Metro Vancouver Transportation & Transit Plebiscite

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Well, there you have it! I think we should vote "No" so the mayors / region has more say on what gets built next. Essentially they have more control on choosing the "best investments".

But the mayors came up with the list of projects in the first place! You're saying to vote no on the mayors' plan of what they want to get built so the mayors can come up with a plan of what they want to get built?

[queetz@home]

^^ Ask Pinion, as I was merely QFE his idea....

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Lets go the CTF route and pay them $50k, see how that works.

When I saw the articles, I noticed Doug Allen would be paid $35k, which would be way better than the "CTF route"....then I noticed it was per month....oh my!

[Millennium2002]

People are irate all over CBC over the fact that Ian Jarvis is still staying on as advisor to the end of his scheduled term and receiving a golden parachute, even though TransLink is contractually bound to the employment agreement and cannot merely retroactively fire him with cause.

It's good that TransLink is making a change, but why so late... The timing of everything couldn't be worse. (sigh)

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Even if they nearly double the current property tax, based on the Real Property Association of Canada, the property tax for Vancouver would still be half that of Regina! So its something that is doable, and its still cheaper than other parts of the country. Its very reasonable, LETS DO IT!!!!

You realize those numbers are so much higher in Regina because houses there aren't worth much?

If your assessed values are much lower, but your services cost about the same of course the tax % is much higher.

[ssiguy]

Perhaps property taxes are a fairer way to go.

The wealthy live in WestVan/Westside etc and they will have to pay more which only seems fair. The poor/low income are far more likely to rent so the property taxes will have little effect on them. They will be passed down thru rent increases but we have rent control so it wouldn't make any difference.

What I also never liked about the plebiscite was how Translink and the mayors were manipulating the conversation and using threats against people in the Valley. "If you don't vote for the transit taxes you won't get LRT in Surrey" is their bargaining position which again is categorically unfair.

Did Vancouver/Burn/NW have to an extra tax for the Expo Line? Did Burn/Van have to pay extra tax for the M-Line? Did Richmond/Van have to pay any extra tax for the Canada Line? Did the TriCities/PM/MR have to pay an extra tax for the WCE? Are the Tri Cities paying an extra tax for the Evergreen Line? The answer to all those questions is of course no. But............somehow it's different for people in the Valley where we are expected to pay extra or get nothing. We have to pay extra or we get nothing but somehow that rule just doesn't apply to the rest of the region.

It is this kind of gross inequity that has people infuriated which is why I am increasingly leaning towards the NO side. I have NO problem with special transportation taxes but they must be applied fairly which they are not.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Perhaps property taxes are a fairer way to go.

The wealthy live in WestVan/Westside etc and they will have to pay more which only seems fair. The poor/low income are far more likely to rent so the property taxes will have little effect on them. They will be passed down thru rent increases but we have rent control so it wouldn't make any difference.

What I also never liked about the plebiscite was how Translink and the mayors were manipulating the conversation and using threats against people in the Valley. "If you don't vote for the transit taxes you won't get LRT in Surrey" is their bargaining position which again is categorically unfair.

Did Vancouver/Burn/NW have to an extra tax for the Expo Line? Did Burn/Van have to pay extra tax for the M-Line? Did Richmond/Van have to pay any extra tax for the Canada Line? Did the TriCities/PM/MR have to pay an extra tax for the WCE? Are the Tri Cities paying an extra tax for the Evergreen Line? The answer to all those questions is of course no. But............somehow it's different for people in the Valley where we are expected to pay extra or get nothing. We have to pay extra or we get nothing but somehow that rule just doesn't apply to the rest of the region.

It is this kind of gross inequity that has people infuriated which is why I am increasingly leaning towards the NO side. I have NO problem with special transportation taxes but they must be applied fairly which they are not.

As mentioned above, property value isn't an indicator of wealth. With the amount that property values all over the region have risen in the past decade, it's very possible for a legitimately middle class family to now be in possession of a million-dollar home.

I'd say a sales tax is actually a fairer way of taxing the rich more and taxing the poorer less. The more stuff you buy and the more expensive it is, the more tax you pay. So all those rich people you talk about would pay much more tax, what with their Holt Renfrew shopping sprees and weekly dinners at the Keg, while lower-income earners would pay much less in tax due to their more limited disposable income.

The Broadway subway won't happen without this tax either. It's just so happened that all these various projects are needed right now, which is why they need a tax to pass them. If the Broadway subway wasn't needed for another 10 years and the Surrey skytrain wasn't needed for another 25 years after that, there would be no talk of an additional tax. This has nothing to do with any bias against Surrey.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The poor/low income are far more likely to rent so the property taxes will have little effect on them. They will be passed down thru rent increases but we have rent control so it wouldn't make any difference.

Rent control doesn't apply to new leases, so the property tax would be passed down to anyone who doesn't stay in their current property forever (i.e. most people).

As for your other points, I agree that some areas received more than their fair share of transit funding in the past. Voting no doesn't do anything to address that historical inequity though. It also ignores that Surrey etc. have received a ton of money for roads and bridges in recent years ($3.6 billion of provincial debt for the new Port Mann alone!).

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

As mentioned above, property value isn't an indicator of wealth. With the amount that property values all over the region have risen in the past decade, it's very possible for a legitimately middle class family to now be in possession of a million-dollar home.

I think it's pretty obvious that something you can trade for a million dollars is wealth, regardless of a person's salary.

Anyone with a million dollars is wealthy - that's 4 times Canadian median household wealth. All it takes to turn a million dollar house into a million dollars is a realtor.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by quobobo

I think it's pretty obvious that something you can trade for a million dollars is wealth, regardless of a person's salary.

Anyone with a million dollars is wealthy - that's 4 times Canadian median household wealth. All it takes to turn a million dollar house into a million dollars is a realtor.

Just because you have lots of money tied up in a house doesn't mean you have lots of money to spend. It's frozen money; you can't do anything with it.

I'll admit to not knowing too much about stuff like equity, so let's just say you're right. Even then, how is a sales tax unfair? The more you spend, the more tax you pay. Generally, high-income earners spend much more than low-income earners, thereby paying more tax. Not to mention that we would gain additional revenue from tourists.

[GeeCee]

Maybe if the referendum fails and we go back to using property tax, we won't be saddled with building LRT in Surrey..

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

how is a sales tax unfair?

Good question - I agree with you that this one isn't.

Absent any analysis of how the money's spent, sales taxes can be regressive - the rich might pay more in absolute terms, but the poor often pay more as a percent of their income and they find it more difficult to pay. In fact, hacks like Jordan Bateman are already making that point and stopping the analysis there.

What they're missing is that the tax revenues can be used to correct that, either with direct transfers like the GST rebate or by spending the revenue on things that benefit the wider population (like transit!).

They're also much more efficient than other taxes: "there is a broad consensus among economists about the merits of consumption taxes"

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by quobobo

Good question - I agree with you that this one isn't.

Absent any analysis of how the money's spent, sales taxes can be regressive - the rich might pay more in absolute terms, but the poor often pay more as a percent of their income and they find it more difficult to pay. In fact, hacks like Jordan Bateman are already making that point and stopping the analysis there.

Generally, all taxes are regressive (eg they don't apply to everyone/everything equally) and most taxes are designed to punish wealth, and wealthy/middle-class complain when "expanding the tax base" isn't done by taxing everyone equally.

Because there is a mismash of tax laws in Canada and the US, we have an unfortunate situation that no jurisdiction can put a higher single tax than another without chasing away business, or pushing residents to shop in the cheaper/cheapest location when all things are considered the same.

Like, a 0.5% tax is nothing in the grand scheme of things, but what it represents is approval of such a tax being added and increased every time a new capital project is presented instead of raising the property taxes like they are supposed to.

As such I'm not in favor of the tax itself, but I'm still leaning yes. Because largely voting with your wallet is something that only the shortsighted foolish do on principle, and has already been done with the HST. However I think we had more chance of it passing back in December before the CTF had a chance to smear Translink, and the individual Mayors started saying they were going to vote no.

Today's announcement of the departure of the CEO... and he still gets paid for a year and a half, is just going to incite the "No" side further, and the Intransit CEO being paid 35K/month to temporarily replace him? What is even the ????? Good grief talk about really trying to destroy any chance the plebiscite had of passing.

(As a FYI, the Translink NI(Northern Ireland) CEO also stepped down two days earlier, so I'm almost wondering if a miscommunication happened over there that wound up on Translink BC's inbox.)

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I'd say a sales tax is actually a fairer way of taxing the rich more and taxing the poorer less. The more stuff you buy and the more expensive it is, the more tax you pay. So all those rich people you talk about would pay much more tax, what with their Holt Renfrew shopping sprees and weekly dinners at the Keg, while lower-income earners would pay much less in tax due to their more limited disposable income.

It is not "fair" to allow extremely rich people to pay less at the expensive of people struggling to get by. This image is from a slightly different argument but explains flat vs progressive tax pretty well:


http://www.dailykos.com

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by quobobo

Anyone with a million dollars is wealthy - that's 4 times Canadian median household wealth. All it takes to turn a million dollar house into a million dollars is a realtor.

And what do you do with that million dollars then? You still have to live somewhere, so you're just going to have to fork most or all of that money right back at another realtor.

It's the realtors who are getting rich, not the property owners.

[whatnext]

So Translink's board thinks a wining strategy is to ditch the current CEO but give home full pay for over a year, and additionally hire an interim CEO who will earn the average Vancouverite's yearly income in two months?

Yup, that sure shows they're serious about waste. The Yes side is going to go down in flames.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

And what do you do with that million dollars then?

Rent? Buy another million dollar house? Retire somewhere with a lower cost of living and live like a king?

Anyone who owns something worth four times median Canadian net worth is wealthy, full stop. Vancouver's real estate being expensive doesn't change that.

[st7860]

Originally Posted by Pinion

It is not "fair" to allow extremely rich people to pay less at the expensive of people struggling to get by. This image is from a slightly different argument but explains flat vs progressive tax pretty well:

Looks like an American graphic though so the 'unlikely to survive' level is a bit different in Canada.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by st7860

Looks like an American graphic though so the 'unlikely to survive' level is a bit different in Canada.

The main thing is that middle-class and people who are struggling to get by, do not have the option to "move somewhere else", especially if the prevailing market forces put them underwater(upside-down) on their loans. This is more typical of vehicle ownership, but also can apply to housing. Where you owe more money than the current market value.

Someone making millions of dollars per year, can just move wherever they want, keep a house in multiple low-tax countries and just declare non-resident status for tax purposes. If you spend less than 2 months in any specific country, you're effectively a non-resident and don't have to pay income taxes in that country (as far as I know.) Sounds like a pain in the — to me.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by quobobo

Anyone who owns something worth four times median Canadian net worth is wealthy, full stop. Vancouver's real estate being expensive doesn't change that.

Fine, but how many people own their home outright? If you want to look at wealth, you need to look at liabilities, not just assets. The assessed value of one's house is only half of the equation.

[WarrenC12]

Amazing how much vitriol there is for Translink and their methods of funding, but none of that is splashing on the Liberal government, who is 100% responsible for this mess. I can't stress that enough. It is their fault.

Cities in this country have miniscule taxation abilities. Public transportation is way beyond their mandate without the level of funding that other levels of government have, in particular income and sales taxes. That is the level of taxation required for public transportation in Metro Vancouver. The end.