(06-17-2017, 09:50 AM)SammyOES2 Wrote: ijmorlan, the problem with your phrasing "Nor do motorists pay to use local streets, or in this backward country of ours, even superhighways" is that its blatantly untrue.  The interesting discussions can't be discussed reasonably, because you're not starting from reality.

You need to acknowledge that if we shift the burden to a more usage based model - tax revenue should fall accordingly.  It's absolutely unrealistic to pretend/assume that all the money that taxpayers are currently paying for roads would be available for other things, while at the same time the vast majority of people would have to spend a lot more for roads.  It would be a massive tax increase for the majority of people.

If you want to advocate that we should have a more usage based model - that's fine.  But its much closer to a shifting of funds than creation of new funds and I don't know how we have that discussion when you won't acknowledge that the money that's currently funding roads is already mostly coming from people using (and benefiting from) the roads and isn't coming from some magical source.

(06-17-2017, 02:31 PM)JoeKW Wrote: No offence guys, but this usage discussion is very off topic.

(06-16-2017, 06:07 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(06-16-2017, 04:26 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote: This isn't true.  I won't get back into this debate, but couldn't quite let the comment go without pointing out its untruthfulness.

Not this again. I feel like I’m in bizarro world where something can be called “user pay” even though there is no tolling mechanism.

Until somebody points out to me the fee that motorists qua motorists pay to use roads, what I said is obviously true.

Income tax doesn’t count — that is paid by people who receive money.

Sales tax doesn’t count — that is paid by people who buy stuff.

Property tax doesn’t count — that is paid by people who own stuff.

Gas tax doesn’t count — that is paid by people who use gasoline. I will admit that there is a correlation between gasoline use and road use, but it’s not a direct connection, especially with increased diversity in vehicle propulsion technology, and in any case I’m not aware that the gas tax collects more than a small fraction of all the money required to build and maintain the road network.

Even car registration fees and the like don’t count — that is paid by people who maintain a car in a state to be used on the roads, regardless of how much they actually use it. It has to do with driveable vehicle count, rather than road use.

Of course, there is a significant correlation between the extent to which one pays under those categories and the extent to which one uses the roads, but in no case is the charge actually based on using the roads.

So, my statement stands. Basically, please try to understand what I am saying before dismissing it as untrue.

Unless I’m forgetting a fee or charge that is paid by motorists. Am I forgetting the fee that road users pay that funds the roads?

(06-17-2017, 10:48 PM)jeffster Wrote: Off topic of this LRT discussion, to some extent;

Roads and "super highways" are paid for by taxes, be it from property taxes (regardless if you own a home or rent, you're paying property taxes - as well as businesses) that maintain local roads.  Generally people who 'earn' money to pay income tax, (and so do corporations and small businesses) are using the roads, same applies to sales tax, though that can be avoidable.

As for taxes on gas, those taxes were created to maintain roads. It's not a small sum of money. At roughly 40 cents per litre in tax (or more) you're looking at least at $16,000,000,000.00 in taxes paid by motorists just in gas taxes.  Not to mention sales tax on cars, sales tax on maintenance, etc.

Here is an interesting article, claiming that Ontarian's motorists pay 90% of road costs:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/news/ontario-drivers-paying-up-to-90-per-cent-of-road-costs-study-reveals/article14901607/

The article doesn't add to the price paid by trucking firms and others that aren't included in that scope.

Of course, one could argue that if you're not using, give a rebate: Does this work if we don't use transit? Like the LRT? Hospitals if we maintain our health by eating healthy and exercising? Paying for schools if we don't have/want or can't have children? Paying for community centres and pools?  All of these are heavily subsidized by tax payers (be it federal, provincial or local taxes) and users would have a hard time paying if they had to pay 'their share'.  This is especially true of transit.

Bottom line, we live in a country that values helping each other out. We acknowledge that we benefit from services that we don't use. Be it police services, school, fire departments, hospitals or transit or whatever.  I'll probably use the LRT a handful of times, simply because there is no bus route close to my home, and the LRT is a 45 minute walk. But I'm paying for it by property taxes. But I am ok with that. I see the benefit in it.

And everyone benefits from the roads, whether they use roads or not.  Think how one benefits just by going to the grocery store.  Even if a perfect world where everyone uses transit and no one drives a personal vehicle, you'd still need roads for police, ambulance, fire trucks, transit, transportation of goods, etc. So the road costs are still going to be there.

Of course, we could tell drivers that they have to pay some sort of toll or fee to drive their car that goes directly to maintaining and building roads. But if that was the case, then there can't be any taxes associated with driving a car. In the end, it would work out to the same amount. Bottom line, drivers pay more taxes and fee's than none drivers. They shouldn't be expected to pay more.

Anyway, just my two cents worth...

(06-18-2017, 12:06 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: We laughed at the Soviet Union for their bread lines, but we can't even acknowledge we've created the exact same scenario here.

(06-18-2017, 09:01 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(06-18-2017, 12:06 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: We laughed at the Soviet Union for their bread lines, but we can't even acknowledge we've created the exact same scenario here.

Incredibly on point. My favourite bit is how so-called “libertarians” tend to be against public transit and in favour of road transportation. In other words, they are de facto socialists, which is almost the opposite of what the minimal-government libertarianism is supposed to be about.

To be fair, many libertarians have put some thought into how private ownership of roads would work. But at present, our road network is definitely socialized, and almost the exact opposite of a capitalist free-enterprise system.

(06-18-2017, 09:52 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote:

Canard- please go for a ride and take some pictures then post them so we get back on line with this thread????   Please