News   May 06, 2024
 472     1 
News   May 06, 2024
 1K     0 
News   May 06, 2024
 669     1 

Ontario's deficit grows: MoveOntario in trouble?

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
8,585
I can't help but wonder what the government will do in order to fill such a huge gap in their budget. I suspect that big-ticket capital projects like MoveOntario will be among the first to face cuts. Maybe this will mean a decrease in scope, or maybe it will mean Metrolinx will no longer be able to stall on the plan to fund expansion.

I suspect we may also see tax increases on the horizon. Since corporate and personal income taxes were just cut in the last budget, and that these cuts were part of the plan to restructure Ontario's tax system to improve competitiveness, I don't see these increasing. Increasing the new HST to a combined 15% would yield somewhere between $4 and $5 billion. Adding 5 cents a litre gas tax would raise $1 billion.

All in all, it will be a tough hole to fill. And with health care costs rising, an aging electricity infrastructure, and declining manufacturing base, we're definitely moving against the tide.

From The Star:
Back to Ontario deficit billions more than expected
Ontario deficit billions more than expected

October 22, 2009
Robert Benzie

Ontario's already record budget shortfall has ballooned to a staggering $24.7 billion – billions higher than economists expected – and "difficult choices" loom, warns Finance Minister Dwight Duncan.

In the fall economic statement tabled Thursday in the Legislature, Duncan revised the deficit projection upward from the $18.5 billion he had announced in June (and the $14.1 billion in the March budget.)

Until earlier this year, the ignominious record was a $12.4 billion shortfall in the 1992 budget introduced by NDP finance minister Floyd Laughren.

"Due to this global recession, our economy is now the same size as it was in 2005. Tax revenues are also now at 2005 levels," Duncan told the House.

"Corporate tax revenues fell last year by an unprecedented 48.1 per cent – or over $6 billion," he said.

"At the same time the recession has driven up demand for government services."

That accounts for the deficit being far worse than the $22 billion leading bank economists had anticipated.

"The governments of Canada, the United States and some other provinces have all adjusted their deficit projections upward for the coming year," said Duncan, noting Ottawa's is $56 billion and Washington's is $1.5 trillion.

"Due to the impact of the global economy on Ontario and our government's desire to invest in the people of this province, the projected deficit is $24.7 billion in 2009-10," he said.

That's on a $113.7 billion budget, which includes $104.3 billion in spending on programs and $9.4 billion on interest paymentsto service a provincial debt that has skyrocketed to $137.9 billion.

Despite the gloomy picture, Duncan emphasized that the Liberals would continue their focus on the big-ticket priorities of health-care and education.

To that end, the government will announce its long-anticipated plans Tuesday for all-day junior and senior kindergarten for four- and five-year-olds.

"This initiative will further increase the competitive advantage already found in our highly skilled and educated workforce," the treasurer said.

"Full-day learning for our four- and five-year-olds will also help parents take advantage of new job opportunities," he said, conceding that the government will be "phasing in" the program, which could take years.

"Making this investment will require difficult choices on our part," said Duncan.

"And we will make them."

While he was vague Thursday, in a speech on Tuesday, the finance minister said a sweeping review of government programs would be coming in the next few months to determine where cuts can be made.

"We will call on our partners in the public and the broader public sector to help us sustain public services in the long term. We will also review all agencies, boards and commissions to ensure they are meeting Ontarians' needs and expectations," he said.

"We made the right choices for today. As Ontario comes out of the recession, we will eliminate the deficit and pay down debt to ensure the sustainability of the public services we all value."

However, Duncan did not offer a timetable for deficit reduction and elimination.

Opposition parties were flabbergasted at the new $24.7 billion deficit figure, which Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak called "a historically dismal performance" and warned it would boost each Ontario household's share of the total provincial debt to $13,500.

"The government was living high off the hog," Hudak thundered in the Legislature. "The McGuinty government is the problem. The problem will not be fixed until we replace the sad, worn out McGuinty government."

New Democrat finance critic Michael Prue said a deficit this large cannot come without dire consequences for both the public and public sector workers.

"I can read the code words," Prue said. "They can expect to get whacked in the months ahead."

On Wednesday, Premier Dalton McGuinty left open the possibility of unpaid furloughs for public servants, including teachers, bureaucrats, and nurses.

That echoed former NDP premier Bob Rae's "social contract" in 1993, which introduced the phrase "Rae Days" into the vernacular.

While the Liberals privately insist "Dalton Days" are not on the horizon, McGuinty has steadfastly refused to rule them out.

"We're just beginning this discussion," the premier said Wednesday when asked about Rae's response to a recession.

"I don't know. We've all got our own particular approaches obviously. I'll let people judge, but what I would say is that ... the next several months will be very important as we come up to our own particular approach to this."

Wayne Samuelson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, said Wednesday he's worried the Liberals "are so freaked out about the deficit" they will force workers to take involuntary leave.

"They're heading for a $20 billion deficit and it doesn't look like they're ready to raise taxes and it's pretty clear that the economy is not going to grow so there's not going to generate extra money there," said Samuelson.

"You can (have furloughs for public servants) or you start privatizing services and selling things off."

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) urged the Liberals to resist the temptation to privatize or cut.

"Every dollar spent in the public sector not only provides a service that people need, but also provides income that supports families, communities and local businesses," OPSEU vice-president Patricia Rout said in a statement Wednesday.

"The track record of privatization is one of higher costs, reduced services, poorer jobs and structural deficits," said Rout.
 
I wonder if there are creative ways of doing it like moving TTC into Metrolinx crown corporation and having the corporation issue a 25 year public bond (backed by the goverment). I think that would not show as debt. Also they could finally start thinking of PPPs.
 
It's short-term pain for long term gain. McGuinty's got my vote for all the politically unpalatable but sound policy decisions he's taking now. I think the deficit will recover over time as corporate revenues rebound.

I don't think a HST or gas tax increase is possible politically. That would be a gift to the opposition who already suggest that the HST is cash grab. It's gotta wait till the next election at least....all tax increases have to wait till the next election. I'd like to see them get rid of that health premium and just increase income taxes proportionally. The health premium is regressive and unfair to middle income families.


I like the suggestion of folding in the TTC into Metrolinx. I have long suggested that the subway network and the GO network should be run by a single entity. This would be a good chance for it to happen. It would allow them to issue bonds against those 'assets' then to allow for more subway and GO expansion. And would create more discipline and focus on building projects that create ridership not just build light rail to every ward.
 
The deficit is reaching unsustainable levels.

The question is what balance of cuts vs tax or fee increases is appropriate, and at one point.

On Cost Control:

One-time corporate bail-outs should not be repeated in 2010, this saves 3-4 Billion. But there is also an on-going corporate welfare component in the budget that drives me nuts, depending on what we all agree to define corproate welfare as (I'm thinking of everything from "Innovation to Export" funds where the gov't picks up the tab for a corporate expense but with no equity or interest in exchange) the number is around 4 Billion per annum.

So if you cut that, you've got about an 7-8B reduction.

I don't think is any room to cut transfers to Cities or download, nor to make meaningful cuts to education/healthcare etc.

That means most deep-program cut are off the table, increasing gapping (not filling a position right away when someone quits/retires/gets fired; cutting travel, consulting etc. should scrape up 750M or so

There's also some room to cut future capital funds in general (but not much) due to the all the announcements this year, which are largely being charged in full to this year's books, even though cash-flow is future year.

That might knock out another 750M

So 9-10B is about the extent of the available cuts in my mind, without doing anything atrocious to important public services.

Revenue Generation:

There are 2 suggestions I have where new revenue generation is concerned, I've long been a fan of tolling 400-series highways, along with major urban expressways (Gardiner/DVP, Queensway in Ottawa).

This would be politically controversial, but I think its sale-able. If I were in McGuinty's shoes I would bit the bullet on this one in 2010, as an announcement, but have the tolls kick in January 2012. Just as a political decision. As a matter of practise it would take about 1 year to fully equip a highway with the necessary infrastructure for electronic tolls.

The other suggestion I have would be on income tax. Current the top bracket in Ontario is the second lowest in the country at 11% (BC is 17%, Quebec is 24%) it also has a very low entry point at $80,000 and change per year. I would argue for an new 'premium' tax bracket, say matching the federal one at at around $150,000 + as the entry point, and make the rate 13%. Given it would still be a low rate by provincial standards, I think its politically sale-able.

That should be good for 1-2B in new revenue anyway.

The last measure I would look at is further increasing the minimum wage in 2011 and 2012. The argument here is, if done modestly is has very little impact on jobs; but if the increases exceed inflation and start to catch low-income workers/jobs up to the poverty line at at least, you get several spin off benefits.

First off the increase in income is almost 100% taxable as low-income earners aren't going to divert much to RRSPs and RESPs etc. etc. The increased income generates meaningful new income taxes collected.

Additionally though for low-income earners, their will be an extremely high spend through rate for any pay raise, thus boosting HST and Corporate Income tax revenue as well.

Finally, in so far as the raise in basic pay makes work more self-sufficient and attractive at the low end, it may help curtain growth, and even help reduce social benefits loads.

I would argue for $11.00 per hour in 2011; then $12.00 in 2012 before indexing to inflation. A fair trade for business given the HST and corporate tax cuts.
 
11% is not the top tax bracket - it is an illusion.

The is the fair share health surtax that brings it up to 14% (approximately) which is already a surtax - and was suppose to replace premiums.

Premiums were then reintroduced (but collected as well through taxes).
 
^ but I may not care soon.

I am seriously thinking of shutting down my company (very very very small) company and opening up a new business in asia next year (same name but ltd. instead of inc.)
 
I really don't think another steep rise in minimum wage is wise. Minimum wage was recently increased by 50% (6.85 - 10.25 over several years). Making that increase 90% doesn't seem wise to me. I don't know if you appreciate how many jobs will be lost if the government takes that step. Along with the reduced rate of taxation on investment, it would create a wave of capital investment designed to eliminate as many low-income jobs as possible. Good for productivity of those still working, but bad for low income earners. It would likely just dump them onto unemployment and then welfare rolls until the economy takes up the slack in unemployment.

Keith:

Gas taxes have been the same at the province level for many years (at least 15 years, but it's hard to find references for rates over time). I think a modest increase in fuel taxes might be acceptable, especially now that fuel prices have abated somewhat.

I agree that raising the HST rate would probably be a tough sell. Too bad, though. On the other hand, I think a GST hike is likely federally--if/when the Tories get the boot. The federal government can ill afford a lost decade of 11 digit deficits. It scares me that our federal debt is set to grow by 50%, provided there are no negative surprises like a double dip recession, all of which before the demographic time bomb of retiring boomers hits federal and provincial governments. I guess it scares me because I'm young, and the boomers are borrowing money that I will have to pay back, all in the name of a painless recession.
 
I think any tax increases should wait till after the election. After a deficit this big and the launch of the HST, there's a real risk that any tax increases even if it's pennies on a litre of gas could threaten his chances of getting re-elected.

I rather like Dalton and would like to see him be a bit more cautious on this front.
 
With respect to the minimum wage issue.

Let's start by addressing where the minimum wage is relative to recent history.

The minimum wage was $6.85 per hour when McGuinty took power in 2003. But it was also $6.85 an hour when Mike Harris took power in 1995.

So if you had gradually adjusted the minimum wage by inflation each year from 1995, you get to almost exactly $10.30 per hour in 2010. (the proposed minimum wage is $10.25)

However, it is further worth noting that the all time high minimum wage was (adjusted for inflation) was in 1972 or so; and would today work out to $11.40 per hour)

If you showed core living costs; (housing,food, transportation and telephone) and equated that number to Toronto only, you would get a higher number still (approx. $12.80 per hour)

So to suggest $10.25 is some how egregious by historic standard, or that an increase is untenable doesn't hold weight.

Moreover; the corporate tax rate when the minimum wage was equivalent to over $11.00 per hour was; 44% (28 federal, 16 provincial)

With today's corporate tax rate by 2012 being 25%; companies are in a far better position to afford the wage they historically paid to entry-level workers; and if they arguably split 1/2 the corporate tax reduction with their worker, pro-rate equally across the wage spectrum; you would see a min. wage of $13.80 per hour.

I have some serious grievance with the argument that paying people enough to survive may threaten the existence of a business. If the business can't survive being decent; let it die!

Such decrepit financial management would be deplorable; and would not be the fault of the front-line work force.

***********

The argument that entry-level wages are such a burden is quite the mis-nomer.

The vast majority of entry-level wages are not paid in factories; nor in the service sector; but rather in retail.

Now tell me with a straight face that you are going to go from Hamilton or Toronto or even Windsor to cross the border to get a Big Mac that is 40c cheaper?

Right, you aren't. Cause you would eat that savings up in the bridge toll alone, never mind the hassle and wasted time.

Let McD's and Walmart pay a fair wage; its inconsequential to their bottom line; but its very beneficial to both society and gov't if they do the right thing.
 
I like the suggestion of folding in the TTC into Metrolinx. I have long suggested that the subway network and the GO network should be run by a single entity. This would be a good chance for it to happen. It would allow them to issue bonds against those 'assets' then to allow for more subway and GO expansion. And would create more discipline and focus on building projects that create ridership not just build light rail to every ward.

I'm not so sure about Metrolinx issuing bonds against its "assets". It doesn't make sense. If the agency is so mismanaged its bonds default, there is no way Queen's Park will let creditors haul away hundreds of buses and train carriages as collateral. The yield of the Metrolinx bonds will be higher than the yield of Ontario bonds, with the difference pocketed by bondholders.

Sub-government entities like Metrolinx should not have the power to borrow directly from the market. It creates a moral hazard for both the management and bondholders, with taxpayers taking the risk.

If the Ontario government allows Metrolinx to enter the property business like MTR, they would be doing the public and the planning community a huge favour.
 
I'm not so sure about Metrolinx issuing bonds against its "assets". It doesn't make sense. If the agency is so mismanaged its bonds default, there is no way Queen's Park will let creditors haul away hundreds of buses and train carriages as collateral. The yield of the Metrolinx bonds will be higher than the yield of Ontario bonds, with the difference pocketed by bondholders.

Sub-government entities like Metrolinx should not have the power to borrow directly from the market. It creates a moral hazard for both the management and bondholders, with taxpayers taking the risk.

If the Ontario government allows Metrolinx to enter the property business like MTR, they would be doing the public and the planning community a huge favour.

Metrolinx is a crown corporation - no different than Ontario Hydro or Ontario Power Generation which has issued bonds as well. If there is a problem with management of Metrolinx then fix it - but like any other corporation they can issue bonds to build infrastructure that generates future revenue, there just has to be a sound business plan.

Failing that then the only other option would be to convert the subway/go into a system with exit/entry ticket (like London or actually more like Tokyo) so that you can track the ridership of individual lines and allow private companies to bid/build/price the new lines and the revenue would be driven by ridership which is tracked through entry/exit (and possibly route taken) and then paid to those private companies due the revenue.
 
Implement a Green Tax

Looks like a good time to implement a Green Tax. Start with a 5¢ a litre tax on gasoline, and increase it by 1¢ each year until the price of gasoline approaches European prices.

Allow for rebates for transit, school vehicles and buses, farms, construction vehicles, and commercial trucks.

Should help control the deficit, and help with public transit at the same time.
 
Last edited:
I'm not so sure about Metrolinx issuing bonds against its "assets". It doesn't make sense. If the agency is so mismanaged its bonds default, there is no way Queen's Park will let creditors haul away hundreds of buses and train carriages as collateral. The yield of the Metrolinx bonds will be higher than the yield of Ontario bonds, with the difference pocketed by bondholders.

Sub-government entities like Metrolinx should not have the power to borrow directly from the market. It creates a moral hazard for both the management and bondholders, with taxpayers taking the risk.

If the Ontario government allows Metrolinx to enter the property business like MTR, they would be doing the public and the planning community a huge favour.

Metrolinx is doing almost what I have suggested today with the MO2020 projects. They have 'ownership' of the projects and the province is basically borrowing against the asset value on their behalf. Making them a fully independent entity that's allowed to borrow and invest is the next step. They could arrange for some kind of fixed subsidy from the Province annually or some other funding arrangement. The key here is that by letting them borrow against the assets it makes them responsible, which in turn also forces the province to empower them with real revenue generating powers (authority to levy income and sales taxes, tolls, registration fees, etc.).

As for them going bankrupt....creditors can take buses and train carriages. They can't take subway tunnels, railroad tracks and bus lanes. Anyway, I don't think there's a high risk of them going bankrupt. It's a rather low bar to say that they'd be so mismanaged right from the start. Obviously, the province today trust them with the GO network. All I am suggesting is that they be given the subway network as well (not the bus, streetcar, LRT services). This would make Metrolinx responsible for the core regional transport infrastructure and leave local services to the, well, locals.
 

Back
Top