Jump to content

Why do my colleague and I pay as much in taxes?


Machjo

Recommended Posts

Then we need to distinguish between need for roads and need for additional roads. for example, imagine John dirves an hour to work every day, and Jack drives for three hours once a years to go to another city. On the one hand, John uses less roadway than Jak, but Jack uses less mileage per year than John. As a result, Jack is not likely to contribute to the need for another parallel highway to get to that city since plenty of people can use that same road if they all use it so infrequently. As for John, he would contribute to the need for another parallel road to alleviate the daily traffic he's contributing to. With a gas tax (or perhaps if there was a way to privatize the roads), then it's more likely that John would choose to reduce his road use.

Same applies to bananas and apples. If John eats apples all the time and John eats bananas all the time, who's contributing the msot to the need for an additional airport runway for the banana flights? Certainly a gas tax would be added as an overhead cost to the bananas. While food generally is an essential item, bananas specifically are not.

Again, government should cater to social necessities, not luxuries.

Again, you don't seem to get that your personal use of roads has very little to do with your need for a road. You think everything should be user pay. OK, I'll give you an example. You live in a city that has no roads leading into it because you don't want to pay for them because you don't use them. You need to eat so I being a producer of food stuffs build a road into your city to supply you. It's my road so only my stuff travels on it and you will pay the price I demand or go without. If you want to use my road, you will pay me what I want in order to use it but it won't do you much good because it only goes to my place of business.

Cities aren't self sufficient little islands that can pull a blanket over their heads and ignore the rest of the world. They need to provide a competitive environment for people to do business and affordable living for the people who work there. If they don't, business and people will go somewhere that has.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Again, you don't seem to get that your personal use of roads has very little to do with your need for a road. You think everything should be user pay. OK, I'll give you an example. You live in a city that has no roads leading into it because you don't want to pay for them because you don't use them. You need to eat so I being a producer of food stuffs build a road into your city to supply you. It's my road so only my stuff travels on it and you will pay the price I demand or go without. If you want to use my road, you will pay me what I want in order to use it but it won't do you much good because it only goes to my place of business.

Cities aren't self sufficient little islands that can pull a blanket over their heads and ignore the rest of the world. They need to provide a competitive environment for people to do business and affordable living for the people who work there. If they don't, business and people will go somewhere that has.

Thank you for the good example. Now aside from the question of whether the company would own only the road or also the land on which it's built, I think, depending on the details, such an idea could work to a degree. First off, if I understand you correctly, the more I'd use that road the company built, the more I'd pay the toll fee. If so, that could work in relating actual use to cost. Also, I'd assume that companies would rather share a road rather than each build their own in order to save at least some money, for self interest. On that front, I'd take it that if the companies should have to pay for the road maintenance, they'd add that as part of the overhead costs of their products, meaning that the more I buy their products, the more I'd pay for the maintenance of those roads. If so, I think that would be fair enough, and in the end your example comes close to my proposal interestingly enough.

Now, honestly, I'm hesitant about privatising any kind of communications network (which includes roads, etc.), however, I won't say I'm totally against the idea. I could see the government regulating the use of roads but privatising them otherwise. I coudl also see ineffieciencies in this too, but it's something worth considering to make people think more about their road use for example. Alternatively, we tax resources as a means of achieving a similar goal.

But the example you gave might not be a bad idea depending on the details.

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many people go on joy rides on roads where traffic and pollution is a factor? When people go on "joy rides" they go on roads that are empty so they can have fun rather than sitting in gridlock. In any case, the number of joyriders must be negligibly small compared to the number of people making their commutes.

OK, bad example, But I guess I'm thinking more of those who simply take road costs for granted such as those who take the car to buy one thing and then later take the car again to go to town to buy another, rather than waiting to buy both things at once. Or the one who takes the car just to gow down the block when he could have walked. Granted that last example doesn't contribute much to traffic, but all of this quicky adds up.

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the good example. Now aside from the question of whether the company would own only the road or also the land on which it's built, I think, depending on the details, such an idea could work to a degree. First off, if I understand you correctly, the more I'd use that road the company built, the more I'd pay the toll fee. If so, that could work in relating actual use to cost. Also, I'd assume that companies would rather share a road rather than each build their own in order to save at least some money, for self interest. On that front, I'd take it that if the companies should have to pay for the road maintenance, they'd add that as part of the overhead costs of their products, meaning that the more I buy their products, the more I'd pay for the maintenance of those roads. If so, I think that would be fair enough, and in the end your example comes close to my proposal interestingly enough.

Except I tell you to pound sand, It's my road and I don't have to share, you'll do it my way or starve. As you are willing to contribute nothing to this exercise what makes you think I will cater to you? If someone offers me a better deal, you're out of luck. If there are other markets, you need my stuff more than I need you.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except I tell you to pound sand, It's my road and I don't have to share, you'll do it my way or starve. As you are willing to contribute nothing to this exercise what makes you think I will cater to you? If someone offers me a better deal, you're out of luck. If there are other markets, you need my stuff more than I need you.

No one need your stuff and you do not need theirs-- trade in a consumer driven economy should be about the pleasure of getting stuff you want..not need. We as consumers consume for the sheer pleasure of it..much like gluttons eating.. Trade usually takes place between those that have little with those that want more..If trading partners were equals the only trade that would take place would be strickly done for enterrtainment---Like a thrill ride in a Toyota.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one need your stuff and you do not need theirs-- trade in a consumer driven economy should be about the pleasure of getting stuff you want..not need. We as consumers consume for the sheer pleasure of it..much like gluttons eating.. Trade usually takes place between those that have little with those that want more..If trading partners were equals the only trade that would take place would be strickly done for enterrtainment---Like a thrill ride in a Toyota.

Do you produce your own food, energy and all the other things you need to survive?

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except I tell you to pound sand, It's my road and I don't have to share, you'll do it my way or starve. As you are willing to contribute nothing to this exercise what makes you think I will cater to you? If someone offers me a better deal, you're out of luck. If there are other markets, you need my stuff more than I need you.

So if I understand correctly, you'd build the road to get your products to market, but otherwise would not exploit the money-making opportunity of the road itself by allowing others to use it for a fee? You'd rather only your company use it even if it's almost void of traffic most of the time, and swallow the cost as overhead by having to sell your product on the market at higher cost? Clearly if your competitor decides to build a road of his own and share it, he could make more money on the road and so not have to swallow quite as much of the cost as overhead for his products, which in turn would allow him to sell his products at more competitive prices?

your choice. And then I'd just use his road.

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you produce your own food, energy and all the other things you need to survive?

I can do that if need be..the food I can grow..and the energy on my end is abundant..have not driven a car in over three years. Rarely take a bus-- eventually once I am out of the stinking city---I will go back to being the simplton..who heats the house with the domestically made chain saw..yep..I grew up in the country and can take care of myself--city folk have a problem..but - how do I escape the city without money..looks like I am a welcome prisoner at this point in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I understand correctly, you'd build the road to get your products to market, but otherwise would not exploit the money-making opportunity of the road itself by allowing others to use it for a fee? You'd rather only your company use it even if it's almost void of traffic most of the time, and swallow the cost as overhead by having to sell your product on the market at higher cost? Clearly if your competitor decides to build a road of his own and share it, he could make more money on the road and so not have to swallow quite as much of the cost as overhead for his products, which in turn would allow him to sell his products at more competitive prices?

your choice. And then I'd just use his road.

It would be my road to use as I see fit and to charge as I see fit. If a competitor built a road both of us would now have to recoup our investment and the cost of two roads would now be included in the price you pay. You are also assuming that you are my only market. If there is another city that does have the infrastructure I need to do business, why should I build you a road?

I'll give you an example. Right now BC is going ahead with the 3 billion dollar Gateway Project for Vancouver. This will include a new bridge across the Fraser and highway improvements to the Port of Vancouver, plus a new perimeter road connecting HWY 1 with the Roberts Bank Super Port. Why? Because Vancouver is the largest port in Canada and our direct competitor is Seattle WA. If we do not provide the infrastructure to keep the port running smoothly, the shipping companies will not build us a road, they will just move to Seattle. The economic consequences for the city would be major and if you happened to work in any kind job that required the port itself or depended on the well being of those who do, the consequences would be major for you as well.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't own either road so what makes you think you will have a choice?

I'd choose to go on the road that charges the lowest tool, taking my destination and the distance, etc. into account.

Again, common sense, why would a company spend so much on road construction and then not exploit it to their maximum advantage for profit. They might build the road to get their goods to market. But considering the cost of road construction, certainly a company with half a brain would make money off of the road itself. What would be the point of having the road barely used all day except for their own trucks when they could make money off of it by setting up a toll booth and using it as a side business in its own right. That's only commmon sense.

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be my road to use as I see fit and to charge as I see fit.

Of course, but I can't imagine you spending so much on a road and then not at leat try to exploit it for profit. It would just be too stupid.

If a competitor built a road both of us would now have to recoup our investment and the cost of two roads would now be included in the price you pay.

But again, companies like to function as efficiently and profitably as possible. So naturally they'd likely exploit the road to their maximum advantage by also selling real estate on either side of it by building townhouses, condominiums, plazas and other businesses all along that road. If they can't afford it for themselves, then they'd likely establish cooperative ventures. So I can guarantee that unlike public sector roads that often have nothing for miles on either side, a road built by a private entity with the intent of making a profit would be fully utilized. If you consider how many roads and highways we find in a typical city, I'm sure there'd be enough room in the market for two roads fully utilized on either side. Again, if one company cant afford it, it would work collaboratively with others to do so. Our taxes would go down but the price of goods coming from farther afield would naturally go up. Again, more or less what I'd been proposing all along. And then you'd be free to choose whether you wish to buy local or import.

You are also assuming that you are my only market. If there is another city that does have the infrastructure I need to do business, why should I build you a road?

Two possibilities. If I live in a big enough city, you will build a road out of your own self interest. If however I live in too small a town to make it worthwhile for you, then that's my problem, in which case I can either buy myself an off-road vehicle to get around or move to a bigger town. Fair enough, don't you think? And again, this falls more or less in line with the original idea of making people more responsible for their decisions. If taxes are subsidizing roads to my little village in the middle of nowhere, is that fair to you? Certainly you'd expect me to either pay to build my own road or at least move closer to town, no?

I'll give you an example. Right now BC is going ahead with the 3 billion dollar Gateway Project for Vancouver. This will include a new bridge across the Fraser and highway improvements to the Port of Vancouver, plus a new perimeter road connecting HWY 1 with the Roberts Bank Super Port. Why? Because Vancouver is the largest port in Canada and our direct competitor is Seattle WA. If we do not provide the infrastructure to keep the port running smoothly, the shipping companies will not build us a road, they will just move to Seattle. The economic consequences for the city would be major and if you happened to work in any kind job that required the port itself or depended on the well being of those who do, the consequences would be major for you as well.

You're leaving something out of the equation though. If we did not spend that money, the government could pay off its debts thus keeping interest rates low. The government would spend less thus keeping inflation low. And the government could possibly lower taxes eventually once the economy is strong enough to handle it. So with low interest rates, low inflation, and lower taxes, then Seattle would have an advantage over us in terms of port facilities, but we'd have an advantage over Seattle in terms of lower taxes. Then if building a port really is worthwhile, the private sector could do so. Otherwise, the Seattle or US taxpayer would be subsidizing the building of a Seattle Port to bring things to Canada. Why would you not appreciate such a subsidy?

Now as for port workers losing their jobs, the lower taxes over times would lead to more spending money in our pockets which we'd spend elsewhere thus creating jobs elsewhere. Yes, it may be the government's job to guarantee jobs for all. However, it's not the government's job to dictate what those jobs will be.

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd choose to go on the road that charges the lowest tool, taking my destination and the distance, etc. into account.

Again, common sense, why would a company spend so much on road construction and then not exploit it to their maximum advantage for profit. They might build the road to get their goods to market. But considering the cost of road construction, certainly a company with half a brain would make money off of the road itself. What would be the point of having the road barely used all day except for their own trucks when they could make money off of it by setting up a toll booth and using it as a side business in its own right. That's only commmon sense.

What if neither chooses to charge you a toll? What if neither choses to build a road where you want to go? What if they tell you, build your own damn road? You don't own the road so you don't dictate the terms. You assume they will compete so you can get the lowest price. That is up to them, not you.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if neither chooses to charge you a toll? What if neither choses to build a road where you want to go? What if they tell you, build your own damn road? You don't own the road so you don't dictate the terms. You assume they will compete so you can get the lowest price. That is up to them, not you.

If the local market is big enough, they'd certainly want a road built to exploit that market. Either that or move to the market. So the only reason they would not want to build such a road would be because the local market would not be big enough. In that case, why should the taxpayer subsidize road construction to benefit me because I live too far from market? Should the onus not be on me to either build my own road or move closer to a major urban centre so as to meet the supplier half-way? this is the problem with 'human rights'. I have the right to live in the middle of nowhere and expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab because it's my right to live wherever I want? Whatever happened to responsibility? Yes I'm free to live where I want. But if I choose to live in the middle of nowhere and no one wants to build a road to me, that's my problem, or at least it should be.

Now if I need help from the government, fine, the government could provide me with free room and board in exchange for public service of some kind. Since most of that work is usually n bigger towns, that would likely mean moving me to the bigger town. So instead of building roads to nowhere, the government could save money by bringing the needy to civilization. Roads to nowhere ought to e considered a luxury for those who can afford it, not some kind of human right.

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose similar could be said for military expenditures too. For example, the Navy spends much money on securing safety at sea from pirates in parts of the world, mainly protecting commercial and industrial vessels. Why not let the private sector deal with that. An armed private merchant marine of sorts could be contracted out to escort commercial vessels. Again, it would mean an extra cost for shipping companies but less burden on the taxpayer. The cost would of course be included in overhead for imported goods. Again, you want to buy imported goods, be my guest, but pay the real cost of getting it to your table, and not a government-subsidized cost. Again, imported goods are a luxury, not a necessity. Government should be responsible only for our basic necessities and education.

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the local market is big enough, they'd certainly want a road built to exploit that market. Either that or move to the market. So the only reason they would not want to build such a road would be because the local market would not be big enough. In that case, why should the taxpayer subsidize road construction to benefit me because I live too far from market? Should the onus not be on me to either build my own road or move closer to a major urban centre so as to meet the supplier half-way? this is the problem with 'human rights'. I have the right to live in the middle of nowhere and expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab because it's my right to live wherever I want? Whatever happened to responsibility? Yes I'm free to live where I want. But if I choose to live in the middle of nowhere and no one wants to build a road to me, that's my problem, or at least it should be.

Now if I need help from the government, fine, the government could provide me with free room and board in exchange for public service of some kind. Since most of that work is usually n bigger towns, that would likely mean moving me to the bigger town. So instead of building roads to nowhere, the government could save money by bringing the needy to civilization. Roads to nowhere ought to e considered a luxury for those who can afford it, not some kind of human right.

They might and they might not. If they find a better market, you are out of luck. Cities aren't just markets, they are businesses themselves in direct competition with other cities for commerce.

As you consider everything outside your city to be the middle of nowhere, try living without it. The burbs happen to grow up into cities themselves. Surrey BC was the sticks when I was a kid. If it isn't already, it will shortly be the most populous city in BC.

I suppose similar could be said for military expenditures too. For example, the Navy spends much money on securing safety at sea from pirates in parts of the world, mainly protecting commercial and industrial vessels. Why not let the private sector deal with that. An armed private merchant marine of sorts could be contracted out to escort commercial vessels. Again, it would mean an extra cost for shipping companies but less burden on the taxpayer. The cost would of course be included in overhead for imported goods. Again, you want to buy imported goods, be my guest, but pay the real cost of getting it to your table, and not a government-subsidized cost. Again, imported goods are a luxury, not a necessity. Government should be responsible only for our basic necessities and education.

Machjo

Now you want private companies to hire people to fight and die so you can have a nice comfortable living. You don't want to take responsibility for anything.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you want private companies to hire people to fight and die so you can have a nice comfortable living. You don't want to take responsibility for anything.

On the contrary. If I buy a product from overseas, and the company transporting that product has to hire protection from pirates on its way here, then it will add that cost as overhead in the price of the product. By paying that extra amount for the product, I'm thus taking some responsibility for the cost of transporting that product, am I not. Or did I miss something here?

Now, if I decide to try to buy more locally and not rely on foreign goods, or at least rely less on them, then I'm also taking responsibility for not creating an artificial need for that extra protection to begin with, am I not? So unless I'm missing something here, it would seem that my proposal would make me more responsible, not less, for my actions and their costs and consequences.

Now what you're proposing is that your taxes subsidize protection for these ships thus allowing me to buy foreign-products at a subsidized price paid for by your taxes. Now if that's your idea of my taking responsibility for my actions, then I think you need to clarify your definition of responsibility.

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They might and they might not. If they find a better market, you are out of luck. Cities aren't just markets, they are businesses themselves in direct competition with other cities for commerce.

If cities all compete with one another by trying to prohibit the construction of any kind of road or rail to connect them, they'd all hurt each other in the process. Collaboration would be in their best interests. If a city decided to be so competitive, other cities would quickly retaliate, thus knocking the wind out of its economy. It wouldn't take long for that city to become a little more collaborative.

As you consider everything outside your city to be the middle of nowhere, try living without it.

When did I say that? Please quote. It's natural that when you can't argue your point you put words into my mouth. Nice try.

The burbs happen to grow up into cities themselves. Surrey BC was the sticks when I was a kid. If it isn't already, it will shortly be the most populous city in BC.

And Surrey neighbours Vancouver. Coincidence? Had it not neighboured Vancouver, do you honestly believe it would have grown so quickly?It developed out of a spillover from Vancouver.

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary. If I buy a product from overseas, and the company transporting that product has to hire protection from pirates on its way here, then it will add that cost as overhead in the price of the product. By paying that extra amount for the product, I'm thus taking some responsibility for the cost of transporting that product, am I not. Or did I miss something here?

Has it ever occurred to you that it also allows other countries to buy your products? Being as we are an exporting nation, I would think that would be very important to you but your vision and your sense of responsibility doesn't seem to extend past what you have to pay for something.

Now, if I decide to try to buy more locally and not rely on foreign goods, or at least rely less on them, then I'm also taking responsibility for not creating an artificial need for that extra protection to begin with, am I not? So unless I'm missing something here, it would seem that my proposal would make me more responsible, not less, for my actions and their costs and consequences.

Do you think everything in the world should be duplicated at a local level? Even if that was possible (and it isn't) I think you would find the real cost of goods and services to be much higher than you pay now.

Now what you're proposing is that your taxes subsidize protection for these ships thus allowing me to buy foreign-products at a subsidized price paid for by your taxes. Now if that's your idea of my taking responsibility for my actions, then I think you need to clarify your definition of responsibility.

You are just putting the responsibility for your needs on someone else. You aren't taking responsibility for anything

When did I say that? Please quote. It's natural that when you can't argue your point you put words into my mouth. Nice try.

You said if people choose to live in the middle of nowhere (meaning outside your city) that is their problem. I put it to you that it would be very much your problem if they didn't. You would starve and freeze in the dark.

And Surrey neighbours Vancouver. Coincidence? Had it not neighboured Vancouver, do you honestly believe it would have grown so quickly?It developed out of a spillover from Vancouver.

Yes, because people needed a place to live. Now it competes with Vancouver for business and industry as does Abbotsford, the city I live in.

It strikes me that you want to live comfortably in your city while someone else takes all the risk and does all the work in order to supply you with your needs. As you see it, your responsibility to your society doesn't extend past what you have to pay. As little as possible preferably.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has it ever occurred to you that it also allows other countries to buy your products?

Well, if that particular export is truly making a profit for our country, certainly the export-company in question will be willing to swallow the costs. If our exports need a subsidy, then they're not too profitable a far as net profits go are they.

Do you think everything in the world should be duplicated at a local level? Even if that was possible (and it isn't) I think you would find the real cost of goods and services to be much higher than you pay now.

I agree that duplication is a waste of money. That's one reason I'd be somewhat hesitant about privatizing roads. That said, though, I don't have any proof either that privatizing them would lead to duplication. In fact, as mentioned before, I think that if roads were built by the private sector, they might even try to put each road they build to maximum use. obviously a road seldom use is not worth their money.

You are just putting the responsibility for your needs on someone else. You aren't taking responsibility for anything.

How so? Under my proposal, I would be paying for any road use of my own, or any naval services needed by shipping lines that I may contribute to, etc., no? Or are you more concerned about your lifestyle being subsidized?

You said if people choose to live in the middle of nowhere (meaning outside your city) that is their problem. I put it to you that it would be very much your problem if they didn't. You would starve and freeze in the dark.

Then you misunderstood. For me, middle of nowhere refers to a village many many miles away from any significant population centre and with a minimal population of its own. I didn't think I'd need to explain that. Oh well, now I have. Toronto is outside my home town but I would not consider that to be the middle of nowhere. I could imagine a company wanting to build or at least maintian some kind of road between Ottawa and Toronto. For the sake of efficiency, it might choose a road that goes through all major towns en route. Or if the market exists, it might build a direct route but charge more for it. Again, only if the market exists. Otherwise we'd accept the road going through all major towns on the way to Toronto. If you don't live in any major town, then tough. Move closer to it or buy yourself a Hummer.

Yes, because people needed a place to live. Now it competes with Vancouver for business and industry as does Abbotsford, the city I live in.

Yes, people need a place to live, and I'm happy that they moved close to Vancouver and built a reasonably high population density there. I'd lived in Vancouver years ago, and though it's still playing catch up when it comes to public transport, I found Vancouver to be well planned overall in terms of city layout. Also I believe BC has a higher gas tax now, does it not. That likely contributed to people moving closer together too. And if so, that would be a good example of why it's infrastructure is more efficient than here in Ottawa.

It strikes me that you want to live comfortably in your city while someone else takes all the risk and does all the work in order to supply you with your needs. As you see it, your responsibility to your society doesn't extend past what you have to pay. As little as possible preferably.

Totally wrong. I don't mind my income tax paying for your kid's education if you don't have the money to do so yourself. I do mind subsidizing your imported and exotic purchases. Can't you see the difference between luxury and necessity?

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally wrong. I don't mind my income tax paying for your kid's education if you don't have the money to do so yourself. I do mind subsidizing your imported and exotic purchases. Can't you see the difference between luxury and necessity?

A healthy economy is not a luxury and you don't have one unless you are competitive with your neighbours. If your neighbours provide services and infrastructure that you don't, business goes elsewhere, your economy goes in the tank and you are dirt poor. You want to world to operate by your rules for your benefit. Ain't going to happen.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh, last page has devolved into one huge circular argument.

Here's the point, a transportation network is needed for an industrialized economy to function. Having every road be private makes no sense, especially in cities. Who is gonna pay for which street in the city? The complexities of something like that are ridiculous. There are tons of businesses or residences on every block of every road.

As for roads to "nowhere", those don't exist. Roads get built to where there is a need for roads. The government doesn't just automatically build roads cause 1 person decides to live in the middle of nowhere. I could go set up a shack in the middle of the wilderness, send the government a letter demanding they build a road, and I can guarantee you it wouldn't happen. There are plenty of even larger communities that do not have road access because it would be prohibitively expensive to build a road. Many locations in the north can only be accessed by airplane (or by hiking through the wilderness for months).

For those few locations and types of roads where private operation or user-pay systems are logistically viable, they are already in place. For example, the Coquihalla highway in BC was tolled until recently (they took off the toll when it repayed its cost). Some of the new bridges around Vancouver are/will be tolled. These are examples of transportation structures where it is feasible to charge people for using them. Many of these are being built partially by private companies (through PPPs). But for many roads that's just not possible, and that's why the government has to step in to provide a functional and complete transportation network.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose similar could be said for military expenditures too. For example, the Navy spends much money on securing safety at sea from pirates in parts of the world, mainly protecting commercial and industrial vessels. Why not let the private sector deal with that. An armed private merchant marine of sorts could be contracted out to escort commercial vessels. Again, it would mean an extra cost for shipping companies but less burden on the taxpayer. The cost would of course be included in overhead for imported goods. Again, you want to buy imported goods, be my guest, but pay the real cost of getting it to your table, and not a government-subsidized cost. Again, imported goods are a luxury, not a necessity. Government should be responsible only for our basic necessities and education.

The shipping company would raise their costs to offset the increased taxes. This also makes the product the shipper is carrying more expensive. You think you will save, but it will cost you more in another area.

And the Navy is also there to protect the sovereignty of Canada. Private police companies are there for the money. If they are not getting paid to patrol, do you really think they are going to patrol?

Road are a basic need and a necessity in our modern world. Unless you want to go back to dirt trails with horses and buggies.

If roads were privatized and large grocers were paying more to use the roads, you can bet your food bill will skyrocket to cover those costs. Either it gets too expensive for the company to operate, (this works on the individual scale) and go under, or they don't make any profit to reinvest into the company to expand and grow or to even stay alive.

Privatization of roads will kill businesses large and small.

Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser

ohm on soundcloud.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I understand correctly, you'd build the road to get your products to market, but otherwise would not exploit the money-making opportunity of the road itself by allowing others to use it for a fee?

It's his road. What are you gonna do about it?

You'd rather only your company use it even if it's almost void of traffic most of the time, and swallow the cost as overhead by having to sell your product on the market at higher cost?

it's his road, pay the higher price on goods or find another supplier with their own private road.

Clearly if your competitor decides to build a road of his own and share it, he could make more money on the road and so not have to swallow quite as much of the cost as overhead for his products, which in turn would allow him to sell his products at more competitive prices?

If he does not want to share his road, he does not have to.

your choice. And then I'd just use his road.

Only if he lets you.

Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser

ohm on soundcloud.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
      10,818
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nibu
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Experienced
    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Contributor
    • nibu earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

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