12-20-2016, 05:26 PM
So to dig a bit more into their report, I would disagree with them (and you, and anyone) that GST/HST on gasoline is a "payment for roads." Yes, it happens to be collected on that particular piece of economic activity, your purchase of gas, but it is a general, across-the-board tax, and does not belong as a part of the equation. Similarly, it is disingenuous to include the toll revenues that the 407 operators collect, as they are a private company, just as it is disingenuous to include the monies derived from its sale as monies for cars. Had they sold the 407 in complete form or had the consortium been sold each individual piece and done the work themselves, it is not "road user revenue" for any level of government. Parking fees are similarly not intended for covering road use, they don't even cover the lots themselves. All told, if you do add these things up, as well as a lot of the conference boards' instances of "we can't know what the cost is, but we will make some assumptions, and they could be incredibly important to the process if we are wrong", we wind up with well south of even 50% cost recovery, and with many dubious assumptions into even that number.
Yes, they thankfully didn't wind up including the cost of a car as a contribution to road cost coverage, but that they even brought it up as though to suggest it was, to go briefly down that route of "I bought a mansion, I deserve lots of things," is to call into deep question your ability to be taken seriously.
Yes, they thankfully didn't wind up including the cost of a car as a contribution to road cost coverage, but that they even brought it up as though to suggest it was, to go briefly down that route of "I bought a mansion, I deserve lots of things," is to call into deep question your ability to be taken seriously.