Palma
Senior Member
You still actually believe the 3-3,5B that the Liberals spin will be available? You need to listen to the report from the FAO
|
|
|
New Transit Funding Sources
- Thread starter denfromoakvillemilton
- Start date
Johnny Au
Senior Member
The sale of Hydro One would make Kathleen Wynne at par with Mike Harris, both obviously neoliberals, albeit of differing political parties.
Amare
Senior Member
I like it how Sousa called out the PC's for selling off Highway 407 fifteen years ago. I'm sorry Liberals, is this not essentially the exact same thing? They're screwing us and they know it. How can you go trade of a short-term injection of revenue, for continuous and stable revenue? This is one of the most foolish ideas i've ever heard of.
Can anyone teach me how to get into the stock market? I'd be glad to buy some shares because this will definitely be worth quite the chunk of change in the future.
Can anyone teach me how to get into the stock market? I'd be glad to buy some shares because this will definitely be worth quite the chunk of change in the future.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I hope the NDP gets their act together so we can vote the Liberals out.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
The NDP also should stick to their socialist roots and not pull a Tony Blair.
WislaHD
Superstar
I am totally against this sale and have been since the beginning.
That being said, wouldHarris I mean Hudak do any differently? Is the Horvath NDP any more competent? I don't think so.
Until we have alternatives to the provincial Liberals we are stuck with them.
That being said, would
Until we have alternatives to the provincial Liberals we are stuck with them.
Amare
Senior Member
It's unfortunate that we're stuck with the best of the worst. There are many ministers from that caucus that I wish we could get rid of starting with Matthews and Sandals. From what I remember, the PC's were promising to sell off mass assets as well and it's funny how the public has short memory span regarding matters like this.
It's like we're stuck in a continuous cycle of: elect Liberals ->get angry with Liberals -> elect PC's -> get angry with PC's, and so on.
44 North
Senior Member
haha, no. Disbelieve, maybe. This is definitely a weird situation. More and more are catching on to the fact that we're way behind with regards to the projects laid out in the BM, and that many of the promises will remain unmet for quite some time (or in perpetuity). Yet a year ago we gave the Libs a majority, and they won all but two seats in TO proper. Naturally Metrolinx and our region's transit planning shouldn't be tied to one party, but it seems to be very much so.
Sometimes I wonder if there should be a push for Toronto to secede and become its own province.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Considering that the Conservatives thought about selling Hydro a dozen years ago, I would say they would have done differently and did.
The budget watchdog said that Ontario would lose $300M to $500M per year when selling the 60% share. Since a long term bond yield is about 2.5% (or less), that means we should expect the sale to fetch about $16B ($400M / 0.025). Ontario says they are expecting to receive $9B for the sale, meaning we will be essentially paying twice the going interest rate to use this method of raising funds.
pstogios
Senior Member
Has anyone considered the economic uplift that will come from the infrastructure investments that will be made with the proceeds from the sale of Hydro One?
How could this be excluded from the analysis?
If you sell your stock in a company and then invest the proceeds in another company, and then that second company's revenue increases because of your investment, can't you say you're ahead of the game?
How could this be excluded from the analysis?
If you sell your stock in a company and then invest the proceeds in another company, and then that second company's revenue increases because of your investment, can't you say you're ahead of the game?
doady
Senior Member
The point is, there are cheaper ways to invest in infrastructure that doesn't involve losing stable long-term revenue from Hydro One. The question isn't whether or not to invest in infrastructure, but whether to sell Hydro One or not. Selling Hydro One is not a prerequisite for investing in infrastructure. There are much better options, some of which mentioned above already.
Investing in infrastructure is a great idea. Selling Hydro One to do it is just idiotic.
rbt
Senior Member
That's not quite valid. It should be compared against the cost of issuing bonds or other forms of debt to obtain the same capital.
It appears the province is getting a reasonable price on Hydro One (roughly 10x profits) despite not giving up control and having legislated pricing, but I think they could have borrowed more against Hydro One future profits than the sale is providing.
Of course, if they anticipate Hydro One is going to be struggling in the near term (large capital outlay of its own) then selling is is the right thing to do.
Last edited:
Johnny Au
Senior Member
Why can't we pull a Mouseland (and I don't consider Bob Rae an NDPer; Horwath is too centrist even)?
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
If one subscribes to neoliberalism, one must accept that pretty much everyone buys into it at this point and the system at large is neoliberal (though Trudeau seems to be at least trying to fight against it). Even the NDP are just part of the same paradigm (as Horwath straight-up proved last election).
The whole thing is BS. I don't know enough about economics to know whether selling part of HydroOne is a good idea or not. So, I'll take the FAO's word for it. Seems iffy at best as a long-term proposition.
A couple of years ago it seemed like Wynne totally got the need for revenue tools even if she politically stalled with the Golden panel. Then she backed down. I'm sure there are polls up the wazoo showing people in Ontario don't want revenue tools. So, first, I blame people who think you can get something for nothing and Rob Ford for poisoning an already poisoned well. Secondly, I blame her for not having the political courage to do it anyway. She has a majority and it was a perfect thing to do in the first year of a new mandate.
Even the best government needs to be turfed at some point and the Liberals are increasingly on borrowed time. They had a chance to stick the landing on this issue and they blew it. I'm happy they're finding $ for transit and other necessary infrastructure and, yes, all that work is likely to generate $ and have spin-off effects, but overall I'm concerned the ends won't justify the means.
crs1026
Superstar
The interesting thing is how debate has skated right by the fact that Ontario has been using Hydro as a revenue source. That has been going on since the Harris days, although McGinty really ramped the revenue focus up when his own budgets got stretched. In other words, we don't collect tax, we just collect a surcharge on your electricity bill. (and charge HST on top of that). But that's not tax.
As opposed to - Hydro is sold at cost, the enterprise generates enough net income to sustain and provide for upkeep and future expansion within the electricity business, the public reaps the benefit from low energy rates because no one is adding in a profit margin, the government is candid and transparent about how much taxation they need to impose and justifies spending in that light.
Adam Beck is no doubt twirling.
- Paul
As opposed to - Hydro is sold at cost, the enterprise generates enough net income to sustain and provide for upkeep and future expansion within the electricity business, the public reaps the benefit from low energy rates because no one is adding in a profit margin, the government is candid and transparent about how much taxation they need to impose and justifies spending in that light.
Adam Beck is no doubt twirling.
- Paul