07-16-2017, 07:28 PM
Anyone know what's going on with the Northbound 85 on-ramp at Bruce Street? Was closed today but didn't see anything indicating if it was temporary (online or otherwise)
(07-16-2017, 07:28 PM)embe Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone know what's going on with the Northbound 85 on-ramp at Bruce Street? Was closed today but didn't see anything indicating if it was temporary (online or otherwise)
(07-16-2017, 04:58 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ](07-16-2017, 04:41 PM)sevenman Wrote: [ -> ] Actually, the sales tax is relevant because the funds go into government coffers and are used for what ever the government feels is necessary. Whether it be for hospitals, education, public transportation, affordable housing or roads.
Don't forget also, that the car that gets traded in for $10,000 to a dealership is likely to be sold again. Let's say for $12,000 - $15,000. HST will be again collected on that amount ( $1,560.00 to $1,950.00 in this example ) and every other time that same car is bought and sold. If that car changes ownership 3 or 4 times during its lifespan that's 3 or 4 times that sales tax is collected.
You're missing the point, which was that sales taxes aren't a road fee, they're a general tax.
Yes, taxes fund all those things, that's the point, roads are largely built and maintained with tax dollars, not with road use fees.
(07-16-2017, 08:40 PM)sevenman Wrote: [ -> ](07-16-2017, 04:58 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]You're missing the point, which was that sales taxes aren't a road fee, they're a general tax.
Yes, taxes fund all those things, that's the point, roads are largely built and maintained with tax dollars, not with road use fees.
Dan,
I do understand the point you'e trying to create, no disrespect. My question, I guess would be, why we would need "road use fees" when as you state, roads are already built and maintained with tax dollars. I think fees or taxes, as long as they are directed to the government are really one and the same and the fees and taxes generated from manufacturing, purchase and ownership of an automobile ( whether good or bad ) more than cover the costs associated to the roads upon which they are driven.
(07-16-2017, 09:28 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ](07-16-2017, 08:40 PM)sevenman Wrote: [ -> ]Dan,
I do understand the point you'e trying to create, no disrespect. My question, I guess would be, why we would need "road use fees" when as you state, roads are already built and maintained with tax dollars. I think fees or taxes, as long as they are directed to the government are really one and the same and the fees and taxes generated from manufacturing, purchase and ownership of an automobile ( whether good or bad ) more than cover the costs associated to the roads upon which they are driven.
[…]
Of course, things in the real world are murkier, we use fees to fund transit, when it isn't really a limited resource (mostly because it's sucks compared with the very cheap driving situation).
But the real issue under discussion comes from people objecting to "subsidizing" transit because they see a fee which doesn't cover the costs of running it, but ignore the enormous subsidy paid to drivers in the form of effectively free and unlimited roads.
At the end of the day, there is a very fundamental difference between taxes and fees, they are very nearly opposites.
(07-16-2017, 09:28 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]You are correct Dan " there is a very fundamental difference between taxes and fees" and that difference is how each are paid and collected. At the end of the day they still end up in the same "bank account " and our government decides how to use the funds.(07-16-2017, 08:40 PM)sevenman Wrote: [ -> ]Dan,
I do understand the point you'e trying to create, no disrespect. My question, I guess would be, why we would need "road use fees" when as you state, roads are already built and maintained with tax dollars. I think fees or taxes, as long as they are directed to the government are really one and the same and the fees and taxes generated from manufacturing, purchase and ownership of an automobile ( whether good or bad ) more than cover the costs associated to the roads upon which they are driven.
Economics are why we should differentiate between taxes and fees. Fees control consumption of limited resources by putting a price on them, that price should have nothing to do with the cost of that resource. Taxes are used for two things, monetary policy, and funding the government. But if we provide unlimited access to scarce resources, we'll run out of them really quick. Some things, like public parks are cheap enough yet valuable enough to provide effectively unlimited amounts of them. Some things like healthcare we limit access in a more egalitarian fashion (most critically ill first). Other things, we use fees to limit access. Roads could be one of these things, were we use the price to limit congestion instead of building more roads (which becomes prohibitively expensive eventually).
Of course, things in the real world are murkier, we use fees to fund transit, when it isn't really a limited resource (mostly because it's sucks compared with the very cheap driving situation).
But the real issue under discussion comes from people objecting to "subsidizing" transit because they see a fee which doesn't cover the costs of running it, but ignore the enormous subsidy paid to drivers in the form of effectively free and unlimited roads.
At the end of the day, there is a very fundamental difference between taxes and fees, they are very nearly opposites.
(07-16-2017, 11:36 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote: [ -> ]We understand the difference. Stop dumbing down our position.
Our point is that statements like: "but ignore the enormous subsidy paid to drivers in the form of effectively free and unlimited roads." is an unbelievably dishonest statement (for reasons clearly laid our earlier).
ijmorlan, I was kind of hoping you wanted to have an actual discussion, but then you didn't respond to me and went back to just making statements like the above.
(07-17-2017, 12:43 AM)sevenman Wrote: [ -> ](07-16-2017, 09:28 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Economics are why we should differentiate between taxes and fees. Fees control consumption of limited resources by putting a price on them, that price should have nothing to do with the cost of that resource. Taxes are used for two things, monetary policy, and funding the government. But if we provide unlimited access to scarce resources, we'll run out of them really quick. Some things, like public parks are cheap enough yet valuable enough to provide effectively unlimited amounts of them. Some things like healthcare we limit access in a more egalitarian fashion (most critically ill first). Other things, we use fees to limit access. Roads could be one of these things, were we use the price to limit congestion instead of building more roads (which becomes prohibitively expensive eventually).You are correct Dan " there is a very fundamental difference between taxes and fees" and that difference is how each are paid and collected. At the end of the day they still end up in the same "bank account " and our government decides how to use the funds.
Of course, things in the real world are murkier, we use fees to fund transit, when it isn't really a limited resource (mostly because it's sucks compared with the very cheap driving situation).
But the real issue under discussion comes from people objecting to "subsidizing" transit because they see a fee which doesn't cover the costs of running it, but ignore the enormous subsidy paid to drivers in the form of effectively free and unlimited roads.
At the end of the day, there is a very fundamental difference between taxes and fees, they are very nearly opposites.
I don't think anybody should ever object to subsiding public transit, that is simply wrong as it is a necessity in any large community. To say roads are effectively free is false and I think you know this. They are no more free than is healthcare or education.
Lastly, I'm not sure if you own a vehicle or not Dan but "the very cheap driving situation" is anything but cheap.
Cheers,
(07-17-2017, 07:24 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]@sevenman. I thought it was clear from the context of the reply that I meant "free to use". Which is the whole point. Drivers do not pay to use roads.
Healthcare and education are also free to use.
Nobody thinks they are free to provide.
Also I am well aware of what vehicles cost, but that too is a "sunk cost" with very little incremental costs to driving more. Owning a car in fact encourages you to drive more.
(07-17-2017, 07:24 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]But I don’t see how we can have a good discussion if some people don’t understand that roads are free to use.
(07-17-2017, 07:24 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]You can’t send less money to the government by not driving. (OK, if you don’t drive at all, you can save on the minor expense of car registration and driver licensing; and if you drive less you spend less on gas tax, which doesn’t mean regular HST but the gas-specific tax; but neither of those come close to paying for the full cost of road construction and upkeep).
(07-17-2017, 07:24 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]So to be accurate, you can’t send significantly less money to the government by not driving. Roads are paid for by the general taxpayer, not by their users in rough proportion to the extent of their use.
(07-12-2017, 08:53 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote: [ -> ]Oh we're back to the silly argument where a lot of people pay a bunch of money for roads, but we don't count that money because that's in their role as "tax payer" and not as their role of "car driver". Maybe that explains those times when I just can't get to sleep. I bet "tax payer" me is just really angry at "road user" me because "tax payer" me is so heavily subsidizing "road user" me.
(07-13-2017, 09:01 AM)SammyOES2 Wrote: [ -> ](07-13-2017, 08:32 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]Let’s take an example: I benefit from the highways because my bread arrives on a truck that takes the highway.
[…]
Essentially, the bottom line is that by providing free roads, we as a society are deciding for everybody that they will spend their money on roads. I believe in giving everybody individual choice to the greatest extent feasible, and that definitely includes deciding how much to spend on expressways.
You're missing a couple of things though:
1. There is very large and intangible social value to the movement of people. Not to get too political but lots of problems in the world are caused by people being in their own bubble and not actually being exposed to different people / experiences / etc.
2. There are Government services that rely on the highway network. Ambulances. Fire. Police. Public Transportation. Etc. I guess we could toll those, but it seems silly. And it still wouldn't really cover the benefit. The mere existence of a highway network can save us from building additional hospitals, improve health outcomes, etc. These are benefits that aren't particularly correlated with the amount of miles driven. Instead they exist as soon as the infrastructure exists.
3. Related to 2, there are really large network effects related to highway infrastructure. It enables a whole lot of economic activity that otherwise wouldn't be possible or profitable. Everyone benefits from that. Which is very different than a bakery going in (it still has economic spin-off benefit, but not on the same scale as something like transportation).
4. I don't have a 4. But those are just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are a lot more.
Quote:(07-13-2017, 08:32 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]This is a bit like saying that everybody should have enough food to live, but if you want caviar, you’ll be paying for it, and it’s expected that some people won’t be able to afford caviar.
I disagree that this is the same thing. The caloric value of food is the same (roughly) for each person. So its generally easy to make a distinction like this.
It's not true for roads. A 4-lane highway from two northern Ontario towns is very different transportation service level than a 4-land highway between KW and Toronto. It's silly (to me) to use the physical size of the road and ignore the actual context of the road.
(07-17-2017, 07:40 AM)SammyOES2 Wrote: [ -> ]....
Note, this is a good example of poor logic. You want to talk about sending less money to the Government. A proportion of the "regular HST" wouldn't be sent to the Government if people didn't drive. We've mentioned numerous examples above (spending on non-taxable goods, savings, travel or foreign goods, spending by tourists and non-residents when getting gas here, etc.). Again, I've argued enough on the internet that when people keep repeating already debunked statements, it's time to give up.