[Glen]

.... David Miller himself has a degree in economics from Harvard .....

About that, can we be sure that his did not come from a diploma mill?

Seriously, ideas should stand and fall on their own merits. Especially in a city that embraces those of Jane Jacobs.

 

[Ervin]

I'm against a municipal tax for the same reason as somebody already pointed out, municipalities will just start fighting for the businesses, and the citizens will get jack shit out of it. I say let's have all municipalities in the GTA agree on a GTA wide infrastructure tax that will go to one authority that will fund expansions of GO, TTC, YRT, and so on, as well as necessary road improvements and other infrastructure related issues.

 

[js97]

What I am saying is that a lot of what Miller did is similiar to Bloomberg - specially around the area of sustainability -

To a certain degree, yes SOME of the policies are similiar, but the difference is that Miller's policy lacked execution, measure, and the concept of scale of these policies. You can't take carte blanche a policy from a city that is 3+ times larger in population with at least 10 times more wealth and simply 'scale' it down.


Yeah, he's done some okay things for the city, like the plant a tree program etc (which apperantly, Pantalone said plants 100,000 trees a year - someone do the math and see if that's even feasible?) some bike trails, etc. But he's also spread this sense of entitlement throughout this administration, and managed to tax a good chunk of every aspect of city life, simply to feed more bureacracy.

The obvious difference. Bloomberg was elected into a city still with fresh wounds from 911, billion dollar deficits, and somewhat of a social mess with crime and poverty. If you've ever been to NYC anytime before early 2000 (partly because of Gulianni) and visited after Bloombergs first term, you would think you're in a complete different ERA.

Miller got elected into a city with a fair debt and controllable budget and he's managed to balloon it approx 50% and accumulate a debt twice what it was. Now tell me, do you think Toronto has improved it's services 50% from what it was 8 years ago?
Let's not forget all the additional tax revenue that's been generated from the organic growth of people moving to downtown toronto (Condos)

So whether it was his policies, lack of execution, an incompetent of staff, or whatever. I still think it's his fault (with the support of many of the counicllors).

But enough Miller bashing lol I'm too drained fighting a war that I will never win.. lol. back to Municipal sales taxes.




I think majority of Torontonians would say yes if there was a gurantee that ALL of the revenue go directly to infrastructure spending in building subways.



p.s. David Miller increased his office budget by something like 35% since 2006. that's a fact - www.robford.ca

JS97 (Guerrilla Warfare)

 

[r.deepsea]

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.

Not to jump in late or anything - but as a former mid-market M&A "guy" - I can tell you Aird & Berlis is one of the most profitable Bay St. law firms, and has been for probably the last 50 years. Hardly small, at least from a deal perspective, and I would say David Miller took a *huge* paycut by entering public office. His salary at one of those "bigger" firms you mention would have likely been in same ballpark for his year of call at Aird & Berlis (or their predecessor Aird, Berlis & Zimmerman as I knew them).

He isn't getting rich as Mayor, that's for sure... and all things aside - you have to respect a guy who enters public office, that isn't necessarily from big money, to do what he thinks is right for the public.

 

[Admiral Beez]

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.

By your logic, the more we pay, the greater the quality of politician and bureaucrat we're going to get, with subsequent better results. Has this ever played out in reality? If we paid 200% more than the private sector, would we get 200% more results?