[GraphicMatt]

The city only receives between 6 and 12 cents of every tax dollar you pay as a Canadian living in Ontario. The municipal level is not where we should be looking for tax relief.

 

[jn_12]

And why the anti-tax sentiment? Are we American? If anything we should be taxed more! This city, province and country could be a hell of a lot better without this fear of taxes. It's not merely a coincidence that the countries with the highest tax-rates (Sweden, Finland, Norway etc.) also tend to have the most competitive economies and the best quality of life in just about any ranking that comes out. Fact is, Toronto is one of the wealthiest places in one of the wealthiest countries in all of the world and we can afford to be taxed more. The fact that people care more about taxes than the quality of their city/province/country is pathetic.

 

[js97]

And why the anti-tax sentiment? Are we American? If anything we should be taxed more! This city, province and country could be a hell of a lot better without this fear of taxes. It's not merely a coincidence that the countries with the highest tax-rates (Sweden, Finland, Norway etc.) also tend to have the most competitive economies and the best quality of life in just about any ranking that comes out. Fact is, Toronto is one of the wealthiest places in one of the wealthiest countries in all of the world and we can afford to be taxed more. The fact that people care more about taxes than the quality of their city/province/country is pathetic.

Socialist countries depend heavily on more Capitalist society to fund their lifestyle through purchase of luxury goods, oil, natural resources for industrialization etc.

FYI, they are also a VERY CONSERVATIVE fiscal policy in terms of 'spending' ( by the continuous national surpluses)


Those countries are rich not because they tax, but because they understand that expedient spending is neccessary due to limited resources.
(They didn't bail out their auto sector)


On the other hand... look at 'GREECE' in all accounts a very' socialist country..... what a disaster... without any real exports to fund their lifestyle.


Socialist Scandinavian countries have very different policies than North American 'socialists' . They have a much more pragmatic approach, including less MUCH less militant unions.

They didn't bail out their auto sector (saab) during the global financial crisis.. instead, decided to fund childhood education.

You're comparing apples to oranges....

One more thing,
under a socialist type regime.... if you're born poor, you'll remain poor... heavily dependant on the government and very few opportunities to enhance and advance your wealth. Want examples? Italy, France?

 

[jn_12]

Socialist countries depend heavily on more Capitalist society to fund their lifestyle through purchase of luxury goods, oil, natural resources for industrialization etc.


FYI, they are also a VERY CONSERVATIVE fiscal policy in terms of 'spending' ( by the continuous national surpluses)

Those countries are rich not because they tax, but because they understand that expedient spending is neccessary due to limited resources.
(They didn't bail out their auto sector)

Even under your faulty logic, we have the most capitalistic society in the world as our major trading partner which is awfully convenient. Oh and we have oil, natural resources, produce luxury goods, etc. too... hmm... Mind you, what does taxation level have to do with resources? If anything, shouldn't the exportation of greater resources mean less taxes for the people?

Also, the auto bailout is only a recent phenomenon and has little to do with past taxation policy. Though it will have an impact in the future.

And, I never suggested these countries were rich because they tax. I suggested that there is an obvious correlation between their taxation policies, the competitiveness of their economies and their quality of life. And by very conservative you mean things like free post-secondary education and free health care that extends into things like mental health, right? I have a friend who has moved to Norway and is trying to get her Norwegian citizenship right now after marrying a Norwegian and it's very difficult. Why do you think that is?

On the other hand... look at 'GREECE' in all accounts a very' socialist country..... what a disaster... without any real exports to fund their lifestyle.

Greece's problems go well beyond their socialism. Something like $30billion/year in taxes aren't paid by Greeks. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Then there's the whole issue about the Euro and European monetary policy. Let's not get in to that here.

Socialist Scandinavian countries have very different policies than North American 'socialists' . They have a much more pragmatic approach, including less MUCH less militant unions.

Explain what stronger unionization has to do with being taxed less. Fact is, their "pragmatic" approach would be incredibly idealistic here.

They didn't bail out their auto sector (saab) during the global financial crisis.. instead, decided to fund childhood education.
You're comparing apples to oranges....

There's no such thing as comparing apples to oranges when it comes to nations. Any country can pursue any policy direction it pleases.

One more thing,
under a socialist type regime.... if you're born poor, you'll remain poor... heavily dependant on the government and very few opportunities to enhance and advance your wealth. Want examples? Italy, France?

That's a blanket statement if I've ever heard one and one that I doubt you can back up, especially in any comparison of class mobility in capitalist countries. Also, "poor" is relative. Poor in Canada would be worse than poor in Norway but certainly better than poor in South Africa. If you're poor in Norway you can still go and get a university education and you probably have a standard of living that the "poor" in other countries only wishes it had. The same person in Canada, assuming they even got out of high school, would be looking at around $50,000+ to go to university. Which person do you think really has the better chance of doing well in life?

 

[js97]

what are you reading? i'm saying that all that 'socialism' you see... is heavilyy dependant on capitalism.

Canada's 'wealth' and ability to fund our social programs is heavily dependant on our industries being successful.

Want proof? Coincidence that the province had to tighten it's belt at the same time the U.S. Economy crashed that resulted in our manufacturing sector crashing also?

You can't tax the poor.... and capitalism provides a base to fund social services.


And i did spell out on their 'conservative' fiscal policies... (suprluses, saving, small 'c' conservative) not 'CONSERVATIVE' as in NO spending or the 'progressive' nature of Miller's adminisrtation of spending with ouf figuring where the money is going to come from.

30 billion dollars taxes aren't paid because their all broke, again you can't tax the poor can you?

The NDP are supposed to represent a more socially conscious movement, but they're really simply about industrilization and the unions that put them into power.


You can go to the U.S. without a single dime to your name build wealth through legitimate means....

Can you do that in France? Italy? any of the scandanavian countries? Have you compared wages to real estate prices? - With out handouts from earlier generations, you can't buy property in any of those countries based on working wages (housing is one of the main measures of 'wealth')

Idealistic views isn't enough because socialism lacks the mechanism to propel one's social status where as capitalism does.


In any case, I'm trying to point out that politics has become more than just linear policies of left and right, and for you to paint them that way is misleading and inaccurate.

This Idea that the Scandanavian countries are very 'left' and to conclude that if we follow our traditional 'left' politics of the NDP, we will arrive at the same destination is flawed.

Scandavian policies are closer to the 'conservative' policies of Michael Bloomberg and the conservative party than those of the NDP.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Do you honestly still believe in the American Dream? Income disparity in the United States is huge. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

The glory days of Americanism in the 1950s with massive infrastructure investments in interstate highways, etc. was built on the back of 90% income tax brackets for wealthy Americans.

 

[js97]

Do you honestly still believe in the American Dream? Income disparity in the United States is huge. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

The glory days of Americanism in the 1950s with massive infrastructure investments in interstate highways, etc. was built on the back of 90% income tax brackets for wealthy Americans.

To a certain degree, yes... but I also believe in social services, national healthcare, and economic opportunities that aren't solely based on government policy and creation, but the innovation and ambition of the private sector.

Americans are taxed, it's a HUGE misonception that people have that the income tax is drastically lower in the U.S.

In terms of nationally they are very close, and depending on where you live (when you include the city income taxes in philly/nyc etc) it's about the same.

I don't agree with their lack of social welfare programs... but they choose to spend it on national defence etc.
But I can assure you that the NDP don't have the right policies or vision to run a city (as it has shown) nevermind a country.

 

[PubCrawl]

But I can assure you that the NDP don't have the right policies or vision to run a city (as it has shown) nevermind a country.

Oh, well, as long as you're assuring us I guess we have to take your word for it.

Of course, if you want to go beyond soundbites and accepted 'wisdom', a little research would quickly demonstrate that the Tories are much more irresponsible with the public purse than the NDP has ever been. But don't let facts get in the way of your opinion.

 

[adma]

When it comes to the problem with Ford, here's an urbanistic metaphor.

Toronto, pre-Ford mayoralty

Toronto, post-Ford mayoralty

While it's tempting to brand Rob Ford as the perfect "urban improvement through EIFS" candidate...actually, on second thought, the "after" doesn't go far enough. After all, those ugly overhead wires, ugly streetcar tracks, ugly everything are still there. What Mayor Ford might do is get rid of all that junk, get rid of the streetcar barns, and sell it all off to Tridel to build Monopoly-piece highrise condos a la Six Points here. Urban intensification, maaaan.

Or maybe...since his ward is the Woodbine Live! ward, he'd take a few aesthetic cues from Niagara Falls...

Now, *there's* high-rise Forditecture.

 

[nfitz]

The city only receives between 6 and 12 cents of every tax dollar you pay as a Canadian living in Ontario. The municipal level is not where we should be looking for tax relief.

It does seem odd that I pay the most tax money to the federal government, the least to the city, and the rest to the province.

Yet when I look at services I actually receive, I get the most from the city, and the least from the federal government.

 

[GraphicMatt]

What, you don't count a 2 million dollar fake lake as a service? Those are your federal tax dollars at work.

 

[js97]

Oh, well, as long as you're assuring us I guess we have to take your word for it.

Of course, if you want to go beyond soundbites and accepted 'wisdom', a little research would quickly demonstrate that the Tories are much more irresponsible with the public purse than the NDP has ever been. But don't let facts get in the way of your opinion.

It's conviniently unfortunate that the NDP have never been competent enough to form a national government so hence, we can't' compare. And I'm glad I did not mention a single time that I was a Tory, but as a true dipper... every retort must include a demonising catogorization.. for your own justifications....

Just because i'm 'right' of the dippers, doesn't mean i'm off the boat 'right' of centre...

when you're that far off left.... pragmatism and reality seem to be 'right wing' ideals?

I also don't think I've once endorsed the G20 spending.... last I check,Miller and his goons where the one feeding the growth of the police union monster... now that they can't seem to handle the disaster they created... it's all of a sudden a 'right winged' policy of the police state?

 

[GenerationW]

If anything we should be taxed more!

That might get you a whole twenty votes if you ran for office.

We're taxed enough.

 

[toraerach]

Just because i'm 'right' of the dippers, doesn't mean i'm off the boat 'right' of centre...

It's not that you're right of the NDP that paints you as off the boat, it's the way you use the word socialism for me at least. In this thread you accuse the Scandinavian countries of being socialist. They're not, but that's a pretty understandable mistake as they are generally fairly left-leaning (practising what some would call a compassionate capitalism). You also accuse Greece of being a socialist state, which is a little less understandable, but I'll get to that later on. Inexplicably though, you accuse France and Italy of being socialist countries. I just cannot make sense of that. Basically, tossing around the word socialism the way you do puts you in the same Obama-is-a-socialist (or, to bring it closer to home, Soviet-Canuckistan) rightwing camp as our tea(bag?)-loving friends south of the border.

To get back to the Greek thing, it's interesting to me how short people's memories are. Just a few decades ago Greece was a military dictatorship. Similarly, Spain and Portugal, also commonly cited in this European-socialism-leads-to-economic-collapse argument, were run by fascists. The result was that all three nations were not all that economically developed when they joined the EU (unlike Germany or the UK). It took a lot of public investment to bring them up to the European standard, and strong economic roots do not go back all that far. A global financial crisis is all it takes to destabilize everything, no matter who's in government.

Compare the three countries above to Ireland. Again, just a couple decades ago one of the most economically backward nations in Europe. But then the Celtic Tiger roared its head. For the first time in centuries, Ireland stopped being a net exporter of migrants and became a destination for immigrants searching for a better life. Then the global economy fell apart, and Ireland's economy was one of the hardest hit. Can we blame this on socialism? I would like to see you try. Ireland's never been particularly left-leaning (leftist parties like Sinn Féin and the Socialist Party both have marginal support, while the nominally left-leaning and mainstream Labour Party has become more Third Way-centrist over the past two decades). The two main parties that have formed government for the past several decades, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, are fairly centrist to righ-of-centre. Ireland became one of the most business friendly parts of Europe during the Tiger years, but as it became more developed, it's comparative advantages to the UK or the Continent began to disappear. Meanwhile, under-regulated banks fueled a giant property bubble that went bust. The result? Ireland, like Greece, Spain, and Portugal, has been hit hard, possibly the hardest of the lot. But how can one blame the "socialists" here, when there really aren't any?

I'm by no means an economist, and my analysis here may be quite flawed, but it seems to me like the common thread in all of this Europe-is-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket business is that the relatively under-developed nations that joined the EU in the 1970s-80s took way too many risks, chasing the too good to be true economic boom that eventually turned out to be exactly that - too good to be true. You can try to blame socialists, but you'd have just as much luck blaming Catholics (and some people have tried, what with their lack of Protestant work ethic and all).

And now that I've contributed to this exercise in veering completely off-topic, let's return to Ford and forget about all this rightwing rhetoric about tax-and-spend socialists destroying the planet (if it's at all possible to separate that rhetoric from Ford himself, I guess).

 

[PubCrawl]

And I'm glad I did not mention a single time that I was a Tory, but as a true dipper... every retort must include a demonising catogorization.. for your own justifications....

I don't really care how you vote. My point was that the Tories - and people like Rob Ford - are assigned a kind of shorthand credibility on fiscal issues, despite the fact that reality doesn't back up this framing. In contrast, the NDP and "the left" will forever be branded as "fiscally irresponsible" despite the fact that an objective analysis shows that NDP governments, and/or "lefty" municipal governments like David Miller's Toronto, are no worse, and often better at managing public funds than other parties/ ideologies.