gc1765

For traffic lights, my earlier (now crossed out) comments apply. Drivers should pay for them. For street lamps, everyone should pay because everyone uses it. Obviously it's impossible to say exactly how much each side should pay, especially for a hypothetical situation. But let me point out that I'm talking about an ideal situation where people would pay for what they use. That's not practical (we don't charge tolls for people walking down the sidewalk, which is paid for by taxpayers - but since we pretty much all use sidewalks, we all pay for them). But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards that goal. Making people who drive pay for the roads that they use, and the pollution that they cause is more practical (by charging a gas tax & carbon tax, respectively). It's not perfect, but I've yet to hear a better and more practical way for people to pay for what they use. I think this ties in to my points above.

If everyone walked, we wouldn't need streetlights. We need streetlights because people drive. Errr, are you talking about traffic lights or street lamps? I suppose we could quibble about the details, but I'd say if both sides benefit from the bridge, then both should pay for it.

I would say that the same logic applies to non-essential services, yes. That doesn't mean that we don't need a government.

It makes no difference whether I have children. We were all educated, and we all pay taxes. I guess they get screwed, no one ever said our system was perfect. Exactly, you shouldn't. The people who drive should (which is precisely what I was trying to argue). I'll throw in an exception. I believe that services which are "essential" should be paid for by the government for those who can not afford it. I would consider transportation to be essential. Polluting the environment more than the average person is not something I would consider essential. Hehe, I don't understand you. First you disagree with what I say, and then you say exactly what I was trying to argue for.

I'm asking for people to pay for what they use, if they can afford it. I pay income tax now to pay for education, because in the past I too was educated. I am simply paying for what I used, albeit a few years later.

What would make it different? It would mean that the people emitting CO2 and other pollution are paying to do so, rather than simply paying to build and maintain the roads that they are using. Alternatively, you could raise the fuel tax, but the point is that people who consume hydrocarbons should be paying for more than just roads.

No. Again, it doesn't matter if the gas tax goes the feds because other taxes go to building roads. This reminds me of the logic that the Bloc uses when claiming that a "fiscal imbalance" exists, not realizing that it's all the same money, just going through different hands. Or think of it this way: I deposit $20 into the bank. Someone else comes along and withdraws the $20 that I just put in. That doesn't mean he "took" my money, because I get that $20 back from someone else.

So then provide a rebate for the poor. If I remember correctly, this is what B.C. did.

If you are trying to say that the increased cost of goods and services will be passed on to the consumers in group 1, then you can't say that people in group 2 will have less money as well. I agree that the increased costs will be passed onto the consumers, however any increase in price is equally offset by a reduction in taxes (on average). Those who consume more products that require more energy to produce will pay more, but those who consume less will be better off. It's a zero-sum game. I disagree, though I'd rather not debate that right now. But keep in mind that CO2 is not the only product of combustion. Think of all the carcinogens that are being put into the air. Even if you don't think CO2 is a problem, I don't think anyone could argue that all of the other carcinogens are not a problem.

It doesn't matter whether it's the feds or the province that pays for it, it matters how much it costs, since we all pay in the end. If the province is paying for it, that means I'm paying to build roads through provincial taxes while the gas tax goes to the feds. Question is whether I am paying more provincial/municipal tax to build roads than what is transferred to the feds.

How many roads are there in B.C.? How much is a single project like twinning the port mann bridge going to cost (hopefully they will put in a toll)? I would be surprised if we spent less than $1 billion per year on roads in B.C.

It doesn't matter how much is transferred to the provinces, it matters how much money is spent building and maintaining roads.

Just because the government does something, does not mean that it's OK.

I respect your posts as well, but I disagree with you here. It's not about political correctness, it's about showing respect for others. I don't go around calling people that I respect "idiots" (and I suspect that you don't either)...not because I'm trying to be politically correct, but because it is derogatory.

My original comments were taking issue with the fact that you seemed to be implying that Natives shouldn't get any money at all for their land, but now it seems you acknowledge that we shouldn't ignore the treaties and that Natives should be compensated for their land. I'm not suggesting that Natives should be allowed to sell land that they have already sold, or that they should be entitled to 110% of the land. I'm simply saying that they deserve fair compensation and an "amicable solution for all". No one would argue with that, even if some people may disagree about the details of what is "fair". I'm sure that if the government took your land, you would be demanding compensation too.

What the heck are you talking about? Did you even read my posts? P.S. "Indian" is a derogatory term, and I'd appreciate it if you would not use it.

So, assuming that you own land (or pretending that you do), why do you think you have a claim to that land any more than anyone else, since you did not originate here either?

How is shifting taxation from income/business tax to a carbon tax going to cost trillions and trillions??

How much of that 10 cents per litre goes towards building new roads and maintaining them? Shouldn't the people who use the roads (i.e. the people buying gas) be paying for them, in addition to any tax on the carbon dioxide/pollution they emit?

What exactly do you mean by equal? I don't have as much land or money as most people, does that mean I'm not equal? The issue is not about race or colour, it is about who is the rightful owners of the land. If I came and squatted on your land, you would probably want me to leave, or at least demand compensation. That has nothing to do with the colour of your skin, but the fact that you own the land.

Nice signature...

What exactly did he say?

In that case, I'm sure you won't mind if I build a house on your front yard?

I don't think Cadman approached the Conservatives about a "bribe"...the fact that he refused the offer suggests that it was the Conservatives making the offer, and Cadman making the refusal.

I've argued this before, but I doubt the government subsidizes post-secondary education because most of the resources in a University go towards research. For example, the University pays the salary of a professor (and therefore is indirectly paid for by students), yet professors spend the majority of their time doing research.