[Torontovibe]

I'm going to say that given that it was Doug that managed Rob's campaign, and Doug that backtracked on the streetcars in the star article, and Doug is the guy running Deco Labels, that it might well be Doug that is in control and Rob is just a big, goofy guy who has some ideas on his own (the customer service and football is probably Rob) but is largely being directed by Doug.

If Doug is really directing things behind the scenes, it's better for him to lay low and stay a back bencher.

*foil hat*

If Doug is going to continue running the family business, how will he even have time for the added responsibilities? This guy owns houses in Toronto, Chicago and Florida. How will he have time to use his American homes, if he's so busy here? I have the feeling he wont be working at City Hall very much.

 

[archanfel]

I think the council will work as usual. They will all vote for the easy proposals even if they are potentially harmful (e.g. repeal vehicle tax) and fight on hard decisions even if they are potentially beneficial (e.g. balance the budget with service cut).

 

[Eug]

I think the council will work as usual. They will all vote for the easy proposals even if they are potentially harmful (e.g. repeal vehicle tax) and fight on hard decisions even if they are potentially beneficial (e.g. balance the budget with service cut).

I would hope they would try to look at things pragmatically, instead of just assuming the vehicle tax is always good and that budget cuts are always bad.

 

[js97]

Interesting in terms of UT with Vaughan winning in a landslide--after all, weren't a lot of UTers forecasting his defeat over the crusade-against-Clubland issue?

vaughan sold his soul to the NDP in this election. From my understanding, Marchese and Chow's machine was firering on full pistons on both sides of Trinity-Spadina.

Look for him to run in 2014, now that he's somewhat got the backing of an institution.

 

[archanfel]

I would hope they would try to look at things pragmatically, instead of just assuming the vehicle tax is always good and that budget cuts are always bad.

Revenue Neutral should be the golden rule. Cutting taxes is easy, keeping it revenue neutral is a lot harder. People can argue endlessly about whether a policy is a good or bad for the society, but at least revenue neutral will keep the city from going bankrupt.

 

[lafard]

Meanwhile, they cut the vehicle tax and raise the property taxes so that people that don't drive are now subsidizing those that do. Moreso than before.

It's funny the way socialism is only bad when it's not benefitting you directly.

 

[archanfel]

Meanwhile, they cut the vehicle tax and raise the property taxes so that people that don't drive are now subsidizing those that do. Moreso than before.

It's funny the way socialism is only bad when it's not benefitting you directly.

How do you figure? A large part of gas price is tax and the vast majority of people in Toronto drive. Do you have any figure that shows that non-drivers subsidize drivers? Plus, buses and bicycles don't use road? Who is subsidizing whom?

Plus property taxes are not suppose to go up more than the inflation rate. Ford better keep that promise or a lot of people will be very mad at him. Whether he could? I don't know. Neither do you I suspect.

 

[gristle]

How do you figure? A large part of gas price is tax and the vast majority of people in Toronto drive. Do you have any figure that shows that non-drivers subsidize drivers? Plus, buses and bicycles don't use road? Who is subsidizing whom?

Actually, a portion of revenues raised from general taxation goes into road maintenance. Everyone pays those taxes in the city. The city does not collect its own gas taxes. You are under an extreme misapprehension if you believe that only car drivers pay for roads.

The argument that transit, like streetcars, is the cause of traffic congestion is specious. For example, go to the corner of Front and Spadina and count how many automobiles are occupied by just one person. Then watch how some use the intersection poorly (turning when they shouldn't and subsequently blocking any other movement). Multiply this, and you will quickly understand the real cause of traffic congestion. Those vehicles are heading to the Gardiner - which is stuffed with cars occupied by just one person.

Tearing out streetcars and substituting them with buses will not reduce traffic congestion. It will be an enormous waste of money and effort, and any contract cancellation will likely result in a very sizable lawsuit against the city.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Driving is a subsidized activity. It's not about drivers versus non-drivers - it's that no one, by and large, is forced to pay the true cost of driving.

 

[archanfel]

Actually, a portion of revenues raised from general taxation goes into road maintenance. Everyone pays those taxes in the city. The city does not collect its own gas taxes. You are under an extreme misapprehension if you believe that only car drivers pay for roads.

The argument that transit, like streetcars, is the cause of traffic congestion is specious. For example, go to the corner of Front and Spadina and count how many automobiles are occupied by just one person. Then watch how some use the intersection poorly (turning when they shouldn't and subsequently blocking any other movement). Multiply this, and you will quickly understand the real cause of traffic congestion. Those vehicles are heading to the Gardiner - which is stuffed with cars occupied by just one person.

Tearing out streetcars and substituting them with buses will not reduce traffic congestion. It will be an enormous waste of money and effort, and any contract cancellation will likely result in a very sizable lawsuit against the city.

I don't think only car drivers pay for roads, but I think they do pay a fair share, through gas taxes, property taxes and income taxes.

And no, I don't think getting rid of streetcars is a good idea either. They are already there and even drivers are used to them. Why bother?

 

[archanfel]

Driving is a subsidized activity. It's not about drivers versus non-drivers - it's that no one, by and large, is forced to pay the true cost of driving.

I would agree with that. But that's not what I replied to, the original poster said "people that don't drive are now subsidizing those that do" and I take offense from that.

I think we should shift to a more consumption based taxes in general.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I don't think only car drivers pay for roads, but I think they do pay a fair share, through gas taxes, property taxes and income taxes.

How do you figure? A non car-owner with the same property value and income as a car owner pays equivalent income taxes and property taxes as well, so the car driver benefits from road space (which may constitute up to 25% of the land area of the city) and only has to pay the tax on gas.

I think a policy that both you and I might agree on is for the city to eliminate on-street parking, convert that roadspace into...well...roadspace (as in, lanes for moving traffic) and get out of the parking business altogether. I think if we did a cost-benefit analysis of on-street parking, we might find that the individual benefit of paying $2/hour to park on the street is significantly outweighed by the negatives of effectively turning a 4-lane road into a 2-lane road, making snow removal more cumbersome and expensive, and hiring an army of public sector workers to enforce parking rules. If there's an activity that really is an unfair government subsidy that works against our collective economic interests, I think that on street parking is really high on that list.

 

[archanfel]

How do you figure? A non car-owner with the same property value and income as a car owner pays equivalent income taxes and property taxes as well, so the car driver benefits from road space (which may constitute up to 25% of the land area of the city) and only has to pay the tax on gas.

I think a policy that both you and I might agree on is for the city to eliminate on-street parking, convert that roadspace into...well...roadspace (as in, lanes for moving traffic) and get out of the parking business altogether. I think if we did a cost-benefit analysis of on-street parking, we might find that the individual benefit of paying $2/hour to park on the street is significantly outweighed by the negatives of effectively turning a 4-lane road into a 2-lane road, making snow removal more cumbersome and expensive, and hiring an army of public sector workers to enforce parking rules. If there's an activity that really is an unfair government subsidy that works against our collective economic interests, I think that on street parking is really high on that list.

You will also need to factor in that a lot of non-drivers also don't pay income taxes or property taxes. I highly doubt if you factored everything in, drivers are subsidized by non-drivers. Unless you count people with a chauffeur as non drivers.

I am fine with getting rid of on street parking downtown as long as equivalent number of parking spaces are created off street, or better yet, give private companies the time/permission to create those parking spaces. I am also for road toll and other user fees if income taxes are cut.

 

[lafard]

Imagine, if you will, a city with 5 single person households. This city has a roads budget of $1000/yr. Four of these households drive, the fifth does not.

Imagine, then, that the roads are funded similarly to how they are now: each household pays $100/yr in property tax, and the four driving households each pay $75/yr in gas tax, and $50 in a car registration fee.
The non-driver household pays $100/yr for roads, and each driving household pays $225. Is this a fair tax load given each household's use of the roads? Highly subjective, but it probably comes close. The non-driver does eat food shipped in on those roads, and uses the sidewalk and bike lane, but does not congest it with car traffic, which is as we know the primary cause of congestion in cities.

Now, Rob Ford comes onto the scene, abolishes the $50 car tax. Supposedly he's going to find $200/yr in "gravy" to offset this. Let's imagine he saves half of what he claims, as we know his estimates are grossly overestimated. New road budget is $900.
We're still collectiong $300/yr in gas taxes (4x75) but now each household faces a $20 levy on property taxes.
Non-driver pays $120, 20% more.
Drivers pay $195, $30 less, about 13%.

If "gravy" does not exist and you need to balance the full $1000, the levy is $40.
Non driver pays $140, 40% more
Drivers pay $215, 5% less.

This is why user fees such as the car tax are popular. They are naturally fairer. The driver sees relatively minimal savings offset by the non-drivers increase in costs, and because the latter group is much smaller their costs have to increase a lot to offset a small decrease in driver revenue.

Keep in mind that there is a very significant number of voluntary non-drivers, particularly downtown. Like I, who very much pays income and property tax.

 

[archanfel]

Imagine, if you will, a city with 5 single person households. This city has a roads budget of $1000/yr. Four of these households drive, the fifth does not.

Imagine, then, that the roads are funded similarly to how they are now: each household pays $100/yr in property tax, and the four driving households each pay $75/yr in gas tax, and $50 in a car registration fee.
The non-driver household pays $100/yr for roads, and each driving household pays $225. Is this a fair tax load given each household's use of the roads? Highly subjective, but it probably comes close. The non-driver does eat food shipped in on those roads, and uses the sidewalk and bike lane, but does not congest it with car traffic, which is as we know the primary cause of congestion in cities.

Now, Rob Ford comes onto the scene, abolishes the $50 car tax. Supposedly he's going to find $200/yr in "gravy" to offset this. Let's imagine he saves half of what he claims, as we know his estimates are grossly overestimated. New road budget is $900.
We're still collectiong $300/yr in gas taxes (4x75) but now each household faces a $20 levy on property taxes.
Non-driver pays $120, 20% more.
Drivers pay $195, $30 less, about 13%.

If "gravy" does not exist and you need to balance the full $1000, the levy is $40.
Non driver pays $140, 40% more
Drivers pay $215, 5% less.

This is why user fees such as the car tax are popular. They are naturally fairer. The driver sees relatively minimal savings offset by the non-drivers increase in costs, and because the latter group is much smaller their costs have to increase a lot to offset a small decrease in driver revenue.

Keep in mind that there is a very significant number of voluntary non-drivers, particularly downtown. Like I, who very much pays income and property tax.

You are over-simplifying the situation. Even then, you acknowledged that it's highly subjective. And you paying income taxes does not say much. I can give you a list of students who don't drive and don't pay income taxes and I am fairly sure I am subsidizing their tuition fee. As I said, there's no concrete evidence that non-drivers subsidize drivers.

Having said that, I don't disagree with you that consumption based taxes are fairer. I wouldn't have a problem with a vehicle tax combined with an income tax reduction and if such vehicle taxes were reserved for road improvement. Unfortunately, that was not the case. Also, a consumption based tax is regressive, not progressive. I have no problem with that, but I think a lot of people will complain.