Comments on: What to do when your city breaks

By: North of 49

North of 49 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:48:34 +0000

That raw political deal you talk about has stuck in my craw for some time. The whole idea of sucking money out of a region into some administrative centre (Ottawa, Queen’s Park), and then grudgingly doling it back out again to where it really belongs strikes me as exceedingly nuts. I’m not sure it even made sense in the 19th Century, but it surely doesn’t make sense now.

It’s ripe for all kinds of abuse, too, though for those who want to keep it as the status quo that might well be a feature, not a bug.

Rather than money flowing into the centre(s) and back out again, I’d rather see it flow only one way. Municipalities collect all taxes, keep what they need to fulfill their own obligations, and pass the surplus up to the provinces. The provinces keep what they need to fulfill *their* obligations, and pass the surplus up to the Feds.

Too simple? Too complex? (How do you determine “obligations” at each level? What about municipalities that don’t run a surplus? Why would an MP or MPP vote for this?)

Okay, give each level its own hefty tax base. (Yes, munis have property tax all to themselves, but we know that’s inadequate.) So… what about a division something like this: municipalities get income tax and property tax. Provinces get energy taxes. The Feds get sales tax (only let’s call it a transaction tax, and cover more stuff at a lower rake-off), transportation taxes and telecommunication taxes. Nobody gets to poach on anybody else’s tax base. (The details of which level gets which tax base aren’t important; what matters is that each level gets a tax base that allows it to meet its obligations to the citizens under its jurisdiction.)

Ah well. It’s a pleasant fantasy, isn’t it? Now back to the real world, where sanity is a remittance man.

By: boourns

boourns — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:55:04 +0000

Couldn’t agree more. We also have a problem of far-reaching unions and a political divide between the two parties involved. I think the ineptitude shown by the city council in maintaining a 3% pay increase while fully knowing that this city is broke and labour negotiations are up-coming, shows a disconnect with how any rational person would define ‘public’ service.

By: graeme

graeme — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:55:00 +0000

David Millar is indeed a terrible mayor, mostly because he’s actually a professional cyclist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Millar

On the other hand, I maintain that David Miller is merely a mediocre mayor.

By: SassAFrass

SassAFrass — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:50:07 +0000

I blame the Mayor. And that’s it. Period.
Millar is not a “good guy” and on top of that he’s a TERRIBLE Mayor.

His constant whining to the Federal Government is embaressing and lazy.
Toronto is not neglected, it’s run by a group of easy-going layabouts who don’t want to work for anything. They want it handed to them.

Don’t even get me started on the lobbying for the new transit system. Toronto wasn’t even ELIGABLE for that.

As for the strike. Millar needs to grow a pair and start behavior like a leader. Make some decisions and stick to them!

*Before anyone suggests it – I have already written to the Mayor and my Council Member voicing my opinion.

By: Chet Scoville

Chet Scoville — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:38:52 +0000

I basically agree with this, but I think it’s worth pointing out that the mayor of Toronto really doesn’t have a lot of power compared to any other city councillor. Yeah, Miller hasn’t been able to follow through on a lot of things, but at least part of that is because of the structure of city government.