Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Funding roads (taxes, user fees etc)
#91
“Alternative Facts”
Reply


#92
(01-30-2018, 06:50 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Lying implies an intentional act of misrepresentation.  You're accusing ijmorlan of something personally, not that he misunderstands or that he doesn't know or that you see it differently but that he is intentionally trying to mislead and modify the truth.

It is an intentional act of misrepresentation.
Reply
#93
(01-30-2018, 06:50 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Lying implies an intentional act of misrepresentation.  You're accusing ijmorlan of something personally, not that he misunderstands or that he doesn't know or that you see it differently but that he is intentionally trying to mislead and modify the truth.

Exactly. There is no evidence that I am lying, and anybody who thinks there is such evidence is either not reading clearly or not thinking clearly.

As to why there is such a strong reaction to what I’m saying, I’ve had a few speculations but unlike some people I don’t pretend to know why the other person is saying what they are saying.

Perhaps they recognize on some level that they have it really good as a driver, and are afraid of a potential upcoming loss of privilege.

Perhaps they for some reason think I am a zealot who must be opposed.

Perhaps something else. Who knows?

But I know that I do not know so I avoid asserting as factual what is really just idle and meaningless speculation about somebody else’s mental state.

I also know that:

- drivers do not pay (much) to use the local roads
- drivers do not pay (much) to use the highways
- library patrons in this city do not pay to use the library
- sidewalk and bicycle path users do not pay to use the paths
- parents do not pay to send their children to public school
- and so on, for many many many government services.

Now, obviously, I don’t mean that none of those people contribute to the cost; in fact, in almost all of those cases, most of the users are taxpayers and therefore do make a contribution. But the contribution has nothing to do with their use of the service beyond perhaps the fact that both the taxes and the use of the service are related to living in a certain geographical area. It is permitted to use the service without paying for it; and one cannot be exempted from a portion of taxes on the grounds that one does not use the service.

In some cases I agree fully with the way things are; in others I think they should be tweaked; in others I think major changes should be made; and in still others I’m not even sure what I think should be done. But it is a fact that the above-mentioned services operate on a non-cost-recovery basis and it’s impossible to discuss rationally whether this is the right way to run things without people acknowledging this.
Reply
#94
(01-30-2018, 07:52 PM)creative Wrote: “Alternative Facts”

… such as that roads are currently priced when they are not, except in this province for the 407 to my knowledge, and granting that if you want to count the gas tax as a (tenuous) form of road pricing I’ll grant that ad arguendum.
Reply
#95
(01-31-2018, 02:29 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: In some cases I agree fully with the way things are; in others I think they should be tweaked; in others I think major changes should be made; and in still others I’m not even sure what I think should be done. But it is a fact that the above-mentioned services operate on a non-cost-recovery basis and it’s impossible to discuss rationally whether this is the right way to run things without people acknowledging this.

I acknowledge that they don't operate on a complete cost recovery basis.

I don't think you've ever acknowledged that thats not even remotely the same thing as:

(01-31-2018, 02:29 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: - drivers do not pay (much) to use the local roads
- drivers do not pay (much) to use the highways

I could be wrong when I say you're being intentional with your error here. But I think your posting on this forum shows that you're easily smart enough (and precise enough with language) to know your claim in the first quote is in no way justification for your claims in the second quote.

And, of course, this distinction is really important to having a meaningful conversation about paying for roads.

Edit: I find this conversation so intriguing because it seems so very obvious to me. Nobody would try to say "Netflix viewers do not pay to use Netflix".
Reply
#96
SammyOES, I think your point is that there is a huge overlap between taxpayers (who do pay to maintain our roads and highways) and drivers. That is true. So the drivers on our roads that are also taxpayers do pay to maintain our roads and highways (and so do taxpayers who are not drivers).

I think ijmorlan's point is that there is no significant, direct usage cost that drivers must pay in order to drive on our roads. Someone visiting from Australia (who doesn't pay taxes here) can rent a car here and drive on the roads as much as they want. So "drivers do not pay (much) to use the local roads/highways" is true, if you don't assume that drivers are also taxpayers.

Transit users do have a significant, direct usage cost -- a transit fare. And Netflix viewers also have a significant, direct usage cost -- the monthly fee.

You're each saying different correct things, you're arguing over semantics.
Reply
#97
It is just semantics, to a point. But its also important. Because if you do what ijmorlan is doing and pretend that direct usage fees are all that matter you get to logical conclusions like:

"My observation was about people who are in effect complaining about the public funding for public transit, implicitly saying the 40% (probably higher in Manhattan where the discussion was) should be 100%, without even noticing that the equivalent number for the road network is 0%."

This is a silly way of looking at the issue - because, again, drivers are paying for the road in other ways. Its really disingenuous to compare user fees directly between public transit and road networks while ignoring that the road network has a much bigger user base and those people are funding it through their taxes.

ijmorlan is effectively telling a bunch of people they're getting something for free when a lot of them are paying a lot for it and then he wonders why nobody wants to have a discussion with him about it.
Reply


#98
(01-31-2018, 03:30 PM)SammyOES Wrote: It is just semantics, to a point.  But its also important.  Because if you do what ijmorlan is doing and pretend that direct usage fees are all that matter you get to logical conclusions like:

"My observation was about people who are in effect complaining about the public funding for public transit, implicitly saying the 40% (probably higher in Manhattan where the discussion was) should be 100%, without even noticing that the equivalent number for the road network is 0%."

This is a silly way of looking at the issue - because, again, drivers are paying for the road in other ways.  Its really disingenuous to compare user fees directly between public transit and road networks while ignoring that the road network has a much bigger user base and those people are funding it through their taxes.

The discussion was about the farebox recover ratio, which is a measure of the proportion of the direct user fees which pay for transit.  The direct user fees which pay for roads *IS* zero, (or nearly zero, if you want to count the 407).

So when you keep saying that drives pay for their roads because they're also taxpayers you're missing the entire point.  Either that, or you're implying that transit users aren't taxpayers, which is quite likely the crux of the issue for many people---they believe transit users don't contribute to society.

This conversation is frankly, tiresome, drivers do not pay a direct user fee for accessing the roads.  I don't own a car, but I pay all the same taxes that a driver does. This should not be a contentious issue.
Reply
#99
(01-31-2018, 03:30 PM)SammyOES Wrote: This is a silly way of looking at the issue - because, again, drivers are paying for the road in other ways.  Its really disingenuous to compare user fees directly between public transit and road networks while ignoring that the road network has a much bigger user base and those people are funding it through their taxes.

You can't disagree that the road network is subsidized 100% from tax revenue, while public transit is subsidized only 50% (or whatever exact figure, depending the jurisdiction, but about that here) from tax revenue.
Reply
(01-31-2018, 03:37 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: This conversation is frankly, tiresome, drivers do not pay a direct user fee for accessing the roads.  I don't own a car, but I pay all the same taxes that a driver does.  This should not be a contentious issue.

Frankly, If its tiresome, stop participating.
Reply
(01-31-2018, 03:37 PM)MidTowner Wrote: You can't disagree that the road network is subsidized 100% from tax revenue, while public transit is subsidized only 50% (or whatever exact figure, depending the jurisdiction, but about that here) from tax revenue.

Lol, I don't disagree with that!
Reply
@SammyOES my lack of participation does not affect the continuation of the conversation.
Reply
(01-31-2018, 02:46 PM)SammyOES Wrote: I could be wrong when I say you're being intentional with your error here.  But I think your posting on this forum shows that you're easily smart enough (and precise enough with language) to know your claim in the first quote is in no way justification for your claims in the second quote.

Yup, you’re wrong. And you would be well advised to avoid accusations of dishonesty in a discussion without clear and specific evidence. Just some free advice on getting along with people from a non-expert on the topic.

Quote:And, of course, this distinction is really important to having a meaningful conversation about paying for roads.

Edit: I find this conversation so intriguing because it seems so very obvious to me.  Nobody would try to say "Netflix viewers do not pay to use Netflix".

Right, because Netflix is entirely funded by its subscribers (and its investors, OK, but let’s not get into that whole can of worms!), who pay for the privilege of watching Netflix.

Whereas the roads are funded entirely by the general tax revenues, which comes from a group of people with a large overlap with drivers, but which is not the same as drivers, and who pay taxes because they are required to do so, not in order so that they may drive. There are non-taxpayers who drive on our roads perfectly legally, and there are taxpayers who do not drive on the roads. Interesting point which occurred to me earlier today: even if I skip out on my taxes, I am still allowed to drive on the roads. I may be prosecuted or my property seized to pay the taxes, but “can’t drive on the roads” isn’t an available penalty to my knowledge (except for licensing fees, which are pretty small potatoes).
Reply


(01-31-2018, 06:21 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Yup, you’re wrong. And you would be well advised to avoid accusations of dishonesty in a discussion without clear and specific evidence. Just some free advice on getting along with people from a non-expert on the topic.

I genuinely believe you know you're lying when you make statements like that. So I'm not going to sugarcoat it.

(01-31-2018, 06:21 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Right, because Netflix is entirely funded by its subscribers (and its investors, OK, but let’s not get into that whole can of worms!), who pay for the privilege of watching Netflix.

Whereas the roads are funded entirely by the general tax revenues, which comes from a group of people with a large overlap with drivers, but which is not the same as drivers, and who pay taxes because they are required to do so, not in order so that they may drive. There are non-taxpayers who drive on our roads perfectly legally, and there are taxpayers who do not drive on the roads. Interesting point which occurred to me earlier today: even if I skip out on my taxes, I am still allowed to drive on the roads. I may be prosecuted or my property seized to pay the taxes, but “can’t drive on the roads” isn’t an available penalty to my knowledge (except for licensing fees, which are pretty small potatoes).

The point of the analogy wasn't that Netflix and roads are exactly the same. Just that if you want to have a discussion about the funding for something its really silly to look at just usage fees because there are a whole bunch of non-controversial examples where that method fails.
Reply
(01-31-2018, 02:30 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(01-30-2018, 07:52 PM)creative Wrote: “Alternative Facts”

… such as that roads are currently priced when they are not, except in this province for the 407 to my knowledge, and granting that if you want to count the gas tax as a (tenuous) form of road pricing I’ll grant that ad arguendum.

I think this is the main sticking point, though, and I don't think it's that tenuous. The gas tax is proportionate to use and generally only applies to vehicles that use public roadways. In that way, it is a sensible way for users of the public road system to bear the cost of roadways. Increasing the gas tax puts a greater burden on road users, decreasing it puts a greater burden on the public collectively.

There is a slight problem with this, though. Although governments devote a certain amount of that revenue to road infrastructure or similar purposes, the fact is that it is impossible to split it apart from general revenue. If the government wishes to spend $4 billion on roads, and $2 billion is available from gas taxes, than they'll spend an additional $2 billion on roads. If they want to spend $6 billion, than they will spend an additional $4 billion instead. The spending is not in any way tied to the revenue from gas taxes except that their promises on how they will spend the gas tax create a floor to how little they can spend (which would be very difficult to enforce or monitor).

This is somewhat true for public transit as well. Fares only cover a percentage of the cost of public transit, the amount of additional funding directed toward public transit is a matter of public policy as well. If ridership is very high, a municipality may just as well elect to reduce funding, leaving overall revenue for the agency stagnant. On the other hand, they may choose to invest more in it despite declining ridership and the agency may then see overall revenue increase.

I would argue that public transit is generally far more dependent on revenue from its fares than our public infrastructure is to gas taxes; however, it's really hard to properly assess the latter. A decrease in funding for road maintenance would still see roads plowed and maintenance done, however, it would be slower and the deterioration in service would only be felt after a much longer period of time. Changes to funding for public transit has far more immediate effects.

A side note: as an excise tax, gas tax revenue shouldn't only be considered a (indirect) fee for roads. It is also effectively a fee on carbon, and policy-makers should be setting rates with both purposes in mind.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links