Return of Ford Nation | Page 19 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Return of Ford Nation

I wasn't talking about subsidized housing. Just normal housing. Leasing condos at fair market value. There would have to be a provision where the assets couldn't easily be sold of though, to prevent a repeat of the 407. There's an example of a revenue stream that was ****** away. Similar to the attempts to sell the liquor monopoly, and the future sale of the weed monopoly(with that branding you know it's coming).
 
Last edited:
I wasn't talking about subsidized housing. Just normal housing. Leasing condos at fair market value. There would have to be a provision where the assets couldn't easily be sold of though, to prevent a repeat of the 407. There's an example of a revenue stream that was ****** away. Similar to the attempts to sell the liquor monopoly, and the future sale of the weed monopoly(with that branding you know it's coming).

Fair market value in the GTA is unaffordable, that's the whole problem. The value of housing is relatively unrelated to income and it has run away.
 
Luckily there's alot more Canada outside the GTA than there is inside of it. And maybe developing some of that other Canada will get some people to leave the GTA, also making it more affordable.
 
Oh, I don't know, there are other ways to generate revenue. Even ways of getting two birds stoned at once. For example, developing some of this immense relatively bare land mass into housing and collecting rent, while simultaneously relieving strain on the current housing market. Should generate revenue, create jobs, and with increased supply it should make housing more affordable across the board. There's 3 birds right there.

They could also invest in making people more productive, reducing social assistance strain while simultaneously increasing tax revenue as a happy accident. More people paying into the pot may also eventually mean that everybody can pay a smaller share(or receive greater benefit).

The last time I was laid off, it was a long one. Long enough to make me consider retraining for another field. That was when I made an observation. While the liberals(both fed and prov.) have been working to increase social dependence, they've been reducing assistance to those who actually want to gain skills and employment. E.I. has scrapped the training assistance programs. Ontario works has scrapped the resource centers. And the public seems blind to it.
Hey, they got to keep them voting liberal.
 
Luckily there's alot more Canada outside the GTA than there is inside of it. And maybe developing some of that other Canada will get some people to leave the GTA, also making it more affordable.

You need industry in those areas too otherwise you just get retirees. We are trying to do this in Kingston but the industry just isn’t there to keep young workers around. People flock to where the jobs are.
 
Yes I've played sim city lol. In order for residential to flourish, you need industry and commerce, I know. And there are ways of luring industry and commerce to a targeted area. You just have to be 'hospitable' enough.
 
He is talking about trickle down economics, proven not to work in this context. Big reason the US is in so much more debt at the federal level (lower taxes anyone).
Actually I'm talking about supply side economics. Trickle down is an economic theory that prepays the bourgois to invest into an economy -- as opposed to saving or investing in other`s economies -- in order to stimulate growth. [/quote]

Economists have put numbers to the Laffer Curve, peak GDP growth is somewhere around 35% taxation (not peak tax rate but overall rate). Peak revenue is at 70% taxation. We are already (just) on the low side of the 35%, any reduction in taxes will reduce growth. Back when these concepts were first floated no one could predict the curve other than zero revenue at 0% taxes and 100% taxes, we (well some) know better today.
This is not completely correct, and way to general. Some economists theorize 70% however that only works if 100% of revenues are put toward public good. To meet that condition, there needs to be zero gov`t waste, gov`t workers need to cost the same as the private sector, and governments would be only doing things the private sector cannot.

Ask an economist to explain how dropping the US top marginal tax rate from 70 to 30% increased gov`t revenues from $600B to $1000B in the 80s. They can, but it will have a million conditions. [/quote]

In the end GDP growth is a complex thing. One of the things trickle down economics theorizes--that cutting taxes will give more money to the high middle, wealthy and to businesses that will then spend all that money back in the economy... problem, not all that money is spent and some of the money that is spent is spent outside the country (not all contributes directly to GDP and economic growth).
It's supposed to encourage money that is invested outside the economy to be redirected inside. For instance, a company who invests in a call center in India, or a factory in Mexico might put that in Moncton if tax rates were lower. A personal investor might put his money in the Canadian stock market rather than the US stock market if he was taxed at a lower rate (you are seeing this exactly play out on the US stock markets today). [/quote]

Technically almost every dollar the government spends (even completely wastes) contributes to GDP. That is why 35% is seen as the peak for GDP growth. Sort of a sweet spot between revenue for spending and money left in the economy for the private sector.
Interest (a huge number for Ontario) is not included in GDP. I'm pretty sure (not positive) that gov't pensions and welfare spending are considered transfers and not included in GDP -- I'll get back to you on that. [/quote]

Another simple (very simple) angle, if say we had 90% tax (we do not BTW) the tax is stifling the economy, lets say the resulting the economy is 100x, the revenue will be 90x. If we dropped the taxes to some lower rate, say 50% the economy will grow. The new economy is say 200x, so revenue is now 100x (lower taxes, larger revenue).

But if we have a marginal personal tax rate of ~33% and a corporate tax rate of ~25% and we cut them, the results are not increased GDP growth, it is slower growth (Laffer Curve).
You can only conclude that is you have a thousand variables pinned down. If you only reduce taxes on the investor class or business you get much better results -- there are a lot fewr of them contributing to the tax base, and they have the money to invest. That's a fundamental problem with trickle down -- you have to give the folks with the money some incentive to invest it with you -- giving a tax break to the gal with a big house and 5 cars is hard to sell to the proletariat.

Now I say trickle down, the proper term is supply side BUT that would imply something less bonkers...

This is all great academic discussions, most of what we just said is impossible to apply to Ontario.

What your neighbour wants is to improve his standard of living. He can get that from efficiently delivered gov't services -- like health care, policing, civil defense, and fair regulatory bodies. Most other goods and services he gets from a free market.

That becomes harder when the gov't delivers services inefficiently. If the gov't charges him $10 in tax to get something he can buy for $8, he loses. When the gov't interferes with regulations that inflate his cost, he loses. When the gov't competes with the free market he loses.
 
It's virtually impossible for gov't to deliver services as competitively as the private sector. Efficiency's primary drivers are competition. Gus finda a better way to do things than Gina, he takes Gina's client. Gina finds a way to better Gus, Gina competes.

Governments don't compete, they simply manage things inefficiently. I learned this years ago working with a friend who serviced fire alarms in Regent Park. Hos average billing for an equavilant building in the private sector was $10k/year. He billed nearly 10x that for his Regent Park OHC contracts. Neither landlord or tenant cared. That's why their housing becomes degraded and costs nearly double the private sector.

Coops seem to hold some promise. Gov't makes land available at a discount, arranges builders to bit on construction, then sells the result with restrictions to people who have 'skin in the game'. The Gov't doesn't hold long term cost, affordable housing becomes available, the folks that live there have a vested interest in keeping things in order.
 
Fair market value in the GTA is unaffordable, that's the whole problem. The value of housing is relatively unrelated to income and it has run away.
So instead of adding gov't jobs in Toronto, why not provide incentives for Welland an Peterborough to develop private sector jobs? Lots of room for affordable housing, under-utilized infrastructure already in place.

If you can make $40K a year building wigets in Welland vs Toronto it's a no brainer.
 
You need industry in those areas too otherwise you just get retirees. We are trying to do this in Kingston but the industry just isn’t there to keep young workers around. People flock to where the jobs are.
Kingston isn't the place to do it. The Ontario economy is centered in Toronto and the GTA. Places like Peterborough and the areas from Hamilton west have the proximity and infrastructure in place. They also have lots of cheap land.

Go first where the economics make sense.
 
It's virtually impossible for gov't to deliver services as competitively as the private sector. Efficiency's primary drivers are competition. Gus finda a better way to do things than Gina, he takes Gina's client. Gina finds a way to better Gus, Gina competes.

Governments don't compete, they simply manage things inefficiently. I learned this years ago working with a friend who serviced fire alarms in Regent Park. Hos average billing for an equavilant building in the private sector was $10k/year. He billed nearly 10x that for his Regent Park OHC contracts. Neither landlord or tenant cared. That's why their housing becomes degraded and costs nearly double the private sector.

Coops seem to hold some promise. Gov't makes land available at a discount, arranges builders to bit on construction, then sells the result with restrictions to people who have 'skin in the game'. The Gov't doesn't hold long term cost, affordable housing becomes available, the folks that live there have a vested interest in keeping things in order.

Are you saying that Bell, Rogers etc are delivering value for money because they are private corporations? The big difference between a corporate cartel and a government monopoly is several orders of magnitude generally.
 
Kingston isn't the place to do it. The Ontario economy is centered in Toronto and the GTA. Places like Peterborough and the areas from Hamilton west have the proximity and infrastructure in place. They also have lots of cheap land.

Go first where the economics make sense.

I've heard this argument before. It’s an economic density argument and the idea is that you can only survive when surrounded by other companies. You survive by “osmosis” and either being camouflaged by surrounding organizations or standing on their shoulders. I don’t buy into that. As long as your not isolated and you have the right “product” (one that doesn’t necessarily depend on transport routes etc) I believe a company/organization can survive anywhere. There’s plenty of examples of this scattered worldwide. If you have a mediocre product or a poor idea it’s not going to work though, the difference is it will fail quicker in a place like Kingston compared to the GTA.
 
Are you saying that Bell, Rogers etc are delivering value for money because they are private corporations? The big difference between a corporate cartel and a government monopoly is several orders of magnitude generally.
No, I didn't say that. You could infer that Bell and Rogers deliver their services more efficiently than if Wynne and company delivered them to you.

You also have other choices. For example, I use vMedia for my internet, they charge me $35/mo for what Bell or Rogers is asking $60/mo. Funny thing is they are just reselling Bell DSL.

If you really want to get into a discussion about Bell and Rogers, you need a full understanding of the CRTC and it's cozy relationship with both of them. That's a completely different thread.
 
So instead of adding gov't jobs in Toronto, why not provide incentives for Welland an Peterborough to develop private sector jobs? Lots of room for affordable housing, under-utilized infrastructure already in place.

If you can make $40K a year building wigets in Welland vs Toronto it's a no brainer.

I agree with this and know people that have very successfully been down that road. Since the government is going to keep 407 east, an easy starting point with very little actual cost is toll free 407 east for x years for all employees in new/relocated companies.
 
I've heard this argument before. It’s an economic density argument and the idea is that you can only survive when surrounded by other companies. You survive by “osmosis” and either being camouflaged by surrounding organizations or standing on their shoulders. I don’t buy into that. As long as your not isolated and you have the right “product” (one that doesn’t necessarily depend on transport routes etc) I believe a company/organization can survive anywhere. There’s plenty of examples of this scattered worldwide. If you have a mediocre product or a poor idea it’s not going to work though, the difference is it will fail quicker in a place like Kingston compared to the GTA.
It's not about having a unique product or service that can defy location challenges.

It's a lot simpler than that. Have gov't spend money encouraging industries to develop and locate in areas that already have infrastructure and transportation. That opens up a lot of options and reduces a lot of obstacles. Why do you thing Honda is in Alliston, Canadian Titre Bank in Welland, and Toyota in Cambridge? They are just a bit smarter than gov't.

Imagine if Air Canada or RBC relocated 1000 call center jobs from the GTA to Peterborough or Welland. 1000 families would have their cost of housing quartered, corporate facilities rents reduced, and potential reductions on staff costs exist in outlying areas. Providing an incentive to move into small outlying cities also brings a lot of supporting businesses along, it's all win!
 
No, I didn't say that. You could infer that Bell and Rogers deliver their services more efficiently than if Wynne and company delivered them to you.

You also have other choices. For example, I use vMedia for my internet, they charge me $35/mo for what Bell or Rogers is asking $60/mo. Funny thing is they are just reselling Bell DSL.

If you really want to get into a discussion about Bell and Rogers, you need a full understanding of the CRTC and it's cozy relationship with both of them. That's a completely different thread.

I think you get that it means you can’t make blanket statements about government run companies vs private run companies. It doesn’t always necessarily mean you get value for money, especially when many companies are beholden to shareholders before clients and especially when they can operate in a quasi legal cartel manner.
 
It's not about having a unique product or service that can defy location challenges.

It's a lot simpler than that. Have gov't spend money encouraging industries to develop and locate in areas that already have infrastructure and transportation. That opens up a lot of options and reduces a lot of obstacles. Why do you thing Honda is in Alliston, Canadian Titre Bank in Welland, and Toyota in Cambridge? They are just a bit smarter than gov't.

Imagine if Air Canada or RBC relocated 1000 call center jobs from the GTA to Peterborough or Welland. 1000 families would have their cost of housing quartered, corporate facilities rents reduced, and potential reductions on staff costs exist in outlying areas. Providing an incentive to move into small outlying cities also brings a lot of supporting businesses along, it's all win!

We have a large call centre here but those aren’t the kind of jobs that get people to relocate to an area.
 
It's virtually impossible for gov't to deliver services as competitively as the private sector. Efficiency's primary drivers are competition. Gus finda a better way to do things than Gina, he takes Gina's client. Gina finds a way to better Gus, Gina competes.

Governments don't compete, they simply manage things inefficiently. I learned this years ago working with a friend who serviced fire alarms in Regent Park. Hos average billing for an equavilant building in the private sector was $10k/year. He billed nearly 10x that for his Regent Park OHC contracts. Neither landlord or tenant cared. That's why their housing becomes degraded and costs nearly double the private sector.

Governments are fixated on writing specifications and bidding contracts for EVERYthing in an attempt to avoid this, except that it makes matters worse.

Small business here. If someone issues us a thick specification for how they want a job done (typical government), I will decline to quote. We can function efficiently when things are done my way following my established process, because we're set up to do it that way ... doing it someone else's way makes the job a "special" which takes 10 times longer minimum. We occasionally get government RFQs, and we always decline them. Government jobs will burn up your entire budget in meetings before you even start doing anything, and heaven help if someone on the government side actually has to make a decision about something. Ain't got time for that noise.
 
We have a large call centre here but those aren’t the kind of jobs that get people to relocate to an area.
No need to relocate. There are lots of jobs at call center pay rates in the GTA - those folks wil get reemployed or follow the jobs to enjoy a better standard of living.

Send those jobs to the boonies and the benefits are enjoyed by the business owners and the employees. The outlying communities also get some side benefits as their local businesses enjoy the economic benefits of 1000 family incomes and the business spend.
 
Governments are fixated on writing specifications and bidding contracts for EVERYthing in an attempt to avoid this, except that it makes matters worse.

Small business here. If someone issues us a thick specification for how they want a job done (typical government), I will decline to quote. We can function efficiently when things are done my way following my established process, because we're set up to do it that way ... doing it someone else's way makes the job a "special" which takes 10 times longer minimum. We occasionally get government RFQs, and we always decline them. Government jobs will burn up your entire budget in meetings before you even start doing anything, and heaven help if someone on the government side actually has to make a decision about something. Ain't got time for that noise.
Again, an argument for gov't to get out of things the private sector can do.

When I sold to the govt', my best selling tool was to offer the dumbass buyer help writing the purchasing spec. That gave me the opportunity to create specs that only my business could fulfill and it worked like a charm. This is common practice in gov't procurement because there is no incentive to find value in purchasing. Way harder to do in the private sector.
 

Back
Top Bottom