Rob Ford - Why the Supervillian?

[Rowe]

lordmandeep: Your continued Obama bashing and previous statement that taxes will soon be going up HUGE in the United States seems to indicate that you only have a cursory knowledge of news and events. You don't have good sources. (Obama is not raising taxes.)

The HST is the brainchild of the federal Conservative party. It was not a McGuinty idea and it is designed to be revenue neutral as far as the provincial government is concerned. It does deserve some criticism for being a regressive tax, however.

Slapped.

 

[doady]

Increased sales tax only affect people have large amount of discretionary income. It hardly affects the poor at all. Essential goods like groceries don't have sales tax. On the other hand, increased income taxes will affect poor families very much.

That's when Harper govt canceled of the Liberal's income tax cuts for the lowest income brackets to pay for their GST cut, it benefited the wealthy, and ti didn't benefit the poor at all.

 

[nfitz]

City Halls Revenues have increase greatly especially with all those fees and yet they cannot spend within their means and appear to have millions of dollars to slush around for pet projects. The city budget has gone up from below 7 billion from when Miller came into office to over 9 billion. That is a 30% increase over 8 years. Inflation has played a factor, but is that sustainable and justified in any way???

I'm not sure if your numbers are correct or not. But if they are, an increase of $2 billion on $7 billion is 3.2% over 8 years. Given how much had been cut in previous years, and how far behind we were on various infrastructure and services ... 3.2% seems pretty meagre. 0.2% is the increase in population from 2001 to 2006. If we are still growing at the same rate, we'd expect that increase in spending, even without inflation. Though with the increase in population estimates by 2021 (almost 20,000 people a year), this should increase to 0.7%. Meanwhile in the last 8 years (July 2002 to July 2010) the CPI has increased from 100.5 to 116.8 ... 1.9%. So even with the 0.2% population increase, we are only looking at spending increases of 1% a year ... or $70 million a year; yet at the same time the city is paying for lots of replacement infrastructure; just on the transit front, the city is paying $526 million for their share of the Spadina subway extension, and $820 million for their share of the purchase of new streetcars.

Personally, I'm amazed that municipal budget increases are so low!

Perhaps for you it is not noticeable, but I have just noted that my cable, internet, gas, hydro and water bills have gone up by 8%.

Well, now your just making stuff up. Cable and Internet bills already had PST. I've just gone and checked both my cable and Internet bill for 3 years ago in late 2007 and both had a combined GST/PST rate of 14%. Now I'm paying HST of 13%.

Why are you telling us stuff that isn't remotely true? Why are you lying like a Tory?

 

[Tewder]

Why are you telling us stuff that isn't remotely true? Why are you lying like a Tory?

Why do you always assume as a fact that somebody is deliberately being disingenuous? Stop gratuitously smearing other posters and keep your rebuttals objective... and for somebody who is always so quick to call others out on 'racism' or on bigotry the blanket labelling of all Torys as liars is not only highly offensive but completely hypocritical... but somehow I'm sure you have a ready justification

 

[nfitz]

Why do you always assume as a fact that somebody is deliberately being disingenuous?

The poster in question has made dubious claim after dubious claim. It's quite clear from various newspaper articles, the information passed to everyone from the government, and an examination of one's bills that tax rates on Cable and Internet haven't increased.

The only rational explanation for these false claims is that he has some political agenda. The other is that he's really, really ignorant ... but as a generally positive person, I tend to think the best of people, and can only assume that it is deliberate.

As for lying like a Tory ... given the pathological liar that Rob Ford is ... I really don't see how you can make a comment about that ... in this thread.

Even those that will vote for that wife-beating drug-taking drunk-driving child-abusing police-bribing fraudster couldn't possibly claim that he isn't a liar.

 

[King of Kensington]

Doady is correct. Low-income households actually come out ahead from the tax reform package, but not by much, due to transfers. They would be better off however, if it didn't include income and personal tax cuts, and if the GST was put back up to 7%. The tax cutting agenda of the past 20 years has greatly weakened our public services.

The problem is the public discourse on taxation in this country is so debased that it isn't understood that you can't have quality public services without paying for them. And it's not just the right-wing: look at the NDP's opportunistic anti-HST campaign.

Hugh Mackenzie was really on the mark in this piece for the Star a few months ago:

For Canada's political right-wingers, their insistence that we can have massive tax cuts without suffering any decline in public services is worse than childish; it's delusional. Any 4-year-old knows if you go to the store with less money, you're going to come away with less candy. Eliminate government waste, they say, and we can have lower taxes without cuts in services.

Sounds good, particularly when provincial and federal auditors provide an annual source book for examples of stupid things that have been done with public money. But, at heart, most Canadians know and appreciate the fact that our public money is spent on services Canadians value in their everyday lives: Public health care, education and transit systems. Paved roads, sidewalks, sewer systems, clean water. Public services we couldn't do without.

Then there's the right-wing's childish fantasy that if you lower tax rates, government revenue will actually increase. We can all pay less tax, and government will get more revenue.

Try that one on a 4-year-old. It defies logic. Here's the reality: Data from the OECD demonstrate that, since 1995, tax revenue in Canada has dropped from 36 per cent of GDP to 33 per cent of GDP. That may not sound like much, but it represents a loss of nearly $50 billion a year in public revenue. And we wonder why Canada plunged into a $50 billion deficit magically overnight.

Finally there's the self-serving right-wing argument that our public services aren't as good as they should be, so why not cut them? This from the very people whose successful campaigns to reduce public revenue have weakened those services in the first place.

Any 4-year-old can tell you that you don't get what you don't pay for. Lower public revenue and you can expect roads full of potholes and long waiting lists for elective surgeries.

Arguments from Canada's left flank are sometimes equally childish.

Too often, it campaigns for better public services as if they can be provided free. Better services won't cost us anything because the higher taxes needed to pay for those services can be paid by people we don't know. People who make a lot more money than we do. Big corporations but not small businesses.

It's the "anyone but me" solution, which is no more adult than a child who takes candy from a store and then claims his friend did it.

The "anyone but me" line would be amusing if it wasn't such an obvious stall tactic for taking true responsibility for the provision of public services.

It used to be that people who made over $100,000 a year qualified as rich and therefore for membership in the people we don't know who are going to pay for our public services club.

Then someone noticed that a construction worker or an autoworker who worked a lot of overtime could make over $100,000 a year. So Canada's left flank shifted the income cut-off to $150,000.

There are lots of problems with both the economics and the politics of the "anyone but me" proposition:

If you set the income cut-off high enough to be politically comfortable, there aren't enough people to pay for better public services;

If you raise taxes by a large enough amount on a small group of people, they'll try to find a way to avoid paying them;

Politically speaking, people aren't stupid. They simply don't believe you when you tell them they can have something for nothing. At best, then, the argument undermines the credibility of the case for greater investment in public services.

At worst, it reinforces the right-wing mantra that taxes are a burden to be avoided. That's particularly true when the left tries to have it both ways, opposing taxes on the grounds that they impose a burden on working families (or whatever the code phrase for "us" today).

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/715565

 

[Tewder]

The only rational explanation for these false claims is that he has some political agenda. The other is that he's really, really ignorant ... but as a generally positive person, I tend to think the best of people, and can only assume that it is deliberate.

Are you for real?

for lying like a Tory ... given the pathological liar that Rob Ford is ... I really don't see how you can make a comment about that ... in this thread.

You state that all torys are liars.

You are also claiming then that all who would have voted for Giambrone are cheaters and adulterers. I'm only curious what your logic would say about those who will vote for Smitherman given his involvement in ehealth.

 

[Glen]

I'm not sure if your numbers are correct or not. But if they are, an increase of $2 billion on $7 billion is 3.2% over 8 years. Given how much had been cut in previous years, and how far behind we were on various infrastructure and services ... 3.2% seems pretty meagre. 0.2% is the increase in population from 2001 to 2006. If we are still growing at the same rate, we'd expect that increase in spending, even without inflation. Though with the increase in population estimates by 2021 (almost 20,000 people a year), this should increase to 0.7%. Meanwhile in the last 8 years (July 2002 to July 2010) the CPI has increased from 100.5 to 116.8 ... 1.9%. So even with the 0.2% population increase, we are only looking at spending increases of 1% a year ... or $70 million a year; yet at the same time the city is paying for lots of replacement infrastructure; just on the transit front, the city is paying $526 million for their share of the Spadina subway extension, and $820 million for their share of the purchase of new streetcars.

Miller's first budget was in 2004. Since then the operating budget has risen ~40%. Inflation since 2004 has totaled 11.24%.

 

[King of Kensington]

And most of these budget increases was used to renovate the Mayor's office and water plants at City Hall I assume.

 

[jn_12]

Miller's first budget was in 2004. Since then the operating budget has risen ~40%. Inflation since 2004 has totaled 11.24%.

so? You would have an argument if the services and whatnot from 2003 were the same as today, but to just look at inflation vs. budget increases neglects to include the improvements in public services people are receiving. Once again, taxes aren't a bad thing and pinning them to inflation just keeps the status quo, which I certainly wouldn't want.

 

[King of Kensington]

Exactly, jn.

 

[W. K. Lis]

so? You would have an argument if the services and whatnot from 2003 were the same as today, but to just look at inflation vs. budget increases neglects to include the improvements in public services people are receiving. Once again, taxes aren't a bad thing and pinning them to inflation just keeps the status quo, which I certainly wouldn't want.

The price of asphalt doubled since 2008. From 2003 to today, the price would be more than double. Sure you can have no tax increases, but then you will not get any road repairs, new roads, or fill potholes. Or just do half of the road projects. Since the suburban roads are wider than the downtown roads, they end up using more asphalt making them more expensive to do.

From Construction Economics:

Asphalt is the residue from the crude-oil refining process and is primarily used for road construction. The price of asphalt has doubled in some states since early 2008. The rapid price increases for asphalt and other construction materials have caused states to postpone or reduce their plans for construction and repair of highways and roads. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the producer price index (PPI) for liquid asphalt at the refinery jumped 12% in June from May 2008, and 52% from June 2007. The PPI for asphalt paving mixtures and blocks, which includes the aggregate (crushed stone) that is mixed with liquid asphalt binder, rose 6.7% for the month and 17% over 12 months. In addition, several states have reported shortages of liquid asphalt or the petroleum-derived polymers that improve asphalt pavement performance.

 

[jn_12]

The price of asphalt doubled since 2008. From 2003 to today, the price would be more than double. Sure you can have no tax increases, but then you will not get any road repairs, new roads, or fill potholes. Or just do half of the road projects. Since the suburban roads are wider than the downtown roads, they end up using more asphalt making them more expensive to do.

From Construction Economics:

which is another good point. The cost of oil nearly quadrupled between 2003 and 2008 as well. That's bound to have further effects in some areas. Between market variables and service improvements, it's absurd to expect any government to stick to inflation rate tax increases.

 

[nfitz]

Are you for real?

100%

You state that all torys are liars.

I never did; my reference was to Rob Ford - the subject of this thread. Are you for real?

You are also claiming then that all who would have voted for Giambrone are cheaters and adulterers.

I never claimed that anyone voting for Ford was a liar, so I don't see the extrapolation. I also dismissed Giambrone as mayoral material the day he declared ...

I'm only curious what your logic would say about those who will vote for Smitherman given his involvement in ehealth.

... let's see, Smitherman left the Ministry of Health before eHealth was created ... so I guess that means that anyone who votes for Smitherman left the Ministry before eHealth was created???? I don't see your point.

Besides, I've also dismissed Smitherman as mayoral material. The guy isn't the kind of consensus politician who will make a good mayor ... like Miller or Tory.

 

[nfitz]

Inflation since 2004 has totaled 11.24%.

The consumer price index. Last time I checked, City of Toronto wasn't buying milk and eggs. They are not consumers. Perhaps if you had a better handle on economics you wouldn't be comparing things to an irrelevant index. Though your past postings do suggest you do have a better handle on economics ... which would suggest that you have some kind of agenda here, as you are trying to snow us.