Wednesday’s headlines

12 comments

1. Toronto residents should not be fretting about a 4% increase. By the time municipal budget season is over I am sure that they will lead the pack with the smallest increase.

   What should worry everyone is that despite the LTT and the MVLF, this years budget included a one time grant from the province of $238 million. Last year we were told that the LTT and other fees were going to ensure that the reliance on provincial handouts would end. When next years budget comes around, and the grant is not there, property tax will need to increase over 10% just to cover that.

2. I agree with Glen about the hyperbole that is surrounding a 4% increase, which is about $100 a year, if that.

   But I’m not sure I agree with the characterization that the LTT & MLVF were bad decisions — those were made without the knowledge of the worst recession in 80 years. You just don’t plan for those things. Once the economy gets back on track those subsidies from the ONT gov will ease, especially when they take over the welfare payments (wholly cow is Toronto still being screwed by Harris decisions a decade ago!).

3. I wish the media would stop obsessing over Toronto’s property tax rate. Last time I checked, about 45% of Toronto’s metro population lived outside the city limits. This 45% will see MUCH higher tax increases than Toronto, no question.

   Personally, I’d rather see a large property tax increase and eliminating the Land Transfer and Vehicle Registration taxes. These two levies do nothing but encourage people to live in the 905, where these taxes don’t exist.

4. Ben: do you really think the $70 vehicle tax every 2 years encourages people to live in the 905? The LTT is paid once when a property is bought. Your theory is a bit wacky. And with your logic, the property tax rates are higher in the 905 so, i think in the end they will pay just as much tax as Toronto property owners just over a longer period of time.

   And, honestly, now that Toronto has done the LTT and MLVF, expect the other municipalities to do this. We’re not in the US where jumping across county or city lines is any kind of benefit.

5. Hey Vicky
   We are also getting screwed by Miller and his gang.

   They are far more interested in lining their own pockets, hiring more to do less, and ‘beautifying’ than actually assuming leadership and CUTTING as any responsible individual is doing today.

   So far he has escalated from 1 cent ideas to the same worthless notions now costing us 25 cents.

   And still nothing to show.

   So much for this social experiment, if you don’t mind.

6. Vicky,

   I am not saying that they were bad decisions. Merely that the next budget will have to start off with a $238 million dollar hole to fill before any other budgetary or inflationary increases.

7. Jeff:

   I have no trouble having a debate with you, but when you make claims like “They are far more interested in lining their own pockets” you better back that up. Claiming the mayor and his supporters on council are corrupt is irresponsible at best.

8. Vicky you make me laugh. First I never said anyone was corrupt, so please don’t exaggerate. Just read the news any day lately.

   Have you ever run a business? I think not.

   When the decision makers refuse to lead by mandating cuts of any kind personally as our mayor and council have it sends a message to every other employee.

   That is the the situation and has been for a long time now.

   That is wrong.

   As it is they MUST increase taxes 4% just to cover all the salary increases plus cost of living and benefits. The type of mandatory annual hikes most of us never get unless of course you work at the city or other public service. The entitled class that’s been created.

   So when do they get around to fixing anything?

   Add to that, our Mayor and his group are more concerned with ‘beautifying’ which at this time helps nobody. eg Jarvis, Nathan Phillips Square, planting more trees that are never cared for so they quickly die, etc.

   This is NOT how you run a corporation.

   The focus should be cost cutting throughout city hall for ALL non necessities. They should focus on infrastructure NOW and only when everything, including staff is working as it should, should there be any consideration for frills.

   Clearly that is not happening.

9. Jeff, that approach might work for a for-profit corporation but government isn’t the private sector; it has “shareholders” that aren’t strictly interested in the bottom line. The fact is this: Miller was elected to do what he is doing. His election platform is 28% complete with another 69% of his platform in the process of implementation.

   Obviously you didn’t vote Miller but he got a big mandate in 2006 so he’s making good on that. To be blunt: suck it up already.

10. Sean if others were so uninterested in Miller’s bottom line there would not be the outcry.

    Fact is Government must run like a profit business to fund objectives that can’t fund themselves, unless you want to write them a blank check, or run huge deficits, etc. Gee, we’re already doing that throughout Miller’s entire term in office.

    As far as him achieving his platform I must disagree again. He has achieved very little and very little is anywhere near implementation even though he routinely short changes the best solution for a short term ‘get me reelected’ choice.

    Unfortunately it’s all at our expense especially his relentless hiring at higher than market prices.

    I have nothing to ‘suck up’ just because, as it appears, you can’t stand the criticism of your candidate.

11. Jeff, There isn’t an outcry. There’s you, a few trolls on the Toronto Star web site, the Canadian Taxpayer Federation and 13 wannabe mayors.

    The rest of your comment is ideological bunk with nothing to back it up.

12. Sean,
    Whether or not there is an outcry or not is no indication of whether or not people agree with a government’s direction. People don’t like to waste their energy needlessly — and I think there are vast sections of this City that have learned that this Council will do whatever it wants to regardless of what people say.

    That said, I think it’s only fair to point out that 1/2 the increase in this year’s budget is attributed to the projected increase in welfare cases and needed social supports. I don’t agree with many things that this mayor does (eg. his developer friendly agenda of low development fees for one that leave existing rate-payers holding the bag), but the bottom line is that the province should be paying welfare and social housing costs.