05-27-2021, 02:31 PM
(05-27-2021, 06:22 AM)jeffster Wrote:(05-26-2021, 09:48 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Two things here...one, you are making assumptions about the wealth of university students, assumptions which are not justified in all cases.
Second, the UPass is not a government subsidy, it is a student subsidy. Students who don't ride transit (perhaps because they are wealthy and can afford a car) subsidize students who cannot afford a car. Students are subsidized by other students.
It's a program that the STUDENTS voted on, and Conestoga also had the opportunity to vote on. Mind you, they eventually did support it, but not in time not to get fucked over by our shitty provincial government.
And for travelwise, I agree those people are unlikely to need a transit subsidy, I am curious though, I am unsure how that program is funded, if workplaces are funding it, then that's perfectly fine, a workplace can (and should) choose to subsidize transit for their employees.
As for means testing, I have no real problem with it. I'd rather we live in a society with a guaranteed basic income, but that isn't the reality we have right now, and given that our government is unwilling to fund transit like they fund roads, and there are limited dollars to spend and a reasonable means testing makes those dollars go farther, those who need them get them, and those who don't help fund our transit service.
But I'm not sure why you are seeming to take this personally. I see nothing wrong with getting upset about injustices in the world that don't affect you, it's the definition of empathy. I just don't happen to think this is a particularly significant one.
That being said, as I said, I agree, the limits are far too low.
I did not know that about University, but I don’t know the details. I only knew about Conestoga having a much higher rate.
As for TravelWise, I’m not sure if it is subsidized by the employer. That said, being the amount of government workers that can use this service (the cities, the region, the libraries, for example), that subsidy is going to be paid by taxpayers either way.
As for means testing, the approach is all wrong, and very old school and ass backwards. For example, the GST credit and Trillium are all means tested. However, as a taxpayer, you’re not having to do any work for that extra cash, if you qualify. It’s automatic. The household income testing for the GRT, is wrong because you need to collect tax information from all members of the family, you need to highlight take-home pay for all members, and you need to ensure them that you’re living well below the poverty level. This is what makes it wrong.
Take a single senior, for example: the cutoff is $18,900, any senior that worked at all (even for a year or two) won’t qualify for transit: OAS and GIS maximums (low income seniors) is already $18,500, this is the least amount of money you can get. If you receive $90 in CPP, some of GIS will be taken away, and likely leave you with an income around $19,000/year. What I saying is, the only seniors that might qualify are those that came to Canada and don’t qualify for much or any OAS, GIS and CPP. If you were born and raised in Canada, you won’t get this transit discount.
The region needs to look at how they can get young riders to use the transit, and cheap transit is one way. If you’re a student, and even taking a yellow bus, give them a ride for $1.50 or less, so when they are done with school, they are more inclined to us a bus, rather than buy a car. Get them hooked at a young age.
Yeah, getting people onto transit early makes sense as well. But there's also a risk of it appearing to be the stop gap you use until you can get a car.
Regardless, I'm totally in agreement that the proposed system is pretty poor. The biggest problem remains the fact that driving is massively subsidized...you are unlikely to be able to beat the driving subsidy just by making transit cheaper. If we mandated that parking cost money for example, the travelwise subsidy would be less important.