To be clear, by "public funds" you mean taking even more money from other people.

To be clear, by "money" you mean "market" income or wealth determined by a system that is largely inscrutable and unaccountable to any thing or person, or that is, but is simultaneously determined by humans as they exist in society. There's a reason why the top 1% (or 10%, or anybody on top) have as much money or wealth as they do -- they pay themselves by agreeing among themselves to do so, using the power they have accumulated.

Almost every society recognizes that extreme outcomes are unacceptable because most humans have the capacity for empathy. Or, if you'd prefer to put it in self-interested terms, as you seem to prefer, because extreme inequality eventually destroys society.

The bottom-line, gut-punching truth is that Canada has a GINI index that is moderate-to-high among OECD countries. Wealth is overwhelmingly concentrated within a fraction of a segment of a slice of society. Other countries that do a better job of distributing market income (within reason, since no society anywhere on Earth has ever come close to eliminating an upper class or ever will), of which there are many, are indisputably nicer places to live.

Your assertion that moderate taxation is "Marxism", in light of the fact such inequality exists in Canada, as a fact, is absurd.

All this to say that I believe in capitalism as a guiding principle, but parroting a word or ideology is not debate-ending response to the need for affordable housing in Toronto.

Maybe I can see posts related to the pretty, very expensive building now?
 
Last edited:
I think what is lost in this conversation is that property taxes shouldn't be the revenue tool for addressing items like affordable housing.

The province and feds need to step in. They are much better positioned to fund such programs than municipal governments under the current system are.
 
To be clear, by "money" you mean "market" income or wealth determined by a system that is largely inscrutable and unaccountable to any thing or person, or that is, but is simultaneously determined by humans as they exist in society. There's a reason why the top 1% (or 10%, or anybody on top) have as much money or wealth as they do -- they pay themselves by agreeing among themselves to do so, using the power they have accumulated.

Almost every society recognizes that extreme outcomes are unacceptable because most humans have the capacity for empathy. Or, if you'd prefer to put it in self-interested terms, as you seem to prefer, because extreme inequality eventually destroys society.

The bottom-line, gut-punching truth is that Canada has a GINI index that is moderate-to-high among OECD countries. Wealth is overwhelmingly concentrated within a fraction of a segment of a slice of society. Other countries that do a better job of distributing market income (within reason, since no society anywhere on Earth has ever come close to eliminating an upper class or ever will), of which there are many, are indisputably nicer places to live.

Your assertion that moderate taxation is "Marxism", in light of the fact such inequality exists in Canada, as a fact, is absurd.

All this to say that I believe in capitalism as a guiding principle, but parroting a word or ideology is not debate-ending response to the need for affordable housing in Toronto.

Maybe I can see posts related to the pretty, very expensive building now?
Yeah your socialism worked in Venezuela just fine...lol. Wealth redistribution, the anthem of the left.
 
Last thing this thread needs are right vs left idealogues.

Toronto is a first class city in a first class country and many are working 60 plus hours still unable to feed their children. That's wrong. Disgusting really and it boils down to housing costs in the city.
 
Yeah your socialism worked in Venezuela just fine...lol. Wealth redistribution, the anthem of the left.

This may be your single worst post in this forum.

It's so completely over the top, hyperbolic and utterly preposterous as to be laughable.

As someone who has investments, who has done reasonably well, who is a proponent of efficiency and an opponent of deficits during times of economic growth, I find your allusion silly.

A fair comparison is Sweden or Norway or Denmark etc.

Those countries all have happier citizens and comparable wealth to Canada or the United States; which much better outcomes for those in the lowest 30% of income.

It's fair enough to disagree with a particular policy or to have a preference on the income redistribution scale, your post did not achieve that threshold.
 
Last edited:
Yeah your socialism worked in Venezuela just fine...lol. Wealth redistribution, the anthem of the left.
There are so many great counterpoints you could have made to mcornett’s post about redistributive taxation policies. One could argue that the most dynamic world economies tend to be the most free market or that higher taxation simply deprives Ontario of tax income and economic activity by simply encouraging the wealthy to park their money elsewhere. By equating funding more public housing in Toronto through tax revenue to the rampant corruption and incompetence of the Venezuelan government is equivalent to concluding a debate with, “yeah, well you’re ugly and nobody likes you.” It’s intellectually flaccid.
 
It's honestly embarrassing how pathetically idiotic the discourse on this forum gets thanks to a small number of users who allow greed, a strange obsession with tall buildings and their own ignorance to derail any kind of interesting discussion of the politics of development. I used to enjoy commenting on UT but there's really no point when people address questions of inequality in the market with "lol but Venezuela" or "taxes are Marxism." There is absolutely an argument to be made from a right-wing, pro-development perspective that can be rational, fair and cited with evidence but you'll never find it on UT.
 
The top marginal rate is only part of the story. I'm self-employed with a six-figure income; I can guarantee that I'm not Marxist, but I care about social justice. My point about the cost of these apartments is that the fact that they sell like hotcakes is an indication that people can afford higher taxes.

It's complex, with feedback loops, but many of the people buying these units with 1-2 mortgages cannot afford them. They will discover that when rates go up, or they are out of work for 6 months. Then prices will come down. It's local herd mentality, not just Chinese speculators, driving prices. That that will fix itself at some point. Don't assume everyone has lots of extra income lying around looking to be expropriated by the tax man.
There are always parts of town that are less desirable and easier to afford. 25 years ago it was Downtown, now it's the Suburbs.
 
Ironically, as someone who is part Venezuelan and has lived in that horrid disgusting country for some time, there is a few things we can learn from them.

Like, they somehow figured out how to build not just 3 bedroom units in apartment buildings, but frequently 4 bedroom units too. With sqft ranging between 1,000 to 1,800.

Which are liveable spaces in the air for actual families.

All built by the private development sector there, no less.
 
I have my doubts we can learn from them in this regard. The commonality when high er end housing is really cheap is taking advantage of a domestic or imported labour force.
 
This may be your single worst post in this forum.

Its so completely over the top, hyperbolic and utterly preposterous as to be laughable.

As someone who has investments, who has done reasonably well, who is a proponent of efficiency and an opponent of deficits during times of economic growth, I find your allusion silly.

A fair comparison is Sweden or Norway or Denmark etc.

Those countries all have happier citizens and comparable wealth to Canada or the United States; which much better outcomes for those in the lowest 30% of income.

Its fair enough to disagree with a particular policy or to have a preference on the income redistribution scale, your post did not achieve that threshold.

Let's leave aside Norway and its Sovereign Wealth Fund. Nanny states can have some medium terms appeal, but we will have to see how sustainable gold-plated social safety nets are. Sadly - and is sad - for evolutionary reasons people become less willing to live with extraordinarily high levels of wealth transfer outside their group. In that regard, Canada is admirably progressive, but it has limits. Canada also competes with the worlds largest source of economic growth. We can't hide under Germany's skirts.
 
Cresford posted some pics of the launch on their Instagram account today.
 
Not sure if this rendering has been posted before:

https://cresford.com/cresford-introduces-ysl-residences-to-toronto/

preview-full-Rendering3_x.jpg
 

Attachments

  • preview-full-Rendering3_x.jpg
    preview-full-Rendering3_x.jpg
    2.4 MB · Views: 1,035

Back
Top