News   Nov 26, 2024
 702     1 
News   Nov 26, 2024
 648     0 
News   Nov 26, 2024
 1.2K     0 

Mayor Olivia Chow's Toronto

I'm not really a fan of municipal sales taxes, as it distorts retail behaviour between local jurisdictions. I'm fine with raising HST and disbursing the revenues to municipalities, but it should be done at the province-wide level.
But that leaves us in the same pickle we're in now, where we go begging to higher levels of government every budget cycle, which is particularly frustrating during the tenure of premiers like Ford who are happy to tell Toronto to get stuffed.
 
But that leaves us in the same pickle we're in now, where we go begging to higher levels of government every budget cycle, which is particularly frustrating during the tenure of premiers like Ford who are happy to tell Toronto to get stuffed.

There are a wide variety of revenue-raising options discussed in the report, some recommended, others not.

Maximizing Green P and Parking Permit revenue
Parking Tax
and a Structural increase in Property tax, top the list, and collectively patch just over 2/3 of the operating hole.

The remainder can addressed in a variety of ways.

On the capital side, I strongly favour road tolls, and failing that, compelling the province to upload the Gardiner/DVP and repay the City for investment in the former.

I prefer all of the above to a sales or income tax at the local level, which is very market-distorting.

We're the above regional, it might be worth a second look.
 
Land in Toronto is worth on the order of $4M/acre. Toronto is 156k acres. At a 4% tax rate on land value, the City could raise $160k in revenue per taxable acre. Assuming 100k acres of the City are taxable, that is $16B in annual revenue. Couple this with some offsetting reductions in taxes on improvements, this would still solve any revenue problems the City has. It would lower land prices and make upfront purchases of homes less costly. It would incentivize intensification and not sitting on vacant land, and it would incentivize the city to invest in transportation, public realm and public services that improve the value of land. It could help to free up some land for additional public space and parkland as well. A typical condo development could see land taxes as low as $500/unit per year, whereas this house on 1/10 acre would see LVT of $16k/year (offset by lower purchase price by $400k). Do this province-wide, and it would be impossible to gift developers $8.3B in land value appreciation but opening greenbelt land to development.

The answer is kind of obvious. A LVT could be phased in over 10-20 years to not overly disadvantage existing land owners.


 
To add to this, of course the politics of a Land Value Tax could be difficult, as the biggest losers are likely to be the most powerful, the framing is important. Focus grouping of different framings for the policy indicate that 'universal property tax abatement' can be used to describe what the policy is doing in a more favourably-received way.

 

Transit funding: Board of trade suggests raising $2B a year through sales, gas and parking taxes

HOV toll lanes would also help build a massive transit expansion, says the Toronto Region Board of Trade.​


From link, dated March 18, 2013.

Toronto region commuters already suffer some of the longest commutes in North America. Now the Toronto Region Board of Trade is recommending aggressive taxes that will add pain to their pockets.

In an unusual step for a business group, the board is recommending a slate of four new revenue tools — a regional sales tax, a gas tax, a commercial parking levy and high-occupancy toll lanes — to raise $2 billion annually that would be dedicated exclusively to better transit.

The taxes and fees could be a 905-area commuter’s nightmare, warned regional politicians, who said they won’t support them if the revenue is devoted primarily to Toronto transit improvements.
Even in Toronto, the board’s tax recommendations drew immediate and predictable criticism from Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s anti-tax allies on city council.

But board of trade CEO Carol Wilding said she expected divergent opinions. Consensus on new taxes is difficult to achieve. But the fed-up public seems prepared to pay and businesses are ready to step up.

“It will be hard for all of us, but all of us have to contribute. All of us will benefit when the new transportation is in place,” she said.

The alternative — doing nothing — will results in dwindling competitiveness for the region as traffic congestion sucks $15 billion annually in lost productivity out of the economy by 2031, she said Monday.
The board isn’t recommending what combination of the tax tools should be used, or even the tax rates that should be applied. But it estimates that a regional sales tax of 1 per cent or a $1-per-day commercial parking levy could each raise at least half the $2 billion annually that Metrolinx says it needs to build the Big Move regional transportation plan.

A gas tax of 10 cents/litre would raise $640 million to $840 million. Asking lone drivers to pay tolls for using high-occupancy vehicle lanes on area highways at 30 cents/km would provide $25 million to $45 million. The latter charges are less lucrative but have the benefit of reaching directly into the wallets of road users.

Increased income tax, property tax and employer payroll taxes, as well as general road tolls, were among a dozen ideas rejected by the board.

Funding from senior governments, public-private partnerships and land-value capture in new transit corridors will still be necessary, “but they’re not going to raise the $40 billion that we need,” said Wilding.

Metrolinx president Bruce McCuaig said the board’s approach — endorsing a suite of taxes — means that the burden is shared among different populations.

But he did not commit to endorsing the same tax tools in Metrolinx’s own investment strategy. The regional planning agency’s recommendations on how to pay for the $50 billion Big Move has to be submitted to the province by June.

“It is really important that we hear from the business community, and we appreciate their leadership. But we must also hear from municipalities, to get their thoughts and ideas, as well as the public and stakeholders,” said McCuaig.

Those governments and the public will all want something for their tax dollars, according to those who spoke with the Star.

Toronto Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday said his anti-tax perspective doesn’t change because the new taxes are being endorsed by the city’s leading business group. A new casino in Toronto could raise up to $100 million annually, he said.

“We’re going to get a casino, or somebody’s going to get it; I think the money from that should go towards transit … .You’re not going to build the system overnight, but the money that you’d get annually could allow you to incrementally start a transit system,” he said.

Outside the city, support for the board’s recommendations was guarded.

With some of the longest commute times in the province, Durham Region residents are already paying the highest property taxes and getting the least attention from the province, said an angry Oshawa Mayor John Henry.

“GO Transit doesn’t charge for parking. Why would the businesses in Durham Region want to generate parking fees? You want to destroy an economy, start to apply extra charges to the cost of doing business,” he said.

“Transit is key, but not on the backs of taxpayers of 905,” said Henry. “Whatever we do to improve transit in Toronto doesn’t improve transit in Durham.”

You can’t punish commuters for doing the right thing and parking at the GO station, said Mississauga Councillor Bonnie Crombie. But, she said, her constituents want to see their taxes spent locally on projects such as an LRT on Hurontario St.

“They would be willing to invest if it were to build transportation in Mississauga,” she said.

At Queen’s Park, Finance Minister Charles Sousa said he hadn’t yet studied the board’s proposals, but he pledged to take a look.

“It is essential that we get our gridlock under control,” he said. “We do require a lot of investment to improve our public transit.”

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said she opposes any new tolls or taxes of any kind to pay for improved public transit.

“We understand that there needs to be some financing solutions found … ones that don’t hurt people who are already struggling to make ends meet,” said Horwath, who claimed “billions” of dollars can be saved by closing corporate tax loopholes.

Horwath, who has already promoted closing corporate tax loopholes as a way to fund improved health care and home care, wouldn’t be specific on how her plan would cover the $40 billion cost of continuing the Metrolinx plan, but said she would have “further things to say” in the future.
 

Residential On-Street Parking

From link.

1692399722666.png

For comparison, from link
1692399997433.png


Now add a parking tax, similar to New York City...
New York City charges a 4.5% NYC Sales Tax and a 4% NY State Sales Tax. New York City charges a 10.375% tax and an additional 8% surtax on parking, garaging, or storing motor vehicles in Manhattan. NYC residents are exempt from the surtax.
Guess if you live in the neighbourhood, one would be exempt from the surtax. If one uses the parking space as a "work" parking spot, they'll be charged the surtax.
 
I'm not really a fan of municipal sales taxes, as it distorts retail behaviour between local jurisdictions. I'm fine with raising HST and disbursing the revenues to municipalities, but it should be done at the province-wide level.

Agreed, particularly with online shopping, where some customers already have PO Boxes in places like Niagara Falls NY to get around taxes and duties. Municipal boundaries are so much easier to circumvent.

A shame that the 2% cut from the GST wasn’t diverted instead to municipalities.
 
Agreed, particularly with online shopping, where some customers already have PO Boxes in places like Niagara Falls NY to get around taxes and duties. Municipal boundaries are so much easier to circumvent.

A shame that the 2% cut from the GST wasn’t diverted instead to municipalities.
2% of the HST being sent to the municipalities is acceptable to me. In Ontario, that would mean going from 13% to 15%.
1692804139075.png

From link.
  1. The GST rate applies to all of Canada except for the harmonized provinces where the HST rate applies.
  2. The provincial portion of the HST is the difference between the HST rate and the GST rate. The n/a means that the HST did not apply for that period; only the GST rate applied.
  3. The HST rates of New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador increased from 13% to 15% on July 1, 2016.
  4. The HST rate for Prince Edward Island increased from 14% to 15% on October 1, 2016.

British Columbia collects a separate 7% sales tax, along with the GST. Quebec collect a separate 9.975% sales tax, along with the GST.




For comparison, VAT in Europe is INCLUDED in the ticket price of items (no calculating the final price, the price you see is the price you pay). The receipt shows the VAT.
VAT_Rates_2023.png

From link.
 
Last edited:
A shame that the 2% cut from the GST wasn’t diverted instead to municipalities.

Yes, this idea was raised by many people at the time and it was VERY stupid that this was not done.

Just a note that Quebec and all the Maritime provinces raised their VAT rates by 2 points when Harper cut it federally so they went from 8% to 10%, at the provincial level and the overall rate remained unchanged from before.

Ontario, Manitoba, Sask and BC all let the rate fall by 2 points.

Alberta, of course, has no provincial VAT.

***

I happen to favour a higher VAT and dedicating 1-2% of any increase to municipalities seems quite reasonable; but I do think its important to note that done at a national level, this would push the VAT beyond 15% in Quebec and the Maritimes.

Which, I should add, I'd be fine with.....
 
Chow has a 73% approval rating, according to Liaison Strategies.


Bit early to be taking approval rating poles when so far all that's happened is committee assignments. LOL However, I think we're headed in a positive direction, I certainly hope so, and if her popularity helps good things sail through Council, I'll gladly take it.
 
On that note, Today's Executive Ctte meeting on the City's Financial future has an added agenda item on housing.

@HousingNowTO will wish to take note.


From the above:

1692884816038.png



Edit to add: The housing motion is first; and I just watched Councillor Myers lay into City staff without dropping names, on this subject (building affordable rental housing) and he did not mince words.

I'll paraphrase the gist here:

Not all departments prioritize housing
Many departments do not talk to each other at all.
Far too much obstructionism
The Councillor has to intervene far too often to keep the process moving.

(he was noting he's trying to shepherd such a project his ward)

He specifically used the words inefficient and frustrating.

I liked what he had to say, and endorse it wholeheartedly, we need more of this 'frank talk'
 
Last edited:

Back
Top