Infrastructure and it's funding

[Scotty]

I expect to pay more taxes this year than at any time in my life, probably twice as much as last year, maybe three times as much. I'm not happy about it, but taxes are a necessary part of living in a comfortable and organized system such as we have in Canada

Nobody likes to pay taxes, and that's one of the reasons why bridges, roads and highways are in such crappy condition. But here's the thing. You're paying anyway. You might not realize it, but you are. You're paying in the wear and tear and damage to your car every time you drive down those pothole strewn roads and highways. It would be cheaper to us, as a society, to just pay to have the roads and highways fixed rather than continually fixing our cars.

Which reminds me of my post in the prisons topic. That again is shallow thinking. We don't pay enough for cops, courts and prisons so used car repair shops can rip us off daily, without fear of persecution. That's another cost which we pay every time we take our cars in and some fraud artist lies to us about what needs to be done. And the cost is a lot higher than if we just had a proper system to deal with such people.

Nobody likes to pay taxes, but it would be cheaper, in the end, than seeing massive amounts of money going to unnecessary repairs and damages to our vehicles. There's only one wallet, after all. So you're going to pay either way.

Globe and Mail

[Moonbox]

Infrastructure spending isn't bad when it's being spent efficiently. Unfortunately, large amounts of it are wasted on inefficient feel-good and pet projects that provide no net benefit to the vast vast vast majority of taxpayers.

[Bonam]

Which reminds me of my post in the prisons topic. That again is shallow thinking. We don't pay enough for cops, courts and prisons so used car repair shops can rip us off daily, without fear of persecution.

[August1991]

I liked this idea:

You're paying in the wear and tear and damage to your car every time you drive down those pothole strewn roads and highways.

We could apply the same logic to our health care system. The time spent waiting in a queue or phoning friends to get the name of a contact are also "private" costs that show up in no government budget.

If I were a politician trying to control costs, guess which ones would be my first priority?

I disagree with your intent here however:

It would be cheaper to us, as a society, to just pay to have the roads and highways fixed rather than continually fixing our cars.

How do you propose that we pay for fixing our roads? If we pay through our taxes, as you propose, I can imagine many problems that will arise.

-----

The G&M article you cite in the OP notes the Champlain Bridge in Montreal. Why not privatize it and let the people who drive across it pay for its upkeep in the same way that grocery stores pay for their upkeep (and so much else) using revenues earned?

[Moonbox]

The G&M article you cite in the OP notes the Champlain Bridge in Montreal. Why not privatize it and let the people who drive across it pay for its upkeep in the same way that grocery stores pay for their upkeep (and so much else) using revenues earned?

Privatization is one option and it's used enormously in the US. If you've ever been to Tampa Bay there are tolls on the causaways all over.

Federal $$$ I don't feel should be used for local projects. Inter province highways etc are one thing, but bridges etc should be a provincial or municipal expense.

What I hate most about the federal government is how unfairly tax dollars are spent. The federal government, as far as I'm concerned, has a mandate to guard our borders, keep us safe, encourage trade and promote our interests abroad. Instead, we spend billions subsidizing Quebecqois whiners and Manitoba have-nots.

[Smallc]

The federal government, as far as I'm concerned,

And since there are 34M more of us, that's too bad for you.

[RNG]

The problem here and in the states is that no politician wants torisk his or his party's re-election, so is reluctant to do the necessary but unpopular things. Thus the cost keeps being offloaded on future generations. Longer terms in office, or all politicians have a one term term limit maybe?

[Scotty]

The problem here and in the states is that no politician wants torisk his or his party's re-election, so is reluctant to do the necessary but unpopular things. Thus the cost keeps being offloaded on future generations. Longer terms in office, or all politicians have a one term term limit maybe?

What you mean is politicians who only look to the next election. And as long as the bridges don't fall down before then, well, they're not worried.

But if we actually had a political leader who knew how to lead, how to communicate, we'd pretty much all agree that it would be cheaper for us to fix the damn roads rather than endure the expensive wear and tear on our cars year in and year out.

[RNG]

What you mean is politicians who only look to the next election. And as long as the bridges don't fall down before then, well, they're not worried.

But if we actually had a political leader who knew how to lead, how to communicate, we'd pretty much all agree that it would be cheaper for us to fix the damn roads rather than endure the expensive wear and tear on our cars year in and year out.

Plus, spending on maintinence now will save big bucks on replacement later. BC is going to have their Hydro bills double over the next 10 years because successive governments kept the rates too low to do infrastrucure upgrades so now they have to be done or we will be suffering brown-outs. (A different artcle quoted 30% increase in 3 years.)

[Moonbox]

And since there are 34M more of us, that's too bad for you.

34M other Canadians yes. Outside the GTA and Montreal, it really looks like most Canadians agree with me.

I'm sorry if that upsets you.

[William Ashley]

Nobody likes to pay taxes, and that's one of the reasons why bridges, roads and highways are in such crappy condition.

I support the tolling of all non essential roadways - and intercity routes. Example there would be 1 route that is open and funded by the government on a major route --- where as any other routes would be tollways - for a small price - to pay for upkeep and repairs.

The government for instnace could provide a small transponder with a license (it in the license actually) then set up "toll wires" at various points on roads, you trip the wire, you pay like a 5 cents or something. Say 10000 people use a route on a given day that adds up to around $5000 a day a year you are looking at 1.5 million dollars raised for repairs on a given road.

This is a more representative system. Meanwhile people that arn't from a given province would still pay by harmonizing the licensing cards, and having people visiting canada without a domestic license pay for a transponder card 1$ or something to cover the material and adminsitrative costs. Meanwhile the trip wires would register moving vehicles under the wires translocate whether the person has a license, --- and also it could measure approximate rate of speed by cross referencing the trip wire locations --example if they are spaced 10km apart then if someone travels 30 or 40 km in 20 minutes it would translate to their average rate of speed. Speed limits might need to be raised though.

But here's the thing. You're paying anyway. You might not realize it, but you are. You're paying in the wear and tear and damage to your car every time you drive down those pothole strewn roads and highways. It would be cheaper to us, as a society, to just pay to have the roads and highways fixed rather than continually fixing our cars.Which reminds me of my post in the prisons topic. That again is shallow thinking. We don't pay enough for cops, courts and prisons so used car repair shops can rip us off daily, without fear of persecution. That's another cost which we pay every time we take our cars in and some fraud artist lies to us about what needs to be done. And the cost is a lot higher than if we just had a proper system to deal with such people.

Nobody likes to pay taxes, but it would be cheaper, in the end, than seeing massive amounts of money going to unnecessary repairs and damages to our vehicles. There's only one wallet, after all. So you're going to pay either way.

Globe and Mail

Have the people who use the stuff pay for it. Leave everyone else alone.

$1 a day for commuters isn't a lot and it adds up.

I don't see why people should pay for things they don't use and don't want. IT ISN'T FAIR!

You can also stop car theft by requiring a matching transponder(s) and license plates (also having rfid type transponders)

It is killing many birds with one stone while lowering taxes.

Edited April 13, 2011 by William Ashley

[Bonam]

I don't see why you guys think roads should be "user pay" but health care and education need to be publicly funded. I use roads every day. I haven't used the health care system in over a decade. Can at least a tiny bit of my taxes go to something I actually use please? I don't think that's too much to ask.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't see why you guys think roads should be "user pay" but health care and education need to be publicly funded. I use roads every day. I haven't used the health care system in over a decade. Can at least a tiny bit of my taxes go to something I actually use please? I don't think that's too much to ask.

It's not...where do all those outrageous motor fuels taxes go...to health care?

[August1991]

I don't see why you guys think roads should be "user pay" but health care and education need to be publicly funded. I use roads every day. I haven't used the health care system in over a decade. Can at least a tiny bit of my taxes go to something I actually use please? I don't think that's too much to ask.

I wouldn't object to users paying to some degree the cost of doctor visits. But the general leftist consensus in Canada is that, for some reason, in "unfair".

It's not...where do all those outrageous motor fuels taxes go...to health care?

Fuel taxes are not directly connected to specific road use.

For example, driving across the Champlain Bridge at 5 pm on a Friday afternoon is not like driving across it at 3 am on Tuesday. And driving on the 138 between Baie Commeau and Sept-Isles at any time is not like driving on the Metropolitain (40).

Federal $$$ I don't feel should be used for local projects. Inter province highways etc are one thing, but bridges etc should be a provincial or municipal expense.

What I hate most about the federal government is how unfairly tax dollars are spent. The federal government, as far as I'm concerned, has a mandate to guard our borders, keep us safe, encourage trade and promote our interests abroad. Instead, we spend billions subsidizing Quebecqois whiners and Manitoba have-nots.

The Champlain Bridge is part of the St. Lawrence Seaway which itself is a project involving both the US and Canada. Both federal governments were involved in its construction and in its management. Seaway System Link

Ships must pay tolls to use the waterway. Cars pays tolls to cross some of its bridges.

Edited April 13, 2011 by August1991

[Smallc]

34M other Canadians yes. Outside the GTA and Montreal, it really looks like most Canadians agree with me.

I'm sorry if that upsets you.

Do they? Really? Because I haven't heard anything from any of the parties that agree with you. I'm sorry that facts upset you.

[Moonbox]

Do they? Really? Because I haven't heard anything from any of the parties that agree with you. I'm sorry that facts upset you.

How about the huge corporate tax cuts and the fact that the Tories are leading the polls despite that??

How are those facts for ya?

[Smallc]

How about the huge corporate tax cuts and the fact that the Tories are leading the polls despite that??

Are the Conservatives proposing to stop spending money in have not provinces, or more specifically, Quebec and Manitoba? Because that's what you seemed to be attacking. I support corporate tax cuts, but I also support the foundational gaols of equalization and programs like it. Most Canadians seem to agree with at least the latter, even if they don't like the former (and support the Conservatives despite that - just like I do).

Edited April 13, 2011 by Smallc

[Moonbox]

Are the Conservatives proposing to stop spending money in have not provinces, or more specifically, Quebec and Manitoba?

I don't think they can constitutionally do it. What they can do, however, is gradually reduce federal revenue so there is less of it to go around.

Because that's what you seemed to be attacking. I support corporate tax cuts, but I also support the foundational gaols of equalization and programs like it. Most Canadians seem to agree with at least the latter, even if they don't like the former (and support the Conservatives despite that - just like I do).

Smallc you and I don't have access to direct polling on this question. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the people you meet in Manitoba support it, as would most of the people in Quebec. Why wouldn't they? People don't seem thrilled with it here in Ontario, however, but once again, where are the numbers? This is really a silly argument you and I have had many times before and I suspect neither of us are going to change each other's opinions.

[Smallc]

I don't think they can constitutionally do it. What they can do, however, is gradually reduce federal revenue so there is less of it to go around.

They've promised not to do that, though. Manitoba is less reliant on equalization than it was before anyway. Manitoba has grown quickly economically, and only has higher transfers because the transfer programs have grown under the Conservatives.

This is really a silly argument you and I have had many times before and I suspect neither of us are going to change each other's opinions.

Probably not. I see this country in terms far larger than money. If you asked all Canadians about equal taxes for equal service though (the basis of equalization - have not provinces usually have higher taxes and moer in the way of services) , I think I know what response you'd get...and they wouldn't be against it. If you ask them in terms of money being unfairly transfered, you'd get a different answer. People don't know what they think.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Smallc

[Moonbox]

Probably not. I see this country in terms far larger than money. If you asked all Canadians about equal taxes for equal service though (the basis of equalization - have not provinces usually have higher taxes and moer in the way of services) , I think I know what response you'd get...and they wouldn't be against it.

I think the answer to the question would depend first on where you asked and second under what context it was asked. Asking in Alberta and much on Ontario would probably give you a surprising response. Asking what people in Ontario, for example, think of transferring billions annually simply from Ontario taxpayers to send to Quebec, would likely provide you with different answers.

[William Ashley]

I don't see why you guys think roads should be "user pay" but health care and education need to be publicly funded. I use roads every day. I haven't used the health care system in over a decade. Can at least a tiny bit of my taxes go to something I actually use please? I don't think that's too much to ask.

I support a national health insurance plan - where people play for a federally administired insurance crown corporation --- -- people could choose a private insurance company.

People in poverty wouldhave specially NHIP for people in poverty and NHIP for low income individuals. Part of the funds from NHIPFPP would be paid for as "charity" by the medical sector, by a 15% charity tithe (they get the money back anyway) this would also be on medical sector inports and international medical services operating in Canada. Provinces would have the option of signing on to the program - to operate their won plan or to operate a "segmented" plan that rates are determined by their provincial rates rather than national rates (rates are adjusted based on subgroups and offerings.)

This however is along side the nullification of income taxes.

In education I support self genrating "funds" where people who draw from the fund pay back into it, as well as loans, and "social contracts" that is working in underserviced areas or at a government internship rate --- such as some plans tat already exist.

Primary and Secondary education are provincial matters though. But I do support some programs for secondary school.

Ultimately education should be an option but individuals with low income have to be provided for. I do think it shoudl be representative though, and only people with kids should subscribe to the program.

People without kids shouldn't have to pay. It shouldn't be a tax though it should be like the seperate school boards.. a fee. Schools should be a community incentive, communities who pride themselves in education would fund education. But in a school with say 400 students you are looking at $100 per parent for just one employee. For 10 that is $1000 for $40,000 salaries. it is $1500 each for otherwise.. schools are simply very expensive. It should be addressed very carefully, but the money should be there for parents. Parents should pay but there needs to be a means such as volunteer work or "a repayable social loan" where older children perform community service, or the parents help the schools somehow if they can't pay. The whole social credits idea is, that even people who get money --- give back by volunteer activities that lower costs. In a worse case scenario people can homeschool, but I think that for the provincial governments it should be very possible to get a mostly fee based education system. This alongside the removal of income taxes, but no I don't think someone should have to pay for someone elses kids education. They should pay their own way but oppourtunities for the means to pay should be there.

$2000 per kid isn't a whole lot. Especially if you have schools that offer meal programs, and other activities. It should be scaled down based on income levels though but only for people who actually use the services.

Education is clearly a provincially administered issue though.

Edited April 13, 2011 by William Ashley

[TimG]

I haven't used the health care system in over a decade.

You have used the healthcare systems as insurance - i.e. you depend on being there if you had a major accident or an unexpected disease.

[Smallc]

I think the answer to the question would depend first on where you asked and second under what context it was asked. Asking in Alberta and much on Ontario would probably give you a surprising response.

Not if you asked the first question. If you asked the second, you'd get a different response. People want all Canadians to do well, but they don't want to pay for it. That's why constitutions are created, to not give in easily to the ebb and flow that happens over time.

[Scotty]

You have used the healthcare systems as insurance - i.e. you depend on being there if you had a major accident or an unexpected disease.

A major accident? Like if you lost a tire in a huge pothole and ran into a bus?

I depend on roads every day. I'd like them to be good ones, please.

[Moonbox]

Not if you asked the first question. If you asked the second, you'd get a different response. People want all Canadians to do well, but they don't want to pay for it. That's why constitutions are created, to not give in easily to the ebb and flow that happens over time.

Of course you'd get a different answer.

If you asked random people in Toronto if they wanted our military to fly 40 year old jets into battle they'd all say no. If you asked them if they wanted to spend $30B to make sure they didn't have to, they'd also say no.

Lots of ideas sound great until people have to reach into their wallets.