Rob Ford - Why the Supervillian?

[js97]

I got that number by looking at the change in total taken in property taxes from 2004 to 2010:

2004 - $2.915B
2010 - $3.534B

That gives a 21% increase in property taxes during that period. That compares to a 24% increase in home values during that time, which is why the mill rate is actually falling. If property taxes were charged as a fixed percentage, like income taxes and the GST, the Miller era would have seen budget surpluses each year.

You forget Garbage Tax
increased in utilities 30%
Land Transfer tax
car registration tax
increase in Street parking permits
pet tax

and it's not like all of a sudden, we are in excellent financial shape! - we are in worst shape than we started doubling our debt!




your reasoning is completely flawed... for the sake of spin...

and let's not forget... that 24% increase in property values has been called a 'bubble' phenomenom with potential of 'bursting'..

So what you are saying is that the government can bring our property taxes in-line with our 'booming' (some have called it out of hand) real estate market...

perhaps we can hit that bulbble the same time home prices burst too!

p.s. only government salaries and our dear Councillors have increased the same amount during that time (salaries increases (20%+).

 

[Glen]

I don't know who I am going to vote for yet. I will be clear though, I don't have much respect for either the right or left sides of council. WRT to my dislike of Miller's tax policies is that they amount to window dressing. Too little Too late over Too long. The Mayor will not look into the issue of revenue maximizing taxes (see section 5 of the Tomlinson Report), even though all evidence supports that Toronto is on the far left of its 'revenue hill' wrt to non residential taxes. Miller is a trained economist, this is his bread and butter. My disappointment with him is in proportion to my estimation of his abilities. Those on the right of council calling for tax freezes are just as negligent, it is just that they are doing pretty much as I expect.

To me anyway this is the central issue facing Toronto, only because it effects everything else. All those wonderful services niftz likes, need a healthy non residential sector to help pay for them. TTC ridership growth is most strongly related to employment location (look at the graph on page 8 of the transformative change report). Congestion, will not get any better building transit in Toronto (save for the DRL) while jobs continue to be created outside the city. Toronto's unemployment rate no stands at 10.4%, up from 10% in May and from 9.8% a year ago. The commercial / industrial tax base is the golden goose of Toronto, it cannot continue to be neglected.


I will support the candidate that makes this their number one priority.

 

[nfitz]

You forget Garbage Tax

That's the top of your list? Most households can survive with a small or medium sized bin. Even the medium-sized bin is only $39 a year. If your that troubled, go for a small, and you'll get a rebate of $10 rather than paying $39.

The biggies really are the land transfer tax, and the car tax. There is a benefit to the latter, as it does reduce the number of cars around a bit. Besides, by moving to Toronto, I managed to get rid of one car - so even if it does cost more to have one car here, one is often still better off than in other cities, where a family would likely need 2 cars.

 

[Glen]

Okay then, how much does the city deliver in services to multi residential housholds, businesses, industries, etc.? Or are you simply assigning all the city costs to residential?

I'm not seeing the $5,500 and $2,300 numbers in that report. Perhaps I missed it. Can you reference the page?

The revenue is easy. It is in every budget.

The expense side is open to interpretation. I just used the the ones in Appendix A of this

You might also want to see...
http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/commentary_226.pdf
http://www.competeprosper.ca/images/uploads/EnidSlackReport_190603.pdf
http://vancouver.ca/taxcommission/pdfs/rpt010507.pdf. The report shows that in Vancouver, the residential properties pay $0.56 for every $1.00 in services. While non-residential properties pay $2.42 for every $1.00 in services. I am certain that Toronto is similar.

Any way you slice it, the non residential tax base subsidises the residential. For the over taxation of multi residential, it is more complicated. Since they already receive the same levels of service as residential the only issue is on the revenue side. While the rate is much higher than residential, it has been capitalized into values (as commercial taxes have), so while the rate is +3x more it is applied on an average unit value that is much less (~$80,000 in Toronto). This has the added effect of lowering the education portion of tax revenue generated. Funny enough the city of London On. looking into the tax implications of conversions from multi residential to residential found that the higher assessment values post conversion offset the lower rate, sometimes fully. The report also noted that in Toronto's case the new assessments were so much higher that they actually produced increased revenue for the city.

 

[nfitz]

While non-residential properties pay $2.42 for every $1.00 in services. I am certain that Toronto is similar.

Yeah ... I thought so ..

 

[The_Waffler]

The biggies really are the land transfer tax, and the car tax. There is a benefit to the latter, as it does reduce the number of cars around a bit. Besides, by moving to Toronto, I managed to get rid of one car - so even if it does cost more to have one car here, one is often still better off than in other cities, where a family would likely need 2 cars.

I have no stats on this, but my bet is that it does not get people to eliminate their car, which is exactly what Miller and his henchmen hope for. They want the money, pure and simple. Getting people out of their cars eliminates that revenue. If they switched to the TTC it'd be a drop in that leaky bucket, but the $60 tax on licenses in pure profit for the city. They didn't get me on the extra $60 though, I got around it and I imagine alot of other people did... great thing about raising taxes is that your creative types find ways to avoid them while the sheep just keep paying.

Personally, I'd like to see them start charging an annual licensing fee to cyclists to pay for their bike lanes. Since, based on the number of bike lane poping up over the city, there must be tens of thousands riding their bikes to work each day, this would be a huge revenue source.

 

[nfitz]

I have no stats on this, but my bet is that it does not get people to eliminate their car,

The charge is way too small to have much impact. It might remove a few cars, but the charge is too small to push 99.9% over the edge. I overstated that a bit, it has a very minor impact. My primary point is that the average family in Toronto has less cars than elsewhere, so even if it costs an extra $5 a month, it's still far cheaper than having a second car; (something that is driven home to me after discussing the implications of my 4* rating with my insurance company just now)

which is exactly what Miller and his henchmen hope for.

Henchman? That doesn't seem to be necessary language. And isn't that rather sexist?

They didn't get me on the extra $60 though, I got around it

Oh, how does one legally get around it?

Personally, I'd like to see them start charging an annual licensing fee to cyclists to pay for their bike lanes

Seems fair. Though in that case, surely cars should be paying a lot more than $60 a year. Remember that wear-and-tear on a road is a function of weight. Which is why truck tolls are always so high.

 

[Parkdalian]

Personally, I'd like to see them start charging an annual licensing fee to cyclists to pay for their bike lanes. Since, based on the number of bike lane poping up over the city, there must be tens of thousands riding their bikes to work each day, this would be a huge revenue source.

I already pay for bicycle lanes - with property taxes. I also, unfortunately, pay for the upkeep of roads even though it is cars who cause the wear on them. By your logic, we should also start charging a pedestrian walking fee to pay for all of the sidewalks.

Bicycles can cost as little as $100. How much should the annual licensing fee be to make it comparable to car licensing fees? $2? You'd rack in, what, $200,000? That's the yearly income of the four city employees who would be required to institute the fee. Instituting a bicycle fee would just cause a waste of money to gather those fees in order to spite bicyclists. We should be encouraging cycling as a way to decrease congestion and pollution, rather than slapping on retributive taxes.

Clearly, the problem isn't penny ante taxes at the municipal level - which are paying for services we desperately need. It is the huge amount of money we all give to the Federal government. Check out the Federal government budget sometime and check off how many things could be paid for at the provincial or municipal level if the taxes weren't used as a pork barrel scheme to keep particular Federal MPs in power.

 

[that_girl_there]

A bicycle tax is silly. If we create barriers to cycling, less people will want to do it. That's bad. A lot of people (myself included) only really bike on nice days, and for shorter distances. If I had to pay a tax just to do that, it would severely dampen my desire to bike. That would be bad.

I also agree that the license tax is just a money grab. If we really wanted to tax the people who put wear and tear on our roads, it should be the GTA residents paying the tax, not Toronto residents! They're the ones who mostly drive into downtown Toronto - the rest of us take the TTC. Which is why I support a road tax instead of a flat license tax - that way you get charged per use, not just because you want to have the option to use your car every now and then. My car basically sits in my driveway unless I need to leave the city because for me almost anywhere in the city is way more pleasant to get to via TTC.

 

[nfitz]

Bicycles can cost as little as $100. How much should the annual licensing fee be to make it comparable to car licensing fees? $2? You'd rack in, what, $200,000?

$2 - that's excessive. If a $20,000 car can be licensed for $60, then a $200 bike should be licensed for 60¢ a year. Though if you account for the increased wear and tear from automoblies, then it's probably closer to 6¢ a year (well, probably a decade, I'm being kind).

Perhaps fairer, if you want to charge $2 a year for bikes, then cars should be $200 a year. Or accounting for wear-and-tear ... $2,000 a year. Which on one hand sounds a lot, but isn't that much more than a TTC rider pays a year.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Most of the stated cost of bike lanes is related to the general roadwork and street improvements that happen concurrently with bike lane installation, as well. Be on the lookout for a bunch of alarmist media articles about the "10 Million Dollar Jarvis Street Bike Lane" in the coming year, when in fact it's an entire streetscape revitalization project with some bike lanes tacked onto it.

 

[js97]

Most of the stated cost of bike lanes is related to the general roadwork and street improvements that happen concurrently with bike lane installation, as well. Be on the lookout for a bunch of alarmist media articles about the "10 Million Dollar Jarvis Street Bike Lane" in the coming year, when in fact it's an entire streetscape revitalization project with some bike lanes tacked onto it.

dam.. the initial report was only 3 million!

But licensing bikes are a bad idea.

too many issues on both sides...

I cycle and I can tell you that I (and most cyclist) would not want to be bound by the highway traffic act..... Most drivers don't want that either.

It's about being considerate and understanding basic road etiquette. The cyclist unions, bike.to etc need to start preaching to their own group that they need to begin to respect rules of the road. They need to scrap what ever principal they are runing on that they think cyclinsts are 'equal' to cars, cause ultimately, it comes down to you and 2,000lbs of metal.

That helmet is not going to protect you that much.

 

[The_Waffler]

A bike license is not silly. It would legitimize the use of bikes on public roads by opening the door to ticketing for infractions committed by cyclists (running red lights, failure to signal turns, failure to yeild the RofW, etc.). What happens now? If a ticket is handed out it does not affect a license that I'm aware of, so where is the incentive to follow the rules? If they had their license pulled for too many infractions, might get them to wake up.

The idea that the cost of a license actually goes towards road maint. was tongue and cheek on my part. It's really just a tax to cover the administrative costs associated with them (those ivory towers, benefits, pensions and salaries aren't free), and the license is a way to force us to behave. So I think that $50 - $60 per year per bike is fair... besides, don't you downtownies love paying more and more tax? You vote Liberal don't you?

 

[The_Waffler]

nfitz, I won't use "henchpeople", that sounds stupid. The only PC I'm concerned about is the one I'm typing on.

You get around the $60 by registering your vehicle to a business or and address outside of this mess.

 

[The_Waffler]

I cycle and I can tell you that I (and most cyclist) would not want to be bound by the highway traffic act..... Most drivers don't want that either.

That may be true, but that is not the point, if you want to use the roads you must obey the rules... you can't have one set of rules for one type of user and a different (or no) rules for another. HTA is designed to improve safety and to bring order to what can be a chaotic environment. Such as this (supply you're on Benny Hill soundtrack):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM