Next Mayor of Toronto?

[Eug]

Eug,

Considering he is a lame duck mayor, whatever criticisms there is in "managing" the media certainly is less of an issue than the substance of the message, however insigificant it maybe, no? Like getting all "upset" as some commentators suggest certainly sounds more than a bit princessey to me. I think they're looking for drama and got a bit peeved that there was none to be found.

And to further that - maybe journalists should reflect long and hard as to why any of the suggested outcomes of the event (e.g. quitting early, jumping back into the race, etc) is more substantatively worthwhile than an additional $100M in the books.

AoD

Again you miss the point. To make it crystal clear: My point is that his PR advisors are out-to-lunch. My question is if Pantalone will be using the same advisors. (I don't know.)

As for the $100 million, some in the media are wondering why that wasn't saved previously. As rightly pointed out, the property tax increase is still twice that of inflation.

 

[MetroMan]

Ha! It's amazing how TheStar commentators can still spin this as negative and criticize the Mayor! LOL He goes and announces that the deficit is smaller than anticipated and will distribute it to avoid cutting services all while lowering taxes and people still complain.

... I promised myself I wouldn't read the garbage posted on TheStar.com Comments section.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I don't think his media team is particularly good - but I don't think it matters that much in this case either, considering the context.

As for the $100 million, some in the media are wondering why that wasn't saved previously. As rightly pointed out, the property tax increase is still twice that of inflation.

Perhaps someone should also point out the uproar over service freezes and cuts? And that labour agreement negotatiated in the years prior doesn't halt halfway through just to conform with inflation rates? The point is this is an unexpected development that is of benefit to the city.

AoD

 

[GraphicMatt]

I do think Eug is on to something with Miller's PR team - there was something calculated about this move that isn't clear yet. If Miller had announced this as a 'major budgetary announcement' nobody in the media would be pissed off today, but it would have received half the coverage.

Miller's team wanted to make sure this was big front page news, but I still don't get why. He's got no political skin in the game. This isn't the kind of behaviour we expect from outgoing politicians.

It's possible today has NOTHING to do with the election and it's just Miller coming out strong and saying that he refuses to be a lameduck and stand around while all the candidates trash his record (which is the message I got from his editorial in NOW) but the conspiracy theorist in me thinks there's something else brewing here.

As far as property taxes go, they have to go up, at least at the rate of inflation. Freezes are dumb. Residential taxes are going up at a rate higher than inflation because business taxes are increasing at a rate lower than inflation (less than 1% now).

 

[Eug]

It's possible today has NOTHING to do with the election and it's just Miller coming out strong and saying that he refuses to be a lameduck and stand around while all the candidates trash his record (which is the message I got from his editorial in NOW)

My guess is this is what he was trying to accomplish... but failed.

but the conspiracy theorist in me thinks there's something else brewing here.

I highly doubt it. The time to have made the announcement was... well... at the announcement.

 

[js97]

I say we apply a new 'Rental tax' at 5% your rent.
This would be the most inclusive tax yet!

The extra much needed revenue can go into painting new bike lanes, and funding the TTC. This way, we can reduce the fare price. If anyone should support this, it should be the David Millers of this board.

 

[Glen]

I wonder how councillors feel about having much of next years budget planned already?

 

[GraphicMatt]

I say we apply a new 'Rental tax' at 5% your rent.
This would be the most inclusive tax yet!

The extra much needed revenue can go into painting new bike lanes, and funding the TTC. This way, we can reduce the fare price. If anyone should support this, it should be the David Millers of this board.

Or we could just set property taxes and landlords will naturally set their rents high enough to cover their tax rate. But that sure does sound like the status quo. (Landlords could cover this year's property tax increase by upping rent $7 per month on average.)

But, sure, what the hell. It's those goddamn liberal socialist renters with their bikes and their public transit getting in the way of sensible conservative homeowners who are the real lifeblood of this economy.

 

[js97]

Or we could just set property taxes and landlords will naturally set their rents high enough to cover their tax rate. But that sure does sound like the status quo. (Landlords could cover this year's property tax increase by upping rent $7 per month on average.)

But, sure, what the hell. It's those goddamn liberal socialist renters with their bikes and their public transit getting in the way of sensible conservative homeowners who are the real lifeblood of this economy.

Well, I was just think in the name of transparency and contribution, renters should be reflected in the grand scheme of things. Why would the landlords want to take all the credit when in fact, the renters also contribute to this community and the city? It's also an excellent way for renters to show the business and home owners they are sharing the burden for city services. This might even engage them more in city discussions. What better way to justify their voice than with a Renters' tax?

And think about the extra well paying jobs this would create in municipal government branch that will be enforcing/administrating this? And the extra CRUCIAL services we could provide to renters.

I'm speaking of an ADDITIONAL renter's tax, on top of existing property tax increases. Revenue at both levels, then, we won't have to worry about fiscal imbalances, at least for the time being.

 

[kettal]

You're just being an asshole troll. The whole property market depends on investors being able to make returns from renters. Double taxing renters will really just cut into the amount an owner can profit from his property. The rental rates are set by market forces, so the 5% will therefore be absorbed, ultimately, by the owner renting the unit.

But at least it would make js97 appreciate renters more, so I guess that's all that matters. Hope you don't mind having your house value collapse.

 

[SlickFranky]

I'm speaking of an ADDITIONAL renter's tax, on top of existing property tax increases. Revenue at both levels, then, we won't have to worry about fiscal imbalances, at least for the time being.

I thought you were joking about this at first, but I guess not. Why exactly should we double-tax renters?

If it's just to get money, there are thousands of arbitrary taxes and fees we could apply.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Of course he conveniently forgot to mention that renters are by default taxed at a higher rate since rental properties are taxed at the commercial rate...

AoD

 

[js97]

I thought you were joking about this at first, but I guess not. Why exactly should we double-tax renters?

If it's just to get money, there are thousands of arbitrary taxes and fees we could apply.

No I was totally being facecious, lol It's just interesting to see how everyone is up in arms now that it's hitting their own pockets.


Kettal:, how was I being an asshole troll? It's okay to raise the taxes of property owners but not renters? If the home owners are absorbing the costs, then it should be no issue for renters no? If that is the case, then it's even more reason to have a 5% tax on renters - if anything, this gives them clout! And you don't think property taxes cut into the bottom line of owners?

Alvino: I don't see your point. If that's the case, a property tax increase is also a tax increase for renters? So why not make it more transparent?


It's all of a sudden, how restructuring something, people get upset about it.

property taxes increase rent, just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. The 5% ( or 3% that's not the point) is simply making it more transparent for the renter to show that they are actually involved in property tax hikes.. instead of the mindset that property taxes are only for homeowners.

 

[Glen]

js97,

The tax rate on multi residential in Toronto is 2.0373418% compared to the residential rate of 0.6027807%. So they already pay a much higher rate. That being said, the average assessed value for a multi residential unit in Toronto is about $85,000, so the municipal tax burden averages ~$1730. Which is less than the average residential. When buildings that are in the multi residential class are converted to condominiums they get reassessed as residential and the capital that the high rate destroyed is recaptured. To such an extent that when done in Toronto, more often than not the city receives a net increase in revenue. Simply put the lower tax rate produces higher revenue.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

If you are truly interested in "transparency" - you should advocate for the percentage and amount of property tax must be clearly identified to tenants by the landlords - not an additional tax on top of the higher tax rate that is already bourne by renters.

AoD