City of Calgary budget, 2014 edition

[SebC]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...577/story.html

Looks like an increase to transit hours (funded by increased ridership), 6.1% tax increase if the city keeps the $52M or 2-3% otherwise.

[Bigtime]

6.1% increase?

Thanks a lot suburbia.

/thread

[GGG]

The first thing I would like to see is end talking about the 52 million. It doesnt exist this year. The province is not collecting it therefore there is no extra money. That 52 million isnt special.

All budget line items should be evaluated on their own merit and then the mill rate set appropriately. I do agree with using reserve funds to put in flood related improvements.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

6.1% increase?

Thanks a lot suburbia.

/thread

This one is the Lattes faultfor failing to anticipate the floods when their houses were built a hundred years ago. Way to screw the yops over.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

This one is the Lattes faultfor failing to anticipate the floods when their houses were built a hundred years ago. Way to screw the yops over.

And suburbia is keeping the increase down! If we weren't paying for sprawl we'd have lower taxes, so our taxes would have to go up more than 6% to pay for flood mitigation.

[shermanator]

I, for one, look forward to many Rick Bell articles complaining about the tax hike....

[SebC]

Originally Posted by shermanator

I, for one, look forward to many Rick Bell articles complaining about the tax hike....

There's already been at least two...

[Slava]

Its funny to see the people in favour of the tax hike are those who don't pay property taxes directly. No surprise here.

I better mention that while I have no real issue with tax increases, I don't want it to become the "easy way out". I have no issue paying an extra few percent at all, but lets not shy away from making choices and prioritization just because "another few bucks" isn't a big deal.

[GaiJin]

Those that support tax increases could always volunteer to pay more.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its funny to see the people in favour of the tax hike are those who don't pay property taxes directly. No surprise here.

I pay my property taxes directly, and I would rather see that increase if it means more money going towards thing we need. Various projects that should be started as soon as possible remain un-funded.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

Those that support tax increases could always volunteer to pay more.

And those that are against them can volunteer to use less city services.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its funny to see the people in favour of the tax hike are those who don't pay property taxes directly. No surprise here.

Another view is if you look at the election results the wards that voted the most conservative councilors who ran on reducing taxes, also want some of the most expensive things.

- Arenas/Rec Centers for there areas.
- LRT ran to there communities.
- New interchanges and road projects to improve traffic.

Chris

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its funny to see the people in favour of the tax hike are those who don't pay property taxes directly. No surprise here.

Who would they be?

[calgarywinning]

The increases are not inline with civilian sector wage increases. Secondly, what's alarming is that the increase is always quoted, but should be reflected and represented in terms of a more extended period of time. It's a 6% increase on a 5% increase in 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009. It's fiscally misrepresenting what the regime is doing.

While I am for funding infrastructure and highly for increasing our rapid transit systems, etc. I think that we also have to hold the city responsible to efficient, fiscally prudent and to look at expenses that can be cut (ever seen their office furniture budgets?).

The danger is in being polarized (for or against tax hikes) and giving the city a blank cheque based on the needs of our city to be fiscally irresponsible on being diligent in controlling expenses. Expenses are consumed like logs in a fire, where an LRT line is an asset that exists and can be used many years into the future.

[Jacks]

It'll be the same as always, they'll trot out a big increase number, the people will be outraged, they'll strike some great balance and somehow manage to contain the increase to "only 5%". It's always 5%.

Originally Posted by Slava

I better mention that while I have no real issue with tax increases, I don't want it to become the "easy way out". I have no issue paying an extra few percent at all, but lets not shy away from making choices and prioritization just because "another few bucks" isn't a big deal.

I think someone hijacked Slava's account.

[stampsx2]

Support increased taxes then complain how the money is being spent. Sounds about right.

[Tyler]

Live in the best city, in the best country in the world. Complain that it isn't cheap to live here. - Calgarians

[Slava]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I pay my property taxes directly, and I would rather see that increase if it means more money going towards thing we need. Various projects that should be started as soon as possible remain un-funded.

I agree with you here. For some reason though we have a quick shot against the suburban home owners in this thread when it's irrelevant. Like I say, I have no issue with increased taxes for services and infrastructure that I think the city should provide. There are plenty of place where that money should be directed, but its not a "sprawl" or "suburbs" issue where the city would have all the money they need if it weren't for the minivan driving soccer mom.

Originally Posted by Jacks

It'll be the same as always, they'll trot out a big increase number, the people will be outraged, they'll strike some great balance and somehow manage to contain the increase to "only 5%". It's always 5%.


I think someone hijacked Slava's account.

Haha, no one hijacked my account. I just don't want the taxpayer to foot the bill rather than an honest look at where the money goes. I am confident that Nenshi is pressing for this as well. When I see my councillor campaign on a platform of increased money for fire departments though, I wonder if our priorities are in the right place.

[GGG]

I would like to see Nenshi take another run at the Police budget. We have the most expensive costs in terms of dollars per officer and crime in general has been decreasing for years everywhere regardless of policing methods employed. So its time to cut one of the biggest expenditures.

This years increase though appears to hold the line on tax increases in terms of real dollars. Assuming you take one time flood expenses from the reserve the increase drops to 3.1% after the so called 52 mil is returned.

So this means year over year increase is only 3.1% or roughly inflation. If I am correctly accounting for the 52million and the reserve then it looks like the city is asking for just an inflationary increase.

It bothers me that an inflationary increase isnt always included in the discussion as it makes city politicians look bad compared to federal or provincial counterparts. If I get a 3% pay increase the feds increased their tax take by more than 3% by doing nothing. The city has to raise taxes by 2-3% just to break even.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

I agree with you here. For some reason though we have a quick shot against the suburban home owners in this thread when it's irrelevant. Like I say, I have no issue with increased taxes for services and infrastructure that I think the city should provide. There are plenty of place where that money should be directed, but its not a "sprawl" or "suburbs" issue where the city would have all the money they need if it weren't for the minivan driving soccer mom.

Posturing for a Ward 14 run already?

The "minivan driving soccer mom" is making a rational decision in taking advantage of unsustainable lifestyle subsidies. The shots fired are against the subsidies themselves.