The part where the provincial EXPENSES didn't drop by $1 billion/year when the registration fees were eliminated. We're still paying for the things that used to be be paid for by registration fees, only now we're paying through our taxes, or by the government taking money away from other programs/expenses.
But they also didn't increase spending by 1B with no source of funding. Yes, the money needs to come from somewhere to pay for expenses. Switching from user pay to some other form of revenue is a shell game. It's still better than spending an additional 1B that does not benefit taxpayers in any way. Less spending good. Shell game neutral.
The part where the provincial EXPENSES didn't drop by $1 billion/year when the registration fees were eliminated. We're still paying for the things that used to be be paid for by registration fees, only now we're paying through our taxes, or by the government taking money away from other programs/expenses.
But they also didn't increase spending by 1B with no source of funding. Yes, the money needs to come from somewhere to pay for expenses. Switching from user pay to some other form of revenue is a shell game. It's still better than spending an additional 1B that does not benefit taxpayers in any way. Less spending good. Shell game neutral.
And Douggie's decision to scrap plate renewal fees just before the last election is costing us all between $500 million and $1 billion every single year in lost revenue from now until the end of time.
1 billion is a Liberal number that counts fit vehicles in Ontario. It doesn’t account for tens of thousands of cars that are not plated annually, or the 9% of the fleet that is EV and was already exempt.
Then consider the cost of manual processing, printing and mailing millions of tags each year.
Finally, what do all those taxpayers do with the savings? Unlike the govt, they don’t light it on fire, they spend it back into the economy.
I don’t have all the numbers, but I’ll bet with the recent cost eliminations, I’d bet the revenue loss is closer to zero than 1billion.
1 billion is a Liberal number that counts fit vehicles in Ontario. It doesn’t account for tens of thousands of cars that are not plated annually, or the 9% of the fleet that is EV and was already exempt.
Then consider the cost of manual processing, printing and mailing millions of tags each year.
Finally, what do all those taxpayers do with the savings? Unlike the govt, they don’t light it on fire, they spend it back into the economy.
I don’t have all the numbers, but I’ll bet with the recent cost eliminations, I’d bet the revenue loss is closer to zero than 1billion.
Trickle down economics - it didn't work for Reagan and it doesn't work now.
Somehow, somewhere you have to pay for roads, schools, hospitals, libraries - where is THAT money supposed to come from ?
1 billion is a Liberal number that counts fit vehicles in Ontario. It doesn’t account for tens of thousands of cars that are not plated annually, or the 9% of the fleet that is EV and was already exempt.
Then consider the cost of manual processing, printing and mailing millions of tags each year.
Finally, what do all those taxpayers do with the savings? Unlike the govt, they don’t light it on fire, they spend it back into the economy.
I don’t have all the numbers, but I’ll bet with the recent cost eliminations, I’d bet the revenue loss is closer to zero than 1billion.
The insidious part of it is that it's now FREEEEEEE. More dumbass people thinking stuff is freeee.
While the licence cost benefit numbers are sketchy, the nanny state attitude continues to grow. All the "Freeee" stuff we get isn't free. Someone has to pay for it and when it is paid for privately, in a true competitive market, the price / service outcome is fairest.
The insidious part of it is that it's now FREEEEEEE. More dumbass people thinking stuff is freeee.
While the licence cost benefit numbers are sketchy, the nanny state attitude continues to grow. All the "Freeee" stuff we get isn't free. Someone has to pay for it and when it is paid for privately, in a true competitive market, the price / service outcome is fairest.
It depends who you are. Lots of people get things for "free" because someone else paid (either voluntarily or otherwise). "Free" depends on your point of reference.
The plate fee was a user fee. Now, in order to make up the shortfall, people with no vehicles have to subsidise those who do, and those with many vehicles are being subsidised by those with one.
Weird how sharing the cost for things like public transit is anathema, but sharing the cost of cars via road maintenance and plate fees etc. is the natural order of things. (And I say this as someone who has three plated vehicles and rarely uses public transit.) Almost sounds like socialism to me...
The plate fee was a user fee. Now, in order to make up the shortfall, people with no vehicles have to subsidise those who do, and those with many vehicles are being subsidised by those with one.
Weird how sharing the cost for things like public transit is anathema, but sharing the cost of cars via road maintenance and plate fees etc. is the natural order of things. (And I say this as someone who has three plated vehicles and rarely uses public transit.) Almost sounds like socialism to me...
Trickle down economics - it didn't work for Reagan and it doesn't work now.
Somehow, somewhere you have to pay for roads, schools, hospitals, libraries - where is THAT money supposed to come from ?
I think you have that upside down, cutting taxes to lower and middle-income earners is the opposite of trickle down (supply-side economics), it's an example of trickle-up economics.
While trickle-down appears to work on paper, wealthier people tend to accumulate their savings as opposed to spending them - as a result, it widens the wealth gap.
On the other hand, trickle-up economics (like taking away the plate cost) places the savings directly in the hands of the lower and middle-income payers. They WILL spend that money thereby contributing to increased economic activity and indirectly shifting more tax burden to wealthier individuals.
The insidious part of it is that it's now FREEEEEEE. More dumbass people thinking stuff is freeee.
While the licence cost benefit numbers are sketchy, the nanny state attitude continues to grow. All the "Freeee" stuff we get isn't free. Someone has to pay for it and when it is paid for privately, in a true competitive market, the price / service outcome is fairest.
It's not that easy. There are parts of the 'market' that are paid for by user, and parts that are not. In some cases, infrastructure in particular, it makes sense to provide it so economic activity can happen. Without roads, ports, railways etc, economic activity is challenged or locked up.
Look at the pipeline issues out West, or the lack of a transport system through the mineral-rich 'ring of fire' in Ontario. Users can't build that type of infrastructure, nor will they pay for it without enormously expensive guarantees, so the economic opportunity is locked. Build a pipeline, port, rail or road so goods can move, and the supplemental economic benefits pay for the absent user fee.
If you think user fees are a great idea, let's sell high-traffic Toronto bicycle lanes to the 407 Corp.
Chow is determined to shoot herself in the foot. They want to designate the science centre as a heritage property. So the building that is owned by the city and conservation authority and needs hundreds of millions in repair would then be protected. Province would still walk away and Toronto would be left with the bill to protect the property that had no viable use. Amazing. She is bound and determined to bankrupt the city with SJW causes.
Of course it's a political closure. The report used to justify the closure said it was fine until at least Oct 31. All the opinion pieces they can publish won't change that. Try to figure out what they are obligated to do vs what people with pitchforks want them to do.
So far I have heard one guy is willing to throw in $1M and the architecture firm is willing to donate services for design of roof repair. The repair number I have heard is $164M over the next five years. I don't know if this number is accurate or spin. If moving to Ontario Place is happening in 2028, spending $100M+ to fix the current interesting but barely useful building seems like an epic waste of taxpayer money. If it could be privately funded, I wouldn't have an issue but I give that about a 0% chance of raising enough money (unless one person with f u money decides to foot the entire bill).
Wong-tam took down the fence. She is a pox on the city. That was a political move too with zero upside.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.fraserinstitute.org
toronto.citynews.ca
