Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Let's take a hypothetical situation here, and I'd like to read your thoughts on this:

My colleague and I earn the same income and so pay as much in income taxes. However, my colleague drives to work every day whereas I walk to work, so he's using the roads much more than I am, yet I'm still paying just as much in income tax, essentially subsidizing his lifestyle!

Would it not be more fair to lower our income taxes and introduce a gas tax instead so that he will pay proportionately more for the roads he uses?

This same colleague is on a Mc-diet, eating McDonald's and KFC, etc. on a regular basis, while I eat healthy. Why should I pay as much to wards public health care as he does? By doing so, am I not essentially subsidizing his unhealthy lifestyle at my expense? Would it not be more fair to tax unhealthy foods and lower income taxes to counterbalance that tax increase, so that he will pay proportionately more for healthcare in consideration of the fact that he's willingly increasing the chances of burdening the system via his unhealthy habits?

I don't see why this should be such a strange concept. After all, the same principle is applied to taxes on tobacco and alcohol products, whereby those who drink, smoke, etc. pay more taxes towards healthcare than the rest of us, as it ought to be. Why is this concept not extended to other vices? What incentive does the government provide me to use roads less or to care for my health if I know that no matter what I do, I'll still have to pay as much tax anyway?

I'm not against income taxes per se, and am certainly willing to pay some tax to help the less fortunate members of society. However, I still believe that some kind of incentive must be built into the tax system to promote more personal responsibility. To rely excessively on income tax to the exclusion of other taxes removes this incentive by ensuring that responsible taxpayers will pay just as much in taxes as less responsible ones earning the same income. How fair is that that one person could be hogging the roads and healthcare while the more socially conscious colleague is subsidizing it? It's only natural that the less socially aware colleague will simply think, 'hey, the government is paying for the roads and healthcare anyway, so might as well use those roads and enjoy my KFC', with little thought for the fact that his actions are burdening my income taxes.

Where is the justice in that, and how should we restructure the tax system to more accurately reflect how much one benefits from government services? And why is the right, in general at least, so opposed to such 'user-pay' tax systems, and are more in favour of everyone paying the same?

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)
My colleague and I earn the same income and so pay as much in income taxes. However, my colleague drives to work every day whereas I walk to work, so he's using the roads much more than I am, yet I'm still paying just as much in income tax, essentially subsidizing his lifestyle!
You benefit directly from the road subsidy in two ways:

1) You save a bundle on housing because there is less demand for housing within walking distance of your workplace.

2) The cost of goods and services you purchase are lower because of lower wage/tranportation costs.

I also think that road/transit subsidies enhance social mobility/reduce unemployment by giving people more choices for work. i.e. in a world where every driver/rider paid the true cost of transportation you would find people stuck in a catch-22 because they cannot afford to move and they cannot afford the transportation cost (by transit or by car).

This same colleague is on a Mc-diet, eating McDonald's and KFC, etc. on a regular basis, while I eat healthy.
A system where healthcare costs were assessed based on lifestyle choices would be incredibly expensive to maintain - and that assumes that you would be ok with the privacy violations that would be required to police people. The only practical option would be a user fee for services rendered based on whether the services were required by 'lifestyle choices' but then you get into a nasty problem of deciding what is a lifestyle choice. For example, sporting injuries, sexually transmitted diseases and pregnacies are almost always a lifestyle choice. Edited by Riverwind

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Posted

You benefit directly from the road subsidy in two ways:

1) You save a bundle on housing because there is less demand for housing within walking distance of your workplace.

Not necessarily. And even if true, it still doesn't change the fact that my colleague could also move closer to work to benefit from the lower housing costs, so why should I be subsidizing his road use?

2) The cost of goods and services you purchase are lower because of lower wage/tranportation costs.

Again, not necessarily. Let's say we work in a small town but he lives in the city? Not a likely scenario, granted, but it could happen. In such a case, I'd be close to the agricultural food supply, while he'd be purchasing food that's been transported a long distance.

Now for the sake of argument, let's say we both live in the same town. It still doesn't change the fact that I might be growing food in my backyard, or make an effort to buy more locally grown products, while he prefers to buy his food out of season, or exotic foods, etc. Certainly he's making more use of roads than I am. If taxes should be shifted from income to gas, at least to a reasonable degree, then that would automatically be factored in since the cost of transport would be added to the cost of the food product. How does income tax reflect this lifestyle choice?

I also think that road/transit subsidies enhance social mobility/reduce unemployment by giving people more choices for work. i.e. in a world where every driver/rider paid the true cost of transportation you would find people stuck in a catch-22 because they cannot afford to move and they cannot afford the transportation cost (by transit or by car).

Couldn't we solve that problem by simply increasing social assistance contributions to reflect the increased costs caused by such a tax shift? This way, on the one hand, the worker could afford the extra cost of the bus pass, etc. if he genuinely cannot find work near home; while on the other hand still giving him an incentive to work close to home if possible.

This would not necessarily involve an increase in overall taxes since the social assistance recipient would be paying some of that money back to the government in gas taxes anyway. What it would do though is ensure that we are not subsidizing the commutes of well-paid workers. After all, if you subsidize bus passes and pay for road construction exclusively from income taxes, the middle-class worker who lives next to work could very well be subsidizing the lifestyle of another middle class worker who chooses to live far from work. Simply increasing social assistance contributions would solve the problem you're referring to while avoiding the problem I'm referring to. Bingo, problem solved, with the poor man still able to find work farther afield if necessary while the rich man is not getting his roads and bus passes subsidized by other taxpayers. Why not deal with the root cause of problems through taxation rather than just the symptoms?

A system where healthcare costs were assessed based on lifestyle choices would be incredibly expensive to maintain - and that assumes that you would be ok with the privacy violations that would be required to police people. The only practical option would be a user fee for services rendered based on whether the services were required by 'lifestyle choices' but then you get into a nasty problem of deciding what is a lifestyle choice. For example, sporting injuries, sexually transmitted diseases and pregnacies are almost always a lifestyle choice.

I agree that we could never be exact on that, but we could still solve the more obvious ones easily enough. Obviously junk food is harmful, so a simple direct tax on it would be a reasonable means towards reducing my income taxes. A tax on equipment for dangerous sports (such as parachutes, mountaineering equipment, etc.) would be reasonable too to pay for search and rescue operations, etc.

As for sexually transmitted diseases, that's a little more difficult to tax, granted, but it could be partially solved though fines for proven cases of adultery. Certainly I wouldn't expect the police to spy, but when adultery is committed in a public space or in some other manner that can make the police cognizant of it without having to resort to espionage (which would mean the adultery would have to be committed quite indiscreetly, and thus most likely involving a fling or prostitution, the most likely sources of STD transmission), that could be one way of making those most likely to spread STDs to pay for their treatment. No, this would not be very exact since without espionage adultery would be committed discreetly without penalty. I also acknowledge that this might hurt the poor more than the rich since a rich adulterer is more likely to be able to find a place to commit adultery with discretion, whereas the poor are more likely to do so in a more public manner. However, this could be compensated for to some degree at least by waving the fine for those below a certain wealth ceiling. This would limit its effect drastically by limiting the fine essentially to middle and upper class adulterers who are stupid enough to do it in public, but it would still be better than nothing in terms of a user pay system, and would also send a symbolic message to the public that adultery costs money in terms of broken families, child services, health care for STDs mental health care for victims of broken families, etc. etc. etc. Cases of adultery proven in court cases, such as divorce cases, for example, could also not be exempt from the fine for adultery. In this case, seeing that the rich are more likely to have mistresses, they would likely be a source that would have to pay the fine, and so still lead to a reasonably user-pay system.

And as for pregnancies, that's a whole different ballgame. The birth of a child is an investment in society in that that child will eventually become a taxpayer. So why would we want to penalize a person for having a child? Yes it may cost more in taxes, but like I said, in this case it's in fact an investment.

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Posted

What I think is really unfair is the the Feds let people who take public transit a 15% cut in their taxes, well small towns and rural place don't usually have public transit so were is our 15% cut? How about 15% off our gas?

Posted
Not necessarily. And even if true, it still doesn't change the fact that my colleague could also move closer to work to benefit from the lower housing costs, so why should I be subsidizing his road use?
You missed the point entirely. A subsidized road system allows people to live further from work that they would otherwise do. This, in turn, reduces demand for housing in central locations. Remove the subsidies and housing costs in central locations will go up as demand increases. If you live in a central location today then you are benefiting from lower housing costs as a result of the road subsidy. Take the road subsidy away and your housing costs will go up.
Not a likely scenario, granted, but it could happen.
Implausible scenarios are not relevant. The general case is cities need to have goods delivered and they need a pool of relatively low paid service workers. The road subsidies reduce the cost of goods and services which the city dwellers use.
Now for the sake of argument, let's say we both live in the same town.
Rural areas depend on relatively unused roads to connect them to the cities. Manyy rural communities could not survive if they were required to pay the cost of those roads.
This way, on the one hand, the worker could afford the extra cost of the bus pass, etc. if he genuinely cannot find work near home; while on the other hand still giving him an incentive to work close to home if possible.
Cash handouts to individuals based on need are invariably bad policy because it results in a punative tax rate if people take a job that pushes them over whatever limit is set to determine eligibility. It makes much more sense to subsidize the roads/transit directly.
And as for pregnancies, that's a whole different ballgame. The birth of a child is an investment in society in that that child will eventually become a taxpayer.
That is your opinion. If we need taxpayers we let in more immigrants. No need for us to pay the cost of pregnancies and by arguing for those costs to be paid for you have just demonstrated why there is no absolute standard for determining what is a 'lifestyle choice' and that is why it has no place in healthcare policy.

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Posted (edited)
This same colleague is on a Mc-diet, eating McDonald's and KFC, etc. on a regular basis, while I eat healthy. Why should I pay as much to wards public health care as he does?
It sounds like your colleague will die an early death and never collect a cent in CPP. That's a huge benefit for you who will likely have a long and healthy retirement.

In the same sense, I am thankful of cigarette smokers. On average, the CPP is a losing proposition for them.

[bTW, since women live on average almost five years longer than men, CPP/OAS etc represents a significant transfer. Machjo, are you a woman or a man? What about your colleague?]

Edited by August1991
Posted

What I think is really unfair is the the Feds let people who take public transit a 15% cut in their taxes, well small towns and rural place don't usually have public transit so were is our 15% cut? How about 15% off our gas?

As for cutting government subsidies to public transit, I'm all for that. A gas tax accompanied by a reduction in income taxes would give me all the money I need to pay for the more expensive bus pass. And if I'm unemployed, then just give me more social assistance to compensate. This would encourage me to find work near home if possible and also to buy local foods if at all possible, thus reducing wear and tear on the roads.

As for your cut, well, if you're living far from work, then that's a lifestyle choice you've made. Two options I could see there are:

1. You pay more taxes owing to the gas tax to compensate, or

2. You buy a car with better shock absorbers and you ask the government to stop building and maintaining so many roads out where so few people use them. Why should I subsidize the roads to your place just so you can enjoy the country?

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Posted

You missed the point entirely. A subsidized road system allows people to live further from work that they would otherwise do. This, in turn, reduces demand for housing in central locations. Remove the subsidies and housing costs in central locations will go up as demand increases. If you live in a central location today then you are benefiting from lower housing costs as a result of the road subsidy. Take the road subsidy away and your housing costs will go up.

Well, if we think of it as a user-pay system, then that means government is keeping city housing prices artificially low. So please, cut the subsidies and let me deal with the fallout on my own. Remember, my income taxes would be lower too to compensate. And even if my housing becomes unaffordable, then I'd be forced to make a decision between moving out to cheaper housing in the suburbs and pay more gas tax or pay more rent or mortgage and stay in town. Either way though, at least I wouldn't e benefiting unfairly from other people's lifestyle choices nor would they be benefitting unfairly from mine.

Implausible scenarios are not relevant. The general case is cities need to have goods delivered and they need a pool of relatively low paid service workers. The road subsidies reduce the cost of goods and services which the city dwellers use.

So in other words, the income taxes farmers pay are subsidizing the food of inner-city dwellers so they can live near shopping, theatres, etc.? How fair is that?

So in other words, cut that subsidy, and food prices in the inner city would increase. Farmers would pay less income taxes though, and so would city dwellers, so that would compensate to some degree. If they play their cards right and focus on local markets, they might find costs drop. If they stick to exotic and out-of-season foods, they might find costs increase. But that is their choice after all. Or some farmers might decided that it's profitable to move closer to town even if the real estate is more expensive. Or some city dwellers might consider finding work in smaller towns. Essentially, this would encourage people of their own initiative to promote more efficient urban infrastructures and lifestyles. When John is subsidizing Jill's lifestyle, how can she be aware of how much she's costing him. In fact, since John is not always aware of where his money goes, he himself might not be aware he's subsidizing Jill's lifestyle and just wondering why he gets so little out of his tax dollars.

Rural areas depend on relatively unused roads to connect them to the cities. Manyy rural communities could not survive if they were required to pay the cost of those roads.

My point exactly. This would encourage these rural communities to either move closer to the cities, or to encourage more city dwellers to move to the town and set up businesses there. Why should I subsidize someone else's choice to live out where transport is so inefficient? Do I have the right to move out to the middle of nowhere and then insist that the government build one long road for me into town so I can get to work?

Cash handouts to individuals based on need are invariably bad policy because it results in a punative tax rate if people take a job that pushes them over whatever limit is set to determine eligibility. It makes much more sense to subsidize the roads/transit directly.

I totally disagree here. One simple solution to what you're talking about here is to calculate the eligibility along a mathematical curve, so that an unemployed person getting a job does not get cut off assistance automatically but rather receives assistance in proportion to his need. So if he can be partially self-sufficient, he still receives assistance, just to a slightly lesser degree, and calculated to still benefit him more than if he stops working. That, by the way, is already in place in Ontario.

If you subsidize public transit directly, then it gives a false impression of the real cost of public transit. If you give assistance directly to the people in need and they have to pay market price for the bus ticket, then they have a clearer idea of its real costs. If we subsidize public transit directly, we're encouraging people to move out into the suburbs to enjoy the quiet life on the backs of the urbanites who are unfairly subsidizing it but not benefiting from it in any way.

If we give the assistance directly to the person in need, then we can be sure that the really needy still have enough money to pay for their bus pass to find work, yet still not subsidizing the middle class that might be counting on bus subsidies to enjoy the suburban lifestyle.

That is your opinion. If we need taxpayers we let in more immigrants. No need for us to pay the cost of pregnancies and by arguing for those costs to be paid for you have just demonstrated why there is no absolute standard for determining what is a 'lifestyle choice' and that is why it has no place in healthcare policy.

I'm pro-immigration myself, with a few restrictions. However, I don't believe we can survive on immigration alone. Imagine if every country relied on immigration. What country would be providing the births?

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Posted

It sounds like your colleague will die an early death and never collect a cent in CPP. That's a huge benefit for you who will likely have a long and healthy retirement.

In the same sense, I am thankful of cigarette smokers. On average, the CPP is a losing proposition for them.

Good point to a degree. But what about the non-smoker who dies of lung cancer owing to the smoking spouse? Or what about the urban asthmatic suffering from the exhaust fumes to which the suburbanites are more than willing to contribute to the urban environment?

[bTW, since women live on average almost five years longer than men, CPP/OAS etc represents a significant transfer. Machjo, are you a woman or a man? What about your colleague?]

I'm a man. As for women living longer than men, I'm willing to put up with some transfer to them on the grounds that they do provide the next generation. Now you could argue that just because a woman is a woman it doesn't mean she'll have any children. Or just because a man is a man, it doesn't mean he can't adopt a child. You do raise a valid point here and I'd need to think about it more. If it is a serious issue, then I suppose we could go towards mandatory personal retirement savings with each keeping his own money. One argument in favour of women living longer than men though is that it's not owing to any lifestyle choice. It's not their fault they live longer. There's a difference between that and a smoker/drinker/driver, etc.

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Posted (edited)

Let's take a hypothetical situation here, and I'd like to read your thoughts on this:

I quickly scanned the thread and the question remains, "Why do you pay as much as your colleague in taxes?" The answer is that the taxes are are not collected fairly and equitably and neither are they spent fairly and equitably. They are designed to benefit one group over another. You yourself say you don't mind taxes benefiting the "poor". The system assumes since you are walking you are poorer than your friend who is driving. He pays gas taxes and you don't. Income tax has a base in income but credits differ from individual to individual. The bus rider gates his credit for buying bus passes these days. The car driver pays taxes to buy and drive his car but not out of his income tax, you are in the middle. Although the car driver is taxed not from his income he is still paying more overall in taxes than yourself. If you want an advantage you should take the bus. But then you would perhaps not be as healthy which begs the question, "Should we tax those that take the bus or drive to pay more for health care?"

It gets ridiculous to consider your tax and your benefits should be equal to everyone elses tax and benefits when you yourself know that taxes will benefit a collective group over another collective group. If you want it to be equal then why bother taxing for social benefit at all, especially at the federal level where equality becomes entirely impossible.

Riverwind brings up some good points in an attempt to bring a concept of equality to taxation but if the government is going to be involved in social engineering neither the taxation nor the benefits will be equal. Just the way you wanted it so I really have to ask why you are even concerned with perceived "inequalities" when it is all about making things equal!

My colleague and I earn the same income and so pay as much in income taxes. However, my colleague drives to work every day whereas I walk to work, so he's using the roads much more than I am, yet I'm still paying just as much in income tax, essentially subsidizing his lifestyle!

Would it not be more fair to lower our income taxes and introduce a gas tax instead so that he will pay proportionately more for the roads he uses?

This same colleague is on a Mc-diet, eating McDonald's and KFC, etc. on a regular basis, while I eat healthy. Why should I pay as much to wards public health care as he does? By doing so, am I not essentially subsidizing his unhealthy lifestyle at my expense? Would it not be more fair to tax unhealthy foods and lower income taxes to counterbalance that tax increase, so that he will pay proportionately more for healthcare in consideration of the fact that he's willingly increasing the chances of burdening the system via his unhealthy habits?

I don't see why this should be such a strange concept. After all, the same principle is applied to taxes on tobacco and alcohol products, whereby those who drink, smoke, etc. pay more taxes towards healthcare than the rest of us, as it ought to be. Why is this concept not extended to other vices? What incentive does the government provide me to use roads less or to care for my health if I know that no matter what I do, I'll still have to pay as much tax anyway?

I'm not against income taxes per se, and am certainly willing to pay some tax to help the less fortunate members of society. However, I still believe that some kind of incentive must be built into the tax system to promote more personal responsibility. To rely excessively on income tax to the exclusion of other taxes removes this incentive by ensuring that responsible taxpayers will pay just as much in taxes as less responsible ones earning the same income. How fair is that that one person could be hogging the roads and healthcare while the more socially conscious colleague is subsidizing it? It's only natural that the less socially aware colleague will simply think, 'hey, the government is paying for the roads and healthcare anyway, so might as well use those roads and enjoy my KFC', with little thought for the fact that his actions are burdening my income taxes.

Where is the justice in that, and how should we restructure the tax system to more accurately reflect how much one benefits from government services? And why is the right, in general at least, so opposed to such 'user-pay' tax systems, and are more in favour of everyone paying the same?

I guess the right is against user-pay systems because whenthe government strated their programs it was supposed to be a benefit to all? A user pay system is a reversion and a loss of benefit that should be provided equally to all. Not only are they paying the taxes for the benefit that others who are not paying but now they are being asked to pay a user fee?

Edited by Pliny

I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.

Posted (edited)
Well, if we think of it as a user-pay system, then that means government is keeping city housing prices artificially low.
We already have an affordable housing problem in our cities and you want to make it worse by messing with the transportation system? It makes no sense.
So in other words, the income taxes farmers pay are subsidizing the food of inner-city dwellers so they can live near shopping, theatres, etc.? How fair is that?
Completely fair considering farmers benefit by being able to sell their product to city dwellers. Higher transportation costs would reduce demand.
I totally disagree here. One simple solution to what you're talking about here is to calculate the eligibility along a mathematical curve, so that an unemployed person getting a job does not get cut off assistance automatically but rather receives assistance in proportion to his need.
Why should the poor get any subsidy in your world? User pay means user pay not matter what your income levels. There is nothing fair about a system where only 10-20% of the users pay the full cost because they happen to have an income above the subsidy thresold. It is kind of hard to make an argument based on principal when you are willing to discard it at the first opportunity.
I'm pro-immigration myself, with a few restrictions. However, I don't believe we can survive on immigration alone. Imagine if every country relied on immigration. What country would be providing the births?
There is no lack of people in the world that would fill our need for taxpayers. In any case, you missed the point: any system that attempts to penalize people for lifestyle choices is a system that would impose the values of one group of people in another and that system would only be acceptable to the people that get to do the imposing. Here is a more blunt example: according to your logic any woman who does not abort a child with down syndrome should be expected to pick up the entire cost of the additional services required to support that child since it is her (irresponsible) choice that brought the child into the world. I realize you will resort to special pleading to justify an exception in this case but by doing so you discard all of the principals that you claim are important. Edited by Riverwind

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Posted (edited)
I'm a man. As for women living longer than men, I'm willing to put up with some transfer to them on the grounds that they do provide the next generation.
And men don't provide the next generation?

My understanding of biology is that men play a critical role in human reproduction.

If it is a serious issue, then I suppose we could go towards mandatory personal retirement savings with each keeping his own money. One argument in favour of women living longer than men though is that it's not owing to any lifestyle choice. It's not their fault they live longer. There's a difference between that and a smoker/drinker/driver, etc.
Mandatory personal retirement savings?

It's not their fault they live longer.

Wow!

It's not my fault that I'm short, ugly, dark-eyed and bald. (What meagre hair I have is brown, not blonde). It's not my fault that I'm dark-skinned. I'm also fat and stupid but I suppose that you can blame me for being fat and stupid. If I try, I can lose weight and I can also learn. I'm sorry for the crooked teeth. I inherited them and my parents couldn't afford an orthodontist.

So Machjo, should we transfer money to short ugly brown-eyed bald people with crooked teeth? It's not their fault.

Then again, following your logic, if women live longer than men, it seems to me that women should pay higher CPP premiums.

---

Nevertheless, machjo, I like your approach. The State needs money and the criteria of a tax policy should be based on how difficult it is to avoid the tax. I suspect that most men would pay a "male" tax rather than go through the costly process to avoid it.

Edited by August1991
Posted

I quickly scanned the thread and the question remains, "Why do you pay as much as your colleague in taxes?" The answer is that the taxes are are not collected fairly and equitably and neither are they spent fairly and equitably. They are designed to benefit one group over another. You yourself say you don't mind taxes benefiting the "poor". The system assumes since you are walking you are poorer than your friend who is driving.

And that's the problem. The system should not make such assumptions. Sure it might be fair for me to pay some income tax to help the poor, but the poor also have a responsibility to use that money responsibly to help give them a hand up. If I'm paying my taxes and choosing to live healthy, live near work, etc., while a person on social assistance decides he needs a car, I see an issue there. Now, if there is some special reason he needs a car, fair enough, maybe persons with disabilities or other special circumstances could get some kind of government tax credit to compensate for the higher cost of gas and certain goods. However, while it might be reasonable for some of my income tax to help the poor, or education, or other things everyone should benefit from equally, things that not all benefit from equally should be taxed not on income but rather a more user-pay system. Roads are one such example. Not everyone benefit equally from roads, so those who benefit more from them should pay more for them too. There needs to be some social responsibility built into the tax system.

He pays gas taxes and you don't.

Not exactly. I might pay gas tax indirectly as it would have been calculated into the transportation cost of foods and other products.The cost of a bus pas would likely go up too since it would not longer be subsidized and the bus company would have to pay gas tax too.

The difference though is that the one who decides to buy a hummer and live across town from work will pay proportionately more gas tax than I. In other words, the more you use the roads,the more you pay. The less you use them, the less you pay. If you're living in town, even if you walk to work, you're still making use of roads to get your goods to you whether you're aware of it or not. The difference is that you're using them less, and so you pay less.

Income tax has a base in income but credits differ from individual to individual. The bus rider gates his credit for buying bus passes these days. The car driver pays taxes to buy and drive his car but not out of his income tax, you are in the middle. Although the car driver is taxed not from his income he is still paying more overall in taxes than yourself. If you want an advantage you should take the bus. But then you would perhaps not be as healthy which begs the question, "Should we tax those that take the bus or drive to pay more for health care?"

Why would I not be as healthy for taking the bus? And what if I walk or cycle to work?

It gets ridiculous to consider your tax and your benefits should be equal to everyone elses tax and benefits when you yourself know that taxes will benefit a collective group over another collective group. If you want it to be equal then why bother taxing for social benefit at all, especially at the federal level where equality becomes entirely impossible.

I don't quite understand what you're saying here.

I guess the right is against user-pay systems because whenthe government strated their programs it was supposed to be a benefit to all? A user pay system is a reversion and a loss of benefit that should be provided equally to all. Not only are they paying the taxes for the benefit that others who are not paying but now they are being asked to pay a user fee?

In the case of roads, yes, all benefit, but certainly not equally. The hummer driver living in the suburbs and working in town is certainly benefiting a lot more than the asthmatic city dweller (who likely seldom uses his car except on the odd occasion to go camping) living near a major highway into town used mainly by suburbanites.

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Posted

We already have an affordable housing problem in our cities and you want to make it worse by messing with the transportation system? It makes no sense.

The market would adjust. If housing becomes too expensive in town, that makes it profitable for a company to build more housing in town. With more people moving out of town and into the suburbs, and also preferring to shop near home, the suburbs would start to develop their own central business districts independently of the downtown core. As downtown businesses start to suffer, they'd start moving into the suburbs. So inner city housing prices would go up while suburban housing prices would go down. Inner city commercial real estate would go down while suburban commercial real estate would go up. Local governments would react to this through new zoning rules. As a result, much inner city commercial real estate would be converted into residential, while some suburban residential real estate would be converted into commercial. As this process continues, housing prices would gradually readjust to the demand. As a result, any such increase in housing costs would be temporary. Add to that that with a more efficiently restructured urban environment, and more people able to walk or cycle to work, governments would spend less on roads, leading to overall tax reductions. So in the end, with reduced government spending on roads, and thus less taxes overall, we'd all come out on top.

Completely fair considering farmers benefit by being able to sell their product to city dwellers. Higher transportation costs would reduce demand.

So then why not let the farmer pay for the roads he's using and then add the price into the product? If that happened, the farmer living near town would have an advantage over the farmer living farther afield. And the urban dweller living near a farm would have an advantage over the others.This would obviously shift real estate values, with urban agricultural lands increasing in value while commercial, residential and other real estate in small towns would go up too. Again, it would be promoting a healthier mix in the cities, forcing each of us through our actions to be more responsible in how we use urban infrastructure, thus making it more efficient. How can we do that when we don't know the real cost of it?

Why should the poor get any subsidy in your world?

My apologies if I have a humanitarian streak. I don't see things n black and white none-the-less. Certainly there is a ceiling below which a person might need help. That does not change the fact that for the rest of us, we need to create a system that encourages more personal responsibility in the use of urban infrastructure, health care, etc.

User pay means user pay not matter what your income levels. There is nothing fair about a system where only 10-20% of the users pay the full cost because they happen to have an income above the subsidy thresold. It is kind of hard to make an argument based on principal when you are willing to discard it at the first opportunity.

And where did you get that statistic? The majority of us are taxpayers. Again, you seem to be looking at things in black and white, either all taxes must be based on income or all user pay. I believe a balance could be reached whereby we could still keep a minimal income tax to help the poor, education, and other services that benefit all more equally. But for everything else, it ought to be either privatized or at least shifted towards a more user-pay system.

There is no lack of people in the world that would fill our need for taxpayers. In any case, you missed the point: any system that attempts to penalize people for lifestyle choices is a system that would impose the values of one group of people in another and that system would only be acceptable to the people that get to do the imposing.

Fine. Then a simple solution is for the government to put cut spending to the bone and let people organize themselves to build their own roads and privatize healthcare too. I'm undecided as to whether I prefer privatized healthcare over medicare. But I am decided that if it's going to be medicare, then the taxes for it ought to be more user-pay.

Here is a more blunt example: according to your logic any woman who does not abort a child with down syndrome should be expected to pick up the entire cost of the additional services required to support that child since it is her (irresponsible) choice that brought the child into the world.

Then you misunderstood my logic. It was based on irresponsible choices such as smoking, drinking, eating junk food, buying a house far, far away from work, etc. Choosing to keep a child with down syndrome is simply a compassionate act. She did not choose for that child to have down syndrome. A person chooses to drink, smoke, buy a house far from work, etc. A person does not choose to have a baby with down syndrome. You do recognize the difference between choice vs things beyond our control, do you not?

Again, I'd have no issue with my income taxes going towards helping a child with down syndrome, or educating the population, etc. My issue is with self-inflicted problems. For those, either we privatize altogether or we make the tax more user pay, but certainly those things should not be paid for through income taxes.

I realize you will resort to special pleading to justify an exception in this case but by doing so you discard all of the principals that you claim are important.

If you're referring to helping the poor and most destitute, fine. If you insist on an all or nothing approach, then I'd choose to abandon the poor and go totally user pay. My reason for this is that it would promote more efficient structures owing to individual decisions aimed at avoiding taxes. This increased efficiency of government services and urban infrastructure would save us all money, leaving each individual with more money to give to charity of his own free will as he pleases. Right now, we have less money to give to charity since it's all going towards subsidizing people's hummer-driving habits.

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Posted

Its cheaper to live in the rural areas and most people who do are mostly farmer's. They get to write off their gas,hydro, electricity, which is cheaper rate than people in town or city to start with, their machinery, their buidlings and one rule never show a profit! There are people that live in rural areas that don't get the benefits as farmer's. My thing was why the Tories give a tax cut to people mostly in the cities only. Why didn't he just have it that it was a 15% cut for transportation cost which included people who HAVE to drive to work?

Posted

Its cheaper to live in the rural areas and most people who do are mostly farmer's. They get to write off their gas,hydro, electricity, which is cheaper rate than people in town or city to start with, their machinery, their buidlings and one rule never show a profit! There are people that live in rural areas that don't get the benefits as farmer's. My thing was why the Tories give a tax cut to people mostly in the cities only. Why didn't he just have it that it was a 15% cut for transportation cost which included people who HAVE to drive to work?

OK, if a person can prove that he needs to drive to work to survive, since he can find no other work, and his salary is pushing him below the poverty line owing to the rise in the gas tax, then I could see some kind of credit being given to him like the GST tax credit some people get. These would be reserved for exceptional circumstances though. For those who can afford to find work near home or to move near work, then let them do so and compensate by reducing spending on infrastructures, thus allowing the government to lower overall taxes eventually as the transportation infrastructure becomes increasingly efficient owing to more people living near work.

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Posted (edited)
That does not change the fact that for the rest of us, we need to create a system that encourages more personal responsibility in the use of urban infrastructure, health care, etc.
If you want to use the market to encourage efficient allocation of resources then you need to require that the majority of partipants actually use the market. The system you proposed only forces people who can 'afford it' to use the market because a large segment of the population would be given cash to offset the costs. This defeats the entire purpose.
And where did you get that statistic? The majority of us are taxpayers. Again, you seem to be looking at things in black and white, either all taxes must be based on income or all user pay.
You said in a previous post that a transportation subsidy would be graduated to avoid discouraging people from seeking work. Current programs such as the GST rebate only go to 0 for families with income above 60K so that is a useful reference point and I guessimated that only 10-20% people have incomes above that level.
Then you misunderstood my logic. It was based on irresponsible choices such as smoking, drinking, eating junk food, buying a house far, far away from work, etc. Choosing to keep a child with down syndrome is simply a compassionate act. She did not choose for that child to have down syndrome.
Compassionate? Only in your mind. Last time I checked women have the right to choose in Canada and the right to choose means is they are also responsible for their choices. It is possible to detect most cases of down syndrome today so carrying a child with down syndrome to term is as irresponsible as smoking or bad eating habits.
If you're referring to helping the poor and most destitute, fine. If you insist on an all or nothing approach.
I am saying the current system of publically subsidized transportation networks and fault-free healthcare is much more efficient than your 'user pay with exemptions whenever you feel like it' approach. Edited by Riverwind

To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.

Posted (edited)
My point exactly. This would encourage these rural communities to either move closer to the cities, or to encourage more city dwellers to move to the town and set up businesses there. Why should I subsidize someone else's choice to live out where transport is so inefficient? Do I have the right to move out to the middle of nowhere and then insist that the government build one long road for me into town so I can get to work?

Are you one of these people who think food comes from a store?

Edited by Wilber

"Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC

Posted

Are you one of these people who think food comes from a store?

What in my posts make you think that. If anything, I would have though that they revealed an awareness that food is not produced in stores, but rather farther afield, and that brining people and food closer together would reduce the distance between them. Unless I misunderstood something?

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Posted

What in my posts make you think that. If anything, I would have though that they revealed an awareness that food is not produced in stores, but rather farther afield, and that brining people and food closer together would reduce the distance between them. Unless I misunderstood something?

I ask because you seem to think you should only pay the cost of the fuel to get you your food and anything else you need and not the infrastructure it takes to get it there. To me you are just someone who wants something for nothing.

"Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC

Posted

I ask because you seem to think you should only pay the cost of the fuel to get you your food and anything else you need and not the infrastructure it takes to get it there. To me you are just someone who wants something for nothing.

On the contrary. We pay for the fuel already at the regular market price, so clearly proposing a tax shift from income to gas has nothing to do with paying for the gas which I'm paying already, regardless of whether I drive or not. After all, the cost of that is already included in the price. That means that a gas tax would force me to pay for more than just the cost of the gas. The idea here is that instead of my income tax paying for transportation infrastructure such as road construction, etc. it would be my gas tax. Again, even if I don't drive and choose to walk to work, i'd still be paying this tax as it would have to be calculated into the new overhead costs of the farmer.

I don't understand what you mean when you say I wouldn't have to pay anything if we had a gas tax. Of course I would. The difference though is that with an income tax, I pay as much no matter what I do. With a gas tax, it depends on what I buy. If I buy locally, I make less use of highways and so pay less (though still pay my part for the road use I have contributed to), while if you decide to buy from across the country, you'll pay much more gas tax as you should since you're contributing to traffic at airports and whatnot.

Did I miss something here?

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Posted

I don't understand what you mean when you say I wouldn't have to pay anything if we had a gas tax. Of course I would. The difference though is that with an income tax, I pay as much no matter what I do. With a gas tax, it depends on what I buy. If I buy locally, I make less use of highways and so pay less (though still pay my part for the road use I have contributed to), while if you decide to buy from across the country, you'll pay much more gas tax as you should since you're contributing to traffic at airports and whatnot.

Did I miss something here?

Buy locally? How many farms do you have in your neighbourhood? Do they produce food in the winter? How much of what you consume is produced locally?

"Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC

Posted

Buy locally? How many farms do you have in your neighbourhood? Do they produce food in the winter? How much of what you consume is produced locally?

No, there are not many farms where I live. A shift from an income tax to a gas tax would make that more obvious. Right now, we pay high income taxes without really being aware of the cost of all the infrastructure to get our food to us. If let's say my income tax drops low and my gas tax shoots up, suddenly I become aware of just how expensive that highway maintenance is. With an income tax, I have no incentive to try to alleviate that cost since no matter what I do, I'll still have to pay it. With a gas tax, suddenly I might become more attracted to foods produced closer by. When farmers living far the city suddenly realize that we prefer buying food more cheaply from farmers living closer by who don't have to spend so much on gas tax because they have less far to travel, those farmers will suddenly want to move closer to town too. Then, maybe there will be more farms close by. Also, food prices in small towns would likely plummet since farms would be just on the outskirts, and so that might make those towns attractive, first for retirees since they have no jobs to go to, and then businessmen following the retiree market. As they move out of town to reach for cheaper food, farmers would be taking over some of that residential land in the suburbs. So essentially we'd be seeing a gradual decline of the suburb as agricultural lands begin to reclaim it and suburbanites move either into the city centre to be close to work to save on gas commuting to work, or to the small towns to find work to benefit from lower food prices. Over time, both would benefit. The one moving into the inner city would find that as more farms relocate into what were once suburbs, food prices would drop in the cities. And the one who'd relocated into a small town could find a place to live near work. So essentially, suburbs would tend towards disappearance and agriculturalization, cities would gradually transform into mid-sized towns with an efficiently high populaiton density, and villages would grow into such towns. A gas tax would naturally incite people towards more efficiency.

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Posted

As for seasonality, I suppose I'd have no choice but to pay more in winter, or I could increase my consumption of dried foods. But again, unlike with income tax, the choice is mine with a gas tax. With an income tax, there is not action I could take (other than lower my income) that could allow me to pay less tax. With a gas tax, I do have the option of buying products that have used less gas and so are less expensive. At least unlike an income tax, the choice is mine.

Are you against choice?

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Posted

As for seasonality, I suppose I'd have no choice but to pay more in winter, or I could increase my consumption of dried foods. But again, unlike with income tax, the choice is mine with a gas tax. With an income tax, there is not action I could take (other than lower my income) that could allow me to pay less tax. With a gas tax, I do have the option of buying products that have used less gas and so are less expensive. At least unlike an income tax, the choice is mine.

Are you against choice?

I'm not refering to just food but everything you consume. Why don't you move closer to the things you consume instead of expecting someone else to bring them to you.

"Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,819
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nibu
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Community Regular
    • paradox34 earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Experienced
    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Contributor
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...