Raise the Hammer

JonC >> To reference back to Oakville & Burlington. They have lousy private sectors.

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? That is what I am referring to when I talk about the private sector, not whether or not the proportion of taxes that comes from the commercial sector is high or low relative to the residential assessment, but rather the overall private wealth that a community has, which includes the value of their home.

Think about it this way, if your neighbour wins the lottery, allowing him/her to make his home and property into a masterpiece, this would make living in the area much more pleasant for you and would also likely cause the value of your home to go up as well. Furthermore, almost every single home buyer recognizes the value of private wealth in a community, because most people would rather choose to live beside a mansion, then a public school, or a city owned stadium, even though the cost of both a public school and a stadium are higher than a mansion.

Just think about the value of homes in and around Ivor Wynne, they are low and its because people don't find the neighbourhood attractive. However, if that area of the city was only taxed at 1%, the people living there would have more money to spend on their homes, at local shops and on things like newer cars, etc. This in turn would make the neighbourhood a much more pleasant, attractive place to live, and the result would be higher assessments for the city.

That's what I am talking about when I say that lower rates would result in a bigger private sector, bigger in proportion to the amount of money that government spends. Lower the share of money that government takes as a percentage of the private wealth and people will want to move here.