Ontario's deficit and debt-entirely the Liberal Party's fault

[Argus]

Yeah people don't like it when you impose a cost based on countering global warming, and then take it into general revenues. No matter what you think of Wynne, I think she is too smart for that.

The new tax has nothing whatsoever to do with countering global warming. It's inconceivable it will have any noticeable impact on climate change. It is another chance to grab money from the taxpayers and redirect it to friends and supporters of the Liberal party.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

The new tax has nothing whatsoever to do with countering global warming. It's inconceivable it will have any noticeable impact on climate change. It is another chance to grab money from the taxpayers and redirect it to friends and supporters of the Liberal party.

And you know this how? Nah, I expect we are just off on another wild assumption.

[Argus]

And you know this how?

Because I'm smart.

Which is why I'm not a Liberal.

[On Guard for Thee]

Because I'm smart.

Which is why I'm not a Liberal.

Well you're half right. But we already knew you're not a liberal.

[Smallc]

Saying 'you don't understand transit' is not an argument, but a sneer.

No - it's a dismissal of your non argument. As cities grow and transit usage increases, more efficient and faster means of transport are needed. Rail is able to carry far more people than bus or even dedicated bus transit ways. Ottawa needs capacity, and its transitway system is used to capacity at many times of day. It's really simple and doesn't really require much in the way of argument.

[Argus]

No - it's a dismissal of your non argument. As cities grow and transit usage increases, more efficient and faster means of transport are needed. Rail is able to carry far more people than bus or even dedicated bus transit ways. Ottawa needs capacity, and its transitway system is used to capacity at many times of day.

I like how you can speak so authoritatively on what happens in a city you've never been in, and haven't followed all the discussions over the years as to what it does and does not need in the way of public transit. That's very... confident of you.

And as with all liberals, the term 'efficient' has no economic correlation. Costs simply aren't of any interest.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

I like how you can speak so authoritatively on what happens in a city you've never been in

I've been there 3 times. But I also belong to a Canadian development forum. The city seems to think it needs LRT.

And as with all liberals, the term 'efficient' has no economic correlation. Costs simply aren't of any interest.

Up front cost is not the totality of cost.

[Argus]

I've been there 3 times. But I also belong to a Canadian development forum. The city seems to think it needs LRT.

The city seems to believe it needs a lot of things.

Up front cost is not the totality of cost.

Ongoing costs are far higher with the transitway than it was before, and will be even higher with an LRT.

[Smallc]

The city seems to believe it needs a lot of things.

Did you ever think that maybe they might know more than you about it?

Ongoing costs are far higher with the transitway than it was before, and will be even higher with an LRT.

Of course a transit way has higher operating costs. You are, of course, ignoring economic opportunity costs in that. The service with a transitway is far quicker. LRT should be less, as there's no fuel to buy, and not as many drivers to pay.

[The_Squid]

The city seems to believe it needs a lot of things.

Ongoing costs are far higher with the transitway than it was before, and will be even higher with an LRT.

It's foolish to be so shortsighted about transportation infrastructure.

Transport Canada calculated the total economic cost of congestion by multiplying the amount of time that commuters and other drivers lost due to congestion by the assumed value those travelers placed on their time. These costs amount to, in 2002 dollars, $2.5 billion in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area – or $473 per person – and $5.2 billion overall in Canada’s five largest cities per year (Lindsey 2009, cited in Dachis 2011).22 The second study of the economic cost of congestion, specific to the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA), was produced by Metrolinx (2008a), the regional transit body. This estimate provides two separate costs that sum to a total cost of congestion of $6 billion per year in 2006 dollars. The first cost of $3.3 billion is akin to that in the Transport Canada studies. The study estimates an additional $2.7 billion per year in costs due to (i) increased transportation costs for businesses and (ii) the need to pay workers higher wages to compensate for higher commuting costs, resulting in otherwise lower employment.23

Governments across Canada have not been accounting for the full costs and benefits of infrastructure investments. In the case of transportation investments, the benefits of urban living – access to a broad range of jobs, activities, and knowledge – exist because of the relationships between people living close together. The evidence from around the world – and Canada – makes clear that greater access to nearby economic activity results in people earning a higher income. When congestion stifles these relationships, it threatens the essence of urban living. In the same way that it is now routine to incorporate the negative externalities of the cost of pollution, governments should include all measurable externalities in the cost-benefit analysis of investments. Such a cost-benefit analysis of individual projects, applied to transportation, will show that the greatest benefits of transportation improvements occur in large urban areas. These externalities are sizeable in the case of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, ranging from $1.5 to $5 billion per year, on top of the existing economic costs of travellers wasting time in traffic.

https://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/Commentary_385.pdf

[Argus]

Did you ever think that maybe they might know more than you about it?

No. I think they pocket more money from developers than I do. Everything that happens in this city is the result of graft. Our city council approves or dissaproves whatever projects they're paid to, regardless of city plans. Want to put up a twenty story building in an area zoned for low rise housing? Not a problem! Want to make a lot of money by buying up low cost real estate south of the city? Hey, we'll build a train and transitway down there!

Of course a transit way has higher operating costs. You are, of course, ignoring economic opportunity costs in that. The service with a transitway is far quicker. LRT should be less, as there's no fuel to buy, and not as many drivers to pay.

The transitway has not improved transit times at all. I should know. I've ridden the buses before and after it. It did, however vastly increase operating costs. The LRT won't be any quicker either. Public transit is an absolute mess in this city because it's run by the government. The cost of a ride has gone up about 3500% since the mid 70s, while inflation has only gone up about 400%. Why?

[nerve]

You know the psychology involved is fantastic.

Broke and Miserable or more Broke and happy.

There are people out there will rather have lived and died than never lived at all.

What is the solution?

Lets talk about solutions not problems.

The solution is finding ways to make people happy without involving money.

You know when it comes down to it, money is not borrowed and spent, it is borrowed and given away. From what they give away other stuff to other people.

Big gov = big problems for peoples pocket books.

services services services.

What is the solution.

The problem comes with the fact you don't want your money given away to other people.

It is who is getting the money and stuff that matters, not the fact it is happening with that logic.

It happened. Now what? And why didn't past govs fix that problem? Clearly what they did wasn't liked so they got booted out.

People don't care because they get what they want.

Its the people who arn't getting what they want, or don't like giving stuff to people that are not happy. Oh the rich are so hard done by, not. The real ones with brains ARE MAKING MONEY OFF LENDING MONEY.

You know what, is it taxes pissing off the rich or is it loans which will make everyone happy. What is the problem exactly?

It is slow death, but atleast everyone is happy until the gov collapses. Until then, I doubt it will change. the debt is just too large to --be managed now it is past the point of no return. (even at 50% GDP) there is still a good 20 or so years to go though, no worries.

You know with this 2016 budget they are providing free education more or less, and taking care of seniors. It is socialist it could be worse none the less people with money will be giving more of that money away. Now if only all money the gov used was loans, you know everyone paying taxes instead just loaned the gov in a form of bond or perpetuity you know you get a portion of that back each year.

Then right there retirement costs would go down and people would think they were getting something. There is a retirement plan and end to taxes, and a solution to moral loans. End taxes turn taxes into loans just like the rich have.

It is all about moving money around, is it the best fiscal solution no, clearly they think it is a working political solution, afterall it is politics not finance.

It really ain't right to be using taxes to subsidize the rich not fair at all. We should all be given the same treatment in turning taxes into loans. You know when people use certain government services that loan is automatically paid back for those costs. A much more socially ethical system.

There is no good reason for only lenders to be getting returns on government costs. Oh but then people would be forced to give more in general 35 billion is still only about 10000$ per person, that is 20 $500 bonds. The whole method of paying for government programs is backwards.

Like it is ridiculous that the gov is paying out 12 billion a year to the rich when it could be paying out 12 billion a year to taxloan payers which would more evenly redistribute ROI to all taxpayers not just the rich who can write off money they loan out.

You know if you make a Ponzi scheme atleast the public should be the beneficiaries. It is a death spiral. Luckily the oldest people die first and they are at the top. Isn't that what pensions programs are all about? You know atleast you keep people happy until they die.

If there are shortfalls you just cut off the top with things like health services.

Death spiral.

Edited March 4, 2016 by nerve