[iheartproperty]

The griping over the land transfer tax strikes me as realtor whining. It works out to an extra $6K on a $500,000 house, yeah, but how many times are you going to buy a house in your lifetime? 2 or 3? It's like complaining about a tax on wedding dresses.

The only people who really took a significant hit from the tax were flippers and speculators, and they weren't exactly good for the city in the first place. Good riddance.

Matt speaks the truth.

 

[Hydrogen]

He speaks his opinion and nothing more.

Where is the evidence that suggests home buyers will only buy two or three homes in their lifetime? I certainly have plenty of anecdotal evidence that this is not true.In fact, I'm part of that evidence.

As for supporting this tax on the basis that it only affects speculators and flippers, one can then take the view that the government wants a piece of the action. In other words, government directly benefits from these activities - they make revenue from it.

Besides, this tax affects every home purchaser in the city. It's hardly aimed at flippers and speculators alone, and it would be an idiotic approach to somehow "controlling" that kind of activity.

 

[allabootmatt]

I agree with your points in the main, Hydrogen, but given the alternatives, wasn't the LTT quite fair? The City can't levy income taxes, and its main source of revenue--property tax--is pretty regressive. Yes, the LTT marginally increases the cost of a home and that's not trivial, but in the context of a systemic revenue problem I think it's pretty good policy, and preferable to many other options.

 

[GraphicMatt]

He speaks his opinion and nothing more.

Where is the evidence that suggests home buyers will only buy two or three homes in their lifetime? I certainly have plenty of anecdotal evidence that this is not true.In fact, I'm part of that evidence.

As for supporting this tax on the basis that it only affects speculators and flippers, one can then take the view that the government wants a piece of the action. In other words, government directly benefits from these activities - they make revenue from it.

Besides, this tax affects every home purchaser in the city. It's hardly aimed at flippers and speculators alone, and it would be an idiotic approach to somehow "controlling" that kind of activity.

Totally. I don't profess to speak truth.

I don't know what the stats are on how many homes the average person buys in their lifetime. I'd suspect it would be not more than five.

The tax only comes into effect when you buy a house or condo (and, with the first-time-buyer exemption, it's really when someone buys their SECOND house/condo) - that, by definition, is a tax that effects people who buy a lot of homes more than it does others.

Was it about 'controlling' speculation/flipping? I doubt it - it was more about raising additional revenue from a practice that really doesn't do much good for the city.

(Note that I do think the new LTT + the new HST on homes probably pushes us into a place where buyers are stuck with way too much tax on houses. But I'd much rather that be resolved by the Province backing off, because the City will inevitably see a very small share of the new sales tax revenues. At least the LTT goes to Toronto projects.)

 

[Glen]

Was it about 'controlling' speculation/flipping? I doubt it - it was more about raising additional revenue from a practice that really doesn't do much good for the city.

It was about hiding the cost of city spending. That is my single biggest knock on Miller, not that he is alone in doing this, most politicians do. Miller campaigned on a promise of property tax being indexed to inflation. The impression most taxpayers have is that spending would be similarly constrained. This is because most taxpayers assume that property tax is one and only source of municipal revenue.

The reality is much different. Property tax makes up less 50% of revenue. So in order to keep taxes at the rate of inflation, even the opportunistic 4%, spending would need to be considerable less. That has not been the case. From the One cent now, taxes that grow with the economy*, gas taxes, this government has continually implied that others should be responsible for paying for its spending. When that failed we got the LTT, license and garbage fees. Next year, especially if the the province ends its bailouts and with the reserves run dry, the city is in for a big tax hike just to cover current levels of spending.


* While the city does not have a source of revenue that grows with the economy, it also does not have one that shrinks with it.

 

[unimaginative2]

You make a good point, allabootmatt, but I think the Miller Derangement Syndrome isn't just particular to him but is instead shared by all relatively successful Left and Centre-Left political figures. The foaming-at-the-mouth-hysterically-angry-at-Miller people who post on blogs and newspaper websites and phone in to talk radio are the same people who foam at the mouth at the mere mention of McGuinty or the federal Liberals. Or, for that matter, at Nancy Pelosi or the Democrats among our neighbours to the south. Since the days of Nixon (or Wallace and Faubus, not hewing to partisan lines), the right wing has been successful at stirring up these feelings of absolute rage in certain segments of the population. Miller Derangement Syndrome is just one small manifestation of a larger phenomenon.

I think Hipster Duck is sort of on the right track about Miller. I was an enthusiastic supporter of his from the very beginning when he was first elected in 2003, but his accomplishments have definitely been more limited than I would have hoped. The waterfront is moving at a glacial pace, and some of the recent designs have been a bit disappointing. While I think he's right to push for major transit expansion in the city, I think he's over-politicized the process. He's also annoyed higher levels of government by refusing to seriously seek efficiencies and pretending that the only cost cuts available are the most painful ones possible for citizens. While he's certainly better than Mel, he's perpetuated some of the "Crying Wolf" every year at budget time. On the whole, though, he's done some brave things about taxation, like the residential/commercial convergence. Maybe the biggest disappointment is the abandonment of the design review panel. His term coincided with arguably the biggest high-rise building boom in Toronto's history, though absolutely nothing has happened with his promise to consider design in the development approval process and improve the quality of buildings built in the city. The buildings that have been built over the last 6 years will shape the city for decades to come, so that's a really big disappointment.

He also does a pretty poor job of selling his actual accomplishments. Homelessness is a big one. Since 2003, I have noticed a very striking decline in the number of homeless people on the streets. This is a major success, but virtually nobody credits Miller for it, even though I think his Streets to Homes program played a major role.

 

[unimaginative2]

With regards to unions: a case study.

A. A guy sits in the TTC booth, gives people tokens and change, and collects money. Can easily make $100,000 a year with a bit of overtime. Educational requirement: grade 9 math and about 15 minutes watching someone else do it.

B. Guy goes to university, gets a masters and ph.d. A total of about 10- years invested in education. Goes on to teache at U. of T. Average salary at U of T: $142,000. BTW, guy B is also unionized.

So with 10 years of post-secondary education, guy B makes less than $50k more than guy A. Does that seem fair to you?

Remember that only a small and diminishing minority of PhDs pursuing an academic career actually ever become full professors, and most of those only do it after a long career. Most of the people teaching at universities are sessionals who often make $50,000 per year or less with few or no benefits.

Alvin: note that to become a full professor, one has to do a great deal of publishing and other work that would most assuredly constitute "overtime". My point here is that $142,000 a year grossly overstates the income of the vast majority of PhDs.
TTC employees are very specifically not required to deal with emergencies in a way that would risk harm to themselves. They are not police officers (Transit Police obviously excepted) and are required to remain in their booths and contact transit control to dispatch emergency services.

Note, though, that the sunshine list shows that only a tiny minority of TTC collectors make over $100,000.

 

[Chuck]

The divide between left-wing and right-wing in this city's politics is gigantic, which drives the Miller Derangement. The far left-wing tends toward idealistic ideas on what the city means and how it can matter in the world. The right-wing sees their house, their car and their yard and just wants the city government to leave them the hell alone.

I don't think it's nearly as clear cut as that. I consider myself right wing, but I choose to live in an apartment building in the city and enjoy it. I also rely solely on the TTC by choice, and I don't object at all to a powerful city government. Based on the above definition, I should vote NDP. In fact, the NDP is the only major party that I have never (and will never) vote for.

On the municipal level, I think that it is one's viewpoint on taxation, social services, and city finances that truly makes them left or right wing. A municipal right winger may believe that the city should reduce spending on social housing and evict those who abuse the system. Or that the payroll at City Hall should be cut in half in order to increase efficiency. Or that disproportional taxation should stop at the income tax level - don't target the middle and upper class by imposing taxes on things that they are more likely to buy such as cars or housing.

When you look at their actual lifestyle, an urban rightist is almost identical to an urban leftist, at least in my experience. We all believe that the inner city is a great place to live, welcome increased density, and want TTC expanded as it is our primary way of getting around. We also support intensification, the environment, culture, and equality. These are not left wing ideals, they are urban ideals that anyone can posses regardless of how they vote.

 

[lordmandeep]

The question is the role of the city is to provide services in a timely, efficient and effective manner. Thus should the city be greatly overcompenstating people compared to the private sector. Why is the city paying these people so much? It is not in our interest or any of your interest for them to be paid this much. It is not the city’s responsibility to pay them that much. Then why is the city paying ttc collectors so much and then increasing fares mostly to support their pay increases and overly generous benefits??? Imo that is my biggest complaint against Miller or against municpal politicans.

Now the city has been greatly increasing taxes and in the past few years has massively increased taxes and still has not reached sustainability and next year has a massive projected defecit. It has increased expenses by over 2 billion in less then 6 years and has had to greatly increase taxes to do so. Why have expenses gone up by 2 billion dollars in such a short time is another matter.

My question is, you guys almost enthusiastically support his tax hikes, because you think it is for the "common good"

The thing is my friends, the path Miller has chosen is a path of inevitable perputal tax increases forever...
You will not see greatly increased services, because Miller has chosen a path where he must greatly increases taxes every year to just keep the status quo.

 

[Eug]

You make a good point, allabootmatt, but I think the Miller Derangement Syndrome isn't just particular to him but is instead shared by all relatively successful Left and Centre-Left political figures.

I think this is a perspective issue. Those who lean to the right will dislike those leaders who lean to the left. However, those who lean to the left will dislike those leaders who lean to the right.

Interestingly, I've always thought of myself as leaning to the left, at least compared to my colleagues. However, it almost seems like on this forum, I am closer to the right end of the spectrum. My unsubstantiated impression is that those on this forum (or at least some of the more vocal ones) are more left than average.

The foaming-at-the-mouth-hysterically-angry-at-Miller people who post on blogs and newspaper websites and phone in to talk radio are the same people who foam at the mouth at the mere mention of McGuinty or the federal Liberals.

This is probably false. To a lot of people, Miller leans more left than McGuinty or the federal Libs.

He's also annoyed higher levels of government by refusing to seriously seek efficiencies and pretending that the only cost cuts available are the most painful ones possible for citizens. While he's certainly better than Mel, he's perpetuated some of the "Crying Wolf" every year at budget time.

This is in fact one of my biggest beefs with him: His refusal to get serious about reigning in spending, or even really appearing to do so.

Now one issue I am in the minority about is something that also bugs me nonetheless. It seems that I am probably one of the few here that supported the bridge to Centre Island Airport. And yes, I lived in the neighbourhood, right next to the main thoroughfare too I might add. I congratulate Miller for getting it stopped like he said he would, but I think it was a poor economic choice for the city. The bridge would have provided a significant boost for Centre Island Airport, a commercial advantage over many other large centres. Now that bridge is dead... and yet the money was still spent and then some, to keep the Port Authority and Porter Airlines quiet.

 

[allabootmatt]

Unimaginative: I think what you're getting at is important--the politics of the 'right' in both the US and, increasingly, Canada (viz. Harper's recent attack ads on Iggy) are, in a non-trivial way, often the politics of resentment--the constant defining down of the 'real' American or Canadian, whose (always 'hard-earned') tax dollars are being frittered away by the lefty cosmopolites.

The American GOP has been trading on this since Nixon's Southern Strategy; we saw milder examples of it at home during the Common Sense Revolution and in the federal Reform, Alliance, and now (non-Progressive) Conservative party. And Miller certainly slots into that.

But the reason I am so interested in this subject is that lots of people on what should be the 'left,' or at least the centre, positively loathe David Miller. There are plenty of rank-and-file Toronto Liberals who can't stand him. Once again, I will be the first to concede Miller's not perfect, and that there are lots of things on which he can be very reasonably disagreed with. But even among members of the nominal progressive wing of Canadian politics the derangement endures. It's a mystery to me.

 

[lordmandeep]

look you can have great ideas and still be loathed because of your personality.



Was it the GST that really make us hate Mulroney so much or was it his childish reclusive attitude in his 2nd term?? Likely both but I remember his antics like throwing his paper at the media.

Miller seems smart but he is not the strong leader type and does not draw up any support by his personality. Mostly he is viewed as an elitist snobby urbanite who does not care what anyone opposed of him (which includes a lot of people) think. Plus no one likes a guy who increase taxes every year.

I also dislike his dreamy idealistic rhetoric, as he usually then forgets about the true reality.


My political views are of a centrist or lets say I supported the Chretien Liberals but the Dion Liberals were too far to the left.

 

[Eug]

It's interesting you mention Dion. Dion was perceived as a hard-headed and elitist far left snob. In many ways, so is Miller.

Much of the left of centre hated Dion too, including long time capital-L Liberals.

 

[Glen]

Miller and his supporters on council are ideologues. The TTC does research that shows streetcars are unfeasible. As a result we get Transit City and this poorly thought out mega project. We get a water front that, mainly due to the tax climate, is dominated by condominiums. The only non residential around is ground floor retail, which was forced on developers. We get green roofs on subway stations that are open to the elements, purchases of real estate for rates far above market prices. The saving of land for film industry jobs, where the city had to become a shareholder in a film studio.


This is not good governance.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I don't think it's nearly as clear cut as that. I consider myself right wing, but I choose to live in an apartment building in the city and enjoy it. I also rely solely on the TTC by choice, and I don't object at all to a powerful city government. Based on the above definition, I should vote NDP. In fact, the NDP is the only major party that I have never (and will never) vote for.

On the municipal level, I think that it is one's viewpoint on taxation, social services, and city finances that truly makes them left or right wing. A municipal right winger may believe that the city should reduce spending on social housing and evict those who abuse the system. Or that the payroll at City Hall should be cut in half in order to increase efficiency. Or that disproportional taxation should stop at the income tax level - don't target the middle and upper class by imposing taxes on things that they are more likely to buy such as cars or housing.

When you look at their actual lifestyle, an urban rightist is almost identical to an urban leftist, at least in my experience. We all believe that the inner city is a great place to live, welcome increased density, and want TTC expanded as it is our primary way of getting around. We also support intensification, the environment, culture, and equality. These are not left wing ideals, they are urban ideals that anyone can posses regardless of how they vote.

This is a really good post - thanks for chiming in.

A question, though, do you think there's anyone currently on City Council who could be described as an 'urban rightist'?