Winnipeg Municipal Election 2014 - Page 9

esquire · #**161** Posted **Sep 9, 2014, 9:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Thanks guys. How would that impact tourism? People see we have 20% sales tax. Woah! Local folks would have more to spend. Be taxed more on their coffees and Big Macs. Give and take I guess. But the whole point of it is to generate more money. So that extra money has got to come from somewhere, ie: my pockets.

It's a bad idea, full stop. It could mean that out of town property owners got a free ride. It's too bad, because the rest of his platform is pretty intelligent. I'm just not seeing the benefit in this sales tax thing.

Simplicity · #**162** Posted **Sep 10, 2014, 12:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

It's a bad idea, full stop. It could mean that out of town property owners got a free ride. It's too bad, because the rest of his platform is pretty intelligent. I'm just not seeing the benefit in this sales tax thing.

I look at something like this and I think, you know, it's not such a bad idea. But then I think about it a little longer and I think about who the Bowman benefactors are and I start to think there's more to this. Part of enacting a municipal tax on items would be the decisions about which items to exempt. Things like cars and houses would generate large extraneous tax bills over and above what's already being generated by the GST. Both taxes in the case of cars.

Then I think about what the Chipmans are doing. If they could sell homes in the Oaks and cars out of Pointe West at a minimum of a 4% discount than anybody else, they'd virtually corner the market. This is obviously some tinfoil hat shit, but I wouldn't put anything past those guys...

Bdog · #**163** Posted **Sep 10, 2014, 12:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simplicity

I look at something like this and I think, you know, it's not such a bad idea. But then I think about it a little longer and I think about who the Bowman benefactors are and I start to think there's more to this. Part of enacting a municipal tax on items would be the decisions about which items to exempt. Things like cars and houses would generate large extraneous tax bills over and above what's already being generated by the GST. Both taxes in the case of cars.

Then I think about what the Chipmans are doing. If they could sell homes in the Oaks and cars out of Pointe West at a minimum of a 4% discount than anybody else, they'd virtually corner the market. This is obviously some tinfoil hat shit, but I wouldn't put anything past those guys...

The Oaks and Pointe West are both within the City of Winnipeg...

Simplicity · #**164** Posted **Sep 10, 2014, 1:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bdog

The Oaks and Pointe West are both within the City of Winnipeg...

Are you sure about Pointe West? The Oaks I wasn't quite sure of, but I've seen Longboat applying with the Headingley Council to have their car lots expanded...

Bdog · #**165** Posted **Sep 10, 2014, 1:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Are you sure about Pointe West? The Oaks I wasn't quite sure of, but I've seen Longboat applying with the Headingley Council to have their car lots expanded...

Yes, Pointe West Auto Park is almost a kilometer within City Limits.

cllew · #**166** Posted **Sep 10, 2014, 2:09 AM**

And the Chipman group has a few dealerships on the Regent strip so they would not benefit from a tax break either.

biguc · #**167** Posted **Sep 10, 2014, 10:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

It's a bad idea, full stop. It could mean that out of town property owners got a free ride. It's too bad, because the rest of his platform is pretty intelligent. I'm just not seeing the benefit in this sales tax thing.

Property tax is a regressive tax that obviously doesn't work. I'm not sure I see the problem with out of town owners getting a break, either. That sounds like a great way to attract investment.

esquire · #**168** Posted **Sep 10, 2014, 11:57 PM**

Property taxes aren't perfect, but sales taxes are even worse. They will hurt local businesses and hurt those least able to pay them.

And do you not think it would be ludicrous for a major beneficiary of city services like, for instance, the owner of an office tower to contribute nothing to those costs, putting it all on the backs of residents? I certainly do. The unemployed guy who just moved here from up north gets hit with 5% or whatever on every pack of socks he buys, while the Toronto-based REIT with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of property pays nothing. It's crazy.

roccerfeller · #**169** Posted **Sep 11, 2014, 3:47 AM**

Falcon's demeanour impressed me in the debate.

great questions, all of the candidates at times didn't answer questions directly

h0twired · #**170** Posted **Sep 11, 2014, 3:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

The unemployed guy who just moved here from up north gets hit with 5% or whatever on every pack of socks he buys, while the Toronto-based REIT with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of property pays nothing. It's crazy.

What about the thousands of people living on acreages outside of the city that commute on our roads and shop in Winnipeg on a daily basis but pay nothing in property taxes?

I support the sales tax as at 2-3% it would be a considerable drop in taxes for me.

drew · #**171** Posted **Sep 11, 2014, 3:39 PM**

The provincial government needs to drop the education component from property taxes. That would amount to at least a 50% drop in the property tax bill for people in the city immediately. The city could then do a sizable increase in the property tax percentage to fund services, while still saving people money.

I personally don't agree in a sales tax to replace property taxes.

Property owners should pay a fee to support city services provided - I see no reason why property taxes are untoward or unfair by any means. If anything they should be more - considering the condition of our city. But I think the huge education component really cramps the city for how much more they can really expect people to pay.

I also think Winnipeg should be reduced to one school board - but obviously that is not within the powers of the City.

esquire · #**172** Posted **Sep 11, 2014, 3:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by h0twired

What about the thousands of people living on acreages outside of the city that commute on our roads and shop in Winnipeg on a daily basis but pay nothing in property taxes?

I support the sales tax as at 2-3% it would be a considerable drop in taxes for me.

Who is to say that it would be as low as 2%, though? When you basically eliminate tax revenue from properties owned by non-Winnipeg residents, that is going to leave quite a burden for the rest of us to pick up.

The whole thing seems nonsensical to me. Perhaps it's only residential properties that the scheme would apply to? Is there an example of such an arrangement working in another city that we can look at?

Riverman · #**173** Posted **Sep 11, 2014, 3:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

I also think Winnipeg should be reduced to one school board - but obviously that is not within the powers of the City.

I think everyone wants that except the school boards which are juiced with NDPers.

esquire · #**174** Posted **Sep 11, 2014, 3:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

I think everyone wants that except the school boards which are juiced with NDPers.

The fact that I agree with Riverman on this one tells you that there must be at least some level of broad agreement on the issue.

Unicity happened in 1972; time for the school boards to get with the program and follow suit.

drew · #**175** Posted **Sep 11, 2014, 3:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

The fact that I agree with Riverman on this one tells you that there must be at least some level of broad agreement on the issue.

Unicity happened in 1972; time for the school boards to get with the program and follow suit.

The City (mayor) could start lobbying more publicly for this. It would be a start, and begin to get more public awareness to this flat out waste of money.

Riverman · #**176** Posted **Sep 11, 2014, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

The City (mayor) could start lobbying more publicly for this.

Not going to happen if you-know-who gets elected.

drew · #**177** Posted **Sep 11, 2014, 4:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Not going to happen if you-know-who gets elected.

Yes, but the next provincial government will likely not be NDP - so there's that.

My wife is a teacher, and I don't even think the teachers like the multiple divisions with different contracts, salaries, benefits, rules etc. It just complicates everything.

Riverman · #**178** Posted **Sep 11, 2014, 4:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

Yes, but the next provincial government will likely not be NDP - so there's that.

I'm not so sure about that. The Conservatives have to work around the undeniable fact that Filmon had 700 million nurses executed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

My wife is a teacher, and I don't even think the teachers like the multiple divisions with different contracts, salaries, benefits, rules etc. It just complicates everything.

That, plus the fact if all boards were merged into one the juiciest collective agreement would be used.

esquire · #**179** Posted **Sep 11, 2014, 4:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

I'm not so sure about that. The Conservatives have to work around the undeniable fact that Filmon had 700 million nurses executed.

Gotta admit I loled at that one

Quote:

That, plus the fact if all boards were merged into one the juiciest collective agreement would be used.

The plethora of SDs means that as soon as one SD caves, there is immense pressure on all of the others to follow suit. Flin Flon gave its teachers 9.32% over 4 years and now teachers in all of the other SDs with agreements expiring consider that their starting point.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...266850331.html

I'm sure if the SDs were centralized, the province could keep much better tabs on what's going on with the collective agreements. It might cost a few bucks up front as everyone gets shifted to the best deal, but over the long run it would be easier to control things and keep them from getting out of hand.

Riverman · #**180** Posted **Sep 11, 2014, 10:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Gotta admit I loled at that one

Perpetuating and exaggerating lies has become NDP policy, might as well as have some fun with it.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opi...245138511.html

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opi...261203561.html