News   Jul 17, 2024
Midtown Resubmission Adds Height, Density, Matches Adjacent Proposal
 15     0 
News   Jul 17, 2024
News Roundup for July 17, 2024
 448     0 
News   Jul 17, 2024
Don Valley Floodway
 983     0 

Next Mayor of Toronto?

Royson James makes some good points.........

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/art...rs-budget-with-new-found-surplus?bn=1#article

He undercut the campaigns of the council outsiders running for mayor. He reached into next year and attempted to set the budget for the incoming mayor and council. And he put the squeeze on Queen’s Park by announcing no TTC fare hikes next year and only a small property tax increase – but only if the province gives the TTC another $250 million in 2011.

It’s either brilliant or beyond the pale.

The announcement means the city has an unprecedented surplus of $350 million at the end of 2009 – great news in tough budget times.

But it raises many questions about how the city manages our money – it seems able to “find†massive sums of cash, almost on demand, while crying poor.
Click to expand...

At Queen’s Park, they must be wondering how, faced with budget deficits, they can send more money Toronto’s way when the city can boast of surpluses, tax reductions and service enhancements.
Click to expand...

he should have added the lowest residential taxes to that list.
 
js97 said:
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!
Click to expand...

If you cancelled the property tax on rented properties entirely, and THEN put a tax on the rent, then you might have a case. You're just putting a second tax on an already taxed item, just so some demographic you don't like pays double the taxes of you.
 
Last edited:
Glen said:
Royson James makes some good points.........

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/art...rs-budget-with-new-found-surplus?bn=1#article

Yeah, that's a sinister move. But it's pretty brilliant nonetheless, with tactical precision!

AlvinofDiaspar said:
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
Click to expand...

Actually that's really an excellent idea. you would have to change rent increase laws, or charge property taxes seperately, so that any property taxes raised could be applied proportionately to the renter. If you're renting 100% of a 250k condo (property taxes around 2,000+) A 4% increase (or 80 dollars a year) can be transfered directly to the tenant. or 7 dollars monthly.
Click to expand...
 
Here are some other things we could tax to really stick it to those liberals: skinny jeans, ironic T-shirts, cultural festivals, abstract art, $6 coffee, microbreweries, fixed-gear bicycles, blogs, black plastic eyeglasses with thick frames, not getting a haircut for six months, half-finished novels, BAs in English that take seven years to finish, yoga classes, outrage at the institutional racism and sexism that is EVERYWHERE, reading series, not reading series, The Gladstone, complaining about big box stores, and the belief that there is mostly just mountains and vast expanses of nothingness north of Eglinton.

Revenue would be huge.
 
GraphicMatt said:
Here are some other things we could tax to really stick it to those liberals: skinny jeans, ironic T-shirts, cultural festivals, abstract art, $6 coffee, microbreweries, fixed-gear bicycles, blogs, black plastic eyeglasses with thick frames, not getting a haircut for six months, half-finished novels, BAs in English that take seven years to finish, yoga classes, outrage at the institutional racism and sexism that is EVERYWHERE, reading series, not reading series, The Gladstone, complaining about big box stores, and the belief that there is mostly just mountains and vast expanses of nothingness north of Eglinton.

Revenue would be huge.
Click to expand...

LOL! amazing!
you forgot thrift stores and a toll to enter Kensington market!

but one point:

institutional racism and sexism that is EVERYWHERE, where is that happening?- this might be another thread completely.

in return, I think we can really stick it to the cons too, tax those:
sweater cardigans, sweater vests, khakis, pleated khakis, pleated khakis with cuffs on them, people who think queen west is 'sketchy', Milestones, work dress shirts on a saturday night, straight caucasian males, '905' area codes, Hair Gel, i'm out of ideas until later.


lol
 
Last edited:
Isn't anybody else concerned that he prioritized his legacy over the city's well-being? He effectively reduced the fiscal freedom his successor has. Ignored the huge infrastructure backlog we have. All for what? Rolling back an already accepted tax hike so that people will remeber him a little more fondly when he leaves?
 
kEiThZ said:
Isn't anybody else concerned that he prioritized his legacy over the city's well-being? He effectively reduced the fiscal freedom his successor has. Ignored the huge infrastructure backlog we have. All for what? Rolling back an already accepted tax hike so that people will remeber him a little more fondly when he leaves?
Click to expand...

I think the idea is to trip up the current mayoral candidates. If the campaign focus is 'which candidate hates taxes the most', as it has been so far, we all lose.
 
Keithz:

Isn't anybody else concerned that he prioritized his legacy over the city's well-being? He effectively reduced the fiscal freedom his successor has. Ignored the huge infrastructure backlog we have. All for what? Rolling back an already accepted tax hike so that people will remeber him a little more fondly when he leaves?
Click to expand...

Actually the money is split several ways - part of it (what, 25%?) goes to reducing the tax hike, part of it goes into the reserves for next year which will probably be at the disposal of whoever is mayor comes that time. If one is truly into leaving legacies - they would be using the funds for pet projects or causes, which isn't the case here. And quite frankly a 1 or 2% reduction of a property tax increase is hardly something to remember anyone by in any case.

AoD
 
kettal said:
I think the idea is to trip up the current mayoral candidates. If the campaign focus is 'which candidate hates taxes the most', as it has been so far, we all lose.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that essentially amount to campaigning by the incumbent then? For what purpose or reason does he have to 'trip up the current mayoral candidates'?
 
If you've been following his public announcements and speeches since he declared his retirement, he always mentions how much the city needs a "progressive" successor, and that "anybody who tells you you can have a great city for free is fooling you" and so on.
 
How much of our 'surprise surplus' comes from only having two snowstorms this winter?

Anyone see Mammoliti rip Miller a new one? And I thought they were friends.
 
National Post: A fiscal conservative defends David Miller

Gentlemen, as a fiscal conservative myself, I share your displeasure at lousy accounting. But before we excoriate the Mayor too much, let’s get some context.

Mr. Rossi was the former national director of the federal Liberal party. Magically making lots of money appear was a favourite tactic of the Liberals during the Chrétien era.

Every year they’d announce billions more than they’d forecast, all as part of their patented approach to victory — produce right-wing budgets and blow the “surprise” surpluses on various vote-buying, feel-good projects. The Harper Conservatives have had similar problems, except in the reverse — Finance Minister Jim Flaherty boasted of “small surpluses” right up to the 11th hour before finally admitting that he was, in, fact, presiding over a record-setting deficit.

As to Mr. Smitherman, it’s worth recalling his time in Dalton McGuinty’s government, when his responsibilities included presiding over the development of electronic health records. For those keeping score at home, that developed into a billion-dollar accounting whoopsie, suggesting that Mr. Smitherman may have misplaced his budgeting envelope.

Even moving beyond the eHealth debacle, the McGuinty Liberals that Smitherman served developed something of a record of lousy budgeting themselves — in October, 2008, they forecast a $500-million deficit, but by the fall of 2009, that had morphed into something closer to $25-billion.

As to Mr. Mammoliti, for fear of being bitten, I have no comment.
 
That's pretty amusing. The sad part is that it's pretty accurate. Nothing is ever as funny as the truth.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top