Comment 29185

By JonC (registered) | Posted February 27, 2009 at 21:18:13

I've come to love your method of ignoring empirical evidence and presenting what you feel as fact.

"Really, then why can the people that live there afford to drive newer cars, fix their homes more often and spend more at local stores and restaurants?"

I just gave you empirical proof that Hamilton collects almost twice as much of their revenue as a percentage of total revenue from the private sector than Oakville. Which in trumps your fictional concepts of reality every time. To reiterate what that means, since it appears to have gone over your head, is that HAMILTON'S PRIVATE SECTOR DOMINATES OAKVILLE'S.

"That is what I am referring to when I talk about the private sector."

Anyhow, it's not my opinion (well, I do agree with it), but the Oakville Chamber of Commerce thinks the city of Oakville has a lousy private sector. Whether they have more consumer goods (as per your observation) is independent of the quality of town's private sector. If the residents of those towns do have more consumer goods, they clearly are buying them outside of their own city. So even in your magical land where reducing property taxes to 1% cures cancer and feeds the homeless, the private sector is hurt. If I made arguments in the same fashion as you, I would say that the lower tax rate is responsible for this poor private sector as Hamilton has a greater private sector developed on a higher tax rate and then ignore any evidence to the contrary.

So, to recap...

Residents of Oakville pay more for homes They pay more taxes on those homes They take their free capital (which according to you they have an obviously larger amount of) and spend it in other municipalities' private sectors.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools