"The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least hissing." This first rule of public finance is as relevant today as it was when originally used in Louis XIV's court.

Without a doubt the user fee and tax increases considered by council so far this term have caused much hissing. From looking at who will be paying the new levies, the goose will have some spots well plucked, while other places haven't been touched. Instead of raising money from throughout the city's tax base, the garbage, land transfer and vehicle registration taxes will raise funds disproportionately from home-owning suburbanites. Those who rent apartments, particularly in the downtown core with adequate transit, will feel next to no impact.

The correlation between electoral support for the administration and not having one's tax feathers plucked is, I'm sure, coincidental.

The first big tax measure of the year was to charge separately for waste collection. The administration could have adapted a bag tag system at no incremental cost similar to that used by more than 100 municipalities in Ontario. Instead Torontonians are guinea pigs for an inflexible program with only one Canadian example.

The additional annual cost is $54 million. Although those living in apartments and condos divert waste at about one-third the rate of homeowners, under the new program they are largely exempt from increased costs.

Rounding out the new levies are land transfer and vehicle registration taxes that will bring in another $365 million per year.

To be fair, these are the easiest taxes for the city to collect and have the largest revenues. They will be borne by homeowners and motorists.

During all of the debate over the last six months, two alternatives to new taxes seem to have been left behind, probably because they are unpalatable: cost reductions and property taxes.

There is no appetite from either the public or the administration to find hundreds of millions in cost reductions. But rather than calculating in new taxes after cost-reduction exercises, cost containment now has a lower priority. And since the working assumption is that huge revenues are required in perpetuity, it follows to start with taxes as great as residents will bear.

A different approach could be to minimize costs throughout the city's services and levy new taxes on an incremental basis. There are ways to dent next year's $575 million shortfall. Begin by taking least-cost approaches such as bag tags instead of waste bins. Continue by fast-tracking administrative reviews to see if management can find additional savings. And stick to the city's responsibilities. As one example, this year's "ground-breaking" grant for an AIDS project in Botswana is contrary to council's traditions, city policy and is open to charges of favouritism.

Even if all of cost reduction measures are vigorously executed - which is doubtful - city financing will require some combination of new taxes and the property tax.

Ever since the new taxing powers became available, property taxes have become less attractive. The revenue-generating ability of the old tax is limited. The intense scrutiny caused by impacting hundreds of thousands of property owners makes raising these taxes a long and public debate. Although all municipal taxes go to general revenues, other taxes can at least be marketed as going to a specific use.

And since the advent of Current Value Assessment tax, the property tax burden has shifted from the suburbs to the central city. So the property tax collects few feathers with much hissing from the wrong geese.

It is unsurprising the administration has decided on its current path. Using the new taxing powers is understandable. To some extent it is unavoidable. Too bad that instead of providing the minimum of new taxes to fill in shortfalls left by savings and the property tax, the policy seems to relax the rigours of scrutiny, and to maximize the amounts from new taxes.

It might not be sound financial policy, but it is good politics.