Lessons of the Miller Years

[syn]

Mel Lastman did not have a spending freeze -- he dug deep into City reserves to cover the shortfall from his tax policy. Guess what? Running a city worth living in requires spending. Cutting spending to the point where you are no longer providing good services is not good governance or fiscally responsible. Toronto's problem is not that it is providing too much service -- it's that people shriek like small children when they are asked to pay their share of living in a civil society.

It's amazing how many people don't realize this. You have no idea how many people (especially those in the suburbs who weren't overly familar with what he did) think he was a great mayor largely based on his tax freeze.

The truth is, it was irresponsible and left the city in bad shape.

People want amazing services, yet they also don't want to pay any taxes. I hate taxes as much as the next guy, but they obviously have their place.

Given that 60% or more of the City's budget is non-discretionary I would be fascinated to know what cuts to spending Glen would suggest. Personally, I would like to shave a few hundred million off the police budget but I think we can all agree that would be political suicide if it were even possible.

Oddly enough one of Ford's promises was to expand the police force by 100 - that will largely cancel out any savings he gets from reductions to city council (assuming he can even push that through). The money would be much better spent on crime prevention, but politically it makes everyone feel better to know there'll be more police walking around (even though crime is relatively low).

As for Miller, I think he may've given people too much credit. A lot of his messages simply weren't suited for public consumption. As much as we knock Ford and his ridiculous 'Gravy Train' rhetoric it was a simple message that covered a lot of issues in an easy-to-understand way for people.

Miller's attempt to outline why the city had to raise taxes and why the City of Toronto Act was a good thing was simply too complicated. There are still many, many people who don't understand the relationship between the city, provincial and federal governments.

Hopefully during the next election there's a candidate who can really help people understand the important issues with an easily understood campaign message.

 

[archanfel]

This will lead to a greater divde between the rich and the poor, along with even greater problems. You know what it will take to fix this? Even more money...

No, it will lead to a greater divide between the middle and the poor. Rich people don't give a damn. They can afford accountants that help them evade taxes. It's always the middle class bearing the most tax burden. And I have no problem with wider divide.

I am tired of the people blackmailing us for more money. If they want to cause trouble, bring it on. Our current policies simply attract more and more poor people into the city along with crimes, gangs, guns and drugs. You can not hope to bribe the thugs to be law abiding citizens. And the problem is that these people makes no efforts to escape the poverty trap. I have no problem with helping people in short term distress, but we can not help people who are in long term poverty (except for children if they study hard to qualify for scholarships).

And niftz, stop laughing, Ford is your mayor.

 

[nfitz]

Our current policies simply attract more and more poor people into the city along with crimes, gangs, guns and drugs.

With crime continuing to drop, it's hard to say that it has been increased by current policies.

What's bizarre is that earlier in this thread you were advocating policy changes that would increase crime by: "we can save a lot of money by cutting programs for homeless, social housing and social assistant."

And now you express concern about crime?

 

[archanfel]

With crime continuing to drop, it's hard to say that it has been increased by current policies.

What's bizarre is that earlier in this thread you were advocating policy changes that would increase crime by: "we can save a lot of money by cutting programs for homeless, social housing and social assistant."

And now you express concern about crime?

The funny thing about a total number is if some components drop where others rise, the total can still drop. By your logic, since Canadian GDP is growing, why are you worried about poor people? Surely if the total wealth is growing, everybody's wealth is growing, right? Unfortunately, it does not work like that. Crime prevention measures work, but not bribery, at least not cost effective.

I am not overly concerned about crimes. I am simply saying it's not cost effective to bribe people to reduce crimes and cutting programs for homeless, social housing and social assistant would not necessarily increase crimes.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Do you think people on social assistance would make more of an effort to find work if there were fewer support programs for them?

 

[archanfel]

Do you think people on social assistance would make more of an effort to find work if there were fewer support programs for them?

I think they will make more of an effort or move out of Toronto if the alternative is very uncomfortable living conditions, yes.

Of course, we shouldn't cut all support programs. Education loans should be available to anybody who demonstrated that they are willing to work hard. I do think we should have very high interests on these loans given the risks associated with them.

 

[js97]

The one major problem with social housing - it's a closed cycle that does not increase an individuals standard of living, but perpetuates more reliance on social programs.

How many success stories do you hear of individuals that grow up from the projects? Short of rap stars, atheletes, and a few very very isolated success stories, it mostly creates more dependency on the system.

They need to have some sort of program that weans individuals off from the social ambilical cord. Perhaps something like a term limit, where after 5 years your rent increases at a rate that is not 'comfortable' (30%).

Special consideration can be placed on families with children, maybe even mandatory education attendnace in turn for social housing etc.


If you can't pay for it, you get downgraded to a smaller unit and start over again.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Do you think the problem with most poor people is that they are lazy?

 

[SimonP]

How many success stories do you hear of individuals that grow up from the projects?

Unfortunately most people who have poor parents will be poor themselves (and most peole with rich parents will be rich themselves). I'm not sure if social housing affects that much one way or the other.

 

[archanfel]

Do you think the problem with most poor people is that they are lazy?

No, I don't think so. Everybody has their own circumstances, it's very hard to generalize. A lot of the poor people have great potentials and are just in short term distress. Those are the people we should help via loans. Unfortunately, those are likely the least helped right now.

 

[js97]

Do you think the problem with most poor people is that they are lazy?

Multiple reasons why poor people are poor.

Lack of ambition can be ONE of those reasons.

Others include economic opportunities, individual ability, lack of direction.

There will always be a group of people that will be dependant on the state, that I'm not doubting. Some people need to be 'pushed', whether by the government or not. It's not a blanket statement. Other's, no matter what you do, won't be able to be pushed.


I'm just trying to point out that 'social housing' is not a sustainable solution and quite frankly, IMO not in the best interest of those using it.
Social housing in essence, is the governments intervening and attempting to lift the standard of living of individuals. Why not go a step further to put incentives (or disinsentives) to get people out of social housing and independant on their own?

Like I said, perhaps mandatory education and or training programs, terms limits, but also provide plans to help them out of social housing.

There are MANY people that simply take social housing as that comfortable safety net and really don't want anything better. Why should the government be in the business of helping those that are 'lazy', when it can put it's limited resources to help the real needy ?

 

[syn]

No, it will lead to a greater divide between the middle and the poor. Rich people don't give a damn. They can afford accountants that help them evade taxes. It's always the middle class bearing the most tax burden. And I have no problem with wider divide.

When you're poor, the middle class is "rich". However you want to look at it, the gap between the haves and have-nots widens. Why would you have no problem with this gap widening? It's very shortsighted. If money is your concern, a widening gap just means more government dollars spent in the long run.

I am tired of the people blackmailing us for more money. If they want to cause trouble, bring it on. Our current policies simply attract more and more poor people into the city along with crimes, gangs, guns and drugs. You can not hope to bribe the thugs to be law abiding citizens. And the problem is that these people makes no efforts to escape the poverty trap. I have no problem with helping people in short term distress, but we can not help people who are in long term poverty (except for children if they study hard to qualify for scholarships).

And niftz, stop laughing, Ford is your mayor.

Social assitance is not meant to be a long term solution. It's funny you have an issue with current polices as I believe crime in Toronto is at an all time low. You don't want more crime, gangs and drugs yet you have no problem with the economic gap widening. A bigger divide between the rich and the poor will lead to more crime, gangs and drugs.

Sometimes I think everyone in life should be forced to live with a very limited budget for a certain period of time. The simple fact is, there's a very fine line between success and failure.

 

[lead82]

This discussion implies most people who are in social housing are able to find reasonable work. Many folks in social housing are seniors on fixed pensions. You cannot make these people work. Let's face it, there are leaches on society- always has and always will be. It is time we grow up and accept a certain level of poverty will always exist in our society as it is structural poverty due to our polarized employment structure. The best way for people to get out o the poverty trap is through education, but very rarely will you see any politician support these kinds if programs. They work but are not funded properly. I wool much rather pay more taxes for some social programs to help reduce the rich-poor gap and have low crime and the ability to enjoy the city without fear than to see the abject poverty and super high crime rates south of the border and slightly lower taxes. I feel our quality of live is better than in US because of this and I am fine with that.

 

[nfitz]

I am simply saying it's not cost effective to bribe people to reduce crimes and cutting programs for homeless, social housing and social assistant would not necessarily increase crimes.

And yet we put many of those programs in place in the first place to reduce crimes. I think you are wrong.

 

[archanfel]

When you're poor, the middle class is "rich". However you want to look at it, the gap between the haves and have-nots widens. Why would you have no problem with this gap widening? It's very shortsighted. If money is your concern, a widening gap just means more government dollars spent in the long run.

Social assitance is not meant to be a long term solution. It's funny you have an issue with current polices as I believe crime in Toronto is at an all time low. You don't want more crime, gangs and drugs yet you have no problem with the economic gap widening. A bigger divide between the rich and the poor will lead to more crime, gangs and drugs.

Sometimes I think everyone in life should be forced to live with a very limited budget for a certain period of time. The simple fact is, there's a very fine line between success and failure.

I agree. Everyone in life should be forced live with a very limited budget for certain period of time, especially people who advocate social housing. Maybe if they have lived in $300 shared accommodation or basement apartment with no window, they would appreciate taxpayer dollars more.

And it's not about success and failure. You don't have to be successful to live a good life. What is required is hard work and fiscal discipline. If somebody is willing to work 16 hours a day, 364.5 days a year, then by all means, we should provide them with all the assistants they need. That's what a lot of new immigrants who refuse to live on other people's welfare have to endure and I have nothing but respect for them. What I find appalling is we tax them to death so that some people can buy booze, cigarettes and drugs. I have nothing against these people as long as they pay for their habits using their own money.