Chuck
Senior Member
They delay in implementing the $60 fee is costing the City of Toronto tens of millions of dollars that it by no means deserves. Hopefully the idea is scrapped altogether.
|
|
|
Miller Tax on Plate Renewal?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
pickleberry
New Member
Chuck
Senior Member
Fair? How is releasing such an important stipulation after thousands of people have already opted for 2 year renewals fair? More importantly, how is the creation of an exclusive Toronto-only tax fair to Toronto's taxpayers? What do you tell someone on a fixed income when they are faced with a one time renewal fee of $194 next time they renew their plates?
Down with the Miller regime! Fortunately I gave up my car permanently and won't have to deal with this crap.
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
If you're on such a fixed income that an extra $200 is scary, owning a car these days is probably not viable for you. That's like a month's worth of gas.
dowlingm
Senior Member
How much will 905 drivers be taxed. Oh right, nothing.
A tax on parking was the right call, but city hall chose piggybacking on the province. Easy taxes are all too often bad ones.
A tax on parking was the right call, but city hall chose piggybacking on the province. Easy taxes are all too often bad ones.
northstar
New Member
Miller could have chosen to raise property taxes.
Comparable property taxes on a house in the 905 are much higher than those on a similarly priced house in the city of Toronto.
Miller nixed the option of increasing property taxes, stating that it would cause undue hardship on those with fixed incomes.
Therefore he chose to hit those with cars (I guess under the presumption that they could sell the car if the tax was too onerous).
My cynical side wonders whether he assumed that people with cars were less likely to vote for him, therefore the tax on cars would cause less collateral damage in the next election... (things that make you go hmmmm!)
Comparable property taxes on a house in the 905 are much higher than those on a similarly priced house in the city of Toronto.
Miller nixed the option of increasing property taxes, stating that it would cause undue hardship on those with fixed incomes.
Therefore he chose to hit those with cars (I guess under the presumption that they could sell the car if the tax was too onerous).
My cynical side wonders whether he assumed that people with cars were less likely to vote for him, therefore the tax on cars would cause less collateral damage in the next election... (things that make you go hmmmm!)
dowlingm
Senior Member
northstar - the difference is that 905 municipalities aren't paying for the volume of cars heading into their business districts that the 416 is. A plate tax hits all 416 car owners equally regardless of heavy or light use and hits out of towners not at all. A tax on parking spaces would have been a de facto congestion charge.
xstatik
Banned
I think it is time to charge an annual fee (maybe $300 - $500) for putting a car on the road in Toronto, plus "toll" charges collected on cars entering the city (i.e. that have not paid the annual fee) -- all money collected would go to building/running public transit.
BTW, I don't have a car -- maybe that is the reason why I am so quick to tax it - just like everyone else - taxes that don't affect me are great!
This is the problem with the current city government. They already have enough money in taxes. Property taxes are high enough and increasing every year! They problem in mismanagement of the current funds.
Also, instead of making it more difficult to drive in the city, I would like to see the city put that money (Gardiner teardown, speed humps etc) towards expanded subways and more frequent and faster Go service! There is no reason that the subways can't be on a constant expansion strategy with new stations opening each year.
Dichotomy
Banned
I think it is time to charge an annual fee (maybe $300 - $500) for putting a car on the road in Toronto, plus "toll" charges collected on cars entering the city (i.e. that have not paid the annual fee) -- all money collected would go to building/running public transit.
BTW, I don't have a car -- maybe that is the reason why I am so quick to tax it - just like everyone else - taxes that don't affect me are great!
I wholeheartedly agree: if Miller dared slap such a tax on auto ownership in this city, the backlash would usher him out of power. He isn't that stupid. He knows $60 isn't going to break anyone and that the bored, uninvolved majority won't awaken from their slumber of $60.
Death by a thousand cuts.
Chuck
Senior Member
I agree. The Gardiner is hardly hurting anyone. Put that money into a westward expansion of the Queen's Quay streetcar instead.
kEiThZ
Superstar
While I don't agree with the removal of the Gardiner....(I'd like to see it buried at least)....I dislike the fact that these taxes are not earmarked. I'd like to know that the plate renewal fee is going to the TTC capital budget or towards the Gardiner - super duper 10 lane mini highway (cough avenue cough) plan.... Putting the funds in general revenue will seemly spark demands for higher wages by the unions.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Is this plate tax charged only in the 416 area?
junctionist
Senior Member
What's your opposition to speed humps? In residential areas where posted limits are frequently disregarded, they are beneficial. They make a difference on roads by parks where kids play and on straight roads where at night people accelerate as hard as possible with the tires squealing, for instance. They also discourage traffic on side streets, which improves the quality of life of residents.
And inevitably, by investing more in transit, the driving experience will get worse. Giving streetcars priority at intersections would improve the performance of the streetcar, at the expense of those wanting to make left turns. Building ROWs may require the removal of lanes.
The mismanagement of funds is hardly the greatest problem of city finances. The rising labour costs, particularly of the police, TTC and EMS are factors, as well as the downloading of services from the Harris era.
Automation Gallery said:
That's correct.
rbt
Senior Member
Incidentally, taking down Gardiner is, in part, a cost savings measure. It costs many millions per year (average -- some years more than others) to keep Gardiner elevated.
When the numbers first came out I calculated break-even with a 3% loan was at 25 to 30 years. No idea how I did that now as I didn't keep notes but I know rebuilding the supports for the western segment was about $80M.
LakeShore is the real problem for Gardiner maintenance costs. The supports take a real beating when the various salt and snow removal equipment go past. Eliminating LakeShore under Gardiner would probably provide similar savings.
Chuck
Senior Member
I wonder how the net present value of tear down compares to annual maintenance. If tear down does save money, then I'm all for it. As for the Miller tax, it should at least be dedicated 100% to transit expansion projects.