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. Click here to get started.


Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 3.75 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
General Road and Highway Discussion
I would very much support a bridge for Lancaster, combined with closing the St Leger level crossing. This would be a significant positive impact for both road and rail traffic.
Reply
(07-12-2017, 07:36 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(07-12-2017, 05:44 PM)p2ee Wrote: 2)  Every time a car is sold and then re-sold, there is the HST that has to be paid.  A cheaper new car with $20,000 value generates $2600 in taxes, not to mention the taxes generated on the re-sales.  That tax revenue is not being considered and is probably at least $500 a year on average.

As Dan points out, this is a sales tax so not really relevant.  In addition, you pay it only on the incremental value of the purchase ($20K new car with a $10K trade-in generates only $1300 in sales tax).

 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.
Reply
(07-16-2017, 03:41 PM)sevenman Wrote:
(07-12-2017, 07:36 PM)tomh009 Wrote: As Dan points out, this is a sales tax so not really relevant.  In addition, you pay it only on the incremental value of the purchase ($20K new car with a $10K trade-in generates only $1300 in sales tax).

 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.
Reply
This discussion is just plain stupid. Get over it and move on. Neither side is going to accept the other's opinion.
Reply
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)
Reply
(07-16-2017, 06:28 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)

Embe,

  They are comencing the construction of a temporary on-ramp to 85 North as some of the columns required for the New Victoria St. Bridge to be constructed are located right where the existing on ramp passes below the existing bridge.  This temporary on-ramp will be closed permanently once the new Bruce St. extension is connected to Wellington St.  This will then allow vehicles in that area to head north on Hwy 85 via new Bruce St. extension and on-ramp from Wellington to 85 North.
Reply
(07-16-2017, 03:58 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(07-16-2017, 03:41 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.

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.
Reply
(07-16-2017, 07:40 PM)sevenman Wrote:
(07-16-2017, 03:58 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.

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.
Reply
(07-16-2017, 08:28 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(07-16-2017, 07:40 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.

I wonder what would happen if we suggested free electricity for everybody? Would people understand the difference between “pay for use” and “free to use, paid for by taxes” in that market?
Reply
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.
Reply
(07-16-2017, 08:28 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(07-16-2017, 07:40 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.
  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.

  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,
Reply
(07-16-2017, 10:36 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.

Sorry, we’ve had illness in the house the last few days and it wasn’t a good time for me to make comments needing careful thought on here.

For the record I did read the site and I think you said some pretty reasonable things in the last few days.

But I don’t see how we can have a good discussion if some people don’t understand that roads are free to use. 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).

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.

Incidently, it’s possible in principle to eliminate congestion entirely: “just” introduce per-road-segment, per-time-period, congestion charges that respond to how busy the road is. So instead of getting to the road and discovering that it’s clogged, you would get there and discover that the sign is advertising a prohibitive fee for using it. You would then either decide to pay the fee and proceed, or turn around and come back a different time when it’s less busy. Of course in today’s society Google maps would probably tell you the toll and you would decide before leaving the house whether to proceed.

Same applies to parking, except that it’s actually practical to do something like what I suggested, as proven by SFPark.
Reply
@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.
Reply
(07-16-2017, 11:43 PM)sevenman Wrote:
(07-16-2017, 08:28 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).

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.
  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.

  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,

Roads are free in exactly the same way as healthcare and education, and different from the way in which mailing a letter is not free.

I really don’t understand why people can’t understand that general taxes, not use-related fees, pay for the roads (with minor exceptions primarily in the form of the gas tax, which probably isn’t as high as a proper carbon tax would be anyhow, so arguably it is a too-low carbon tax, not a road-use-related tax as such).
Reply
(07-17-2017, 06:24 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.

Also the vehicle is not provided by the government, so of course it costs money. If the general taxpayer, via government, does not pay for something, the main other possibility is for the user of the thing to pay for it.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)