dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
4167

dillyhammer
START me up
Premium Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON

dillyhammer to Hydraglass

Premium Member

to Hydraglass

Re: The price for hydro is too damn high

said by Hydraglass:

sure go blame FIT contracts all you want - but the reality is they don't even make a tiny dent in our actual hydro costs

Blaming the FIT contracts and/or the gas plant scandal are convenient excuses for those with... selectively short memories. I'm being kind.

Granted, we were already on a slippery slope in '95. Hydro had racked up billions in debt due to mismanagement and a unionized culture of entitlement at the public trough.

But we are an energy-based species. It was only a matter of time before political corruption trumped public service and our hydro system, which was built by the taxpayers of Ontario over the course of 7 decades, was transformed into a meta-taxation system aimed at generating revenues.

Looking at my hydro bill now, the 73.00 I was charged for my 380kWh includes 31.00 for the electricity, and 42.00 in fees.

A huge chunk of those fees goes to 3 major things. One, the operating costs of the bloated, privately owned corporation that flips switches. Two, the dividends paid to the sole shareholder of that corporation - The City Of Toronto. Three, the interest on the dividend paid to the shareholder upon completion of the asset transfer.

I have excluded the $9.00 in HST that the government also wants to steal because they kicked $8 of it back.

Again, it is so difficult to talk about this stuff without getting political, because the problem was started by politics and therein lies the solution. I will add, the hypocrisy we're seeing from Hudak on this file is preposterous. The man belongs in prison, along with Eves, Harris, and that prick Flaherty had Hell not got him first.

And again, I'd be happy to take this conversation over to CanPol so I can take the gloves off.

Mike

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

Um, you are aware that there are only two or three privately-owned electrical utilities in all of Ontario, right? And that Toronto Hydro is not one of them? And that neither are Ontario Power Generation or Hydro One?

Wait, don't answer that.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

said by Gone:

Um, you are aware that there are only two or three privately-owned electrical utilities in all of Ontario, right? And that Toronto Hydro is not one of them? And that neither are Ontario Power Generation or Hydro One?

Wait, don't answer that.

His point stands, Toronto Hydro kicks back $42m/yr in "dividends" to it's sole shareholder, the City of Toronto.

dillyhammer
START me up
Premium Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON

dillyhammer

Premium Member

said by elwoodblues:

His point stands, Toronto Hydro kicks back $42m/yr in "dividends" to it's sole shareholder, the City of Toronto.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. No amount of "ums" and ' 's changes the fact this has been going on for 16 years in earnest, and far longer behind sort-of-closed doors. The other lasting legacy from that era still plagues us with similar consequences - the 407. Funny how those legacies more resemble the Herpes Simplex II virus than public service.

Changing parties at election time solves nothing, as we have seen.

We need a systemic culture change. Elections don't do that. For that, you need insurrection and sedition. In other words: balls.

Mike

MyrddinEmrys
join:2011-11-29
Scarborough, ON

MyrddinEmrys to elwoodblues

Member

to elwoodblues
Hmmm... I thought the "dividends" was a one time thing with the incorporation.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

Nope, dividends are payments from profit to the shareholders. That;s one of the reasons more and more companies are buying back stock with their tax savings. They keep the profits, that and it raises the price of the stock because there is less of it.

dillyhammer
START me up
Premium Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON

1 edit

dillyhammer

Premium Member

said by elwoodblues:

Nope, dividends are payments from profit to the shareholders. That;s one of the reasons more and more companies are buying back stock with their tax savings. They keep the profits, that and it raises the price of the stock because there is less of it.

Yup.

In the case of Toronto Hydro, they pay the City of Toronto 50% of their net earnings each year as a dividend. ABout a quarter of a billion in the last decade. And that's just Toronto.

Toronto Hydro is also over 1 billion in debt and has to finance that every couple of years. Guess where that money went? Guess who's paying the interest on that?

Hydro prices are high because of a few wind mills and a smattering of solar panels? Oh brother.

Mike

nitzguy
Premium Member
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON

nitzguy to Gone

Premium Member

to Gone
said by Gone:

Um, you are aware that there are only two or three privately-owned electrical utilities in all of Ontario, right? And that Toronto Hydro is not one of them? And that neither are Ontario Power Generation or Hydro One?

Wait, don't answer that.

Only 2 or 3?....I know of Great Lakes Electric which rolled into Great Lakes Power and then was bought by Brookfield Power that I know is a private owned electric utility....

Anywho, in Northern Ontario no less....smart though, hydro power is just money....
Robrr
join:2008-04-19

Robrr to Mr_Derp

Member

to Mr_Derp
I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet given it was all over the news last night

Debt retirement charge gone, Clean energy benefit gone:
»www.cbc.ca/news/canada/t ··· .2619632

And a new fee for households making more than $40k/year
»www.torontosun.com/2014/ ··· t-charge

The summarize: Hydro bills are going up! A LOT!
peterboro (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned)

Member

"While all the details of the new Ontario Electricity Support Program have yet to be worked out, Chiarelli said the intent of the program is to help families with an income of less than $40,000 pay for their electricity. A low-income family can spend 8% of their income on electricity, compared to a family earning $100,000 or more who need dedicate only 2% of their take-home pay to their hydro bill."

It's about time they tied the higher prices into an income tested relief program.

nitzguy
Premium Member
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON

nitzguy

Premium Member

said by peterboro:

"While all the details of the new Ontario Electricity Support Program have yet to be worked out, Chiarelli said the intent of the program is to help families with an income of less than $40,000 pay for their electricity. A low-income family can spend 8% of their income on electricity, compared to a family earning $100,000 or more who need dedicate only 2% of their take-home pay to their hydro bill."

It's about time they tied the higher prices into an income tested relief program.

We don't have an income tested relief program for natural gas or home heating oil prices. So, you're saying that someone who pays with natural gas for their heat is worse off than someone who uses electricity for their heat? Aka, I'm subsidizing someone else? What is this, Russia?

Also, how do you calculate an income tested relief program? Scouts honor? My name is on the hydro bill and if I make less than $40,000 a year then do I get these reduced rates?

What about single people? Will they get the same break?

The devil is in the details.
peterboro (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned)

Member

Maybe they should get relief on heating as well. It's open to debate.

The income verification may be tied to CRA like the provincial credits are now. How that transfers to a utility should be interesting.

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

1 edit

3 recommendations

Ian1 to Mr_Derp

Premium Member

to Mr_Derp
"Chiarelli said the intent of the program is to help families with an income of less than $40,000 pay for their electricity.

A low-income family can spend 8% of their income on electricity, compared to a family earning $100,000 or more who need dedicate only 2% of their take-home pay to their hydro bill."

So the family making $40,000 a year spends $3,200 on electricity. The family making $100,000 spends $2,000? Liberal-Math. Gotta love it. Guess there's a good reason why they have been so incompetent financially for a decade...

dirtyjeffer0
Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

to be fair, he doesn't specify what the income is for the "8%" group...perhaps that family's income is only $20,000...the 8% would be $1600...further complicating matters, is the second part of his statement refers to "take home pay"...that $100,000 income family, may have a take home pay of $65,000, so 2% would be $1300.

in any event, you are correct in that their mish mash of numbers is either arrived at through incompetence or is purposefully convoluted to try and push their stupid ideas forward.

i never understood the whole "make the rich pay" mantra...why on earth do we punish those who have made something of their lives?...work hard, invest in yourself, set goals and achieve them, strive for greatness, climb the corporate ladder...when you are there, great job - way to go...now pay for everyone else...dumb.
peterboro (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

2 recommendations

peterboro (banned)

Member

Great bootstraps speech DJ.

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1 to dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

to dirtyjeffer0
The "math" of the Liberals makes no sense no matter how sliced. Throw in taxes, whatever. Still wrong.

As for making the rich pay? It's been the go-to approach of every Government. Liberal/Conservative, you name it. Why? Because they can. You can't get blood from a stone. Raising taxes on the poor just simply nets you nothing. "x %" of nothing is still nothing.

Jackorama
I Am Woman
Premium Member
join:2008-05-23
Kingston, ON

Jackorama to Robrr

Premium Member

to Robrr
said by Robrr:

I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet given it was all over the news last night

Debt retirement charge gone, Clean energy benefit gone:
»www.cbc.ca/news/canada/t ··· .2619632

And a new fee for households making more than $40k/year
»www.torontosun.com/2014/ ··· t-charge

The summarize: Hydro bills are going up! A LOT!

My hydro bill goes down about $5 a month, whoopie doo. How about cutting that delivery charge back or stop charging me an extra 25 kWh a month because of loss through your lines, not mine.

Then it will go up the with the removal of the %10 OCEB, now up another $10 -$13 a month or more depending on the cost that month. But, then again if we didn't have that discount we wouldn't notice the increase in the first place.

As for the Ontario Electricity Support Program, I'll believe it when I see it.

dirtyjeffer0
Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

dirtyjeffer0 to Ian1

Premium Member

to Ian1
said by Ian1:

As for making the rich pay? It's been the go-to approach of every Government. Liberal/Conservative, you name it. Why? Because they can. You can't get blood from a stone. Raising taxes on the poor just simply nets you nothing. "x %" of nothing is still nothing.

i think the more appropriate thing to do would be a fair and equal tax rate for all and have the Government spend within its means.
MichelR
join:2011-07-03
Trois-Rivieres, QC

MichelR

Member

said by dirtyjeffer0:

said by Ian1:

As for making the rich pay? It's been the go-to approach of every Government. Liberal/Conservative, you name it. Why? Because they can. You can't get blood from a stone. Raising taxes on the poor just simply nets you nothing. "x %" of nothing is still nothing.

i think the more appropriate thing to do would be a fair and equal tax rate for all and have the Government spend within its means.

No on the former, yes on the latter. Flat tax rate = crap. It's only good for the rich, and pretty much crap for the middle class. A progressive rate is better, and if politicians could let go of pet projects and useless waste to save face or their seats, we wouldn't be in the hole we're in now.

dirtyjeffer0
Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

said by MichelR:

No on the former, yes on the latter. Flat tax rate = crap. It's only good for the rich, and pretty much crap for the middle class. A progressive rate is better, and if politicians could let go of pet projects and useless waste to save face or their seats, we wouldn't be in the hole we're in now.

a flat tax is fair though...even if you don't want to do it for income, it certainly should be for other taxes (property tax, etc)...we should be fostering and promoting "growth", not punishing it with more/higher taxes.

TLS2000
Premium Member
join:2004-02-24
Elmsdale, NS
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Ubiquiti U6-LR
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-nanoHD

TLS2000

Premium Member

Is it fair, really? I used to think the same as you, but let's consider this:

A flat tax creates a level playing field only if you're looking at taxes on their own.

A tax based on different income levels is essentially asking those who are capable to make small sacrifices in order to help those who aren't capable. This in turn provides more opportunities for those who aren't capable to perhaps get educated, start small business, maybe eat if they can't afford food. For the ones who are able to start small businesses with that little bit of extra "help" from the taxman, they eventually may get to the position where they're complaining that they pay too much in tax.

When a poor family is paying out 95% of their income just to live, is it "fair" that a rich family is able to afford a large house, two cars, private schooling for their children, college tuition for their children and yearly vacations to the Caribbean?

Point being, while a flat tax is "fair", so is a tax based on different tiers of income. They're both philosophically different, but they both have valid points. I think I'd rather give a hand up to the people who aren't able to put food on the table, even if it means that a rich family has to take their vacation in Cuba instead of Cancun.

dirtyjeffer0
Posers don't use avatars.
Premium Member
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

said by TLS2000:

Is it fair, really?

fair may be subjective to which "side" you are on...it still is "equal", meaning everyone pays their fair share.

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1

Premium Member

said by dirtyjeffer0:

fair may be subjective to which "side" you are on...it still is "equal", meaning everyone pays their fair share.

No. It still is a progressive tax scheme. What's fair? At what point have you paid your share and then some?

TLS2000
Premium Member
join:2004-02-24
Elmsdale, NS
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Ubiquiti U6-LR
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-nanoHD

TLS2000 to dirtyjeffer0

Premium Member

to dirtyjeffer0
said by dirtyjeffer0:

fair may be subjective to which "side" you are on...it still is "equal", meaning everyone pays their fair share.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with you on "sides". I'd say it's got more to do with perspective. I make decent enough money that I'm able to afford a place to live AND go to school. My income is higher than the level that would get me a rebate in this latest Liberal scheme to buy votes with taxpayer's money. That said, I still think it's a good idea. People with lesser means shouldn't be forced to live out their lives barely scraping by while others who can better afford to contribute can do so.

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1

Premium Member

"in this latest Liberal scheme to buy votes with taxpayer's money."

And it's this that should stop. Just because you're a Liberal you think you can buy votes?

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

said by Ian1:

"in this latest Liberal scheme to buy votes with taxpayer's money."

And it's this that should stop. Just because you're a Liberal you think you can buy votes?

Oh please I already pointed out elsewhere everyone does this. What do think the GST cuts were? Sound economics or politics?

TLS2000
Premium Member
join:2004-02-24
Elmsdale, NS

TLS2000

Premium Member

You want to bring up that one, eh? Personally I think it was sound economics. The more money I have in my pocket, the more I can spend. It was good for the economy, if not necessarily for the federal treasury.

dillyhammer
START me up
Premium Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON

1 recommendation

dillyhammer

Premium Member

It had nothing to do with economics. The GST cuts were political spending to secure a majority government - a $15billion off-topic mistake that we're still paying for. It's all smoke-n-mirrors, just like Ontario's hydro rates.



Mike

loosedobbs
join:2006-06-13
Toronto

loosedobbs to Mr_Derp

Member

to Mr_Derp

"he Ontario government is killing a hydro surcharge for residential users, but is also scrapping a program that saved ratepayers money."

"When it all shakes out, Ontarians will be paying more."

According to Thursday’s annual provincial budget, come Jan. 1, 2016, the debt retirement charge on residential bills will be eliminated — an average savings of about $70 a year.

Simultaneously, the budget also scrapped the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit, a program that saved Ontarians $180 a year. That means the average rate-payer will be paying $110 more a year on their hydro bills.


Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

... and for those of us who don't pay a debt retirement charge at all, it's a net increase with no offset - period.