Almost a year in Nenshi's job approval at 86% - Page 4 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Muta · 09-27-2011, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Frankly, I think it's a great idea. The herald article was saying that it would raise $350 million each year for the city, and if that's the case, it would be stupid not to.

I'd support even 2% extra, but it wouldn't really be needed if 1% brings in $350 million a year.

Sales tax is a much better way for the city to bring in funding than property tax.

Me too, I think a penny a tax is a great idea. These types of facilities have to be funded somehow, and and extra penny here and there will go a long way in the thousands of transactions happening in this city on a regular basis.

I really don't see how anyone can be against this. This is an innovative idea to fund badly needed upgrades to infrastructure.

Bend it like Bourgeois · 09-27-2011, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

X92.9 was complaining that it was a 20% hike in the GST.

Their stupid "Here's the Thing" segment is getting really old, really fast.

Isn't it a 20% hike in gst?

Wonder if Ken king is eyeing this to help fund the flames new arena.

Table 5 · 09-27-2011, 09:13 AM

If you guys like those fancy new food trucks you can thank Nenshi. Or actually you can thank Bunk.

Rathji · 09-27-2011, 09:16 AM

This penny tax thing is now in 2 threads, we should somehow split/merge the threads so both dont get filled with massive duplication.

350million a year that is solely earmarked for sports/arts capital projects would be amazing. You are talking a full arena in a couple years - not that the city would be paying for it all anyway, but if they did, the income from it would be very nice.

darklord700 · 09-27-2011, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muta

Me too, I think a penny a tax is a great idea. These types of facilities have to be funded somehow, and and extra penny here and there will go a long way in the thousands of transactions happening in this city on a regular basis.

I really don't see how anyone can be against this. This is an innovative idea to fund badly needed upgrades to infrastructure.

I voted for Nenshi to cut spending and to improve fiscal efficiency, not to increase taxes. For the size of Calgary, implementing a 1% tax will cost us a lot of money per capita. Yeah, you might not notice the difference but 1% on after tax spending is more than 1%.

Also, who's to say the 1% will stay at 1%? If Nenshi can't reign in the spending, I'll vote for someone who could next time.

Bertuzzied · 09-27-2011, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't know what his approval rating was, but I think Bronconnier won re-election with something like 92% of the vote or something absurd.

I am a Nenshi supporter, so happy to see this. I do think that mayoralty approval ratings are higher in general though. There's no official opposition or anything shadowing your every move like other levels of government. As long as peoples garbage gets picked up, they have a CFD, CPS and CT to rely on things are good (generalising, before someone flames me for saying that). The reality is that voter apathy is huge at the municipal level.

Winning an election with 90% of the vote against NO OTHER opposition is not the same as an 86% approval rating. Bronco couldn't even come close to that. 86% is Ralph Klein territory. Great job Nenshi!

malcolmk14 · 09-27-2011, 09:39 AM

Here's to the future Prime Minister of Canada, Naheed Nenshi!

bizaro86 · 09-27-2011, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muta

I really don't see how anyone can be against this. This is an innovative idea to fund badly needed upgrades to infrastructure.

You don't see how anyone could be against additional taxes?

Ozy_Flame · 09-27-2011, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Isn't it a 20% hike in gst?

Wonder if Ken king is eyeing this to help fund the flames new arena.

Well essentially it is, but it comes with the negative connotation of looking at it in that particular light. It's such a blue thing to say.

Since this penny tax would go towards cultural venues and such, I really have no problem with this. I'll deal with this minor tax increase if it means adding more to our already great city.

Vansmack · 09-27-2011, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albertGQ

They shouldn't have gotten rid of the $3 park and ride fee

This is my biggest beef as well. I sent Mr. Mayor an e-mail about it and received a cookie cutter response saying he would respond in a week. That was on August 28th. It actually kind of pissed me off.

flamesfan55 · 09-27-2011, 09:43 AM

I am not a fan of his at all. I think some of the choices he has made are awful.

Muta · 09-27-2011, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bizaro86

You don't see how anyone could be against additional taxes?

Maybe I value the proposed facilities that this money will be spent on more than you do.

I don't see it as a tax increase; I see it as an investment in infrastructure.

This is a very innovative way to pay for those facilities. They have to be paid for somehow, you know.

getbak · 09-27-2011, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

List of Calgary Elections.

So, in the last 50 years, only twice has an elected mayor who was seeking re-election lost (Leslie in 1969 and Alger in 1980). Over the last 30 years, any mayor who sought re-election won with a significant majority. The only close elections were ones with no incumbent.

As was said before, it's his job for as long as he wants it.

bizaro86 · 09-27-2011, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muta

Maybe I value the proposed facilities that this money will be spent on more than you do.

I don't see it as a tax increase; I see it as an investment in infrastructure.

This is a very innovative way to pay for those facilities. They have to be paid for somehow, you know.

I actually never said I was against it, which I'm not. I would love to see Calgary put money towards best in class cultural facilities. A world class opera house maybe, or a museum with great architecture. I wouldn't miss the extra money and would enjoy the new facilities.

I just think it's condescending and elitist for you to think nobody could possibly be against it.

Edited to add: And it would certainly be a tax increase, since you're paying more taxes. It's not especially innovative, since Canada already has a sales tax. It is the most economically efficient way of raising funds, way better than property taxes.

Ozy_Flame · 09-27-2011, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Edited to add: And it would certainly be a tax increase, since you're paying more taxes. It's not especially innovative, since Canada already has a sales tax. It is the most economically efficient way of raising funds, way better than property taxes.

I think the point Muta was making was that, if we have to have tax increases, this probably is the least offensive and intrusive tax increase we could implement at this point.

Muta · 09-27-2011, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I just think it's condescending and elitist for you to think nobody could possibly be against it.

Ouch, that's some strong terminology. I didn't say that. I said I don't know how people could be against it, considering it is an innovative idea to fund public infrastructure. I do understand people could be against it for their own reasons though. Big difference between what I said and what you interpreted.

Maybe I should call you a blue-collared, anti-change conservative redneck in protest.

bizaro86 · 09-27-2011, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I think the point Muta was making was that, if we have to have tax increases, this probably is the least offensive and intrusive tax increase we could implement at this point.

That's not what he said, though. He said he doesn't see it as a tax increase.

It absolutely is the best way of raising taxes, but it is a tax increase. Calling it something else is just obfuscating.

Ace · 09-27-2011, 09:54 AM

Allowing a municipality to impose a sales tax does not sit well with me. Once it's started who's to say it doesn't eventually grow to 7%?

Bigtime · 09-27-2011, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bizaro86

It absolutely is the best way of raising taxes, but it is a tax increase. Calling it something else is just obfuscating.

Let's call it a "temporary refund adjustment".

bizaro86 · 09-27-2011, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muta

Ouch, that's some strong terminology. I didn't say that. I said I don't know how people could be against it, considering it is an innovative idea to fund public infrastructure. I do understand people could be against it for their own reasons though. Big difference between what I said and what you interpreted.

Maybe I should call you a blue-collared, anti-change conservative redneck in protest.

The implicit assumption is that we need more taxes and more public infrastructure, which is not everyone agrees with. Making that seem like a foregone conclusion isn't fair to the democratic process.

You could call me that, and the (collared) shirt I'm wearing is blue... But really I probably fit more the latte sipping elitist camp. I would be in favour of this, and think we do need more infrastructure. I just think it's reasonable to debate it, and understand that some people will be against it.