that the building will be named after Davis. Very fitting seeing that he oversaw the disastrous purchase of Suncor the offices of which I believe were once located at 880 Bay.
Northern Magus
Active Member
Sorry buddy, but unsubstantiated assertions don't cut it. You wanna make those claims and assert them as facts, fine. Just back them up.
Art Vandelay
Active Member
"The robust economy will underpin growing Provincial tax revenues. Since Ontario began cutting tax rates to stimulate economic growth, total Provincial tax revenue has increased by $11.7 billion."
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2000/00a.html
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2000/00a.html
Northern Magus
Active Member
It's funny how budgets always happen in March.
You also need to ask yourself whether that data is in fact evidence of causation. Or, to put it another way, would the late 90s boom have happened anyway?
The American economy, which drove the manufacturing sector our province has been based on, was riding the wave of Clintonomics and experiencing its greatest growth in 40 years. Until the dot-com bubble burst.
And then after that, Ontario was in a structural deficit.
As a postscript, even the Congressional Budget Office admits that "there is
little consensus on exactly how tax cuts affect the
economy" and projects tax cuts as serious revenue-losing propositions.
You also need to ask yourself whether that data is in fact evidence of causation. Or, to put it another way, would the late 90s boom have happened anyway?
The American economy, which drove the manufacturing sector our province has been based on, was riding the wave of Clintonomics and experiencing its greatest growth in 40 years. Until the dot-com bubble burst.
And then after that, Ontario was in a structural deficit.
As a postscript, even the Congressional Budget Office admits that "there is
little consensus on exactly how tax cuts affect the
economy" and projects tax cuts as serious revenue-losing propositions.
Art Vandelay
Active Member
Yes I understand the argument, 'how do you know the economy wouldn't have grown as fast without the tax cuts?' What can be said with certainty is that at some level taxation can impact economic growth and therefore revenue. A 100 per cent tax rate would kill the economy and therefore not bring in the most revenue. The flip side an economy with a 0 per cent tax rate would allow for maximum growth but collect no revenue. The trick is to find that sweet spot that you can maximize your revenue.
What we see around the world and we witnessed it in Ontario is an economy that grew rapidly when taxes and spending were cut. Yeah Bob Rae was dealt a bad set of cards but the recession was much more severe here than elsewhere. Its the opposite of what we are witnessing today where the recession is milder here than elsewhere.
We don't live in a vacuum so there are sever explanations for why this is but at some point it can't be mere coincidence that when taxes go down revenue and economic growth go up.
Getting back on topic, I really hope this building is constructed. I know first hand the benefits of having all the departments on site (if that is the plan in constructing this new building) but adding so much square footage to such a soft market while the province is drowning in red ink makes me think this is the least likely of all projects to move forward. I hope I am wrong.
What we see around the world and we witnessed it in Ontario is an economy that grew rapidly when taxes and spending were cut. Yeah Bob Rae was dealt a bad set of cards but the recession was much more severe here than elsewhere. Its the opposite of what we are witnessing today where the recession is milder here than elsewhere.
We don't live in a vacuum so there are sever explanations for why this is but at some point it can't be mere coincidence that when taxes go down revenue and economic growth go up.
Getting back on topic, I really hope this building is constructed. I know first hand the benefits of having all the departments on site (if that is the plan in constructing this new building) but adding so much square footage to such a soft market while the province is drowning in red ink makes me think this is the least likely of all projects to move forward. I hope I am wrong.