Rural Subsidies

margrace · January 18, 2008

There are always people out there who know exactly how others should run their lives, anyone who has had nothing to do with farming hasn't got a clue. Take milk production for instance. A family running an uptodate farm works 24 seven in the summer and 12 to 16 hours in the winter. If you don't believe this why don't you check some out.

Renegade · January 18, 2008

There are always people out there who know exactly how others should run their lives, anyone who has had nothing to do with farming hasn't got a clue. Take milk production for instance. A family running an uptodate farm works 24 seven in the summer and 12 to 16 hours in the winter. If you don't believe this why don't you check some out.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what is the relevance of a family that "works 24 seven in the summer and 12 to 16 hours in the winter" to the topic of subsidies?

Personally I'm all on board with a concept that says that we should not intefere with how others run their lives. Subsidies are a form of "interefernence" in people's lives.

Topaz · January 18, 2008

So are you claiming that rural consumers are not being subsidized?

Who are you talking about the farmers or non-farmers. Are saying the Federal gov't or the provincial? We know the Federal gov't does to certain groups.

Wilber · January 18, 2008

I posed a simple mental exercise. One that you are unwilling to participate in, because you know what the answer is.

The only thing simple about it is your inability to get past the word "free" and your idea of prosperity. Getting free stuff doesn't make you prosperous, it just makes you dependent on free stuff. It is the one who can afford to give it away who is prosperous.

No, I don't have to justifiy my own exitance, nor do I ask that any one else do so. However I do ask that when I and others are forcibly made to subsidize that there is justification for that subsidy. So far I havent' see it.

Yes you do if you maintain you are subsidizing others. If you want any kind of credibility you will have to demonstrate that you aren't sucking at the government tit in some fashion or that your own livelihood doesn't depend on those who do?

Getting back to foreign subsidies. Canada is an exporting country. Over 40% of our economy comes from exports. Some or our industries have to compete on the world market with goods that are subsidized. You would be content to see those industries disappear as long as you have access to those foreign subsidized goods. As long as someone, somewhere is subsidizing what you buy, you will never pay the real cost, but you don't really want to pay the real cost and that is where your hypocrisy lies. You aren't anti subsidy at all. You are quite happy with subsidies as long as someone else is doing it. No problem with the taxpayers of other jurisdictions insulating you from the real cost of those goods. You do want something for nothing.

Our provincial government just announced a 14 billion transit initiative for the Fraser Valley. It will probably cost a lot more by the time it is finished. For me that will mean higher property taxes. Probably higher fuel taxes and a vehicle levy to build the thing and finance its operation, even though I will have little use for it personally and will still need a car to access it when finished 12 years from now. Do I like the idea? Not so much but I'm sure the city folk will just love it. Is it necessary to prevent the third largest metropolitan area and the largest port in the country from falling into gridlock with the resulting damage to the regional and national economy? Probably.

I think you have a narrow view of the world and it is centered on you.

Renegade · January 19, 2008

The only thing simple about it is your inability to get past the word "free" and your idea of prosperity. Getting free stuff doesn't make you prosperous, it just makes you dependent on free stuff. It is the one who can afford to give it away who is prosperous.

Wow, great logic. I did not say that getting free stuff makes one prosperous, I asked if it made on MORE prosperous than before they received it. Substitute "wealthy" for prosperous if it helps you understand what I am saying because clearly you do not.

Since you seem to understand that only those who are prosperous can afford to give away free stuff, why are you so incapable of making the logical leap that when you give away free stuff you are giving away some your wealth?

Yes you do if you maintain you are subsidizing others. If you want any kind of credibility you will have to demonstrate that you aren't sucking at the government tit in some fashion or that your own livelihood doesn't depend on those who do?

Credibility from who, you? I couldn't give a damn if you assign me any credibility. It is irrelevant if I am the most indispensible person in Canada or I'm some unemployed chump on the street. What matters is the argument I present and if that argument is logical, rational and supported by evidence. Your attempts to goad me into providing personal information, so that you can mount personal attacks are laughable.

Getting back to foreign subsidies. Canada is an exporting country. Over 40% of our economy comes from exports. Some or our industries have to compete on the world market with goods that are subsidized. You would be content to see those industries disappear as long as you have access to those foreign subsidized goods. As long as someone, somewhere is subsidizing what you buy, you will never pay the real cost, but you don't really want to pay the real cost and that is where your hypocrisy lies. You aren't anti subsidy at all. You are quite happy with subsidies as long as someone else is doing it. No problem with the taxpayers of other jurisdictions insulating you from the real cost of those goods. You do want something for nothing.

No my position is absolutely consistent. I think subsidies are foolish, regardless if it is the Canadian government that provides those subsidies or some other government does so. The only real difference is that the Canadian government does so with my forcible participation. While I think that foreign government subsidies are foolish, why would I discourage them from their folly? On the world stage, they are competitors and we should take advantage of thieir folly. Indeed you are quite right, that I am quite happy that foreign governments want to subsidize goods that we have available to purchase. Good for us, bad for them. That is not at all hypocrisy, and in fact it is the only rational position.

Our provincial government just announced a 14 billion transit initiative for the Fraser Valley. It will probably cost a lot more by the time it is finished. For me that will mean higher property taxes. Probably higher fuel taxes and a vehicle levy to build the thing and finance its operation, even though I will have little use for it personally and will still need a car to access it when finished 12 years from now. Do I like the idea? Not so much but I'm sure the city folk will just love it. Is it necessary to prevent the third largest metropolitan area and the largest port in the country from falling into gridlock with the resulting damage to the regional and national economy? Probably.

You don't like the idea so much? Why not? According to you position, you should be overjoyed that the government is attempting (at least in your view) to prop the regional economny.

I think you have a narrow view of the world and it is centered on you.

I think you are only half-right. If you mean that I have a view centered on the individual, I would agree. I have a position which deplores subsidies, even those which would benefit myself, so it is not accurate to state that it is centered on "me".

As far as what you think, I don't lose any sleep over what you think.

Wilber · January 19, 2008

You don't like the idea so much? Why not? According to you position, you should be overjoyed that the government is attempting (at least in your view) to prop the regional economny

Doesn't do anything for me, why should I subsidize the GVRD's transit system. Just using your own logic. The point is, unless the load is spread, some things just won't get done. I understand that, you don't seem to. If you don't see a direct benefit to yourself, you figure you are subsidizing someone else.

Credibility from who, you? I couldn't give a damn if you assign me any credibility. It is irrelevant if I am the most indispensible person in Canada or I'm some unemployed chump on the street. What matters is the argument I present and if that argument is logical, rational and supported by evidence. Your attempts to goad me into providing personal information, so that you can mount personal attacks are laughable.

You are complaining about subsidizing someone else lifestyle. Prove that you are not the recipient of largess yourself or shut your cake hole. You have no credibility.

Wilber · January 19, 2008

Since you seem to understand that only those who are prosperous can afford to give away free stuff, why are you so incapable of making the logical leap that when you give away free stuff you are giving away some your wealth?

Depends why you are giving it away.

No my position is absolutely consistent. I think subsidies are foolish, regardless if it is the Canadian government that provides those subsidies or some other government does so. The only real difference is that the Canadian government does so with my forcible participation. While I think that foreign government subsidies are foolish, why would I discourage them from their folly? On the world stage, they are competitors and we should take advantage of thieir folly. Indeed you are quite right, that I am quite happy that foreign governments want to subsidize goods that we have available to purchase. Good for us, bad for them. That is not at all hypocrisy, and in fact it is the only rational position.

There is no we here. You wish to take of advantage of them and you don't care what it may cost someone else or the economy in general.

Renegade · January 19, 2008

Doesn't do anything for me, why should I subsidize the GVRD's transit system. Just using your own logic. The point is, unless the load is spread, some things just won't get done. I understand that, you don't seem to. If you don't see a direct benefit to yourself, you figure you are subsidizing someone else.

If you see no benefit, you are correct to object to its subsidization. If the load cannot be spread over the beneficiaries, then prehaps something shouldn't get done. Yes it is quite clear and apparent to everyone except you that subisides exists.

You are complaining about subsidizing someone else lifestyle. Prove that you are not the recipient of largess yourself or shut your cake hole. You have no credibility.

No, I am not complaining about ME subsidizing "someone else lifestyle". I complaining about a system which forces ANYONE to subsidize ANYONE else. I have no need to prove that I am not the recipient of largess any more than I have a need to prove that you ARE the recepient of largess to show you the holes in your argument. As I have said, I care little about your awarding me "credibility". And I'll keep the "cake hole" open and flowing if I so choose. As I have said you are free to ignore it, something you've promised to do in the past yet have been unable to deliver on.

Edited January 19, 2008 by Renegade

Renegade · January 19, 2008

There is no we here. You wish to take of advantage of them and you don't care what it may cost someone else or the economy in general.

Who is the "them" I wish to take advantage of? If you mean foreign governments foolish behaviour. Sure I'll take advantage of them, so should any other rational person. Logic, you refuse to acknowledge, shows that a subsidy is a transfer of wealth. I would encourage any individual to take advantage of the transfer to them by that foreign government and cumulatively we are wealthier.

Edited January 19, 2008 by Renegade

Wilber · January 20, 2008

No, I am not complaining about ME subsidizing "someone else lifestyle". I complaining about a system which forces ANYONE to subsidize ANYONE else. I have no need to prove that I am not the recipient of largess any more than I have a need to prove that you ARE the recepient of largess to show you the holes in your argument. As I have said, I care little about your awarding me "credibility". And I'll keep the "cake hole" open and flowing if I so choose. As I have said you are free to ignore it, something you've promised to do in the past yet have been unable to deliver on.

So it changed to all subsidies. Why then did you direct this thread at rural dwellers? Changing your tune somewhat.

BS. You started this thread on the premise that you were hard done by because you were subsidizing rural dwellers. Several have pointed out that rural tax dollars go toward things that only cities have to no avail. We have no way of knowing whether you are groveling at the public trough yourself but you feel free to accuse others of sponging off you. The mere fact you live in a city means nothing when it comes to how much you contribute to the public good or the livelihood of other citizens.

For years, for several consumer services, urban consumers have subsidized rural consumers. In most cases the cost of these services are cheaper to provide to urban consumers than to rural consumers, however urban consumers have been forced to subsidize the cost of providing those services to rural consumers.

Maybe you are correct and country folk have figured out a way to pick your pocket. Perhaps they are just a tad smarter than you city boys.

Renegade · January 20, 2008

So it changed to all subsidies. Why then did you direct this thread at rural dwellers? Changing your tune somewhat.
BS. You started this thread on the premise that you were hard done by because you were subsidizing rural dwellers. Several have pointed out that rural tax dollars go toward things that only cities have to no avail. We have no way of knowing whether you are groveling at the public trough yourself but you feel free to accuse others of sponging off you. The mere fact you live in a city means nothing when it comes to how much you contribute to the public good or the livelihood of other citizens.

Changed my tune? Hardly!! Perhaps you aren't actually reading my posts. Perhaps the subsidies are better applied to remedial reading classes in your area. To refresh your memory here is what I said on the FIRST page:

Virually all cases are unjustified.

As to why I started a thread specificly on rural subsidies. It is because I felt that a general thread on subsidies was too broad to discuss in one topic. I have repeatedly agreed that where subsidies go toward urban dwellers, that those too should be eliminated. If people aren't "sponging off" me, and in fact perhaps I am "sponging off" them, then my position should actually be AGAINST my self-interest, no? A system based on self-reliance makes much more sense then one sponging off each other.

Maybe you are correct and country folk have figured out a way to pick your pocket. Perhaps they are just a tad smarter than you city boys.

Yep, maybe they are, and now it's up to us po city folk to figure how to get our money back.

Edited January 20, 2008 by Renegade

Wilber · January 20, 2008

As to why I started a thread specificly on rural subsidies. It is because I felt that a general thread on subsidies was too broad to discuss in one topic.

Ya Right.

Renegade · January 20, 2008

Ya Right.

Thanks for conceding the point. You'll get my subsidy check in the mail.

Renegade · January 20, 2008

Who are you talking about the farmers or non-farmers.

Both.

Are saying the Federal gov't or the provincial? We know the Federal gov't does to certain groups.

In most cases the services I refer to are under Federal control.

Wilber · January 20, 2008

Thanks for conceding the point. You'll get my subsidy check in the mail.

The point was completely disingenuous.

Renegade · January 21, 2008

The point was completely disingenuous.

Unless you can read minds, you have no way of reading intent. If indeed you can read minds, might I suggest that your immense talents are being wasted on this humble forum.

Regardless, however insincere it was, I still thank you for the concession.

Wilber · January 21, 2008

Regardless, however insincere it was, I still thank you for the concession.

Suit yourself.

Renegade · January 21, 2008

Suit yourself.

I will. Thanks.

margrace · January 21, 2008

Renegade I have a question for you? Do you count road building as a subsidy? Most of the most expensive are rural. Such as the by pass to a small village in mid Ontario that cost 60 million dollars for 10 Ks.

Renegade · January 21, 2008

Renegade I have a question for you? Do you count road building as a subsidy? Most of the most expensive are rural. Such as the by pass to a small village in mid Ontario that cost 60 million dollars for 10 Ks.

I supposed it depends upon the road. It is a subsidy if the people who benefit are not the ones who bear the cost. There are not enough details in your example to determine if it is a subsidy or not.

Edited January 21, 2008 by Renegade

margrace · January 21, 2008

I supposed it depends upon the road. It is a subsidy if the people who benefit are not the ones who bear the cost. There are not enough details in your example to determine if it is a subsidy or not.

Its highway 11 north and there are places where there is no alternative road at all. It is the only road up or down between South River and Trout Creek above that there are other roads but they take you many miles out of your way.

Edited January 21, 2008 by margrace

Renegade · January 21, 2008

Its highway 11 north and there are places where there is no alternative road at all. It is the only road up or down between South River and Trout Creek above that there are other roads but they take you many miles out of your way.

I'm not familiar with that highway. In any case IMV the best way to allocate cost of a road (or any transportation system) is based upon usage. In the case of highway 11, users (if they payed based upon use of the highway) would have to determine if the additional cost was worth the time and expense saved over other routes.

Edited January 21, 2008 by Renegade

margrace · January 21, 2008

I'm not familiar with that highway. In any case IMV the best way to allocate cost of a road (or any transportation system) is based upon usage. In the case of highway 11, users (if they payed based upon use of the highway) would have to determine if the additional cost was worth the time and expense saved over other routes.

Where in the world do you live? There are only three highways from Southern Ontario to Northern Ontario. They are hundreds of K's apart.