TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Found it buried in this article: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...last-step-to-reach-civic-greatness-james.html
|
|
|
- Thread starter denfromoakvillemilton
- Start date
Found it buried in this article: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...last-step-to-reach-civic-greatness-james.html
crs1026
Superstar
We need to not treat the Provincial or Federal contributions as found money. It is likely raised in this city also.
Personally, I would rather see a greater amount raised directly in the City, where we can see it, than coming out of these enormous hidden vats further up the political system.
But yes, even if we raise $1650M per year, three times what you suggest, it's a pittance in overall taxation.
- Paul
rbt
Senior Member
That $11 Billion is total revenues. Increasing the price of parking tickets by 5% for subway capital money isn't going to work. Property tax revenue is a touch under $4B/year so a 12.5% property tax increase (commercial and residential) to raise $500M/year; perfectly reasonable IMO.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
My example is a simplification, where the City somehow managed to raise the amount of revenue collected by 5%. I recognize that the City wouldn't literally add 5% to every tax and fee it charges. More likely it would be generated though new taxation sources, such as a sales tax. The particulars of how the money would be raised isn't particularly relevant, only as long as it amounts to an additional ~5% in revenue. I just wanted to show that it would be relatively tiny increase compared to the taxes we pay currently.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
If we could make a deal where we could reduce Toronto's federal and provincial taxes by x.xx% and have infrastructure solely paid for by the municipality, I'd support that. The less political interference, the better. But the chances of getting agreement from other levels of government is basically zero.
doady
Senior Member
That article is not accurate about property tax rates being higher in 905. Toronto has lower residential property tax rate than the 905, but it has higher commercial and industrial tax rates...
Property tax is a very regressive tax. It increases tax burden more on low income people. Increasing it faster than other taxes is not a good idea. Yes, it is a small proportion of overall taxation, and it should stay that way. Property tax has become a very big proportion of municipal revenue, but the solution is not increase it. That's like saying the solution to obesity is buying bigger pants. Ultimately, only the higher level of governments can solve this problem, by giving municipalities more money and/or by giving them more powers.
bobbob911
Active Member
Correction - it increases tax burden on low income people who also happen to have a huge nest egg in terms of actually owning real estate, and specifically only those who don't qualify for special property tax relief programs (for seniors, disabilities, etc)
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
Also, the mil rate and the property value both affect the tax paid. Toronto has a lower mil rate but the property itself is assessed as more valuable. The 905 has higher mil rates but lower assessed property values.
In Toronto, it seems like the poor do not own homes any more.
If the question is how vulnerable is one's ability to cover costs should costs increase..... consider the impact of a 5% property tax increase, versus a .25% or .5% uptick in mortgage rates....the tax increase is not what the Toronto homeowner should fear most.
- Paul
In Toronto, it seems like the poor do not own homes any more.
If the question is how vulnerable is one's ability to cover costs should costs increase..... consider the impact of a 5% property tax increase, versus a .25% or .5% uptick in mortgage rates....the tax increase is not what the Toronto homeowner should fear most.
- Paul
TOareaFan
Superstar
Neither, on their own is likely to harm anyone.
A million dollar home (used for example) has property taxes now of $6,879.73 so a 5% increase would cost that homeowner an extra $344 per year. If that homeowner has, say, a $750k mortgage at 2.5% (plucked that rate right out of the air) and their rate increased to 3% their annual debt service would increase by $189/mth (2,271 per year).
Of course the difference is that homeowners/taxpayers feel they can control the taxes they pay by vote.....you really don't get to vote on interest rates and they are a market function....add in that the percentage of homeowners that have mortgages is something less than 100% and the percentage that has a large enough mortgage to make them particularly susceptible to increases in mortgage rates is an even smaller percentage.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
We should use marijuana to fund transit
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/calgary-to-ask-ottawa-for-a-slice-of-pot-pie-1.3835900
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/calgary-to-ask-ottawa-for-a-slice-of-pot-pie-1.3835900
steveintoronto
Superstar
Reposted here from Tory forum
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/mayor-john-torys-toronto.20871/page-248#post-1163036
WislaHD said: ↑
Pardon my not editing this, will post it in "quote" to reduce the page space displayed since I'll include all the first page hits from Google, this is such a large story in Oz that some of the hits are University Forums on the matter. No matter how you (all) feel about this, it has to be discussed, because this is already in the pipe and headed here, so best this be debated before reactionary headlines make a mess of it: (I think this is a way forward, but with *caveats* that we stay in the driver's seat)
Edit to Add: Now the links are in front of me, I couldn't help but start reading them, started with one of the most cynical (Why port privatisation plans are in deep water around the country) for which you have to wade through a lot of local, regional and national politics, all very interesting, but as that relates to the situation we're discussing, and my "driver's seat" caveat:
Are we selling off the family silver by privatising Australia’s ports?
That's exactly the line of questioning we need, even as I agree with the principle of Private Capital allowing big, necessary projects to move forward.
We're bent over the barrel borrowing money to do it within the City's finances, how can we be any less compromised handing over projects of size to Investors who then recoup costs by user fees, the same as we would have to do anyway, and with higher operating and debt servicing costs to do it 'in house'?
Bear in mind, income tax is an invention only a little over a century old. How was North America's magnificent expansion financed before that? (Caveats of course apply)
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/mayor-john-torys-toronto.20871/page-248#post-1163036
WislaHD said: ↑
Pardon my not editing this, will post it in "quote" to reduce the page space displayed since I'll include all the first page hits from Google, this is such a large story in Oz that some of the hits are University Forums on the matter. No matter how you (all) feel about this, it has to be discussed, because this is already in the pipe and headed here, so best this be debated before reactionary headlines make a mess of it: (I think this is a way forward, but with *caveats* that we stay in the driver's seat)
Edit to Add: Now the links are in front of me, I couldn't help but start reading them, started with one of the most cynical (Why port privatisation plans are in deep water around the country) for which you have to wade through a lot of local, regional and national politics, all very interesting, but as that relates to the situation we're discussing, and my "driver's seat" caveat:
Are we selling off the family silver by privatising Australia’s ports?
That's exactly the line of questioning we need, even as I agree with the principle of Private Capital allowing big, necessary projects to move forward.
We're bent over the barrel borrowing money to do it within the City's finances, how can we be any less compromised handing over projects of size to Investors who then recoup costs by user fees, the same as we would have to do anyway, and with higher operating and debt servicing costs to do it 'in house'?
Bear in mind, income tax is an invention only a little over a century old. How was North America's magnificent expansion financed before that? (Caveats of course apply)
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Running short on time here, but realized I hadn't fully answered Wisla's request for reference *as to how that finances transit* (and I will detail more later when time permits), but just glancing through an Aussie document on it, and lo and behold!
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=...kW646t21vR_Ef7rEQ&sig2=zCsUzMMemmsUVjU6_sYD1Q
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Here's the connection for the Port of Melbourne sale to transit funding: (similar occurs in other Oz cities selling off ports re funding transit schemes. All major Oz cities save for Canberra are ports)
Government to use sale of Port of Melbourne lease to fund transport infrastructure projects
Updated 5 Mar 2014, 3:53am
The Victorian Government will sell the lease on the Port of Melbourne to fund future infrastructure projects.
The sale would raise billions of dollars to fund transport infrastructure projects such as the East West Link tunnel.
[...]
link below
Government to use sale of Port of Melbourne lease to fund transport infrastructure projects
Updated 5 Mar 2014, 3:53am
The Victorian Government will sell the lease on the Port of Melbourne to fund future infrastructure projects.
The sale would raise billions of dollars to fund transport infrastructure projects such as the East West Link tunnel.
[...]
link below
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_Metro_Rail_Projectwww.theage.com.au › News › Victoria News
Sep 19, 2016 - The sale will allow the Andrews government to unleash billions of ... Labor secures $9.7b Port of Melbourne windfall, but claims federal funds fall short .... Initially the money will be parked in the Victorian Transport Fund, and ...
Government to use sale of Port of Melbourne lease to fund transport ...
www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-05/proceeds...port...sale-to-fund-transport.../5299290
Mar 4, 2014 - The Victorian Government will sell the lease on the Port of Melbourne to fund future infrastructure projects. The sale would raise billions of ...
[...]
Click to expand...
Melbourne's (and many of the Australian cities') transit plans make Canada look 'provincial' in comparison. (Note the Private Capital participation in this project):
[...]
Project description
The project will deliver two 9-kilometre rail tunnels from South Kensington to South Yarra via the CBD. There will be five new underground stations, to be known as Arden, Parkville, CBD North, CBD South and Domain. The line will run from the north-west to the south-east and combine the Sunbury line with the Cranbourne/Pakenham line.
Whilst the rail tunnel is the centrepiece of the project, further works will also be carried out on the Craigieburn and Upfield lines and complement existing projects underway on the Dandenong line, to create four 'metro-style lines which each run independent of each other. This includes the provision of high speed signalling, level crossing removals, track and station improvements and additional train stabling facilities. In addition to this, High Capacity Metro Trains will be procured to add further capacity to the network.
Current status
Map of the planned route
With the election of the Andrews Government in November 2014, the project was positioned as a priority for ongoing future development and eventual construction.
On 18 February 2015, Premier Daniel Andrews announced $40 million had been allocated to commence detailed planning works, community consultation, route design and development of a refreshed business case. The balance, some $260 million, is to be delivered in the May 2015/16 Victorian State Budget.[3] It was revealed that a line of credit facility, originally proposed for the now-cancelled East West Link, would be used to provide up to $3 billion in funding for the project, over the forward estimates.
Andrews announced in April 2015 that $1.5 billion would be allocated in the upcoming 2015/16 State Budget for the full cost of pre-construction works, geo technical drilling, land and property acquisition and detailed route investigations.[4] This is on top of a previously announced $300 million earlier in the year. Furthermore, some 150 bore holes will be dug along the route across Melbourne to investigate soil and ground composition, including the Yarra River.[5]
In October 2015 the government announced it had abandoned earlier plans to run the tunnel just metres beneath Swanston Street and above the existing City Loop tunnels and instead place parts of the project 40 metres underground between CBD North and CBD South stations. The decision was made to reduce disruption to trams and traders on Swanston Street and avoid removing critical utilities, such as telecommunication lines, from beneath the street.[6] The government said it would compulsorily acquire the properties of 63 households and 31 businesses at several locations on the tunnel route.[7]
In January 2016 soil testing and drilling began in the Yarra River.[8] In February 2016, CPB Contractors, a John Holland/KBR consortium and a Lend Lease/Coleman Rail consortium were shortlisted to bid for the early works.[9]
On 22 June 2016 the Office of the Premier of Victoria announced the consortium granted the first contract for construction was CPB Contractors, with a $324 million Works Package which includes the excavation of 35 meter deep open shafts adjacent to Swanston Street to enable the underground construction of the two new city stations, and the relocation of up to 100 subterranean utilities. Works on the shafts are to start in 2017, whilst utility relocation's will start in July 2016.[10][11]
In August 2016, three consortia were shortlisted to bid for the contract:[12]
- Continuum Victoria: Acciona Infrastructure, Ferrovial Agroman, Honeywell, Downer Rail & Plenary Group
- Moving Melbourne Together: Pacific Partnerships, CPB Contractors, Ghella, Salini Impregilo, Serco & Macquarie Capital
- Yarra Partnership: Lend Lease, John Holland, Bouygues & Capella Capital
- [...]
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
WislaHD said: ↑
@steveintoronto
Wisla: Thanks for reception. Wasn't aware of that forum, will post there, and present summaries here to fit more with the gist of the forum premise. What's happening in Oz will start showing more in the Cdn press. Oddly, the Aussies point to the UK as the source of their model, itself a source of concern, since the UK model has glitched in a number of ways we must be careful not to repeat.
To get back to Tory though, he's already making a mess of the challenge presented to him. He's yet to mention this: Private infrastructure bank will put Canada on a path to growth
The Globe and Mail-Oct 29, 2016
And yet that might be one of his most powerful alternative routes to pursue. All it would take to allay much of his present predicament is an announcement stating: "I've become aware, as many of you have, of the announced Federal Investment Bank. We are waiting on some of the Infrastructure Investment Funds promised to us, but now potentially being delivered from a different source in a more potent form. We're looking into this intently to see how this can improve our position on a number of announced City initiatives".
But the man is unable to back his car out of the ditch, let alone get onto a better road. He has yet to even admit he's in a ditch!
@steveintoronto
Wisla: Thanks for reception. Wasn't aware of that forum, will post there, and present summaries here to fit more with the gist of the forum premise. What's happening in Oz will start showing more in the Cdn press. Oddly, the Aussies point to the UK as the source of their model, itself a source of concern, since the UK model has glitched in a number of ways we must be careful not to repeat.
"very interesting especially since Australia has a similar federalist system to us." lol...indeed, even much of the chafing as to jurisdiction, financing, planning, etc. Some of the vids were painfully familiar. They are definitely ahead of us though in respect of coming to terms with applying a different funding model. Melbourne, of course, is rated by many polls as the best world city in which to live.
To get back to Tory though, he's already making a mess of the challenge presented to him. He's yet to mention this: Private infrastructure bank will put Canada on a path to growth
The Globe and Mail-Oct 29, 2016
And yet that might be one of his most powerful alternative routes to pursue. All it would take to allay much of his present predicament is an announcement stating: "I've become aware, as many of you have, of the announced Federal Investment Bank. We are waiting on some of the Infrastructure Investment Funds promised to us, but now potentially being delivered from a different source in a more potent form. We're looking into this intently to see how this can improve our position on a number of announced City initiatives".
But the man is unable to back his car out of the ditch, let alone get onto a better road. He has yet to even admit he's in a ditch!
Last edited: