Raise the Hammer

“Right now, these are recommendations,” said Transportation Minister Glen Murray when he was asked how his party planned to campaign on a platform of tax hikes which, if the Metrolinx plan were to be adopted, would include a one-point bump to the HST, a five-cent-per-litre hike to the gas tax, plus parking levies for businesses and increased tolls on some commuter lanes.

Again, Mr. Murray was asked, how will you get the public, and the opposition parties in this minority government, on side with tax-increase proposals?

“Right now, we’re looking at these measures,” he said. And, “we haven’t landed on the strategy yet.” An enthusiastic endorsement it was not.

Though it was a bit odd to hear the government side express reticence about the idea of new “revenue tools” after months of telling the public that it was firmly committed to them, the opposition’s reluctance to embrace such a plan is not surprising. And they have good reason to be skeptical of it.

The simplest argument for such significant new taxes is that, after decades of neglect, there’s simply not an easy way to collect enough of the necessary funding ¬– $50 billion is a lot of money – without imposing it on the taxpayer. That’s about the only argument, really, that can justify the plan: expediency.

Because, taking a step back, this is $2-billion a year for a government that is already spending $127 billion annually. The taxpayer is entitled to ask: what does the money provided to government from the public do, if not support the cost of services like public transit? If this investment is essential, is there not some other way to fund it by, say, getting rid of programs that are non-essential?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/28/metrolinx-ontario-government-could-find-another-way-to-fund-transit-if-it-really-wanted-to/