No, it’s not April 1. The Toronto Board of Trade, according to the Toronto Star, actually asked Toronto City Council’s Budget Committee to increase taxes.
Traditionally supporters of tax cuts, the BoT says that Toronto has reached the point that business is being incapacitated by the poor state of infrastructure in the city. The BoT says their proposed tax increase should be dedicated to infrastructure projects, like reducing the $300 million backlog in road repairs.
The only part of this shocking development that doesn’t surprise me is that the BoT request only applies to residential property taxes, which means they are essentially saying, “tax them, not us.” (The official policy of the City of Toronto is to increase the commercial property tax rate at 1/3 the rate of resident property taxes so the BoT is also asking the City to exempt business from the business community’s own proposal to increase taxes.)
Though not inconsistent with the call for increased residential property taxes, last year’s BoT budget deputation [PDF] struck an entirely different chord. In it, BoT President and CEO Carol Wilding suggested that increased spending and taxes were a core problem for the City.
While the City will rarely ever have the blessing of the business community to increase taxes, I doubt Mayor David Miller will move on the BoT request. If anything, the BoT position will serve to protect the Mayor from critics who decry the above-CPI increase in residential property taxes currently on the table (though as Councillor Shelley Carroll pointed out for Spacing readers, the total property tax increase is aligned to CPI).
If residential property taxes were increased an additional 3 per cent, it would bring in $40 million to City coffers.
photo by Tania Tiziana-Burdi
11 comments
Residential taxes are going up 3.25% and commercial taxes are going up 1%. The Board of Trade would like for residential taxes to go up 6.25% instead.
It would be nice if they were to suggest that commercial taxes be raised. That would actually be representative of who their members are. Comments on what other people’s taxes should be are not helpful.
Business taxes are higher in Toronto than the GTA and residential taxes are lower than the GTA notes the report.
So how does Rob Ford explain this concept away?
Actions like this from the BoT SHOULD quieten naysayers like Ootes and Ford, and that serial commenter Sawision, but it won’t. They still seem to think that City Hall can balance a budget when they only have control over less than 33% of it. But this is a good sign that both businesses and the upper crust of economists in the city understand the realities of the situation.
But, this has more to do with upper levels of government not re-investing any of the money they receive from this city and region. I wish City Hall didn’t have to raise taxes — they are just filling the gap left by the Feds and Prov who seem to want to sit on *our* money. So sad….
While I applaud the BOT’s suggestion, and agree the City needs more revenue, I’m not sure a higher general property tax increase is best.
I find it unfortunate that the current administration has leaned towards regressive revenue-raising such as higher recreation user fees and higher TTC fares while declinging to apply a tax to private parking spaces. For that matter, many libararies and rec.centres still offer free parking as well.
Surely, eliminating the practise of free-parking at City owned facilities and levying a parking tax should be first on the agenda; after which road tolls would be a lovely discussion topic.
Only after these are implemented should be we get to property tax.
While Recreation fees and TTC fares should actually be rolled back.
The budgets have the costs and giveaways to cars well and thoroughly buried and the BofT and many politicians will prefer to keep it that way despite the range of studies that indicate the cars do cost all of us. But what about getting even more user pay for all the land/goods/services/pollution from the cars and trucks – that would be fairer than property tax or business tax hikes.
Jami-
thanks for the recognition.In the last election I made a point that the city under David Miller and Joe Pantalone would raise taxes by at least 5%(or more).This was clear to me because of the state of finance and the way the city was running the “show”.You cannot spend and spend and not bring in revenue to cover that spending.Seemed simple to me.Well Joe simplied cried out that it was not true.He clearly indicated to the citizens that the city was in “excellent” fiscal shape and that there would only be a minimal cost of living increase in overall taxes.The people were delighted and impressed,even David Miller repeated the pledge!
Well it was all a lie and the truth is out, we are in deep trouble and the financial state of this city is getting worse.Don’t blame me I’m just the messenger.But if you think this council is going to solve this without raising millions more in revenue you are dreaming.Miller can’t lie anymore,he doesn’t have the solution.
At the public deputations today all I heard were requests for even more funding for special interests,where will that money come from?
Just stop complaining about the message and pay the taxes.If you believe in Miller you can pay more than the required taxes,it’s more than welcome!
$40 million ain’t gonna make a difference. Maybe a few more potholes fixed. What these business bozos oughtta do is get on board the 1 Cent campaign. They’re the ones this Harper regime listens to and if we get the money then all our infrastructure nightmares will be over.
George, not sure that I would have agreed with George Sawision’s 5% increase to res homeowners as a solution.
But you are absolutely right when you say that the Mayor (and his team) was absolutely less than candid when he talked about the City’s budget as being under control and that he would likely be able to bring in res property taxes close to the rate of inflation. Some might describe such a promise as fundamentally dishonest in light of what happened a few months later — the Mayor coming out and saying the City was going to fall apart if his slate of new revenue tools (eg land transfer tax, etc.) were not approved. (Unfortunately, all too many Miller supporters, particularly those posting on this site, would prefer to forget what sorts of things the Mayor was saying in late 2006.)Leaving aside the question of whether these new tools are justified (I’m not totally against them in their current form), some would say it was shameful on the Mayor’s part not to be more candid about the need for such tools or new approaches during the election period. That’s what a transparent politician would have done. As I see it, the only way that the word “transparent” is likely to apply to Miller is if the seat of his pants are worn.
LOLOL good post Sam, transparency is the word.
Just to clear something up I didn’t propose a 5% tax increase at all.I wanted to give the auditor the power to overturn questionable expenditures and to stop over the top projects that go beyond what would be considered fiscally responsible.I proposed to bring city finances back under control and to take care of what the taxpayer has paid for ,city services ,maintenance and fixing infrastructure.I still believe developers dont pay enough to upgrade infrastructure considering the huge burden they put on the citys finances.But the election is over and the rest is fiscal history.Unfortunately the board of trade finally realizes this city is in big trouble and by the time the mayor and his supporters get it itt will be too late and too expensive to fix without a huge investment.
George, my apologies…i had read your earlier post way too quickly… partly because I was still hot and bothered from learning about how the usual suspects at City Hall tried to bury details in the draft budget about a proposed 20% increases in rec fees. When Councillors on all sides of the political spectrum come out yelling that they didn’t know about this proposal before this week (Thomson, Augimeri, Davis), it probably means 1 of 3 scenarios: 1) we are dealing with politicians who are idiots; 2) we are dealing with politicians who think WE are idiots; 3) someone(s) is doing a pretty good job of obscuring vital information not just from the public but from most of Council. Of course in typical fashion, the Miller team has dug themselves even deeper into the hole on this issue by trying to downplay this as a “communications” mistake, or an “error by staff”. Kind of reminds me of when I used to tell my teacher that my dog ate my homework.
I understand,
but I still have hope that if citizens come forward and hold government accountable for their actions it will not matter who is at the helm as long as the citizens needs are taken care off.It is a simple matter to run many of the services that the city provides.Economic blueprints are available that take many situations into account considering government is non-profit.With a comptroller to oversee expenditures and a vigilant citizenry we can achieve wonders in our society.Maybe not perfect but at least progressive.
And of course the truth is paramount.