2018 Provincial Election Transit Promises

[gweed123]

By the time they take control (which taking enough interest to show up at the polls; they've had the numbers for a while) the only real tax route to slam boomers (who as a group will no longer have an working income) will be an estate or inheritance tax. That'll be bittersweet.

A 20% estate tax would take a massive chunk off government debt over a 20 year period; likely around $600B for Canada (inheritance runs around $75B/year right now; inflate by 10 years to roughly $150B/year if markets/housing doesn't tank and take 20%).

There are other ways you can do it though besides taxing. You can gut CPP, you can reduce subsidies for retirement residences, you can reduce subsidies for prescription drug plans, all under the guise of reducing government expenditures. Not that any of those are advisable (or politically feasible), but there are other ways you can hit boomers without doing anything with income tax rates.

 

[crs1026]

There are other ways you can do it though besides taxing. You can gut CPP, you can reduce subsidies for retirement residences, you can reduce subsidies for prescription drug plans, all under the guise of reducing government expenditures. Not that any of those are advisable (or politically feasible), but there are other ways you can hit boomers without doing anything with income tax rates.

Some of this is happening. eg - The government is not building long term care facilities, in spite of hospitals being clogged with long term care patients, who cost far more to house in a hospital than in a long term facility. The government knows that in many cases the family will dig deep and find the money to put their loved one in a for-profit retirement home, freeing them from the hospital bed. I expect that kind of passive leverage will continue.

- Paul

 

[rbt]

There are other ways you can do it though besides taxing. You can gut CPP, you can reduce subsidies for retirement residences, you can reduce subsidies for prescription drug plans, all under the guise of reducing government expenditures. Not that any of those are advisable (or politically feasible), but there are other ways you can hit boomers without doing anything with income tax rates.

That's not really going to work.

By the time the youngest millennial is 30 (which is around when folks start realizing they can have input in political matters), the average boomer will already be 71. Even with a very short 4 year phase out, ~40% of boomers will be dead before the changes you list above took place and most of the others would only be impacted for a few years and sitting on assets from a house sale (moving into retirement home allows that). They're not expected to be a generation with unusual longevity. So, those types of changes would really only impact the poorest boomers.

It would certainly slam Gen-X though.


If the goal is to impact wealthy boomers (around 2028 when millennials take control) then one of the very few options will be an estate tax, or dramatically increasing capital gains which is essentially the same thing since most extracted funds will be by the estate after death.

 

[BurlOak]

If the goal is to impact wealthy boomers (around 2028 when millennials take control) then one of the very few options will be an estate tax, or dramatically increasing capital gains which is essentially the same thing since most extracted funds will be by the estate after death.

If the goal is for wealthy boomers to take their money overseas (or to the US) then an estate tax or increased capital gains tax will work.

 

[crs1026]

If the goal is for wealthy boomers to take their money overseas (or to the US) then an estate tax or increased capital gains tax will work.

That's the thing. Any measure that is overt or explicit, and the boomers will find a way to hide the dough. In that respect, I look at our system and don't know whether to be awed or upset. Our tax structure gets cleverer and cleverer at taking money from people without their noticing.

I recall reading that the total retirement savings that the boomers have put aside for retirement through RRSPs, pension plans etc almost exactly amounts to the amount of public debt that was created over the period that they were the main political voting body. In other words, boomers' retirement will be paid for by their kids after the boomers have left the earth. I don't have a specific policy solution, I just think it's a fact that our kids won't overlook some day.

- Paul

 

[rbt]

That's the thing. Any measure that is overt or explicit, and the boomers will find a way to hide the dough.

I agree, and so did 10+ countries who abandoned their inheritance taxes since 2000.

That said, after Brexit and Trump, the emotional urge to get-even might prevail.

 

[muller877]

There are other ways you can do it though besides taxing. You can gut CPP, you can reduce subsidies for retirement residences, you can reduce subsidies for prescription drug plans, all under the guise of reducing government expenditures. Not that any of those are advisable (or politically feasible), but there are other ways you can hit boomers without doing anything with income tax rates.

But of course that's what the fear mongers always paint it as. Black or white for cuts.

Simple things can cut big bucks. Why does Toronto have 4 School Boards? And with the centralization of power into the Ontario Minister why do we even have School Boards (vs advisory counsels)? Nova Scotia has now started to eliminate some.

It will not decrease the number of teachers. Or the number of schools. Just eliminate the multiple layers of bureaucracy (who's power has been so gutted over the past 10 years they don't even make decisions).

But in Nova Scotia it is being portrayed as an attack on women and an attack on the quality of education by the union and the political parties that are supported (monetarily and otherwise) by the union.

I expect the same layers of useless bureaucracy to exist in transit. You look at how big Metrolinx is now with their multiple departments. Should some of the departments be split up and be done at a local transit authority level? Or should some local transit authorities who have duplicate departments be merged into a Province wide department with Metrolinx?

None of this is easy (it does impact who your boss is and if you have a future role). But most organizations look at these decisions every 5 years or so (other than the government).

 

[crs1026]

I expect the same layers of useless bureaucracy to exist in transit. You look at how big Metrolinx is now with their multiple departments. Should some of the departments be split up and be done at a local transit authority level? Or should some local transit authorities who have duplicate departments be merged into a Province wide department with Metrolinx?

None of this is easy (it does impact who your boss is and if you have a future role). But most organizations look at these decisions every 5 years or so (other than the government).

You can argue centralisation vs decentralisation til the cows come home. Those reorganizations are hugely costly, and everyone freezes until they know what their job will be and who they report to.

I'd argue that at present, ML is creating more waste through unnecessary standardised ivory tower thought exercises than the municipalities are by duplicating each others' functions or doing things differently. What we need most in transit is coordination and expeditious completion of capital projects. Don't create a GTA-wide distraction by trying to reorganize. Wait until we have a better designed and built network and then try to change boundaries or pull the functions together.

I gather the municipal transit people do find ways to agree on many things..... once ML has left the meeting.

- Paul

 

[JSF-1]

I don't always think centralizing everything is good. For example we saw with amalgamation that unifying 6 cities into 1 didn't save money but costed more in the long run. That said I do believe there are some things that can be cut, for example on School boards I don't think Trustee's are needed anymore. If we still want public accountability on School Board then just appoint a person or 2 from City council to sit on the board.

 

[muller877]

I don't always think centralizing everything is good. For example we saw with amalgamation that unifying 6 cities into 1 didn't save money but costed more in the long run. That said I do believe there are some things that can be cut, for example on School boards I don't think Trustee's are needed anymore. If we still want public accountability on School Board then just appoint a person or 2 from City council to sit on the board.

I don't think centralization is always the best solution either. Depending on the service it can either be centralized or decentralized for the best (and most efficient) service delivery. Where I have an issue is that Metrolinx and the TTC are duplicating the same bureaucracy (just like the Ministry of Education and the local school Boards are doing the same). Pick one or the other...don't have both trying to do the same job.

The problem with amalgamation is that they only in name amalgamated and did not actually start eliminating duplication of services or bylaws. Again...they should have picked either centralized or decentralized but instead they decided on both.

 

[JSF-1]

While I agree I think there sometimes needs to be a clear division of power. For your education example I don't believe School Boards for example should have the power to set curriculum except for more secondary and tertiary things. The basic curriculum needs to be equally applied and regulated across all School Boards or else you open up the possibility of richer School boards having better education than poor ones; which inevitably leads to a deterioration in the educated population. If anything what may be needed is just adjusting the mandate of these "Divisions". For example the MoE deals strictly with curriculum and regulation of the school boards, while the day to day stuff is handled by the School Boards themselves. There always needs to be an umbrella to ensure we don't end up in situations where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. The TTC/Metrolinx dynamic is a lot trickier since at least to me Metrolinx's mandate seems vague at some points. It's not like say TfL in London, or MTA in New York, who's purpose is clearly defined and well understood.

On the amalgamation topic, yes the duplicated services were not eliminated but that was never going to happen and some services such as Fire and EMS and possibly education (outside of Admin) couldn't be shrunk down anyways due to the shear size of the city and the new "supersized" mandates these new organizations needed to fulfill. Personally Amalgamation should never have happened, but here we are.

 

[ssiguy2]

The great thing about Wynne promising cheap GO fares in Toronto is that it puts Ford on the hot seat of having to respond. Unlike universal dental care or prescriptions offering reduced GO fares is a relatively small amount of money that could garner a lot of votes.

Toronto is not Detroit or your other large US cities, people do not view transit as a welfare program for the poor and blacks but rather as an essential service. In Toronto all socio-economic classes take transit and those that don`t still view it has something that is essential to the city. It is the rare type of issue that benefits all socio-economic classes unlike subsidized housing and this is especially true of GO and RER where many of the riders will be middle class suburbanites who will see real dollars saved by saving them up to $200 a month in their transit fares.

You also have to remember that ST is also Tory`s baby and if Ford effectively creates ST with TTC fares then he will win a very important ally and if he doesn`t Ford will find Tory a formidable opponent. An endorsement by Tory would go a very long way as Tory is the classic progressive conservative and an endorsement by him may make those Conservative voters who are leery of Ford more receptive. Cheaper GO fares is a suburban win which Ford will need as the election will not be decided by rural voters or hardcore urbanites but by those very politically fluid 905 & suburban 416 voters. An attack on transit would also greatly hurt him in other key centers that Ford needs such as Ottawa, Hamilton, London, Windsor, and KWC/Guelph. The Tories did remarkably poorly in all those centres in the last election and while many may still never vote for Wynne, all those centers {especially London, Windsor, and Hamilton} have strong NDP support.

 

[muller877]

The great thing about Wynne promising cheap GO fares in Toronto is that it puts Ford on the hot seat of having to respond. Unlike universal dental care or prescriptions offering reduced GO fares is a relatively small amount of money that could garner a lot of votes.

Toronto is not Detroit or your other large US cities, people do not view transit as a welfare program for the poor and blacks but rather as an essential service. In Toronto all socio-economic classes take transit and those that don`t still view it has something that is essential to the city. It is the rare type of issue that benefits all socio-economic classes unlike subsidized housing and this is especially true of GO and RER where many of the riders will be middle class suburbanites who will see real dollars saved by saving them up to $200 a month in their transit fares.

You also have to remember that ST is also Tory`s baby and if Ford effectively creates ST with TTC fares then he will win a very important ally and if he doesn`t Ford will find Tory a formidable opponent. An endorsement by Tory would go a very long way as Tory is the classic progressive conservative and an endorsement by him may make those Conservative voters who are leery of Ford more receptive. Cheaper GO fares is a suburban win which Ford will need as the election will not be decided by rural voters or hardcore urbanites but by those very politically fluid 905 & suburban 416 voters. An attack on transit would also greatly hurt him in other key centers that Ford needs such as Ottawa, Hamilton, London, Windsor, and KWC/Guelph. The Tories did remarkably poorly in all those centres in the last election and while many may still never vote for Wynne, all those centers {especially London, Windsor, and Hamilton} have strong NDP support.

With all these wild unfunded promises Wynne is trying to goad Ford into creating a platform that is polar opposite to hers. Which means she can drive the narrative of the election.

This is what I believe killed the PC party in the last several elections. By ignoring her promises Ford can create his own narrative and not allow Wynne to drive the news cycle.

I expect that Ford will ignore the bait and instead outline his vision. And create it in such a way that Wynne cannot create a contrasting view of the future of Ontario. A different view...but not black vs white.

 

[ssiguy2]

While I agree that Ford can avoid her promises or simply write them off as huge spending programs that the province simply does not have the money to afford, you are forgetting that Toronto transit funding features a 3rd person...........Tory.

Tory still has a lot of sway in the Conservative Party and especially those in the well off old establishment. To many he also represents the comfortable middle ground of progressive conservatives and Ford does not. An endorsement from Tory due to increased transit funding would go a very long way while not funding, both infrastructure and operationally, his little baby of Smart Tracks he will have a real battle on his hands. An open conflict with Tory is the last thing the Conservatives need as the party is not united behind Ford as well as the party's near endless infighting for 2 years is not something they can afford to rear it's ugly head in the middle of a election campaign.

If Miller was in power Ford would use his old trick of labelling him a left-wing downtowner and throw him together with the rest of the big spending Liberals but that is not an option with Tory. Tory being a big player in the Conservative backrooms will greatly work in favour of Toronto transit.

 

[Rainforest]

While I agree that Ford can avoid her promises or simply write them off as huge spending programs that the province simply does not have the money to afford, you are forgetting that Toronto transit funding features a 3rd person...........Tory.

Tory still has a lot of sway in the Conservative Party and especially those in the well off old establishment. To many he also represents the comfortable middle ground of progressive conservatives and Ford does not. An endorsement from Tory due to increased transit funding would go a very long way while not funding, both infrastructure and operationally, his little baby of Smart Tracks he will have a real battle on his hands. An open conflict with Tory is the last thing the Conservatives need as the party is not united behind Ford as well as the party's near endless infighting for 2 years is not something they can afford to rear it's ugly head in the middle of a election campaign.

If Miller was in power Ford would use his old trick of labelling him a left-wing downtowner and throw him together with the rest of the big spending Liberals but that is not an option with Tory. Tory being a big player in the Conservative backrooms will greatly work in favour of Toronto transit.

While Tory may have influence with the PCs and might be able to use it to gain something for the city, I'm pretty sure he will not publicly endorse either Ford or Wynne.

Wearing the mayor's hat, he is more dependent on the provincial government than the latter is dependent on him. If he guesses wrong and ends up supporting the losing side, he will lose much more than he might gain by helping the winner.