Last updated: 12:25AM, Tuesday, October 23.
Today Toronto City Council will be debating and voting on a land transfer tax and vehicle registration fee. The debate promises to be a spirited one and given what’s on the line, it’s safe to say that there will be plenty of fireworks to see.
I encourage people to go down to City Hall in person to see Council at work but for those who have daytime obligations, you can also follow along online.
I’ll also provide updates throughout the day in this space.
With yellow scarves draped around their necks, supporters of the taxes started the morning with a 150 person strong rally outside the doors of City Hall. Toronto Environmental Allicance’s Katrina Miller and the Labour Council’s John Cartwright emceed, with Mayor David Miller addressing the crowd.
Soon after City Council got underway, councillors decided to extend their hours indefinitely so the tax measures can be dealt with today.
Around 10AM, the Mayor rose to kick-off the debate on the taxes, saying that “it’s incumbent on us to do our part…It’s time for this city to move forward.â€
10:55AM – Rob Ford gets up to question Miller.
Ford: Don’t you think this is going to paralyze the real estate market in Toronto?
Miller: Uh, no. No. (Pause.) No.
11:30 – Giorgio Mammoliti, questioning Miller, trying to ask if anyone has suggested a viable alternative to taxes.
Mammoliti: Has anyone told you where to go?
(Council Chamber erupts in laughter)
Miller: I’m not sure I should say.
12:30PM – At the lunch break, Council has finished questioning the Mayor and about a quarter of councillors have questioned City staff. When Council resumes at 2PM, questions of staff will continue. I would expect that by 3:30PM the debate will begin with each councillor having up to 7 minutes to speak and move motions. However, keep in mind that if a councillor moves a motion he or she can be asked questions of clarification on the motion for up to 3 minutes by any councillor who wishes. If opponents to the tax feel like grandstanding (and if history means anything they will), this debate could easily go past 10PM.
2:05 – As councillors slowly file into the chamber for the afternoon portion of the meeting, real estate agents and progressive folk are racing up the elevators hoping to claim the majority of the seats in the chamber.
Contest: One gold star to the person who can identify how we know the picture for this post was snapped during the last term of Council.
2:45 – We have a winner. Sean Marshall gets the gold star. Gay Cowbourne is a relic of the 2003-2006 term. If she had decided to run again, Miller would likely have his taxes already.
Apparently the progressives on Council have no questions for staff so, after Doug Holyday rose on a point of privilege to ask that no one call the question before all members wishing to speak have done so, Denzil Minnan-Wong started the line of speakers. Michael Walker followed with a series of motions, including a deferral until after plebiscite on the taxes can be conducted and, if the taxes do pass, a sunset clause of 2010 so they can be reviewed at that time.
2:50 – Councillors will now have up to 2 minutes to speak on the deferral motion. If it passes (and I highly, highly doubt it will) then the debate is over for now, again.
2:53 – Surprisingly, no one wanted to speak to the deferral so the motion was voted on and defeated, 14-27. Ootes has now moved that if the taxes pass, property taxes be limited to the rate of inflation (presumably CPI). I think this motion is out of order since the property tax rate isn’t before Council at this meeting (Walker had a motion on councillor salaries that was ruled out of order for that same reason. I expect several other rulings from the Speaker for the same reason.)
3:05 – Unsurprisingly, Ootes’s tax motion is ruled out of order.
Mihevc now has the floor as the first progressive to speak. He uses his time to list off the good things that the mushy middle and centre-right have done with taxpayer dollars (Milczyn and the NPS revitalization; Grimes and BMO Field; Nunziata and the York community centre, etc.) Joe really is one of the best examples of political leadership out there and a class act all the way.
3:25 – Suzanne Hall, the first swing vote, gets up to speak. She claims her deferral was a success, no matter the outcome of the election because of the LTT compromise that was reached. Although she still doesn’t like the tax and acknowledges the significant number of people who contacted to her in opposition to it, Hall sees it as the lesser of two evils (the other being property tax hikes). She also believes that good public services (like LRT in the burbs) will increase property values more than a LTT could diminish them. Although she ran out of time, it was clear Hall’s going to vote in favour of the LTT.
Hall also moved a motion to delay the implementation of a VRT until the province agrees to administer the collection of the tax. She feels this will ensure a new section of bureaucracy isn’t created to administer the City’s levy. I don’t think this is a bad motion, though the devil is in the details so unless it’s amended later (it sounds like that’s what Perks will do that) it could unwittingly delay implementation of the VRT more than necessary.
3:40 – Mammoliti delivers a zinger to Walker, saying that the vetern councillor, known for fighting for tenant rights (Kay Gardiner’s influence), is now enlisted in the fight for millionaires’ rights.
3:47 – Rob Ford says cutting councillor perks is like taking milk from a baby — all they do is cry. So he wants to take milk away from babies? I don’t agree with the vast, vast, vast majority of Fords proposed cuts but I don’t think they’re quite as vital as milk for a baby.
Ford also wants to know why councillors have more staff in their office than he and Doug Holyday. That punchline writes itself.
Speaker Bussin to Ford: “When referring to other members of council, you use the proper title. And when you talk about the mayor, it’s Mayor Miller. Do you understand?”
4:00 – Jenkins keeps going on about development charges. I don’t know the finest details on the development charge issue but I do that while there is room to increase the amount we charge, there isn’t so much room as to believe it could solve our financial problem or even come close to it (I think City staff said we could get $25 million more per year.) It can also only be applied to certain capital costs. I wish he would see that his fight for higher development charges (one I support) is only a small piece of the larger puzzel.
4:05 – Doug Holyday on the LTT: “This is a sin tax but there is no sin.” (Karen Stintz might learn something about packaging her speeches to Council from Holyday.)
Holyday continued to thank CUPE, the firefighters and all the other union staff “who took time out of their busy schedule to be with us here today.”
4:10 – Raymond Cho asks us to think of the City as a tree. He starts to talk about branches and rotting and roots but then the metaphor gets confused and lost. I think I understand what he was saying but I’m still not sure how he gets elected when he can’t string together a coherent sentence (and it has nothing to do with english not being his first language. There are lots of people who are capable of expressing themselves very articulately with much less command of the language than Cho.) Frank Di Giorgio is also guilty of mind boggling speeches that leave everyone in the Council Chamber scratching their head.
4:15 – Chin Lee claims that 4% of people will pay for 120% of the services. Whaaaaaaaa?!?
4:20 – Maybe I should look for work as a soothsayer. On cue (and I can’t see the speakers list), Frank Di Giorgio gives a typically scattered speech about…Well maybe he and Councillor Cho are just more enlightened that I am.
Thankfully, at the very end of his speech, Di Giorgio specifies that he will be supporting the taxes (we already knew that.)
4:25 – Michael Thompson gets up with his bid to give a mayoral-like speech. He starts off with what most of the right-wingers have, which is pointing out that a small portion of the population will pay so it’s an unfair tax. Well how often are they buying? If they’re land speculators then I have no sympathy. Most people buy a couple times in a life time. So we all take turns shouldering the burden and those who can’t afford to buy will see a small — negligible — impact in their rents.
Then Thompson lets this one go: “This will hurt seniors who are selling homes to finance retirement.” Uh, Councillor, have you seen the alternatives? This is the best way to protect them.
After that Thompson went on about how we need to ensure efficiency, especially in the grants program…I don’t think he’s seen the dozens of pages that grant-seeking organizations have to fill out. There’s a great deal of scrutiny, so much so that some organizations struggle because they don’t have the resources to complete the City’s administrative requirements.
4:35 – Frances Nunziata is especially feisty today. It’s nice to see some passion in people who rarely show it (Case Ootes also put some effort into his address.)
4:40 – Del Grande takes a cheap shot at staff, saying they haven’t distributed his motions that he gave to the Clerk at 2PM. Seconds later it’s realized the motions have been distributed. Del Grande refuses to apologize to the Clerk. Seems his name wasn’t on the speakers list either. How many people can he blame in one 7 minute speech? I’ll notify Guinness when he’s through.
4:50 – Del Grande introduces a litany of motions: Exempting cars from the VRT that are less than three years old, exempting seniors and people with disabilities from VRT, exempting bequeathed homes to family members from LTT*, that LTT and VRT be frozen until 2010 and not changed unless residents approve in a referendum, same with any new revenue tools and taxing inter-city rail and buses at 1,000 per rail car/bus*.
*indicates that the motions were ruled out of order.
4:55 – Milczyn, another swing vote, gets up to support the VRT and oppose LTT. Although I disagree with him, Milczyn is at least being thoughtful about his approach in saying that while he doesn’t want to inflict horrendous pain on residents through shutting community centres and eliminating grants all together, he isn’t convinced that the City has done enough.
5:50 – Augimeri speaks: She says she is part of the collective problem for not seeing the fiscal future. “We shouldn’t have done what we did.” The City of Toronto Act is a noose from McGuinty “here, go hang yourself.”
“I was being pulled every which way on this.” She is extremely resentful of how the City handled the election and will not support the VRT because it seems “unholy” to tax people in their cars. However, she will support the LTT because there is no other choice.
5:59 – Earlier, Filion also came around to LTT side. He worked out a deal to have the LTT reduced if 50% of $700 million in uploading is done. That, to him, was enough of a compromise to go back to his residents. With Filion and Augimeri on board, the majority grows.
6:09 – Vaughan moves motion to increase the VRT to $109, consistent with the Metropass and that it increase with the price of a Metropass in the future.
6:25 – Carroll gets up to speak. “Some are here to protect their commissions, some to protect their mayoralty bid and others to protect their partisan leaders.” (Angry real estate agents start to mumble loudly)
“Can I have the floor?” (Shouts from across the room) “No!!”
“If you vote against these programs tonight I hope you will look the children in the eye and tell them you’re increasing the fees for recreation programs.” And that’s the end of the debate. Council has decided to take the vote instead of going to dinner on the request of Mayor Miller.
6:36 – Voting on attached motions to tax legislation begins.
6:39 – Walker’s motion to receive (kill the item) loses 16-29. That’s a big majority.
6:44 – Del Grande’s sunset clause with requirement for a referendum goes down 14-31. Guess some fiscally responsible councillors don’t like wasting money on unnecessary referenda.
6:45 – Miller’s motion of compromises passes 29-16. It looks like the final vote on LTT will be 29-16 (to take place around 7pm). VRT may be tighter, in the range of 27-18.
6:50 – A host of motions by Walker and Del Grande are ruled redundant or lose by wide margins. It’s hard typing and keeping track of all the motions.
6:59 – Getting closer to unanimity on a vote to exempt properties that are woth $2 or less — 43-2.
7:03 – Voting on land transfer tax starts. Passes 26-19.
7:05 – Personal vehicle registration tax passes 25-20.
7:07-7:08 – People in chambers give 1 minute ovation when taxes announced as passed.
7:09 – Council adjourns for 30 minutes.
7:12 – Miller can be heard off-camera answering questions from reporters on the Rogers feed (but we can not hear the interviewers’ questions. He speaks about the need to preserve social services, thanks citizens (particularly those in the audience) for their support, and touches upon the difficulties for next year’s budget.
7:50 – Council goes on to more typical points of business, including a debate on a proposed low-density housing development in a ravine greenbelt space in Mammoliti’s ward.
12:25AM – Some final thoughts that will eventually make it into a post of its own: Miller succeeded politically. He got enough votes to continue to be a stronger mayor. I think he’s learned some lessons about how to manage a group of 45 people with independent interests. Filion was an important vote to have on side because he’s a suburban councillor who is respected by his colleagues. However, Miller took a significant risk by supporting Filion’s motion — it could come back to haunt him if he succeeds in getting provincial uploading or a cent of the sales tax. Augimeri and Perruzza really tested my confidence and my patience but thankfully they got it right in the end. I’m glad that they were able to see the bigger picture; it’s better for them, better for their communities and better for our city. Because the compromise reduced the amount of revenue the City will receive from the taxes, Miller is going to be in a very difficult position come operating budget time. Unless another level of government steps in, service cuts and/or a large property tax increase are not out of the question. Miller and Carroll will have to handle this budget expertly because their political hides will most certainly be on the line. So long as Miller has learned from this experience, I’m confident they’ll come through with a budget Torontonians can support.
Photo courtesy HiMY SYeD.
60 comments
Ford: Don’t you think this is going to paralyze the real estate market in Toronto?
Miller: Uh, no. No. (Pause.) No.
Zing. With wits like that, how can anybody be skeptical of Miller?
With stupid questions like Ford’s, how can anybody support these anti-tax boobs?
Yeah, what kind of idiot would think raising the price of something would discourage people from buying it?
A guy like Ford who raises questions that are designed to fan the flames is that kind of idiot.
Maybe if the question came from a more reasonable council member it would have solicited a fuller response.
Ford’s knee does jerk a fair bit, but I would have liked to hear Miller’s answer. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I’m recording the afternoon proceedings and I’m going to watch to see who asks the most time-consuming and inane questions. Besides Ford, count on Giorgio Mammoliti, Doug Holyday, and David Shiner to gum up the works.
You can almost count on it.
The sad part is the loudest critics like Ford and Minnon-Wong ( who have seen this day coming for years) have nothing new to add….zero.
Since verybody uses the internet when house buying now the time has come from TREB agents to reduce their fees anyway. There the difference is made up.
Mammoliti’s questions, while convoluted and at points nonsensical, focused on the point that not adopting the tax measures will result in cuts to the City services that Toronto’s most vulnerable residents need most.
Nothwithstanding his politics, Holyday is usually decent during his turns to question (in that he can put staff on their heels) but this morning he didn’t perform particularly well.
Shiner was pretty unmemorable. I think he got smacked around a bit by Bussin for asking questions about things that weren’t being considered by Council.
When Stintz got up to question Miller, all she had was one question and it was a bit of a head scratcher. She wanted to know if Miller had promised developers that Council (she used the word Council) wouldn’t increase development charges. With a confused slash “are you serious” tone, Miller replied very clearly that the answer was no. I would have thought that as the right-wing’s most eligible candidate for mayor in 2010 (at least as of this date), she would have used the time to create a media savvy soundbite.
@Dermanus: yes, but these anti-tax boobs are slow clocks, so they are never right. They go on and on about the same thing.
Adam, are there any seats left? If it goes until 10 pm, I might come and take a look.
gold star searching: The chair’s seat only indicates the Mayor and not the Speaker as well.
I can’t tell from the web cast, SK. My guess is that people will rotate in and out throughout the day because the seats in Council Chamber aren’t particularly comfortable. If you want to be sure you get a seat be quick up the elevators after the dinner recess (7:00PM).
Not exactly the focus of this post, but I always found the seats in the gallery to be comfortable and almost sleepy. Perhaps it was just the pleasant 1960s modern feeling overwhelming me.
Hey, Adam, any way you can get these Council clowns to speed things up? The time difference from GMT+1 to T.O. is killing me and I don’t want to have to watch this until 4AM!
Is that Gay Cowbourne sitting behind the man on the video screen (who looks like Georgio Mammoliti)? That’s my guess.
Even with my glasses on, Fred, I can’t see the name plate. So though you are correct, I was going for something more visible. Half a gold star.
I generally like the design of the chamber (the principle that in the public portion of the gallery there are no obstructed views), I just find the unforgiving nature of the back of the benches makes it hard to sit for long periods of time.
The question, as reported, was “Don’t you think this is going to paralyze the real estate market in Toronto?”.
Does such a crude question really deserve a more thoughtful response?
Had Mr. Ford asked “Should we be concerned that this increase in the cost of purchasing property will harm the Toronto real estate market?”, perhaps he would have received an more expansive answer.
While any increased cost might serve to have a damping effect on an economic activity, in the case of the current Toronto real estate market, a major effect seems unlikely.
Will a one percent increase in costs collapse a market which has seen gains of up to thirty percent in a year?
*If* the increased LTT should cool the RE market slightly, would this be so bad?
Would we rather have a fast run-up, followed by collapse, or a prolonged period of steadily increasing values?
Speaking of the soaring real estate market, one might wonder how did Toronto property come to be in such demand?
Is it possible that the robust real estate market in Toronto might in part be a response to people having found Toronto to be a desirable place to live and work?
If this can be said to be true, is it possible that our local government has played a role in creating this desirability? If so, wouldn’t we collectively want them to continue improving the City so that we can all continue to prosper. Hasn’t our recent prosperity been mostly due to large increases in property values? (I have read this often) They must be doing something right.
Most of us have bought enough things to know that, in the final analysis, “You get what you pay for”, so let’s equip the City to continue the process of improving Toronto so that we all can win.
This is especially true for property owners who will continue to realize profits as the City grows better.
Christ almighty — tell me Walker didn’t just propose another deferral of the taxes for a plebiscite?
I’m thrilled that you’re updating this so I can keep up what’s going on.
Unfortunately at the rate they’re going, I’ll be in class when the actual vote occurs. 🙁
I think Karen Stintz is speaking now. I like her optimistic notion of engaging citizens for the betterment of the city. But you can’t draw a consistent source of funds from the population based solely on their good nature or willingness to contribute.
Although I admired Stintz’ passions, I don’t know why this tax is inconsistent with trying to broadly engage residents…. She seemed on the point of tears.
Stintz did speak. She always has passion but that speech had so little substance it wasn’t even worth blogging about. She failed again to come up with a line worthy of the evening news.
Andrew: Stintz sounds like that whether she’s talking about speed humps or historically significant taxes.
why does Gloria Lindsay Luby sound so much like she’s talking to wayward teens?
When did George Mammiloti become such a centrist. The guy sounds like he wants to run for Mayor…hmmm
I liked seeing Rob Ford get spoken to by Sandra Bussin as though he was a pre-schooler. Shave of a couple hundred pounds and add some hair and I suppose he is…
More on the Rob Ford front…I just received this email from his office in response to an email I send nearly 2 MONTHS ago!:
Thank you very much for your email. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and views with me. Your opinions are valued.
I will not be supporting the proposed tax increases and will not support any future tax increase.
Best Regards,
Rob Ford
Councillor Etobicoke North
Re: Rob Ford’s comments… he must have been saving all his responses till today. But how about that Mike Del Grande? When I sent him a note at the beginning of September, he suggested I ask the Mayor why he (Del Grande) wasn’t on the Budget Committee.
Today though, his email responses ask people who support the taxes:
“Thank you for your e-mail to better understand your perspective can you tell me the following:
What part of Toronto do you live in?
Do you own a home?
Do you own a car?”
What???
Ah well, at least the two of them responded. The only responses I’ve seen have been them and Joe Pantalone.
From the desk of Rob Ford
Dear Noble Constituent,
I will never support a new tax; especially on beer, MacDonald’s or hockey tickets. I do not think people should have to pay for services and to better exemplify my feelings on this subject, I run an office so minimal that I provide no services.
Furthermore, I fully endorse the dissolution of council. Although I realize that this will leave me unemployed I think I can make a living as a human hot air balloon. I will provide scenic tours above the city.
Bestest Regards,
Rob “Bobbio” Ford
Non-Councillor
I got a response from Mihevc.
Laura – time seems to run on a different level at city hall.
I filled out the “yay taxes!” form a while back (except filling in “nay taxes!” in the few bits where free speech was allowed) and only got a reply from Joe “Front Street Extension/29D to BMO” Pantalone along with about 10 attachments late last week.
As for Adam’s “If they’re land speculators then I have no sympathy.” So we impose blanket taxes based on special cases now? As I have previously pointed out on this blog, flippers and brokers could be dealt with by levying surtaxes on properties held less than one year, where the intent is plainly not to use it as a primary home. But instead we must have the sledgehammer to crack the nut. Property tax is the most equitable tool available to us and if that means increasing the existing supports available to older residents at the same time then so be it.
In the end we need a share of income and sales tax and until we have a First Citizen savvy enough to get them from the Province we are doomed to more and more niche taxes – even the sidewalk tax dreaded by Kevin Bracken.
The motion to defer the Vehicle Tax is truly shocking – after the last vote when the lack of agreement by MTO was mentioned, assurances were given by Ontario Ministry of Finance that the tax would be available and that MTO would be told to shut up and get it done.
Now we’re being told that despite the delay it’s still not done? This is what vexes me – the City will blame a lack of revenue on the delay when they have plainly done nothing to clear obstacles in the intervening timeframe. They were not authorised to levy the tax but I don’t recall them being forbidden to enter into arrangements with agencies like MTO to be able to levy the tax promptly on being given assent to so do. I don’t even agree with the principle of the Vehicle Tax but the incompetency of our City Manager and City Treasurer is enraging.
I received a response from Councillor Vaughan.
Listening to all the discussion thus far, it is highly likely that votes on the raising of Toronto Taxes will remain a permanent feature of council meetings until the 2010 elections.
I was there earlier in the morning when the debate began, and it quickly became apparent, the vote today is just the first of many.
taxing inter-city rail and buses at 1,000 per rail car/bus
Huh what? Why on earth? I assume this is political grandstanding. I know it got ruled out of order, but… what’s the rationale there?
Mark –> I received responses from other councillors within a day or two of sending my emails. None of them were sent using the “yay taxes” form you referred to.
Moreover, Ford’s email seems to be an auto-respond because when I responded with the fact that he was so quick to turnaround my inquiry I got the same email again…twice.
Mark Dowling:
You are not being fair. The Treasurer’s response, when questioned about the VRT earlier today, clearly stated that MTO told the City they did not want to move forward on negotiating further details of the VRT until Council authorized the tax.
As usual, a huge part of the problem is that the City has no power to force the province to do much of anything they don’t want to, to help our city and all cities in this provice, even though their downloading of social service costs on municipalities is largely responsible for this mess.
Chris – I am being entirely fair. We either have the authority to tax or we don’t and Finance told MTO to get on with it. These taxes are the “gifts” of the province and if they were being obstructionist about it then surely that should have been publicised right through the election campaign.
As for Adam Vaughan’s motion – hey Adam, I already pay for my metropass, does that mean I don’t have to pay VRT?
$109 proposed for a tax that was taken to the people for “consultation” at $40. The sky is the limit boys and girls – Joe Mihevc being “comfortable” with $150 after all…
I was in council this morning, and have been following the posts this afternoon from work. THANK YOU SPACING for providing this forum.
I love Vaughan’s idea of tying the VRT to the cost of a metropass. A little perspective in terms of concrete dollars is great.
I used to own a car and I don’t any more. Augimeri is nuts if she doesn’t see the province taxing us in our cars all over the place! I had to pay to renew a licence for my car, and another for myself. Plus healthy car checks, etc etc. Let’s move towards FEWER cars.
Can’t wait to see the vote tonight on both new revenue streams.
Perhaps if they sold naming rights to the new tax, Scotiabank would pick up part of the tab.
Or Mastercard could offer to pay it under the guise of anonymity.
Regarding every possible hit to car-owners as positive on the grounds that people shouldn’t really have cars seems to me, well, a bit short-sighted. Like Mark and many others I pay both for the car and monthly metropass, and sure, this is getting a bit silly. I applaud your getting rid of your car, Joanna, but — well, I don’t know how you get your kids to doctors appointments and so on, but between installing the carseat in the car each time and so forth, there is no way we could move our lives over a hundred percent to the bus-subway/taxi/communauto system. And I doubt we are unusual in this respect.
Joanna – if VRT = metropass then VRT would be 109*12. Maybe I shouldn’t give him ideas…
As I said earlier, I’m against the taxes, but seeing they’ve already passed I’ll not comment on them anymore. I wanted to draw out this little bit of arrogance:
>> “Then Thompson lets this one go: “This will hurt seniors who are selling homes to finance retirement.†Uh, Councillor, have you seen the alternatives? This is the best way to protect them.”
Lovely that you know the best way to protect a large group of people with varying degrees of wealth and knowledge. This is exactly the problem with blanket legislation. It will help some, and it will probably hurt more.
My parents (approaching retirement) are pursuing this route to pad their savings. They’ve been renting the property to make mortgage payments, and the value has already appreciated enough that they’ll make $20,000 on the sale ($12,000 now that the new taxes have passed). Nice to know you ‘have no sympathy for them’.
So the home that they bought for 593,750 is now worth 613,750? (I’m guessing, since you claim a loss of $8,000 in profit, and that corresponds to $55,000 x 0.005 + $345,000 x 0.01 + $215,750 x 0.02.) How long have they owned it?
I actually got the calculations wrong (bad source), based on this: http://www.realtown.com/anthonpang/blog/toronto-land-transfer-tax-calculator
the loss is $5000. Still money not in their pocket, still money stolen from them by bureaucrats. I can guarantee they won’t buy in Toronto again. The quality of services is not increasing at anywhere near the rate the taxes are.
If the options were available I would gladly pay for private companies to do the things the city does. At least then they would have to earn my business, rather than getting it by default.
I want the old City of Toronto back. Sorry, I got a bit choked up.
One of the councillors tried to compare the mortgage situation in the US to the LTT which are two completely different things.
Hats off to those that followed and reported on this long day….there has to be a faster way.
And remember, part of the solution to money woes is term limits.
OK, so the home that they bought for $443,750 is now worth $463,750. You still haven’t told us how long ago they bought the house.
OK, so the home that they bought for $443,750 is now worth $463,750. You still haven’t told us how long ago they bought the house.
(correction on my previous calculation, $215,750 should have been $213,750).
So Dermanus, where will they buy next time? Somewhere in the 905, where property taxes are about 20% higher than Toronto, public transit woefully inadequate and streetlife non-existant? Toronto offers a quality of life that none of the suburbs can come close to matching, and if it means a few extra taxes to mantain this quality of life, it’s more than worth it.
The reason quality of service is not increasing at the rate that taxes are is that for many years now Toronto has been funding its services by raiding its reserves (and pulling other one-time stunts like selling its street lights to Toronto Hydro). Its taxes have therefore been artificially low in relation to the services it provided. The reserves are now empty, so now the same services now have to be paid for by increased taxes.
Note also that, in fact, property taxes have hardly increased at all in real terms for a decade – the total amount of property tax revenue for the city stays constant and does not increase in line with inflation, so a 3% increase is in real terms only an increase of the difference between 3% and the inflation rate, which has been only marginally lower. In real terms, today’s new taxes are the first significant tax increase since amalgamation (especially since property taxes weren’t increased at all during some of Lastman’s years as mayor, meaning a net loss of spending power for the city in those years, when inflation is taken into account).
“the loss is $5000. Still money not in their pocket, still money stolen from them by bureaucrats.”
Do you really believe that? Do your parents really believe that? Really?
I wonder what value you place on the services they have thus far received, and how that has affected their home value.
>> “The reserves are now empty, so now the same services now have to be paid for by increased taxes.”
So I pay because an elected official can’t do a proper balance sheet? A private business needs to find innovative solutions around this problem. A government can just raise their rates and nobody can do anything. Yet another reason to prefer private enterprise.
>> “Do you really believe that?”
Yes. Taxation is theft. It is being forced to pay for something I don’t want so I can do what I do want without trouble. Call it extortion if you prefer, I’m fine with either term. There is a much longer philosophical argument based on this, but I’m only half-way through my first cup of coffee. Short version: what right do you have over my property to justify taking it? Essay length version: http://www.mises.org/etexts/taxrob.asp
A government can just raise their rates and nobody can do anything.
Damn you to hell for strapping a bomb around Dermanus’s neck and forcing them to live in Toronto, David Miller. Damn you to hell.
I’d hardly call taxation theft. Our democracy chose the taxation, so it is more like the plurality’s free will choice.
Calling it theft and extortion is a kludgy way of framing the argument. Maybe it makes for good PR, but it’s dishonest and you’ll only convince the unintelligent and credulous.
I never expected to hear the truth from this person but hey: “Councillor Maria Augimeri, who wavered back and forth on the land transfer tax before voting “yes” at council (she opposed the vehicle registry tax), said she and other councillors who supported tax freezes under former Mayor Mel Lastman were partly to blame for the city’s fiscal mess.
“I don’t think we looked deeply enough into the future,” she said. “And every time we dug into reserves, we really were digging ourselves into a larger and larger hole.”
Too bad ALL the councillors who were there at the time dont have the guts to admit it.
Der…
I moved to Toronto knowing it was a taxed society, and knowing this city was wonderful and had many services. Not theft. Why would you not move somewhere where the taxes are low, and there are no streetlights, and etc.
I would like to hear what your complaints would be as your property values fell as these services fell.
Our democracy chose the taxation, so it is more like the plurality’s free will choice.
I really don’t trust others to make the right decisions. Below is a brief explanation:
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/06/bryan-caplan/the-myth-of-the-rational-voter/
Damn you to hell for strapping a bomb around Dermanus’s neck and forcing them to live in Toronto, David Miller. Damn you to hell.
Careful playing with strawmen. Toronto has many good things about it. Taxation policy is not one of them.
I moved to Toronto knowing it was a taxed society, and knowing this city was wonderful and had many services.
Services do not require taxation. They tend to be better without taxation (free market). I challenge you to find an example where competition has hurt the customers.
Well the 407 was put out for private bidders and that’s spun out of control. There’s the P3 hospital in eastern Ontario that cost the Minister of Culture her job on October 10 because the thing was 50% over budget. The City just got screwed by the company that was handling its advertising contract for garbage bins because the “free market” was too competitive so they bid so low they couldn’t afford to stay solvent.
Examples really aren’t hard to pin point here.
And if you meant that government should stay out all together and just let the private sector decide what services people need, look at why the TTC was created in the first place. Expanding on that example, we wouldn’t have a network of public transit today if routes were only supplied on a for-profit basis because most routes aren’t profitable. There are a bunch that are and they subsidize the rest. However, without those routes, this city would be inaccessible to a great number of residents.
Dermanus: I think you typed into the wrong URL. I think you were looking for http://www.westernstandard.ca .
Scott:
You are right. Augimeri’s bit of a strange duck, as it was really hard to keep track of every one of her flip-flops (she changed her tune three times in the past three months), but every once in a while, seems to get it. And even though she voted against the VRT, I think she got it when she made that statement. Had the populist Lastman even held the property tax to 3 percent per year instead of 0 percent, things would be a bit different today, though I think with the costs of downloading, the new taxes would have been required sooner or later no matter what.
Dermanus,
While it is not really in keeping with the nature of the blog, I would say that socialized health care has proved to be a much more effective solution than private health care.
I think that the majority (if not all) of services currently under public control are better off that way, as it gives the populace a choice in how these things are run. Privatization is antidemocratic.
You are also asking a leading question: “I challenge you to find an example where competition has hurt the customers.” I am not a customer of the police service, Elections Canada, Toronto Water, the ministry of transportation etc., nor would I want to be. You are again trying to use this framing technique to pigeonhole my viewpoint.
Your posting a link to a blog post by an economist who works at the Cato Institute gave me a good laugh. I would retort with a link from an Alchemist at the Discovery Institute, but I don’t think they employ any.
Why is anyone even engaging this Dermanus? He is obviously a troll. You can argue all you want about taxes, whether they should be high, low, and what should be taxed, and what shouldn’t – but he is arguing AGAINST taxes. Altogther. Just get rid of them.
Ummmm… What?
I think you’re living in the wrong society dude. This is a democracy.
Maybe you should try something in an Anarchist society… Oh, wait, there aren’t any. Hmmm. Tough break. Maybe you should just get used to taxes, or go live in a hole in the ground somewhere. I’ve heard that they are tax free.
What I find really irksome about this whole discussion is that those who happen to support Mayor Miller’s land transfer tax seemed to go out of there way to suggest that anyone that opposed it, was against taxation pure and simple.
Little consideration seemed to be given as to whether the Mayor’s taxation approach was a FAIR and the best way to raise revenues for the city given the City’s stated policy objectives. Personally, I supported the Mayor’s proposal for a new vehicle registration fee.. but I felt that the land transfer tax was unfair, particularly for first time buyers looking to purchase resale home in Toronto. (On that score, I’m glad to see that the CITY’s land transfer tax now exempts 1st-time buyers up to a purchase of a 400k property whether new or resale. I’m not sure the version that was approved is a fair tax, but it definitely now much fairer than the one the Mayor and his minions wanted to pass back in July.)
Also, little mention was made of the fact that there was NO discussion of these new taxes during the last municipal election which actually took place less than a year ago. Miller’s supporters like to forget that our good Mayor has for the past 2 elections campaigned on a platform of minimal property tax increases — when he knew full well (AND WE KNEW FULL WELL) that provincial downloading had created significant new cost pressures for Toronto. If that isn’t talking out of both sides of your mouth, I don’t know what is. If the Mayor had any sense of integrity, he would have raised taxation — and what form it should take — as an issue during the last municipal campaign. I mean it’s not like Toronto’s budget crisis just developed in the first few months into 2007.
On the one hand, the Mayor wants to say that the City is in desperate need of more money. On the other hand, rather than spreading the pain as equitably as possible (such as through property tax increases which other municipalities have actually done) or through taxes that penalize personal choices (such as the city’s vehicle registration which I support), the Mayor seems all to willing to come up with a tax (the land transfer tax) that seems deliberately intended to translate a significant burden of thousands of dollars on as few people as possible. To call such a tax FAIR is positively Orwellian. The only people who seemed to think such a tax was fair where those who never had any intention of paying it because they have no intention of buying a home in Toronto in the near future.
Yes, we all realize the province has created a mess for the city. Things have been shifted to the property tax bill which should not be there. But there are many ways out of this mess. And whatever way we find, it should be as fair as possible for all residents — rather than to come up with approaches that stick it to as few people as possible.
Sam