News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

Ed007Toronto said:
Ok so what do you cut to raise $500 million?
Click to expand...

Well he said cut to a level we can afford. If we can afford those services then raise property taxes to pay for them because we can afford it. The simple math is that the bills need to be paid.

The options are one or more of:
a) cuts
b) user fees
c) new taxes
and/or d) property tax increases.

The city can't tell the province or the federal government what to do. All it can do is yell loudly about its bad situation and how the upper levels of government could help and move forward with balancing budgets. It is poor leadership to eat up reserves, create sneaky property tax increases that load costs on to future residents like our children and future immigrants so current citizens enjoying services they aren't willing to pay for can reduce their tax hit, and delay making decisions.
 
At this point, the best thing is probably to have the city declare bankruptcy, forcing the province to step in and handle the mess. If it can clean up the matter without causing themselves collateral damage (which I suspect they can't), all the power to them. If they can't, it just proves the thesis of the municipal leaders. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Of course, there is great incentive for the province NOT to do that - why handle the mess yourself when you have someone to blame?

AoD
 
How about we scrap the garbage can proposal, isn't that costing the city something along the lines of $50 million? In Fredericton (yes, I know it's a much smaller city) you rent the bins from the private garbage collection firm for $90 a year. If you lose the bin, you pay for its full replacement cost. You don't have to use the bin, but then you get giant crows and 'coons tearing apart your garbage bags.
 
Alvin, unfortunately, that hasn't worked all that well with the school boards, of which several have been taken over by the province when cuts and the "new formula" screwed them. McGuinty has been very slow to fix the destruction left by Harris.

I wrote my strongly worded (yet civil) email to my councillor and actually got a fairly decent reply within the same day. It seems like some of the more lefty-centrist councillors that voted for the deferal, like Ashton, want to use the opportunity to push the province rather than being ideologically against taxes or just pricks (like the Fords, Chos, Thompsons and Stintzes), but that could be just spin.
 
Sean:

Alvin, unfortunately, that hasn't worked all that well with the school boards, of which several have been taken over by the province when cuts and the "new formula" screwed them. McGuinty has been very slow to fix the destruction left by Harris.
Click to expand...

Indeed, except a good chunk of the electorate doesn't really care about the school board - taking over the city on the other hand can directly affect the Liberal seats.

AoD
 
SeanTrans said:
I wrote my strongly worded (yet civil) email to my councillor and actually got a fairly decent reply within the same day. It seems like some of the more lefty-centrist councillors that voted for the deferal, like Ashton, want to use the opportunity to push the province rather than being ideologically against taxes or just pricks (like the Fords, Chos, Thompsons and Stintzes), but that could be just spin.
Click to expand...

Cho actually voted against deferral.
 
Enviro - you didnt get my point.
Take a hypothetical Person A and hypothetical Person B. They both own a house. Person A makes a good wage and has some disposable income. Person B makes a decent wage, and just gets by with his/her day to day costs. They both pay $400,000 for their home.
Both Person A and Person B live in their homes for 10 years. The value is now at $600,000.

Scenario 1: Land Transfer Tax.
Both sell their home after 10 years. They both pay a one time $4,000 land transfer tax. Both can afford it because their mortage, moving cost etc is MUCH less than the $200,000 profit they have made on their homes (they each have more than that in profit as they have been paying down their mortgage). The $4,000 tax wont hurt either as they have made a profit on their home.

Scenario 2: Increased Annual Property Tax.
We dont even get to 10 years after buying their homes as Person B cant afford the increased year-to-year taxes based on income. Person A can, so he stays put while Person B has to sell his home, not making any profit off of it, and has to move into a rental apartment.

So, whether people flip homes, stay put etc is not the point. The point is that relative to your bi-weekly paycheque, an increased property tax will force people out of their homes, or cause them to drastically cut back on their regular expenses (no movies, theatre, sporting events, recreation etc which then harms the city long term).

There is a HUGE difference between a tax on the profit of a home every so often (which only reduces the overall profit) vs the annual tax on property (which reduces your day to day pocketbook).
 
Jdot said:
Scenario 1: Land Transfer Tax.
Both sell their home after 10 years. They both pay a one time $4,000 land transfer tax. Both can afford it because their mortage, moving cost etc is MUCH less than the $200,000 profit they have made on their homes (they each have more than that in profit as they have been paying down their mortgage). The $4,000 tax wont hurt either as they have made a profit on their home.
Click to expand...
Isn't the purchaser, not the seller who would have had to pay the transfer tax? Provided I don't buy another house in the City of Toronto, when I sell my $600,000 Toronto home and move outside the city, I pay nothing for land transfer to the city.

If the sellers had to pay the transfer tax, they'd simply up the $600,000 sell price to $606,000 and either way the buyer is paying the tax.

Thus, IMO, the land transfer tax hurts the buyers of property in Toronto, not the sellers. Yes, those that want to sell and then buy another house in the city will be hurt, but sellers alone are fine.
 
The buyer will factor in the additional cost of purchasing and adjust their offer accordingly, so the seller will be affected.
 
Ltt

Although Miller's defeat on the vote is a small loss of pretige, it may work out to his advantage. He can now go to the prov and say with sincerity that he did his best to raise more money, to the point of losing some allies on council. The Star is reporting that they're considering an expanded casino at Woodbine. That's an awful idea. Why is everybody avoiding the most obvious solution: road tolls. Let's go after the 905'ers who use our roads and transit but contribute very little to pay for them.
 
theman23 said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Because it taxes the poor. Because it balances the budget on the backs of chronic gamblers with devastating effects on countless lives. Because the government should not be setting a bad role model for young people by telling them that the key to success is blind luck and not hard work and perserverance. Enough for you?
 
fare increase is expected to be 25 cents

Just in...

cbc.ca/Toronto

There are plans to shutdown the Sheppard subway, drop 20 bus routes and increase fares as a result of city funding shortages, the chair of the Toronto Transit Commission said Thursday.

Adam Giambrone told reporters that an emergency meeting of the commission is scheduled for Friday as they have been told to slash $100 million from the budget.

The fare increase is expected to be 25 cents.


This smacks of a sore loser kicking the cat because he can’t have his way.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top