It's one thing to not really have a champion for it, it's quite another to have a champion for the exact opposite.
|
|
|
- Thread starter denfromoakvillemilton
- Start date
adeel
Active Member
Agreed...just stating an opinion...maybe could hvae 1% dedicated to transit, and 1% dedicated to general revenues...but again, issue becomes making sure transit portion is being used as such
BurlOak
Senior Member
I remember about 30 years ago when the government brought in the fishing license. They stated that all revenues from the fishing license would go to restocking lakes and rivers. It did, but coincidentally, they cut the MNR's previous budget for stocking by the same amount.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
I am sold on the way to frame the debate, the point about not saying we're taxing everyone for the sake of transit, but as a transportation network as a whole.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
It is important to have several different revenue streams used.
Vancouver's Translink is having financial problems but that's not to declining ridership. Ridership continues to go but the system is suffering from it's own success. By introducing gas taxes it has led to more people moving to transit and/or buying more fuel efficient cars. In other words the gas taxes are falling due to their success.
Property taxes, sales taxes, tolls, parking fees, vehicle registration, property purchase tax...........all must be used so that the system does not become overly dependent on one revenue stream not matter how lucrative it may be at the moment. The revenues must also be fluid and reviewed often to ensure that revenues remain relativly stable plus inflation and pop growth. This means maybe higher gas taxes and lower property transfers taxes and the exact opposite in 5 years.
Vancouver's Translink is having financial problems but that's not to declining ridership. Ridership continues to go but the system is suffering from it's own success. By introducing gas taxes it has led to more people moving to transit and/or buying more fuel efficient cars. In other words the gas taxes are falling due to their success.
Property taxes, sales taxes, tolls, parking fees, vehicle registration, property purchase tax...........all must be used so that the system does not become overly dependent on one revenue stream not matter how lucrative it may be at the moment. The revenues must also be fluid and reviewed often to ensure that revenues remain relativly stable plus inflation and pop growth. This means maybe higher gas taxes and lower property transfers taxes and the exact opposite in 5 years.
DKsan
Active Member
Not Our Problem: Mayors in the 905 React to Proposed Transit Revenue Tools for the GTA
I am beyond annoyed right now, after reading this. My own mayor, Fennell, goes on about "cutting our commute" on social media but has no balls to actually do something about it.
I am beyond annoyed right now, after reading this. My own mayor, Fennell, goes on about "cutting our commute" on social media but has no balls to actually do something about it.
doady
Senior Member
Why should 905 residents pay more tolls and taxes if Toronto won't? And why only residents and not businesses?
If Toronto's business community thinks transit is so important, they should help pay for it too.
If Toronto's business community thinks transit is so important, they should help pay for it too.
Platform 27
Active Member
You're saying "Toronto won't" when you mean "Rob Ford won't." (And "won't" isn't really the right word because Rob Ford may not get a choice in the matter.)
What's being proposed is for both 416 and 905 to pay for projects in both 416 and 905 that improve life in both 416 and 905.
Show me where someone's proposed something that only residents will pay and not businesses.
doady
Senior Member
The four measures TRBOT is putting forward for "serious consideration," which they believe can generate as much as $2 billion, include:
- A regional sales tax.
- A $1 a day parking space levy.
- A 10 cents per litre regional fuel tax.
- High-occupancy toll lanes in which drivers of single occupancy vehicles would pay 30 cents a kilometre
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Businesses would pay for all those as well.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
If you are going to ding single occupancy drivers then wouldn't it be a LOW occupancy toll lane?
King of Kensington
Senior Member
As one who has generally voted NDP, this populist nonsense is appalling. Andrea sounds like a left-wing version of Ford here, acting as if public services can be basically be provided for free (Ford said he'll end the "gravy train" and nothing meaningful would be cut, Horwath says nobody will have to pay for it because we'll just find some "loopholes" somewhere.)
If we want to deal with congestion and make massive investments in transit, we'll have to pay for it.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
You're right. She is no better than Ford. I would love her to name the corporate loopholes she would like to close.
Copy of the email that I sent to Minister Horwath:
Dear Minister Horwath,
My name is Andrew J, and I am an Urban Planner. I have been following the political situation in Ontario very closely, and I was intrigued by your suggestion of lowering auto insurance premiums. Premiums in Ontario are certainly too high, and something needs to be done about it.
Your suggestion of a mandatory 15% reduction in premiums certainly has a lot of merit. However I believe that I have an alternative suggestion, one which would accomplish the same goal you’re trying to achieve, and more.
What I propose to you is creating a ‘Public Option’ for auto insurance, similar to what Barack Obama proposed with US healthcare. It would be a government-run insurance corporation that would offer an alternative choice within the auto insurance market.
The insurance company, for simplicity’s sake call it the Ontario Auto Insurance Corporation (OAIC), would have insurance rates set at 15% below current market rates, the same percentage reduction which you have proposed. However, rather than legislating a mandatory reduction to all insurance rates, let the free market work. I would suggest that by introducing a lower cost alternative into the marketplace, that other insurance companies would lower their rates as a result, especially if it meant they were losing customers to OAIC.
The second part of the proposal, which I personally think is the biggest benefit, is the question of what to do with OAIC profits. I would suggest that the profits (of which there most certainly will be a fair amount) be invested back into the Province’s transportation and transit infrastructure. This could potentially be a piece of the Revenue Tool puzzle that Metrolinx is currently holding roundtable discussions about.
Imagine offering up a solution for Ontarians that would see them paying lower rates than they are now, with some of that money going back into the infrastructure they depend on, instead of going into padding the bottom line of an insurance company. In my view, that’s a win-win.
This proposal also offers up a Revenue Tool that isn’t about asking people to pay more. As a Planner with a keen interest in Transit Planning, I certainly understand the funding challenges facing the Province today. I understand the need for additional revenue to fund transit expansion, and I support efforts to generate it. However, a lot of average citizens don’t fully understand the need, and see any new revenue tools as a ‘cash grab’.
Proposing something like OAIC, with the profits going into road and transit infrastructure, I think can remove some of the stigma surrounding Revenue Tools, because it demonstrates ‘outside the box’ thinking that doesn’t simply involve asking people to pay more. It makes more efficient use of money that people are already paying, and would continue to pay regardless.
I would strongly suggest that you or a member of your team examine the potential of this proposal in greater detail, to see if it truly is feasible. If you have any questions about my proposal, I would be more than happy to answer them. I thank you for taking the time to read this letter, and I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Dear Minister Horwath,
My name is Andrew J, and I am an Urban Planner. I have been following the political situation in Ontario very closely, and I was intrigued by your suggestion of lowering auto insurance premiums. Premiums in Ontario are certainly too high, and something needs to be done about it.
Your suggestion of a mandatory 15% reduction in premiums certainly has a lot of merit. However I believe that I have an alternative suggestion, one which would accomplish the same goal you’re trying to achieve, and more.
What I propose to you is creating a ‘Public Option’ for auto insurance, similar to what Barack Obama proposed with US healthcare. It would be a government-run insurance corporation that would offer an alternative choice within the auto insurance market.
The insurance company, for simplicity’s sake call it the Ontario Auto Insurance Corporation (OAIC), would have insurance rates set at 15% below current market rates, the same percentage reduction which you have proposed. However, rather than legislating a mandatory reduction to all insurance rates, let the free market work. I would suggest that by introducing a lower cost alternative into the marketplace, that other insurance companies would lower their rates as a result, especially if it meant they were losing customers to OAIC.
The second part of the proposal, which I personally think is the biggest benefit, is the question of what to do with OAIC profits. I would suggest that the profits (of which there most certainly will be a fair amount) be invested back into the Province’s transportation and transit infrastructure. This could potentially be a piece of the Revenue Tool puzzle that Metrolinx is currently holding roundtable discussions about.
Imagine offering up a solution for Ontarians that would see them paying lower rates than they are now, with some of that money going back into the infrastructure they depend on, instead of going into padding the bottom line of an insurance company. In my view, that’s a win-win.
This proposal also offers up a Revenue Tool that isn’t about asking people to pay more. As a Planner with a keen interest in Transit Planning, I certainly understand the funding challenges facing the Province today. I understand the need for additional revenue to fund transit expansion, and I support efforts to generate it. However, a lot of average citizens don’t fully understand the need, and see any new revenue tools as a ‘cash grab’.
Proposing something like OAIC, with the profits going into road and transit infrastructure, I think can remove some of the stigma surrounding Revenue Tools, because it demonstrates ‘outside the box’ thinking that doesn’t simply involve asking people to pay more. It makes more efficient use of money that people are already paying, and would continue to pay regardless.
I would strongly suggest that you or a member of your team examine the potential of this proposal in greater detail, to see if it truly is feasible. If you have any questions about my proposal, I would be more than happy to answer them. I thank you for taking the time to read this letter, and I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
I like that gweed!