News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

So, presumably, a general increase in the cost of things (whether it is 2% or 1%) would mean that household budgets (whether they are formal budgets or just fly by the seat of your pants spending patterns) would have to be adjusted.....no?

Did you adjust your budget to allow for additional spending when sales tax dropped by 2%?

If not, then you will not need to go to your spreadsheets to accommodate the increase either. It's $50 a month to someone buying $30,000 in goods per year which is well above average household spending levels (rent/food eat most of their budget). The average person will experience below $50 a month impact to their budget.
 
Last edited:
the argument is that the average Canadian will not be taking 2% out of their RRSPs or investments because they haven't been saving to begin with. If anything people will buy less. We could tax people only 5% and people would still not save. Its like the argument of renting vs buying. I bought my house my other friends rented. All though their expenses are far less then mine they don't have anything extra then I do in savings. The extra savings they had simply went into purchasing more things that grow obsolete.

The only reason I mentioned savings rates is because it is an indicator of how much extra cash the average person has around at the end of each month/period...not that they would pay the increased sales tax with their savings...sorry if you got that impression.

The bolded part is precisely the point I am driving at.....if the average member of the population is already showing cash flow strains (and decreasing savings rates and increasing household debt levels certainly indicate that) they will, indeed, have to "buy less"....so if they buy less that means that existing (and increased) sales taxes will generate less income for the government and, likely, the decrease in sales will mean a decrease in employment levels...generating less income via income tax and more expenses via unemployment (and other) social benefit payments.

That is what my original question was driving at....has anyone seen any study/estimate of the impact of a 2% increase in the sales tax rate on the general economy?
 
Did you adjust your budget to allow for additional spending when sales tax dropped by 2%?

If not, then you will not need to go to your spreadsheets to accommodate the increase either. It's $50 a month to someone buying $30,000 in goods per year which is well above average household spending levels (rent/food eat most of their budget). The average person will experience below $50 a month impact to their budget.

Now we are getting somewhere.....so that average person (the same average person that is saving less and borrowing more) does not have extra money now. So what is the number and what is the impact...that is what I am asking.

If the average person in the GTA has a $25 a month impact (just an illustrative number...I don't know what it is...that is why I am asking) and cuts back spending in other areas by that $25.....then we have a 6,000,0000 X $25 X 12 hit to the economy.....so just under $2billion a year of spending coming out of the economy....does that impact general taxation...doesn't it have to? Does it impact employment levels? You would have to think there is some co-relation between consumer spending and employment levels....no?
 
Now we are getting somewhere.....so that average person (the same average person that is saving less and borrowing more) does not have extra money now. So what is the number and what is the impact...that is what I am asking.

If the average person in the GTA has a $25 a month impact (just an illustrative number...I don't know what it is...that is why I am asking) and cuts back spending in other areas by that $25.....then we have a 6,000,0000 X $25 X 12 hit to the economy.....so just under $2billion a year of spending coming out of the economy....does that impact general taxation...doesn't it have to? Does it impact employment levels? You would have to think there is some co-relation between consumer spending and employment levels....no?

$25 sounds about right actually. I don't mean to imply that it will not have an impact but congestion also has a measurable impact both at an economic and personal level; and it's not going to decrease on it's own, hopefully.

So, either we build something useful for transportation or we start to watch as Canadian banks hire people in Chicago to run their trading desks instead of people from Toronto (see BMO) and similar.

I watched as the CEO of SBC in 2001 sold off InQuent and Amdocs in large part because of congestion. They had a really bad trip in from the Pearson, the best staff were moved to Virginia & Dallas and the companies sold off shortly afterword. Congestion was affecting jobs in Toronto over 10 years ago and this will be more severe today.

$25 a month is worth it if there will be jobs available when one is needed. Unemployment is a far worse prospect.



IMO, Sheppard, Eglinton and Spadina were a waste of money. Those funds should have been directed at GO to electrify all 7 GO lines and provide 15 minute frequencies all day (5am to midnight) on all lines with some kind of TTC fare integration.

It would have been around the same price but much more effective.
 
Last edited:
I completely agree with your last comment except I do think the Spadina ext to York U is warranted.

The huge amount Toronto is spending on a non-grade separated Eglinton line is obscene and heads would roll in most other cities on the planet for such a venture.

If they had spent that money electrifying all GO rail corridors {except for Barrie}, made the GO trains/buses in the 416 completely accessible with the standard TTC fare/ Metropass, bought EMU trains, created the UP as EMU for TTC patrons, and built some bus Transitways, every area of Toronto would have much better true rapid transit and it could have been implemented in half the time for electrification and immediately for GO train/bus TTC fares.
 
http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ont-ndp-add-third-budget-demand-no-tolls-in-carpool-lanes-1.1280756

TORONTO -- Ontario's New Democrats want to put the brakes on the government's plans for what they're calling "Lexus lanes" -- their third and last post-budget demand to keep the minority Liberals afloat and avoid an election.
The Liberals must drop plans to allow drivers without passengers to pay a toll to use high-occupancy lanes, at least until they close a tax loophole that will allow corporations to write off HST on entertainment and meals starting in 2015, said NDP Leader Andrea Horwath.
"What they do is basically squeeze out people who are already carpooling for the favour of trying to get people who can pay their way into those lanes," she said. "We don't think that's the right direction to go in."

The government has said it will wait for Metrolinx's final report in June before making a decision about which new fees they'll use to raise $2 billion a year for public transit in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area.
But the Liberals announced in the May 2 budget that they'll introduce so-called high-occupancy toll lanes (HOT), without saying how much it will cost and inflating previous estimates of how much money it will bring in, she said.
Her party can't support the budget if it adds any new tolls, fees or taxes for individuals while handing tax breaks to corporations, she warned.
"We're actually using this opportunity ... to say, 'We're warning you. This is not a fair, balanced and transparent way to go, and we will not accept that kind of a plan if that's what you decide to bring in the fall," Horwath said.

...

The provincial NDP is getting way beyond being too stupidly populist at this point. Is anyone forcing single occupant drivers to use the HOV? Granted Horwath would've had a case if the millions of dollars spent for conversion was excessively expensive. But if it works out to be a marginal cost to the tax base, and drivers can clearly avoid the HOV if they refuse to pay tolls... isn't that pretty much status quo like right now for the non-paying driver?
 
http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ont-ndp-add-third-budget-demand-no-tolls-in-carpool-lanes-1.1280756



The provincial NDP is getting way beyond being too stupidly populist at this point. Is anyone forcing single occupant drivers to use the HOV? Granted Horwath would've had a case if the millions of dollars spent for conversion was excessively expensive. But if it works out to be a marginal cost to the tax base, and drivers can clearly avoid the HOV if they refuse to pay tolls... isn't that pretty much status quo like right now for the non-paying driver?

I am not supporting the NDP/Horvath but I think you are misinterpreting what she is saying. Right now existing HOV lanes are there to encourage multiple occupancy vehicles and entice people to car pool/ride share by offering them a swifter commute......converting existing HOV lanes to HOT lanes reduces the value of that car pool/ride share incentive by allowing more vehicles into those lanes (ie single occupancy vehicles) and, true to NDP principles, that single car access is based on ability/willingness to pay...I don't think she is saying anyone is forced to pay to use the lanes but she questions why anyone should be able to pay.
 
Slightly aside... HOV lanes should be 3 or more persons per car not 2 or more persons per car.
 
I am not supporting the NDP/Horvath but I think you are misinterpreting what she is saying. Right now existing HOV lanes are there to encourage multiple occupancy vehicles and entice people to car pool/ride share by offering them a swifter commute......converting existing HOV lanes to HOT lanes reduces the value of that car pool/ride share incentive by allowing more vehicles into those lanes (ie single occupancy vehicles) and, true to NDP principles, that single car access is based on ability/willingness to pay...I don't think she is saying anyone is forced to pay to use the lanes but she questions why anyone should be able to pay.

WOW! I was pretty upset with the NDP for what they were doing but what you just said made me look at it in such a different way. It looks like the NDP is pandering to drivers because there are more of them in Ontario so they get more votes. The NDP should consider changing the message if this is really a question of equal access.
 
$25 sounds about right actually. I don't mean to imply that it will not have an impact but congestion also has a measurable impact both at an economic and personal level; and it's not going to decrease on it's own, hopefully.

So, either we build something useful for transportation or we start to watch as Canadian banks hire people in Chicago to run their trading desks instead of people from Toronto (see BMO) and similar.

I watched as the CEO of SBC in 2001 sold off InQuent and Amdocs in large part because of congestion. They had a really bad trip in from the Pearson, the best staff were moved to Virginia & Dallas and the companies sold off shortly afterword. Congestion was affecting jobs in Toronto over 10 years ago and this will be more severe today.

$25 a month is worth it if there will be jobs available when one is needed. Unemployment is a far worse prospect.



IMO, Sheppard, Eglinton and Spadina were a waste of money. Those funds should have been directed at GO to electrify all 7 GO lines and provide 15 minute frequencies all day (5am to midnight) on all lines with some kind of TTC fare integration.

It would have been around the same price but much more effective.

Wrong. That is simply growth for the US arm of BMO - BMO Harris.. By far (and I mean % of total value) most of the action happens on the third floor of FCP. Otherwise, we wouldn't be seeing American traders coming to Toronto from Chicago in order to advance their careers within the organization.
 
Wrong. That is simply growth for the US arm of BMO - BMO Harris.. By far (and I mean % of total value) most of the action happens on the third floor of FCP. Otherwise, we wouldn't be seeing American traders coming to Toronto from Chicago in order to advance their careers within the organization.

Only because BMO is based here. If you give an average 22 year old Toronto or NYC or San Francisco. They'll choose NYC. There's proof of this out there.
 

Back
Top