[Admiral Beez]

Maybe it is time for Toronto and other urban municipalities to look at a sales tax to help pay for projects that the provincial and federal governments refuse to help support. The 0.25% that NYC has to pay, is a good number to start with.

Any increase in revenue to the municipal government will get sucked up by the Police Services Board and the rest of the bureaucracy.

How about before we add another tax to Torontonians in addition to the Miller car tax, and the land transfer tax, we cut government expenses a little? For a starter, reduce city council to 25 councillors, and cut their pay by 30%. They'll still be well above the nation average income. Next, set a pay and hiring freeze (along with retirement incentives) for Police and all other unionized government staff for the next five years. No lay offs, no pension cuts, or reduced work hours, but a freeze on increases to Toronto's spiraling payroll costs, especially in the Police service. The hiring freeze and retirement incentives will cut growth in the city expenses dramatically.

Let's trim the fat before we feed the beast further.

 

[GraphicMatt]

You're a smart person who is passionate about city issues. Would you run for a council seat that paid ~68,000/year? What kind of person would?

 

[Dan416]

You're a smart person who is passionate about city issues. Would you run for a council seat that paid ~68,000/year? What kind of person would?

$68,000 a year isn't chump change.

Anyway, I fully support a Municipal Sales Tax. I don't think anyone feels like they're paying less in taxes now than they did when the combined tax was 15%, so going back to 15% won't be noticeable either.

 

[GraphicMatt]

It's not chump change, but anyone with private sector experience in business, managing large projects, etc. is going to be able to make far more than that.

You can't ask our elected officials to have management expertise and business experience and then pay them half of what they could make in the private sector.

 

[Towered]

It's not chump change, but anyone with private sector experience in business, managing large projects, etc. is going to be able to make far more than that.

You can't ask our elected officials to have management expertise and business experience and then pay them half of what they could make in the private sector.

Well, judging by the already generally awful quality of our city councillors at present salaries, I hardly think it would make a difference.

 

[kettal]

a sales tax ... is one of the most regressive forms of taxation

Is this true when rent and groceries are tax exempt?

 

[greenleaf]

Why not have the MST dedicated to transit capital projects (i.e. Transit City)?

The money could only go towards these projects and be subject to a "use it or lose it" timeline (perhaps coordinated with the province, who would give the city permission to have the tax in the first place) in order to ensure that Transit City gets built in a reasonable amount of time.

 

[js97]

It's not chump change, but anyone with private sector experience in business, managing large projects, etc. is going to be able to make far more than that.

You can't ask our elected officials to have management expertise and business experience and then pay them half of what they could make in the private sector.

are you kiddin? look at council.... how many of the left/Miller councillors actually have 'private sector' knowledge? Pantalone? Giambrone? Augimeri? Fletcher? Vaughan? Gord Perks? Should I continue?

now on the other hand, the few more fiscally responsible, Rob Ford? Del Grande?- a Chartered Accountant Doug Holyday - Former mayor.


Being a politician shouldn't be about the pay, it should be about public service. A lower pay would be an incentive for people to move on if they are simply looking for a pay cheque - which I'm sure many of these councillors that have been there for ever are simply doing.

 

[GraphicMatt]

You're proving my point. Lower politician pay means you get either:

a) a bunch of well-meaning but inexperienced council members, many of whom are looking at their council seat as a stepping stone toward a more lucrative job in the private sector or in another government

or

b) independently wealth legacy types, to whom the salary is irrelevant

Neither is good for the city.

The reality is that lots of people take a pay cut to run for council - Adam Vaughan as a television reporter for CityTV. David Miller himself has a degree in economics from Harvard and worked for several years as a lawyer before entering politics.

Note that I don't have a problem with the current council's rate of pay, though it is lower than many of the 905 municipalities - I just think there are negative impacts to cutting/freezing council member's salaries that often aren't considered.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Being a politician shouldn't be about the pay, it should be about public service. A lower pay would be an incentive for people to move on if they are simply looking for a pay cheque - which I'm sure many of these councillors that have been there for ever are simply doing.

that might actually be a good way to get rid of those who get re-elected over and over again just because they've been around for a long time. personally, i believe that just because somebody has been doing something for a long time, it doesn't necessarily mean they're good at it.

also, we know from experience that high pay doesn't always attract the best minds, especially since this is a business where people get their jobs based on popularity, a popularity that can be based on things such as gender, name, religion, etc. which has nothing to do with skill. and don't assume that high pay will deter politicians from being corrupt. regardless of high pay or low pay, corrupt people will be corrupt.

 

[js97]

You're proving my point. Lower politician pay means you get either:

a) a bunch of well-meaning but inexperienced council members, many of whom are looking at their council seat as a stepping stone toward a more lucrative job in the private sector or in another government

or

b) independently wealth legacy types, to whom the salary is irrelevant

Neither is good for the city.

The reality is that lots of people take a pay cut to run for council - Adam Vaughan as a television reporter for CityTV. David Miller himself has a degree in economics from Harvard and worked for several years as a lawyer before entering politics.

Note that I don't have a problem with the current council's rate of pay, though it is lower than many of the 905 municipalities - I just think there are negative impacts to cutting/freezing council member's salaries that often aren't considered.

Ah now your'e taking the pessimistic view.

A) I think that would be a good idea. People will have to perform if they are using the position as a 'stepping' stone.

B) Michael Bloomberg and Arnold schwarzenegger are great examples of those looking to affect change for the betterment of society. I think a lot, a lot of the tough decisions made by the two would not have been made if they where dependant on politics to put food on their table. They both made some really tough decisions, for the betterment of society as whole,
that where not politically popular with their constituents.



And for the record, reporters get paid a max of 80k, so Vaughan gave himself a cushy raise and + benefits.

and Miller, as a partner at a medium/small local firm that worked on Employment/Immigration cases is not a lucrative practice in the law industry, so he definately did not 'give up' much to become public office. At 250k plus enormous perks and expense accounts, he probably has a more comfortable lifestyle now than he did.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Interesting that you should use Michael Bloomberg as an example, considering how radical some of his proposals are for a better society - and yes, he doesn't have to deal with a pesky council to push through those radical things like bike lanes...and of course, NYC has no access to funding sources other than property taxes as far as I know, right?

As to Arnold, I have a feeling his approval rating is even lower than Miller at this moment.

and Miller, as a partner at a medium/small local firm that worked on Employment/Immigration cases is not a lucrative practice in the law industry, so he definately did not 'give up' much to become public office. At 250k plus enormous perks and expense accounts, he probably has a more comfortable lifestyle now than he did.

Perhaps you should look up Aird & Berlis LLP first...then again, you are the individual who didn't even know he worked in the private sector...

This is how someone with no track record of successs in the private sector (David Miller) becomes a mayor.

AoD

PS: I found it interesting that you have neglected to mention shareholder rights as one of his specialities as well. I guess we can't have any work for private interests creeping into your critique now, can we?

 

[js97]

Interesting that you should use Michael Bloomberg as an example, considering how radical some of his proposals are for a better society - and yes, he doesn't have to deal with a pesky council to push through those radical things like bike lanes...

As to Arnold, I have a feeling his approval rating is even lower than Miller at this moment.



Perhaps you should look up Aird & Berlis LLP first...then again, you are the individual who didn't even know he worked in the private sector...



AoD

I did look it up, I did know he was a lawyer - most lawyers are fiscally inept. Aird & Berlis LLP is not Blakes, Torys, McCarthy's etc. It's not even the size as Osler or Goodman the smaller firms. You shoudl look those up
I'm not attacking him as a lawyer, his firm, or their practice. Just trying to present the facts, so there is no misconception as to what his background is. The difference between a partner at a bay street M&A firm vs. a local immigration/employement firm is about a few few million dollars a year, or around 10 times the other. Just an FYI. * Edit* They've obviusly grown in the last 10 years.


Yes, you can always criticize a politician, but you shoudl measure their policy by the greater good fo their city/province/state etc.

You say radical, I say innovative.

What was so radical that hasn't worked?

Pay kids to attend school? - has he not raised highschool graduation rates?
Pay teachers based on performance?
Allow principals to decide where to spend the capital budget (with overview and measureable performance based landmarks?)

I think the majority of Torontonians are willing to pay if they think they are getting good value for their money, I don't feel like I'm.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Please follow the link I've provided for YOUR benefit - you have no clue he worked for a private law firm (thus sector) prior to being pointed out that fact.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yes, you can always criticize a politician, but you shoudl measure their policy by the greater good fo their city/province/state etc.

You say radical, I say innovative.

What was so radical that hasn't worked?

Pay kids to attend school? - has he not raised highschool graduation rates?
Pay teachers based on performance?
Allow principals to decide where to spend the capital budget (with overview and measureable performance based landmarks?)

What I am saying is that a lot of what Miller did is similiar to Bloomberg - specially around the area of sustainability - only the latter had the benefit of a system that actually allow him to enact radical changes. So, in one case, Miller is an absolutely incompetent despot with no vision for the city, etc...and in another city, Bloomberg an enlightened visionary with an eye to the future. Right - let's not even talk about the scale of the NYC budget deficit.

You do realize that the City of Toronto, unlike NYC, has no role in delivering education services, right?

AoD