News   Jun 25, 2024
 1.4K     1 
News   Jun 25, 2024
 1K     0 
News   Jun 25, 2024
 1.7K     3 

New Land Transfer Tax

But from what I understand, an individual employed as a garbage collector can't exactly negotiate a better salary on the fly, either - regardless of the skill to do so or not.
And that's why they negotiate as a collective, as is their right under labour law. University grads have the exact same right, but again, it's hard to imagine the "National Union of Sociology, Philosophy & Art History Graduates" collectively bargaining for better pay and employment conditions at Chapters, Gap and McDonalds.

Again, I don't blame the city workers for negotiating excellent pay and compensation plans, heck I'm jealous - where do I sign up. No, the blame falls fully on the city for accepting and providing those above average pay and compensation plans.
 
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/240323

Does the city need new taxes?

The recent and highly charged debate that resulted in the deferral of the proposed new fees has raised a number of interesting issues.
CON: Mayor David Miller has failed to provide the leadership to set priorities and curb spending, Councillor Case Ootes argues

Jul 27, 2007 04:30 AM

At its July 16 meeting, Toronto City Council voted to defer the implementation of a land transfer tax and an annual vehicle registration tax.

I oppose these new taxes for a number of reasons, not the least of which is Mayor David Miller's failure to pursue the province to pay for the cost of approximately $600 million worth of social services (subsidized housing, welfare, etc.) paid for by property taxes.

Last year, Premier Dalton McGuinty acknowledged that social service costs are a provincial responsibility.

The mayor had the opportunity to press him on this issue and should have worked with other Greater Toronto Area politicians to do so.

However, the mayor focused his attention on securing taxing powers for Toronto (no doubt to the delight of the premier), and wasted his time demanding a share of the GST from the federal government.

The public understands and supports the argument that social services should not be paid for through property taxes. The mayor could have mobilized the public in support of the city's position.

None of the provincial political parties is willing to assume the full cost of social services until the city gets its house in order. The mayor needs to come to grips with this reality.

In the past four years, city budgeting has been done on the basis of approving services or grants, and then scrambling to find the money. Budgeting needs to be done by identifying how much money is available, and then setting priorities.

In the past four years, the mayor has given in to union demands to keep labour peace, no matter the price.
The most recent example is the decision to bring in-house the collection of garbage in York.

Rather than exploring opportunities for delivering services in a more cost-effective manner, the mayor's approach is always to bring the service in-house.


This not to say that everything should be contracted out, but it is evidence that he has allowed the unions to set the agenda and kill what should be a competitive environment in the delivery of services. Without competition, services have deteriorated and costs have skyrocketed.

Similarly, the city's so-called "fair wage policy" requires that only companies paying a wage scale that matches or exceeds the city's are allowed to bid on contracts. This further escalates costs.


Contracting in, and the fair wage policy, are issues that are sacrosanct to the mayor and the unions. They carry the highest price tag in terms of inflated costs.

The City of Toronto is notorious for spending money it does not have and has depleted its reserves while doubling its debt. The mayor has failed to provide the leadership to establish priorities and curb spending.

The day after he made his speech announcing a task force to cut spending, council approved the spending of more than $3 million for the purchase of a theatre and the creation and staffing of off-leash dog areas. Apparently these expenditures were more important to the mayor than the Sheppard subway.

The mayor is fear-mongering by threatening to cut essential services such as transit, snow clearing and emergency services. He fails to mention other expenditures, such as the $45 million grants budget or the $60 million Nathan Phillips Square project, as possible candidates for cost-cutting. At almost every council meeting, the mayor has added millions of dollars for pet projects promoted by his left-wing supporters.

The mayor has been the author of the crises he now faces.

It is time for the mayor to understand first and foremost that the public wants core services that keep the city safe and clean, at a reasonable cost.
It is time for the mayor to provide the leadership that serves the public.


Case Ootes, a former deputy mayor of Toronto, is councillor for Ward 29 Toronto-Danforth.
 
Again, I don't blame the city workers for negotiating excellent pay and compensation plans, heck I'm jealous - where do I sign up. No, the blame falls fully on the city for accepting and providing those above average pay and compensation plans.

Some people just can't win. The people who pick up the garbage are essential, but they are paid too much according to some. At least many of them are not encumbered by "useless" university degrees. Maybe we could save money by shutting down lots of university programs that have been deemed useless. These can be replaced by trade schools, and courses on how to make ten bucks an hour go a long way.

I know I am being silly, but I think that people who pick up garbage and have to deal with that stink day after day ought to be paid a reasonable wage (being esential and all). However, I am sure that what constitutes "reasonable" differs from one person to the next.

My concern - and I think you will probably agree - is that there are still too many people who believe that those who pick up garbage are garbage, and should be treated as such. An unpleasant thought for an unpleasant job (but still essential).
 
Weren't Case Ootes and Miller tight at one time? Or was that Ootes with Lastman?
 
Maybe we could save money by shutting down lots of university programs that have been deemed useless. These can be replaced by trade schools, and courses on how to make ten bucks an hour go a long way..

A certain G&M columnist would certainly agree--let's just call her Margarita Bent.
 
Looks like Toronto is not the only city paying the price for CUPE's outrageous demands, but in our case, unlike Vancouver, we have a mayor who is on the union's side, pitted against Toronto's beleaguered taxpaying citizens.

Guess who's running your city
CUPE's Power Handcuffs Mayors
Terence Corcoran, National Post
Published: Saturday, July 28, 2007

The taxpayers of Vancouver held hostage. The City of Toronto forced into budget crisis. Calgary teetering on the brink of municipal labour unrest. Montreal headed for a major metro-wide service-destroying city workers' strike later this year.

For all this and more we can thank the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the all-powerful radical labour group that uses strike threats and political power to hold real control over most government services across the country. All reform of city services is paralyzed. Essentially no privatizations take place in Canada, thanks to CUPE leader Paul Moist's relentless dissemination of scare-mongering stories and misleading research.

Mr. Moist landed in Vancouver on Wednesday to show his support for his striking, dues-paying members and to push CUPE's latest public negotiating gimmick -- wages and benefits that supposedly would give city employees enough compensation to allow them to live in expensive Vancouver. What this means in dollar terms isn't stated, mainly because it's just a public relations ploy. A CUPE radio commercial compares Vancouver workers to Olympic slaves in ancient Greece. "The slaves of ancient Olympia could afford to live where they worked, Vancouver civic workers cannot," says the commercial. "Tell Mayor Sullivan and council civic workers deserve a fair contract." Members of Local 15 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees picket outside the entrance of the main branch of the Vancouver Public Library this week.

Good luck to Mayor Sam Sullivan. He's trying to fight CUPE, but he cannot win. With the 2010 Winter Olympics looming, the union will legally extort another fat deal. They've already rejected a 10% wage increase over 39 months --a city offer that covers the period up to just after the Olympic closing ceremonies. If the Mayor wants that bonus, he'll have to pay.

It's the way things work. Paralyzing strikes are the CUPE norm -- ritual extortions of wage gains, new benefits and favourable work rules. If no strike has occurred -- as in Toronto in recent years -- it's because the Mayor is a union man who doesn't want to damage cozy relationships with union bosses. Why endure a strike when you can give the union what it wants and move on to the next tax increase?

Toronto CUPE, after a fake frazzle over a possible strike in 2005, secured a new contract that was described by the Toronto Star: "Workers will get wage increases averaging 3% a year over the four-year term, plus a crack at getting back work that's now contracted out, and improved language on seniority rights for temporary workers who make up 20% of the membership." Today Toronto has a budget crisis. Wages make up 50% of the city's operating budget.

If any city employees in Canada have ever been laid off, it's not prominently registered in any public record: jobs are for life. Featherbedding and crony-ism are widespread. CUPE locals, depending on the city, dictate what work gets done and who does it.

City bureacracies are swamps of petty, costly regulations, many brought in to satisfy union-led campaigns. Toronto famously instituted a labour-intensive restaurant rating system that serves no purpose except to expand union workloads.

Canadians have no idea of the scale of CUPE's power and costly influence, thanks in part to willful media blindness. With rare exceptions, union-city labour negotiations are reported like sporting events. Rhetoric and posturing from both sides get detailed treatment, actual issues are never explored, and in the end a settlement is reached followed by ritual post-mortem blather to determine who "won" and who "lost," who "gave up" what phony demand to achieve some alleged compromise. Usually both claim victory. End of story. It's all just a media game.

Rarely, if ever, reported is the process by which CUPE extends its vice-grip control over city work -- moving garbage, building subways, operating pools or planting flowers -- and prevents any significant moves to cut costs or improve service.

For a glimpse into CUPE's control over urban life in Canada, consider the story of Montreal West, the tiny suburb in the metropolis's west end. Home to only 5,600, the community is newly part of the unionized CUPE machine, the result of the twisted politics of Montreal's 2002 multi-city urban amalgamation and subsequent de-amalgamation.

Prior to its forced merger with the City of Montreal, Montreal West employed 15 workers affiliated with another union. The workers mostly lived in Montreal West, local people with local roots. With amalgamation, those workers became forced members of CUPE Local 301, the City of Montreal's notoriously thuggish employees' union. Even after de-amalgamation in 2006,Montreal West is stuck with CUPE, thanks to a provincial deal to buy off the powerful city union.

How CUPE operates is described in part in a recent letter to citizens from Montreal West council, including Mayor Campbell Stuart. It asks: "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?" Answer: the union won't plant them.

The small community, which now employes 18 people, is part of a massive 6,500-member union with a contract that covers more than 100 different job classifications. Under the contract, employees are only required to work within extremely narrow job descriptions. "There are no designated 'gardeners,' for instance -- and so no flowers are planted unless the union allows a qualified employee to work outside his limited category."

The impact on Montreal West is costly. Town management can no longer assign the most appropriately skilled person. The union rep now makes all the job calls "based on whatever tactical criteria suits the union that day."

"Restricting what individual employees can be asked to do essentially cuts our town's available workforce by nearly half. In order to pick up town garbage bins, TWO men are required: one to drive the truck and one to empty the pail. SIX men (30% of our entire department) are required to repair a sidewalk: one to drive a 10-wheeler, one to use a backhoe, one to drive a pick-up with supplies, two to construct wooden frames, and one general helper. If the union rep allows, three employees could agree to perform the combination of complementary tasks necessary, but they cannot be required to do so."

Mayor Stuart told me that, as a result of these and other rules, Montreal West's city services are at a standstill. And then there are seniority and other issues. "Jobs are 'bid on' by seniority each day, rather than assigned by the [City] Director on the basis of skill. This union process takes between 30 to 60 minutes every morning, and often results in highly inefficient allocations. For instance, if a worker's selected job finishes at 2 p.m., he cannot be assigned another task without potentially triggering a new 30-to 60-minute bidding process for the whole workforce!"

The union in Montreal West, says the Mayor, is "run with an iron fist. They intimidate workers in my town as much as they try to intimidate town administrators." Flower planting was threatened unless a certain worker was assigned the job, for example. "We were told quite explicitly that no flowers were going to be planted until we hired the guy they wanted."

Under CUPE rules, Montreal West would have to increase worker numbers to 28 to get the work done. The union also wants wage increases of between 6% and 8% over the next three years. All of Montreal is now prepared for a CUPE 301 strike later this year.

Montreal West is a microcosm of what goes on across Canada. The specifics and scale are different, but from Vancouver to Toronto to Montreal, CUPE runs our cities along the same lines.
 
Wow. That sounds like one union in serious need of busting.

I think I'd be 100% behind any move by a mayor to endure a long strike in exchange for a reasonable contract. On the other hand, I remember the garbage strike in Toronto when strikers were picketing transfer stations, only allowing one car in every 10 minutes to drop off household waste. I think at this point, this became a public health issue, and those people should have been forceable removed from the premises. If I had been a citizen in the area, I think I might have done something extreme. Even just looking on from afar, I was impressively pissed-off.
 
Maybe we could save money by shutting down lots of university programs that have been deemed useless. These can be replaced by trade schools, and courses on how to make ten bucks an hour go a long way.
Trade school grads will do much better than that. One of my best mates is a TS grad and now is a tower crane operator, and at 35 years old is a youngster on the job site, making a low six figures with overtime. TS grads are now renovating my house because this uni grad can't fix anything, so it's costing me over $100 grand to pay these TS grads for a month's work, including materials of course.

There's nothing wrong with TS grads. They're want make the world what it is.
 
I hate unions. I hope sometime in the future when another contract renewal comes up, city hall will take a stand and with the support of as much media as possible, generate the backlash that city council faced recently.
 
Granny grows weary with you instructing her on what she ought to do with her house. You might want her to do that, but there is nothing that says she must.

I'm not instructing her what she should do with her house. Fiscal realities should tell her that. If I have a stock certificate for 500 stocks of Microsoft bought in the 80s and I don't want to remove it from the display case when I can't afford my property tax that is my business... but it doesn't mean my property tax should be lowered.

They may not want to rent because they may not want to give a landlord all their hard earned money.

But if you believe a house isn't an asset with value until sold then they just lost their money in the house didn't they? One day they have $50,000, the next day they have $0 and a roof over their head which costed $50,000 but now isn't worth anything because it isn't being sold and that is better than having $50,000 one day and $49,650 the next day with a roof over their head? They could put that $49,650 into a normal interest paying bank account and make money every year whereas a home makes nothing right? The builder or property owner took $50,000 but the landlord only took $350... so they saved money renting? Many years later when they have paid more than a total of $50,000... it still must be better than having a house because it must be worth more than the house because the house costed less and holds no asset value?

If you lease or buy a car you pay a monthly payment plan. Cars depreciate very quickly, so no one makes money off of them. Either way, small payments every month for many years is the only method that would allow people to do such things. But this is beside the point.

So small payments every month for many years help people do such things. That is what I'm arguing, perfect. Cars depreciate so you don't make money off them but if a $50,000 house in 1950 is worth $50,000 today... it depreciated because a dollar in 1950 doesn't have the purchasing power today it did then.

The taxes here are lower, but the property prices are higher.

And the property prices are higher in Bridal Path... so they should pay an even lower tax rate right?

If a person or a family bought a $50,000 house, that is what they bought. If they bought a $50,000 house and it is now worth $700,000, they still bought a $50,000 house.

If that is true why would you ever sell the car you bought for $30,000? Twenty years later if you sell it it will be worth much less but if you keep it you have a $30,000 car! And insurance should pay $30,000 if you are in an accident because that car is $30,000.

The value of the house is not realized until they sell it - and so long as they don't buy in the same market.

What do you mean? If they decide to move next door to an equal house in the same neighbourhood what value is their new house and how much tax do you think they should pay and how has their financial picture changed in any way at all?

People who buy a $700,000 house today will end up owning a house potentially worth millions in twenty years. They still bought a $700,000 house.

So what? The purchase price is only relevant the day you pay and never again. Why would two owners of homes living next door to each other (one bought for $50k and one for $700k) have one resident paying more than 10 times more in property tax when it costs no less to provide services between the homes? Owning a property longer does not change the fact it costs more to deliver services over time.

Nothing wrong with municipal taxes - in theory. But the method in how they are calculated is a mess. Presently, residential property tax is increasing in Toronto due to the shifting of proportions between business and residential. The city would like to see an increase in this tax rate as well, and it will come (as will hikes in service costs). But the city should not be forced to use the money derived from this tax to pay for downloaded programs from the province.

I'm in agreement that downloading has caused fiscal pressures... but the city still needs to balance their budget somehow. Residential property tax in Toronto should be increasing to lower business property tax because there is no reason our business tax should be so much higher than the 905 while the residential rate is so much lower.

The second tax, the land transfer tax, was a means to make up for the revenues now being used to cover those provincial responsibilities, and to cover the years of neglect by both the provincial and federal governments. In essence, we would have a tax on us to cover up the fiscal mess left by those two other governments.

Why doesn't everyone share the responsibility of that neglect? Why do new homeowners own the responsibility for downloading and neglect but current homeowners have no ownership of the problem. A person arrives from another country and buys a home and he pays for downloading with this land transfer tax... but people who were around when a democratically elected government downloaded don't have to pay?

That means these monies must be collected and used responsibly,

If all taxes are being used responsibly we should have no issue with the tax level because we would agree it is money well spent.

and not as a means to taxing perceptions of lifestyle,

Like the perception that someone buying a $250k small apartment to house a family can afford a lump sum tax and empty nesters living in a spacious $700k home cannot afford an equal amount spread over many many years.

covering over the bad practices of other governments or as an endless source of cash for mismanaged city programs or contracting methods.

Like the lump sum property tax is doing... the same as a property tax increase would. A lump sum property tax is something that will never be removed... whereas with the current property tax system a property tax increase would automatically be removed when the city tries to hold the property tax rate at the same level.
 
I'm not instructing her what she should do with her house.

It just sounded very much like it.


But if you believe a house isn't an asset...


It's an asset, not a lifestyle. And the value of the asset can't be realized until the house is sold.

Besides, the asset is acquired. It is paid for by the person doing the acquiring. Bu then we can all scenario-build to our hearts content, can't we? People can make choices to purchase houses, see a gain on the value, or a loss on the vaue, or anything inbetween. The value of the house is not necessarily derived by what people do, but by what happens to property values, housing market and the rate of inflation. These things can be quite location specific as well. Otherwise every two bedroom house in the province would be priced exactly the same (and taxed the same).


And the property prices are higher in Bridal Path... so they should pay an even lower tax rate right?

Did you see me say that? No. So why raise a silly straw man like that?

As for comparin cars and houses - not the same no matter how you try to argue it.


Actually, I grow weary with your nit-picking on this singular topic. You clearly will believe what you want to believe: that hiking taxes is the best thing. But I don't see you worrying whether that tax money will be well-spent, or you being too concerned on what it will be spent on. Those should be real issues to people who pay taxes - even if they are big fans of more taxes.

The actual situation is this: raising all sorts of taxes does not fix the problems of downloading in this or any other Ontario city. Covering provincial responsibilities has consumed a far greater proportion of municipal taxes than it really should (something admitted as far back as the Harris government!). Municipal taxes are not designed to pay for provincial programs. That is why the province largely uses income taxes to finance these efforts; it is far more robust method of taxation (and more fair). The fact that the province has addressed this short-coming with yearly grants suggests that they recognize the problem of downloading, but that they refuse to do anything substantial about it solving it. Keeping their own tax situation in check is advantageous to being re-elected. If you can't fix that problem, then make it go away. That's what they did to the cities.

So Toronto now has taxing powers, and it intends to use them to continue to cover a significant portion of what ought to be provincial programs - in essence helping the povince to hide their negligence in terms of discharging their own responsibilities. In the meantime, the city has fallen behind, either by lack of funds or through political short-sightedness to maintain its own purely municipal responsibilities. This makes for a compounding situation. The city asked for taxing powers and the province gave it. Now the province (the Premier) is demanding that they be used - so he won't have to raise taxes.

Like tho saying goes: there's a sucker born every minute. Looks like we are the suckers - whether we want to be or not.
 
Another Hume article:

It's time to drop the gloves and fight back TheStar.com - News - It's time to drop the gloves and fight back
August 01, 2007
Christopher Hume

Big or small, the province hurts them all.

As Doug Reycraft likes to point out, every municipality in Ontario – and there are 445 – has been damaged by the provincial government's policies. Toronto may have suffered the most, but Reycraft's own Southwest Middlesex is also feeling the pain of Queen's Park's decision to underfund and dump many of its costs onto Ontario towns and cities.

But Reycraft also happens to be the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, better known as AMO, and as such has a larger voice than he would otherwise have in the ongoing war between the provincial government and the 80 per cent of the population that lives in towns and cities.

Despite this, Reycraft and his organization have been disappointingly timid in their calls for fairness. Indeed, in the words of AMO's executive director, Pat Vanini, the group has been focused on "low-hanging fruit," i.e., forcing the province to assume its legally-mandated costs of the Ontario Disability Support Plan and Ontario Drug Benefits Program.

Not that it isn't worth the effort; of the $18 billion municipalities collect from residents, fully $3 billion goes right to Queen's Park to cover its bill. Needless to say, this is not only outrageous, it is illegal.

Of every dollar paid in property taxes in Ontario, 25 cents goes to social services. In the rest of the country, it's five cents.

But let's be honest, even if Premier Dalton McGuinty does decide to undo the ruinous actions of his much-despised predecessor, Mike Harris – don't hold your breath – there's not enough fruit on these particular trees to lift Ontario's municipalities out of the fiscal hole into which they have been cast.

The real issue here goes far beyond uploading, though that would be a start. The truth is that we have created a governance system in Canada that puts cities at an enormous disadvantage. They pay most of the bills, but get little of the money they require to do so. The result is that civic services must be paid for through property taxes.

And so, while Toronto considers cutting public transit, Reycraft is trying to figure out how to cover the cost of replacing a water tower that's falling apart in his area. (Incidentally, that piece of infrastructure will run $2 to $3 million; this in a community so small that a 1 per cent increase in property taxes would yield $18,000.)

The same situation exists across the country, yet our provincial and federal governments simply refuse to deal with it. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is clearly bereft of ideas and, worse still, uninterested. It's not his problem.

McGuinty would love to do something, but is waiting for the advent of "a perfect world."

Meantime, the Canadian decline continues apace. We grow less productive, less innovative and less relevant with each passing year.

That's why the moment has come for AMO and other municipal organizations in Canada to get tough, to put aside timidity and enter the fray armed with more than a, "Please sir, I want some more."

Cities need a portion of personal income taxes. Let's say that again: Cities need a portion of personal income tax. There's no other way. All the talk about handouts and bailouts should be dismissed for the uninformed nonsense it is.

If this means a constitutional conference, let it begin. If new legislation is necessary, let's start the debate now. If it takes a revolution, let's man the barricades.

Canada has become an urban nation living in a rural past. The 19th century is over, and it's time we recognized that.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/241914
 

Back
Top