Vision Whacks Vancouver Residents with Another Big Tax Increase

[whatnext]

And not the 2.2% thrown out to the media, but another 4.2% increase for homeowners with the increasing shift off business to the expense of residents.
http://communities.canada.com/vancou...s-to-balk.aspx

[Porfiry]

I thought you were pro-business.

[biketrouble]

There's some nuances in that piece that need elaboration. Let me help...

>In Vancouver, however, that ratio hit more than six-to-one a couple of years ago

(Under the NPA)

>Council started shifting a little bit each year to make the rates more equitable

(Under the NPA)

>residents were paying just barely over half of the cost of the services they consumed

(Under the NPA)

I don't expect to deflate your unstoppable hate for Gregor, but basically what we have is a situation where the costs of services consumed by residents were shifted to businesses under a series of (mostly NPA) councils. While you can argue that Vision may have increased those costs still further, it's ludicrous to assign them the responsibility for the longer term trend that has resulted in the need for these costs to be shifted back to residents.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

I thought you were pro-business.

I'm pro-me.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I'm pro-me.

I figured as much.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

There's some nuances in that piece that need elaboration. Let me help...

>In Vancouver, however, that ratio hit more than six-to-one a couple of years ago

(Under the NPA)

>Council started shifting a little bit each year to make the rates more equitable

(Under the NPA)

>residents were paying just barely over half of the cost of the services they consumed

(Under the NPA)

I don't expect to deflate your unstoppable hate for Gregor, but basically what we have is a situation where the costs of services consumed by residents were shifted to businesses under a series of (mostly NPA) councils. While you can argue that Vision may have increased those costs still further, it's ludicrous to assign them the responsibility for the longer term trend that has resulted in the need for these costs to be shifted back to residents.

(bold mine)

And what "need" would that be?

[biketrouble]

>And what "need" would that be

Did you read Don Cayo's piece at all, or just the headline? Here's one reason:

>businesses were paying a great deal more than the costs their activities imposed on the city government

Here's another:

>Since it's residents, not businesses, that have the voting power, this is a sure recipe for irresponsible spending.

I thought you were against irresponsible spending.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

>And what "need" would that be

Did you read Don Cayo's piece at all, or just the headline? Here's one reason:

>businesses were paying a great deal more than the costs their activities imposed on the city government

Here's another:

>Since it's residents, not businesses, that have the voting power, this is a sure recipe for irresponsible spending.

I thought you were against irresponsible spending.

Yes, I read the piece. However you referred to a need to correct this balance. Businesses have to express they're displeasure by leaving. Was there a mass exodus of businesses from the City of Vancouver that I somehow missed?

Regardless, this is a bit of a good thing, as it may unleash some of the anti-tax fury directed at Campbell onto Gregor. Vision at all levels has proven themselves incapable of making hard choices to balance a budget and ease the tax burden on residents. (Witness their VSB punting of the school closure issue). Mayor Moonbeam just might find out the distance between Vancouver and Toronto (ie. Rob Ford's win) isn't as far as he thinks it is.

[biketrouble]

Well, if you only feel there's a need to make policy corrections after the damage is done, that's your choice.

What do you think an appropriate unemployment level would be, before a change to business tax policy was made?

Why do you believe it is fair for businesses - even mom & pop stores - to pay for more services than they receive, and residents - even residents in $15M Shaughnessy mansions - pay less?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

Well, if you only feel there's a need to make policy corrections after the damage is done, that's your choice.

What do you think an appropriate unemployment level would be, before a change to business tax policy was made?

Why do you believe it is fair for businesses - even mom & pop stores - to pay for more services than they receive, and residents - even residents in $15M Shaughnessy mansions - pay less?

Look at it from the reverse - that mom and pop store survives only on the back of residents. Less disposable income, less purchasing at said store.

Vision is just another classic "tax and spend" party of the Left.

[biketrouble]

I think you just invented "trickle sideways" economics, don't hold your breath waiting for a Nobel Prize.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Vision is just another classic "tax and spend" party of the Left.

Now that's an odd statement coming from you. I've always been under the impression that you are a moderate New Democrat.

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yes, I read the piece. However you referred to a need to correct this balance. Businesses have to express they're displeasure by leaving. Was there a mass exodus of businesses from the City of Vancouver that I somehow missed?

Regardless, this is a bit of a good thing, as it may unleash some of the anti-tax fury directed at Campbell onto Gregor. Vision at all levels has proven themselves incapable of making hard choices to balance a budget and ease the tax burden on residents. (Witness their VSB punting of the school closure issue). Mayor Moonbeam just might find out the distance between Vancouver and Toronto (ie. Rob Ford's win) isn't as far as he thinks it is.

they suck.

[WarrenC12]

Speaking as a COV taxpayer for the last 10 years, Vision sucks, and NPA sucks. There hasn't been a fiscally responsible city council for a long, long time.

That is all.

[jlousa]

There is nothing wrong with the amount of the increase, 2.2% nor the tax shift which is good policy for the city.
The real argument to be made is about the allocation of funds within the budget. I certainly don't agree with everything line by line and that will be dealt with election date.

[DKaz]

Whacks, like Italian mafia style? Fat Tony and the gang will be collecting taxes this year, and they'll bust your knees if you don't. And because it's gang related injury, you have to pay for the medical costs yourself once the law comes into effect.

And what municipality isn't getting a tax increase?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

I figured as much.

Tis hard to compete with Mother Theresa's and David Suzuki's love child.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Now that's an odd statement coming from you. I've always been under the impression that you are a moderate New Democrat.

Ah ha, never assume. I'm that creature most feared and courted by political parties - generally unaligned, with a populist streak. We're the ones they need to win elections. My antipathy for the BC Libs is largely the result of an extreme distaste for Gordon Campbell. I was voting for them when Wilson was in charge.

If you asked for my ideal gov'ts of the last decade I'd say Paul Martin's Liberals and Philip Owen's NPA. Pragmatic, not doctrinaire, and fiscally prudent.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by DKaz

And what municipality isn't getting a tax increase?

Yeah, but what do the citizens of Vancouver (and some other cities) have to show for their tax increase?

At least the Translink tax increase was going to result in actual critical infrastructure being built and a noticeable improvement in bus service in many areas. All Vancouver has to show for itself is waterfront social housing they are giving away to union cronies and a shiny new office for the mayor (that spits in the face of tradition).

[whatnext]

Wow. I hadn't realized until Citycaucus put it down in print that Vision has raised residential property taxes 16% in three years!
http://www.citycaucus.com/2010/12/vi...lity-tv-1#more