|
|
Post by franko on Oct 19, 2015 19:53:42 GMT -5
I think there'll be a mix. watch 416 -- that's the key.
I figured there'd be 3-4 non-red seats in the maritimes. huh.
what's that Bob Dylan?
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 19, 2015 21:01:43 GMT -5
The coast gaurd is not a direct use cost. Just like the military. It's a national srrvice. Why exactly should I pay for a bridge in Montreal? They certainly take enough tolls and I certainly do not use it. On the other hand, it's going to cost me another several thousand dollars for a brand spanking new tax on buildings for storm drains. SEVERAL THOUSAND a year. Directly. From my pocket. New tax and I'm going to pay for it, like it or not. Why can't the bridge users pay for THEIR bridge? Or the cities that adjoin it? Or the province it's in? Certainly it's not the lack of ability to pay, but rather, a desire to do so. More taxes for yhe. Boohoo. So someone 500 kilometers away should pay it? Or 5000 kilometers away? But you do realize that Montrealers would be paying for infrastructure in your area, right ? It goes both ways. And the economic activity generated by the new bridge (not just building it, but what how it allows Montreal to grow) will generate more taxes which will eventally benefit your community. I hate usage or toll-based ways of thinking - can't we just be citizens, with a few privileges that come along with that, like being able to go places, instead of being consumers, even in the eyes of government ? Besides, since revenues and expenses will be equivalent whether people are billed per use or if it's through general taxation, I don't really want massive sums spent to collect tolls, when every single penny could've been kept for better uses. In short, any individual billing scheme is being pro-big government; even if it's done by the private sector, it's still money that didn't need to be spent. ---- It's kind of likw how Quebec City made municipal pools free. Yes, it meant some lost revenue, but it meant a whole lot less work (and expense) to manage those pools. I know I'm still paying through other taxes, but it's more efficient to not bill everyone for every individual use. And I'll be winning on this one count, but losing on others, and it should roughly even out. I call all that together a society, rather than a bunch of individual consumers watching out for their own pockets only. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 19, 2015 22:09:13 GMT -5
The coast gaurd is not a direct use cost. Just like the military. It's a national srrvice. Why exactly should I pay for a bridge in Montreal? They certainly take enough tolls and I certainly do not use it. On the other hand, it's going to cost me another several thousand dollars for a brand spanking new tax on buildings for storm drains. SEVERAL THOUSAND a year. Directly. From my pocket. New tax and I'm going to pay for it, like it or not. Why can't the bridge users pay for THEIR bridge? Or the cities that adjoin it? Or the province it's in? Certainly it's not the lack of ability to pay, but rather, a desire to do so. More taxes for yhe. Boohoo. So someone 500 kilometers away should pay it? Or 5000 kilometers away? But you do realize that Montrealers would be paying for infrastructure in your area, right ? It goes both ways. And the economic activity generated by the new bridge (not just building it, but what how it allows Montreal to grow) will generate more taxes which will eventally benefit your community. I hate usage or toll-based ways of thinking - can't we just be citizens, with a few privileges that come along with that, like being able to go places, instead of being consumers, even in the eyes of government ? Besides, since revenues and expenses will be equivalent whether people are billed per use or if it's through general taxation, I don't really want massive sums spent to collect tolls, when every single penny could've been kept for better uses. In short, any individual billing scheme is being pro-big government; even if it's done by the private sector, it's still money that didn't need to be spent. ---- It's kind of likw how Quebec City made municipal pools free. Yes, it meant some lost revenue, but it meant a whole lot less work (and expense) to manage those pools. I know I'm still paying through other taxes, but it's more efficient to not bill everyone for every individual use. And I'll be winning on this one count, but losing on others, and it should roughly even out. I call all that together a society, rather than a bunch of individual consumers watching out for their own pockets only. Don't buy that at all. Spending my infrastructure tax dollars in your community does not benefit me at all. I can spend it on my community and enjoy the fruits of it. Including the economic "activity". The guy who paves the road lives down the street.....and he is going to spend it on the baker, two streets over. Here is another one for you. Back when Harris downloaded the electricuty grid on municipalities, Mississauga let the hydro guys be their own bosses and all the money the rate payers paid was plowed right back into the grid. Posdibly ghe bedt grid in North America. Toronto chose "priorities" and never fully plowed or increased their spending on their grid. It's an absolute mess and getting worse by the day. How would you feel if they sunk the money into the center of the universe and not your bridge? Would that be fair to you? It's not that Toronto is poor or can't afford it. The only argument I buy is to spend it on people who are truly in need. Another school on the northern territories pays a lot more dividens and changes the lives of many who may never have another opportunity. I may not see any economic activity pr benefit, but then, thats about helping those who truly nedd it rather then those who choose not to spend their own money. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 19, 2015 22:24:43 GMT -5
momentum really turned for him when they started airing the ad with him on the escalator. Genius ad. truly was. and targeting the wonderful middle class, whoever they are. funny thing . . . I don't make enough to receive his promised tax cuts (the ones that HA is going to pay for  ). I miss out on all of the boutique tax credits that Harper has promised. I'm just a sucker trying to get by . . . (woe is me). I greatly fear Wynne's influence on JT. it was all CPP . . . conveniently ignoring OAS and GIS. and with Wynne, it was only those who didn't have "pensions" that would pay for her infrastructure spending the pension plan . . . so government workers and a lot of union members would have been excluded, while I would lose that grand from my salary and my employer would have to pony up a grand, which would mean that the raise that I might have received next year is gone because the money went for said infrastructure spending pension -- which I won't get because I'm too close to retirement (if I can afford to retire). 40 years. 40 years for it to be self-funding. although how can it be self funding when it isn't invested for pensions? and half of it goes for bureaucratic costs. but I digress. Wynne . . JT . . . and the rest of us suckers. but we'll see. if there is indeed a Liberal minority JT will have lots of time and space to do what he wants while two leadership races take place. How dare you don't buy Wynnes carefully crafted garbage about pensions. All that money will be carefully spent on the highest return for a sustainable pension system. Fer sure. Just ask her. Mehh......Stop complaining. Wynne and Justin is looking after your interests. They just forgot to tell you that you will pay for it. Actually, the sad part is that they always manage to hurt the most those they claim to be concerned about. Congratulations to Justin. Let the fun and games begin...... |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 19, 2015 22:37:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 19, 2015 22:43:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 19, 2015 23:19:27 GMT -5
Don't buy that at all. Spending my infrastructure tax dollars in your community does not benefit me at all. I can spend it on my community and enjoy the fruits of it. Including the economic "activity". The guy who paves the road lives down the street.....and he is going to spend it on the baker, two streets over. What about the simple fact that you pay part of Montreal's bridge, and Montreal buys part of the Peace Bridge - or at least helped build and maintain it in the first place ? It's kind of the whole idea of a Federation. There are tons of infrastructure projects that have much greater "common good" but that local ressources couldn't get built. You think every little hamlet would be able to pay for its share of the 401 ? |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 20, 2015 7:03:28 GMT -5
Speaking of funding bridges - how about this story: The government committed to fully funding a bridge that isn't even completely in Canada: www.canadianbusiness.com/economy/4-billion-detroit-windsor-bridge/Although I have come in during the middle of this conversation, my views are much closer to those of PTH. Infrastructure improvements benefit all of us but I have a lot of trouble with taxpayer money going to the state of Michigan. |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Oct 20, 2015 7:41:07 GMT -5
I wonder how much tourism will increase when they legalize pot?
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 20, 2015 7:42:37 GMT -5
I wonder how much tourism will increase when they legalize pot? Canada's new international dialing code just became 420 ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 20, 2015 7:57:14 GMT -5
I wonder how much tourism will increase when they legalize pot? lots of flights within Canada |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Oct 20, 2015 9:05:17 GMT -5
I was reading an article last summer and they were naming off some of the spinoffs and what kind of financial impact it would create, not including tax monies. The guesstimates were in the billions a year, from hotels, new 420 friendly businesses, restaurants, clubs, transportation etc.
I'm not a user myself, but I wouldn't mind benefiting from the financial windfalls.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 20, 2015 9:59:22 GMT -5
I voted today at noon. No lineups for me. I was in the booth for a good minute deciding on who to vote for. Never have I been conflicted with who to vote for. The guy I wanted, would not win. There was one person I will never vote for. The other two are going up against the one I wouldn't vote for. So in the end it came down to two. I went with the incumbent for the region in hopes that the rest of the people do the same. I'm with Cranky though. You shouldn't spend what you don't have, but that option wasn't really available in my area, hence I went with the lesser evil of the two. I call myself "right winger" but in reality, it's based on economic conservative principle. Certainly "left" on social issues. For someone born dirt poor, I know nothing else but personal responsibility, hard work, living within ones means. So anything that remotely speaks as spending by borrowing or taxing others bothers me. A lot. I have seen it on a grand scale in Greece and now it's total economic ruins. I'm seeing it a smaller but certainly same path by Ontario Liberals....and now what? On a Federal level? Because "free money" buys votes? I would never vote for anyone who advocates it. Period. And I don't care what political stripe they are. You mean like the Conservative Economic Action Plan that has built two highways and countless bridges (I'd go so far as to say upwards of 10-12) here in Newfoundland. You wouldn't vote for anyone that promoted that kind of thing? I somehow don't believe you |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 20, 2015 10:39:08 GMT -5
This all kind of strikes at the very heart of not only what it means to be a Canadian, but what it means to be a member of a community, or a functioning member of a society.
I get the argument; I don't drive on that bridge, why should I pay for it? But where does that slippery slope end? The Coast Guard and schooling were brought up, but there are other examples, with the biggie being health care. I don't have cancer, so why should I pay for your treatments? I don't smoke, live near power lines, or have bad genes. Not my fault you got sick, and I'm certainly not using the services that are being provided to you, but paid for (in part) by me. So why should I continue to pay?
But let's dive deeper. I live near Montreal. Never mind paying for a bridge in Toronto or Newfoundland, why should I pay for a highway that runs to Quebec City? I only use it maybe twice a year. Why are my provincial taxes going to fix that road that I rarely use? For that matter, why are my municipal taxes going to fix roads I don't drive on? If I really look at it I would say that I only drive on about one-third of the roads in my town. Why should I pay to maintain the others? Come to think of it, I only use about half the street I live on too - I never drive past my house, so if my neighbor has a giant pot-hole in front of his driveway, well that doesn't really affect me, now does it? Why should I pay for it? We have GPS technology now, we should put a chip in every car and track where it goes. That way we can calculate the actual percentage of taxes that I should pay for each street repair, if any at all. Don't have a car? Well, those sidewalks aren't going to pay for themselves, now are they? Better put a chip in your shoe - or better yet, your ankle - so we know how much wear and tear you are personally responsible for, and tax you accordingly.
Public pools? Libraries? Town web site? Don't use them, please reduce my tax bill accordingly. Parks, kiddie playgrounds, bike paths, flowers on the median? Not my responsibility, please don't charge me for them. Unless of course I use them. Which is kind of hard to determine sans le chip, so get those implants ready. It's the only fair way.
I'm being silly of course, but the point is still there; if I'm a member of this town, this province, and this country, then how much responsibility (i.e. cash) do I owe to my fellow members of the town, province and country? I may never drive on that bridge in Newfoundland… but my fellow Canadians do. As a Canadian is it my responsibility to help them, and if so, to what extent?
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 20, 2015 10:39:48 GMT -5
You mean like the Conservative Economic Action Plan that has built two highways and countless bridges (I'd go so far as to say upwards of 10-12) here in Newfoundland. You wouldn't vote for anyone that promoted that kind of thing? I somehow don't believe you you mean infrastructure spending was done by the Conservatives? you'd never know it here . . . all they did was eat babies and stifle free speech. and we're into a brave new world . . . how did Tasha Kheiriddin put it? rainbows and unicorns promised. we'll see what comes about. then again, maybe it's the legalized pot that will help us find the rainbows and unicorns! |
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Oct 20, 2015 11:12:41 GMT -5
You mean like the Conservative Economic Action Plan that has built two highways and countless bridges (I'd go so far as to say upwards of 10-12) here in Newfoundland. You wouldn't vote for anyone that promoted that kind of thing? I somehow don't believe you you mean infrastructure spending was done by the Conservatives? you'd never know it here . . . all they did was eat babies and stifle free speech. and we're into a brave new world . . . how did Tasha Kheiriddin put it? rainbows and unicorns promised. we'll see what comes about. then again, maybe it's the legalized pot that will help us find the rainbows and unicorns! I'm all for unicorns and rainbows. I don't do that stuff either but I'm more than happy to have it controlled and regulated and taxed. Take the money out of the criminal elements hands and help the cops go after the real bad guys rather than the guy with 5 grams of pot. As for Trudeau his rebuttle to Mulcair regarding 'What's my number? Nine... Nine supreme court judges' was huge. Also i found this election was almost like a changing of the guard in that more young people were involved and discussing it through social media. As someone in their 50's I'm pleased to see this because it's their future too and they need to have their say as well and i feel they said they are not interested in American style politics. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 20, 2015 11:50:35 GMT -5
This all kind of strikes at the very heart of not only what it means to be a Canadian, but what it means to be a member of a community, or a functioning member of a society. I get the argument; I don't drive on that bridge, why should I pay for it? But where does that slippery slope end? The Coast Guard and schooling were brought up, but there are other examples, with the biggie being health care. I don't have cancer, so why should I pay for your treatments? I don't smoke, live near power lines, or have bad genes. Not my fault you got sick, and I'm certainly not using the services that are being provided to you, but paid for (in part) by me. So why should I continue to pay? But let's dive deeper. I live near Montreal. Never mind paying for a bridge in Toronto or Newfoundland, why should I pay for a highway that runs to Quebec City? I only use it maybe twice a year. Why are my provincial taxes going to fix that road that I rarely use? For that matter, why are my municipal taxes going to fix roads I don't drive on? If I really look at it I would say that I only drive on about one-third of the roads in my town. Why should I pay to maintain the others? Come to think of it, I only use about half the street I live on too - I never drive past my house, so if my neighbor has a giant pot-hole in front of his driveway, well that doesn't really affect me, now does it? Why should I pay for it? We have GPS technology now, we should put a chip in every car and track where it goes. That way we can calculate the actual percentage of taxes that I should pay for each street repair, if any at all. Don't have a car? Well, those sidewalks aren't going to pay for themselves, now are they? Better put a chip in your shoe - or better yet, your ankle - so we know how much wear and tear you are personally responsible for, and tax you accordingly. Public pools? Libraries? Town web site? Don't use them, please reduce my tax bill accordingly. Parks, kiddie playgrounds, bike paths, flowers on the median? Not my responsibility, please don't charge me for them. Unless of course I use them. Which is kind of hard to determine sans le chip, so get those implants ready. It's the only fair way. I'm being silly of course, but the point is still there; if I'm a member of this town, this province, and this country, then how much responsibility (i.e. cash) do I owe to my fellow members of the town, province and country? I may never drive on that bridge in Newfoundland… but my fellow Canadians do. As a Canadian is it my responsibility to help them, and if so, to what extent? Actually the real issue is not "why should I fund your bridge" but rather, "why should I fund your bridge when you don't want too". Or the hilarious...."why should I fund your bridhe if you wasted your tax money". Or equally hilarious..."Mafiz atd my money". ...and even if the money doesn't go to organized crime, it sure wouldn't mean it would go towards Infrastucture maintenance. We had tolls in Quebec 30 years ago, not only on the Champlain bridge but on every major highways. The tolls were abolished and the revenue they generated were made up for with increases on driver's license and plates. That money of course was, by law, supposed to be invested solely on maintaining our roads. For years the SAAQ made huge profits because the infrastructures were actually not maintained properly and the money was going towards other projects. I understand the logic of "pay per use" and in theory I have nothing against it. But at what point do you draw the line?? I hate to sound like one of those Tea Party wingnuts, but Quebecers are the highest taxed people in all of North America (as we know) and yet we seem to have the lowest level of service. The corruption within the construction industry is well known, and it extends to the highest levels of ALL governments. We're not talking about one bridge that went over budget through extenuating circumstances. We're talking about every single construction project within the province. Hyperbole? Perhaps, but I dare you to find a single major construction job, publicly funded, that came in on time and on budget. I cannot think of a single one. And they usually miss BIG. Like the aforementioned Dorval Circle. Double the time, double the cost, and counting. The super-hospital, the Laval metro extension, the 30, every bridge... check out the cost-overruns on these projects. Each one of them cost hundreds of millions more than predicted, and were/are years behind schedule. Do you keep funding incompetence with MORE money?? On August 1st, 2007 a major bridge in the Minneapolis, Minnesota collapsed, killing 13 people. On September 18th, 2008, a little over a year later, it's replacement bridge re-opened. Ahead of schedule. Which was good for the construction company, as they would have been fined $200,000 per day for every day they were behind. The tender called for something in the area of $350 million, they did it for $234 million. And yet a rinky-dink little bridge in Pointe des Cascades takes two years to build?? Eighteen months behind schedule?? If that construction company had of been fined $200,000 for every day they were late it would have cost them $108 million dollars. Instead, you are proposing we reward this incompetence with a toll on the bridge? To replace the Champlain bridge they are talking about $1 BILLION dollars and fifteen years(!) to complete. How much would have cost that Minnesota construction company, if instead of one year to complete the bridge it took them 15?? Why can they do it, but we can't?? At what point do you say "enough is enough, I give you my money, but clearly you are incapable of managing it??" Let's say they open up tolls; what, in the history of this province and it's construction industry, would lead you to believe that the money would actually go towards properly maintaining the infrastructure in a timely and cost-efficient manner? Like I said, we're the highest taxed jurisdiction in North America, and yet apparently that money doesn't do any good. Yes, I would be a user. If I am paying for it, that would make me a consumer. As a consumer, as would a consumer for any product, I want to know that I am getting what I am paying for. Would tolls do that? Or would they simply be another cash-drain into the bottomless government coffer? And this one..... I did, and was thus in a position to know things I often wished I didn't know. That recent Champlain Bridge report detailing the possibility that the bridge could collapse as it's structural integrity was in question? I first saw a similar report detailing the exact same thing - with the same causes and concerns - over 10 years ago. At the time the report said that the bridge was in urgent need of replacement. The Federal Government came back and asked "how much would it cost, and how long will it take to replace the bridge, if this one collapses?" In other words, let's wait until it falls, and hopefully by that time it will be someone else's problem. I inspected another bridge - a train bridge in Ontario, it's not just a Montreal problem - that we were literally able to pull apart with our bare hands. And I'm not talking about the facade, I'm talking about huge chunks of concrete around the supporting rebar (which was of course visible). "It's okay," they said, "Only one train a week goes over that bridge." Another bridge had a hole in it's piers so big that you could actually park a small pickup truck inside the pier, were you so inclined to do so (and assuming you could get your truck 60 feet under water and still parallel park). Took over three years and numerous "you fix it" lawsuits before that one got sorted out. How we haven't had a major disaster yet is beyond me. I'm of mixed opinion on this. Pay what you use makes sense, but... what if there are no alternatives? I live to the west of Montreal, and a 20 minute commute by car would take almost two hours by public transport, involving three different buses and a train. Four hours of commuting is a lot, and impossible for people with kids in schools or daycares, or for people who work odd hours. I communicate with engineers in India on a daily basis, meaning that I am sometimes in my office by 6 am - an impossibility were I to take public transport. If I stay at home and call them from there, well by the time those meetings are over the rush hour is finished and there are no more trains for me to take. That's right, trains do not run in non-rush-hour times. So in effect I am forced to pay for something that I cannot avoid, like a tax on air so to speak. But even if you ignore that, or if you say "too bad, you chose to live out there", should I have to pay for incompetence? The aforementioned Champlain Bridge is a billion dollar mistake. Yes, mistake. That type of design should NEVER have been used to build that bridge. What about cost-overruns and time delays? There is an article in today's Gazette that talks about the Dorval Circle - a series of highways and exits leading to Montreal's airport - and how it's planned replacement is now four years behind schedule, and $126 million (and counting) over budget. Should I have to pay for that? When it was announced in 1999, it was supposed to take two years and cost $36 million to build three new overpasses to eliminate the circle.
By 2005, the price tag was announced as $150 million. It went up to $224 million in 2009, officials at the time said, because of inflation and because an access link to an eventual high-speed rail service between downtown and the airport was added to the plan.www.montrealgazette.com/news/todays-paper/Dorval+Circle+cost+soars+work+extended/5196593/story.htmlMy favorite part of that article? Pressed for details to explain why the project, which was launched in 2009 and was supposed to be completed in four years, is now expected to take eight years, Grégoire said Transport Quebec is too busy with the aftermath of Sunday's collapse of part of the Ville Marie Expressway tunnel to provide answers.
The transport department did not make any announcement of the delay and the cost overrun because, Grégoire added, "we inform the media when they ask us."In other words, we will give you the details when you ask for them... unless of course we are busy with something else. In that case you are SOL. This project went from $35 million, to well over $350 million. Ten times the original estimated cost. Why should I pay for somebody else's mistakes? If they tell you that it will cost you $20,000 to buy a new Toyota, but when you show up on the lot they say "the car won't be here for another two years, and it's going to cost you $200,000" would you still buy the car?? There is another bridge near where I live, over the old St. Lawrence Seaway canal, that was "recently" replaced. It's not a big bridge - most highway overpasses are longer - and it was originally scheduled to be replaced in 6 months. Took almost two years. I don't know what the cost-overruns were on that, but I am going to assume they were not insignificant. Should the people of that town pay for the corruption and incompetence that went into building that bridge? Bend over and say "thank you for cutting us off from civilization for 18 months longer than you said you would, here is some more money?" Until they clean up the corruption and mismanagement that exists in the Federal, Provincial, Municipal and construction agencies that manage these bridges and roads I will not willingly give them a dime. Would you give your money to Bernie Madoff now? He is a crook and a fool. So why should I give my money to crooks and fools? So basically, you wont or don't want to fund your bridge. And/Or the money is wsasted. And/or, the money was stolen by corruption, poor us". But now, you want me to fund that bridge? To quote you directly.... ... At what point do you say "enough is enough, I give you my money, but clearly you are incapable of managing it??" Let's say they open up tolls; what, in the history of this province and it's construction industry, would lead you to believe that the money would actually go towards properly maintaining the infrastructure in a timely and cost-efficient manner? Like I said, we're the highest taxed jurisdiction in North America, and yet apparently that money doesn't do any good. Tell me again about how this is about "being a Canadian"? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 20, 2015 12:09:04 GMT -5
I call myself "right winger" but in reality, it's based on economic conservative principle. Certainly "left" on social issues. For someone born dirt poor, I know nothing else but personal responsibility, hard work, living within ones means. So anything that remotely speaks as spending by borrowing or taxing others bothers me. A lot. I have seen it on a grand scale in Greece and now it's total economic ruins. I'm seeing it a smaller but certainly same path by Ontario Liberals....and now what? On a Federal level? Because "free money" buys votes? I would never vote for anyone who advocates it. Period. And I don't care what political stripe they are. You mean like the Conservative Economic Action Plan that has built two highways and countless bridges (I'd go so far as to say upwards of 10-12) here in Newfoundland. You wouldn't vote for anyone that promoted that kind of thing? I somehow don't believe you Two roads and 10-12 bridges in 5 years? Really? Send those uber efficient people to Quebec..... The same plan that saw a section of a road I drive on a daily basis get torn and resurfaced twice in a span of a year? Versus once in a span of over a decade when Mississauga footed the bill? And never touched again since then? That plan? Which of course brings up the argument of "fund your own". |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 20, 2015 12:40:12 GMT -5
This all kind of strikes at the very heart of not only what it means to be a Canadian, but what it means to be a member of a community, or a functioning member of a society. I get the argument; I don't drive on that bridge, why should I pay for it? But where does that slippery slope end? The Coast Guard and schooling were brought up, but there are other examples, with the biggie being health care. I don't have cancer, so why should I pay for your treatments? I don't smoke, live near power lines, or have bad genes. Not my fault you got sick, and I'm certainly not using the services that are being provided to you, but paid for (in part) by me. So why should I continue to pay? But let's dive deeper. I live near Montreal. Never mind paying for a bridge in Toronto or Newfoundland, why should I pay for a highway that runs to Quebec City? I only use it maybe twice a year. Why are my provincial taxes going to fix that road that I rarely use? For that matter, why are my municipal taxes going to fix roads I don't drive on? If I really look at it I would say that I only drive on about one-third of the roads in my town. Why should I pay to maintain the others? Come to think of it, I only use about half the street I live on too - I never drive past my house, so if my neighbor has a giant pot-hole in front of his driveway, well that doesn't really affect me, now does it? Why should I pay for it? We have GPS technology now, we should put a chip in every car and track where it goes. That way we can calculate the actual percentage of taxes that I should pay for each street repair, if any at all. Don't have a car? Well, those sidewalks aren't going to pay for themselves, now are they? Better put a chip in your shoe - or better yet, your ankle - so we know how much wear and tear you are personally responsible for, and tax you accordingly. Public pools? Libraries? Town web site? Don't use them, please reduce my tax bill accordingly. Parks, kiddie playgrounds, bike paths, flowers on the median? Not my responsibility, please don't charge me for them. Unless of course I use them. Which is kind of hard to determine sans le chip, so get those implants ready. It's the only fair way. I'm being silly of course, but the point is still there; if I'm a member of this town, this province, and this country, then how much responsibility (i.e. cash) do I owe to my fellow members of the town, province and country? I may never drive on that bridge in Newfoundland… but my fellow Canadians do. As a Canadian is it my responsibility to help them, and if so, to what extent? Actually the real issue is not "why should I fund your bridge" but rather, "why should I fund your bridge when you don't want too". Or the hilarious...."why should I fund your bridhe if you wasted your tax money". Or equally hilarious..."Mafiz atd my money". ...and even if the money doesn't go to organized crime, it sure wouldn't mean it would go towards Infrastucture maintenance. We had tolls in Quebec 30 years ago, not only on the Champlain bridge but on every major highways. The tolls were abolished and the revenue they generated were made up for with increases on driver's license and plates. That money of course was, by law, supposed to be invested solely on maintaining our roads. For years the SAAQ made huge profits because the infrastructures were actually not maintained properly and the money was going towards other projects. I understand the logic of "pay per use" and in theory I have nothing against it. But at what point do you draw the line?? I hate to sound like one of those Tea Party wingnuts, but Quebecers are the highest taxed people in all of North America (as we know) and yet we seem to have the lowest level of service. The corruption within the construction industry is well known, and it extends to the highest levels of ALL governments. We're not talking about one bridge that went over budget through extenuating circumstances. We're talking about every single construction project within the province. Hyperbole? Perhaps, but I dare you to find a single major construction job, publicly funded, that came in on time and on budget. I cannot think of a single one. And they usually miss BIG. Like the aforementioned Dorval Circle. Double the time, double the cost, and counting. The super-hospital, the Laval metro extension, the 30, every bridge... check out the cost-overruns on these projects. Each one of them cost hundreds of millions more than predicted, and were/are years behind schedule. Do you keep funding incompetence with MORE money?? On August 1st, 2007 a major bridge in the Minneapolis, Minnesota collapsed, killing 13 people. On September 18th, 2008, a little over a year later, it's replacement bridge re-opened. Ahead of schedule. Which was good for the construction company, as they would have been fined $200,000 per day for every day they were behind. The tender called for something in the area of $350 million, they did it for $234 million. And yet a rinky-dink little bridge in Pointe des Cascades takes two years to build?? Eighteen months behind schedule?? If that construction company had of been fined $200,000 for every day they were late it would have cost them $108 million dollars. Instead, you are proposing we reward this incompetence with a toll on the bridge? To replace the Champlain bridge they are talking about $1 BILLION dollars and fifteen years(!) to complete. How much would have cost that Minnesota construction company, if instead of one year to complete the bridge it took them 15?? Why can they do it, but we can't?? At what point do you say "enough is enough, I give you my money, but clearly you are incapable of managing it??" Let's say they open up tolls; what, in the history of this province and it's construction industry, would lead you to believe that the money would actually go towards properly maintaining the infrastructure in a timely and cost-efficient manner? Like I said, we're the highest taxed jurisdiction in North America, and yet apparently that money doesn't do any good. Yes, I would be a user. If I am paying for it, that would make me a consumer. As a consumer, as would a consumer for any product, I want to know that I am getting what I am paying for. Would tolls do that? Or would they simply be another cash-drain into the bottomless government coffer? And this one..... I did, and was thus in a position to know things I often wished I didn't know. That recent Champlain Bridge report detailing the possibility that the bridge could collapse as it's structural integrity was in question? I first saw a similar report detailing the exact same thing - with the same causes and concerns - over 10 years ago. At the time the report said that the bridge was in urgent need of replacement. The Federal Government came back and asked "how much would it cost, and how long will it take to replace the bridge, if this one collapses?" In other words, let's wait until it falls, and hopefully by that time it will be someone else's problem. I inspected another bridge - a train bridge in Ontario, it's not just a Montreal problem - that we were literally able to pull apart with our bare hands. And I'm not talking about the facade, I'm talking about huge chunks of concrete around the supporting rebar (which was of course visible). "It's okay," they said, "Only one train a week goes over that bridge." Another bridge had a hole in it's piers so big that you could actually park a small pickup truck inside the pier, were you so inclined to do so (and assuming you could get your truck 60 feet under water and still parallel park). Took over three years and numerous "you fix it" lawsuits before that one got sorted out. How we haven't had a major disaster yet is beyond me. I'm of mixed opinion on this. Pay what you use makes sense, but... what if there are no alternatives? I live to the west of Montreal, and a 20 minute commute by car would take almost two hours by public transport, involving three different buses and a train. Four hours of commuting is a lot, and impossible for people with kids in schools or daycares, or for people who work odd hours. I communicate with engineers in India on a daily basis, meaning that I am sometimes in my office by 6 am - an impossibility were I to take public transport. If I stay at home and call them from there, well by the time those meetings are over the rush hour is finished and there are no more trains for me to take. That's right, trains do not run in non-rush-hour times. So in effect I am forced to pay for something that I cannot avoid, like a tax on air so to speak. But even if you ignore that, or if you say "too bad, you chose to live out there", should I have to pay for incompetence? The aforementioned Champlain Bridge is a billion dollar mistake. Yes, mistake. That type of design should NEVER have been used to build that bridge. What about cost-overruns and time delays? There is an article in today's Gazette that talks about the Dorval Circle - a series of highways and exits leading to Montreal's airport - and how it's planned replacement is now four years behind schedule, and $126 million (and counting) over budget. Should I have to pay for that? When it was announced in 1999, it was supposed to take two years and cost $36 million to build three new overpasses to eliminate the circle.
By 2005, the price tag was announced as $150 million. It went up to $224 million in 2009, officials at the time said, because of inflation and because an access link to an eventual high-speed rail service between downtown and the airport was added to the plan.www.montrealgazette.com/news/todays-paper/Dorval+Circle+cost+soars+work+extended/5196593/story.htmlMy favorite part of that article? Pressed for details to explain why the project, which was launched in 2009 and was supposed to be completed in four years, is now expected to take eight years, Grégoire said Transport Quebec is too busy with the aftermath of Sunday's collapse of part of the Ville Marie Expressway tunnel to provide answers.
The transport department did not make any announcement of the delay and the cost overrun because, Grégoire added, "we inform the media when they ask us."In other words, we will give you the details when you ask for them... unless of course we are busy with something else. In that case you are SOL. This project went from $35 million, to well over $350 million. Ten times the original estimated cost. Why should I pay for somebody else's mistakes? If they tell you that it will cost you $20,000 to buy a new Toyota, but when you show up on the lot they say "the car won't be here for another two years, and it's going to cost you $200,000" would you still buy the car?? There is another bridge near where I live, over the old St. Lawrence Seaway canal, that was "recently" replaced. It's not a big bridge - most highway overpasses are longer - and it was originally scheduled to be replaced in 6 months. Took almost two years. I don't know what the cost-overruns were on that, but I am going to assume they were not insignificant. Should the people of that town pay for the corruption and incompetence that went into building that bridge? Bend over and say "thank you for cutting us off from civilization for 18 months longer than you said you would, here is some more money?" Until they clean up the corruption and mismanagement that exists in the Federal, Provincial, Municipal and construction agencies that manage these bridges and roads I will not willingly give them a dime. Would you give your money to Bernie Madoff now? He is a crook and a fool. So why should I give my money to crooks and fools? So basically, you wont or don't want to fund your bridge. And/Or the money is wsasted. And/or, the money was stolen by corruption, poor us". But now, you want me to fund that bridge? To quote you directly.... ... At what point do you say "enough is enough, I give you my money, but clearly you are incapable of managing it??" Let's say they open up tolls; what, in the history of this province and it's construction industry, would lead you to believe that the money would actually go towards properly maintaining the infrastructure in a timely and cost-efficient manner? Like I said, we're the highest taxed jurisdiction in North America, and yet apparently that money doesn't do any good. Tell me again about how this is about "being a Canadian"? Not sure what you are trying to say here? I am against user-pay systems because I think it goes against the spirit of a community, a nation, and a people, and in this case it is over the line I have drawn in my head. A functioning, agreed-upon society that looks out for itself. I am even MORESO against it because of the corruption; why should I pay for a system twice, when the money is clearly not going to the right places? Once with my taxes, and once as a user? But the fact that there is corruption within the system does not make the system itself bad, only that it needs to be cleaned up. I get that you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay into a system that is corrupt, and I agree with that. But in either system (group versus user) the possibility (reality?) of corruption exists. So that needs to be cleaned up regardless of which way you go. What I was saying was that as member of the highest paying tax group in North America I see no NEED to add tolls to bridges (or roads), ESPECIALLY when it's not clear that tolls are actually going to do anything. Just as you would not be happy with a specific tax on you, just to pay for this bridge. Now if they clean up the corruption and use the money that we are already paying in taxes to fix bridges and roads, then so be it. That's what taxes are for. Infrastructure work needs to be done. Either it's paid for as a collective (through taxes) or by individual users (through tolls). Either way the possibility of corruption exists and needs to be addressed. But the second way seems very un-Canadian to me, as it is asking a very specific sub-set of the population to pay for something when the rest of the population benefits from things that the subset also pays for (and doesn't benefit from). |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Oct 20, 2015 12:48:08 GMT -5
I voted today at noon. No lineups for me. I was in the booth for a good minute deciding on who to vote for. Never have I been conflicted with who to vote for. The guy I wanted, would not win. There was one person I will never vote for. The other two are going up against the one I wouldn't vote for. So in the end it came down to two. I went with the incumbent for the region in hopes that the rest of the people do the same. I'm with Cranky though. You shouldn't spend what you don't have, but that option wasn't really available in my area, hence I went with the lesser evil of the two. I call myself "right winger" but in reality, it's based on economic conservative principle. Certainly "left" on social issues. For someone born dirt poor, I know nothing else but personal responsibility, hard work, living within ones means. So anything that remotely speaks as spending by borrowing or taxing others bothers me. A lot. I have seen it on a grand scale in Greece and now it's total economic ruins. I'm seeing it a smaller but certainly same path by Ontario Liberals....and now what? On a Federal level? Because "free money" buys votes? I would never vote for anyone who advocates it. Period. And I don't care what political stripe they are. You have to be careful with labels. Both the LIbs and Cons in Canada have run large deficits and both have run surpluses. The party you equate more with 'spending', the Libs, were in fact the party that reversed that very dangerous trend in the 90's. Probably from desperate need rather than any desire to do so, but you get the point. While I'm on that, the drunken sailor party in the US isn't the Dems, it's the Republicans. Reagan went berserk on military spending, running huge deficits and the guy who brought it back down, when he had free time from his dalliances, was Bill Clinton. Labels again. I'm advocating a relatively short period of 3 years of infrastructure spending because the stuff needs replacing anyways and money is dirt cheap now. That's a pragmatic, non-partisan approach. In fact, if you execute properly on the marijuana issue, you generate tax revenue (not from me, I pay enough in taxes for wine) and you reduce policing costs which would all help with the budget numbers. Duh. Mr. Harper, may he rest in peace, 'balanced' the budget this year, but not allowing spending. That's like having a plumbing leak in your house and not fixing it right away and then crowing that you've saved $500. BTW, I'm very much a fiscal conservative and social liberal (great club) and I don't like paying for other peoples services either. I'm just concerned about too great a focus on keeping every dollar in one's pocket compared to providing a service that benefits us. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Oct 20, 2015 12:53:23 GMT -5
I wonder how much tourism will increase when they legalize pot? lots of flights within Canada   |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Oct 20, 2015 12:57:02 GMT -5
you mean infrastructure spending was done by the Conservatives? you'd never know it here . . . all they did was eat babies and stifle free speech. Oh come on! They never ate babies. The kids had to be 4 years old at least. Sheesh. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Oct 20, 2015 13:04:52 GMT -5
Good one Dis. I also saw a tweet this week about Trudeau getting into a fight with Brazeau in 2012. A 'boxing in the ring fight". It quite surprised me, even though it turned out they made it into a fund raiser. I believe the underlying reason for the contest was an actual disagreement between the two. The most surprising part was that Trudeau won. Brazeau wasn't in good enough shape and ran out of steam. Cue the jokes. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 20, 2015 13:31:58 GMT -5
You mean like the Conservative Economic Action Plan that has built two highways and countless bridges (I'd go so far as to say upwards of 10-12) here in Newfoundland. You wouldn't vote for anyone that promoted that kind of thing? I somehow don't believe you Two roads and 10-12 bridges in 5 years? Really? Send those uber efficient people to Quebec..... The same plan that saw a section of a road I drive on a daily basis get torn and resurfaced twice in a span of a year? Versus once in a span of over a decade when Mississauga footed the bill? And never touched again since then? That plan? Which of course brings up the argument of "fund your own". So you are saying you can't build bridges that quick? You do know that the definition of a "bridge" in the Canadian Bridge Design Code is any structure greater than 3m in length. There is more than one construction company in NL, although they do park their gear outside the igloos, ... Heck, this past year alone, we have built 3 bridges (30-40m ones, prestressed concrete underpasses)on the Team Gushue Highway and two more slated for next year ... yep, uber efficient. (don't get me started on the whole project being 2 years behind schedule though ...) Wanna hire me? And that money is already committed, so it can roll into more years. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 20, 2015 13:38:29 GMT -5
Actually the real issue is not "why should I fund your bridge" but rather, "why should I fund your bridge when you don't want too". Or the hilarious...."why should I fund your bridhe if you wasted your tax money". Or equally hilarious..."Mafiz atd my money". And this one..... So basically, you wont or don't want to fund your bridge. And/Or the money is wsasted. And/or, the money was stolen by corruption, poor us". But now, you want me to fund that bridge? To quote you directly.... ... At what point do you say "enough is enough, I give you my money, but clearly you are incapable of managing it??" Let's say they open up tolls; what, in the history of this province and it's construction industry, would lead you to believe that the money would actually go towards properly maintaining the infrastructure in a timely and cost-efficient manner? Like I said, we're the highest taxed jurisdiction in North America, and yet apparently that money doesn't do any good. Tell me again about how this is about "being a Canadian"? Not sure what you are trying to say here? I am against user-pay systems because I think it goes against the spirit of a community, a nation, and a people, and in this case it is over the line I have drawn in my head. A functioning, agreed-upon society that looks out for itself. I am even MORESO against it because of the corruption; why should I pay for a system twice, when the money is clearly not going to the right places? Once with my taxes, and once as a user? But the fact that there is corruption within the system does not make the system itself bad, only that it needs to be cleaned up. I get that you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay into a system that is corrupt, and I agree with that. But in either system (group versus user) the possibility (reality?) of corruption exists. So that needs to be cleaned up regardless of which way you go. What I was saying was that as member of the highest paying tax group in North America I see no NEED to add tolls to bridges (or roads), ESPECIALLY when it's not clear that tolls are actually going to do anything. Just as you would not be happy with a specific tax on you, just to pay for this bridge. Now if they clean up the corruption and use the money that we are already paying in taxes to fix bridges and roads, then so be it. That's what taxes are for. Infrastructure work needs to be done. Either it's paid for as a collective (through taxes) or by individual users (through tolls). Either way the possibility of corruption exists and needs to be addressed. But the second way seems very un-Canadian to me, as it is asking a very specific sub-set of the population to pay for something when the rest of the population benefits from things that the subset also pays for (and doesn't benefit from). If you have a federally funded road or bridge, there are restrictions on putting tolls on them I believe ... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 20, 2015 15:39:08 GMT -5
Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson says he's looking forward to a more positive relationship with the federal government after last night's Liberal success in the city, adding it was "always a struggle" to deal with the Tories.
translation: Harper didn't do what we wanted, maybe Trudeau will. I think we'll hear that a lot in the days to come.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 21, 2015 2:04:33 GMT -5
Two roads and 10-12 bridges in 5 years? Really? Send those uber efficient people to Quebec..... The same plan that saw a section of a road I drive on a daily basis get torn and resurfaced twice in a span of a year? Versus once in a span of over a decade when Mississauga footed the bill? And never touched again since then? That plan? Which of course brings up the argument of "fund your own". So you are saying you can't build bridges that quick? You do know that the definition of a "bridge" in the Canadian Bridge Design Code is any structure greater than 3m in length. There is more than one construction company in NL, although they do park their gear outside the igloos, ... Heck, this past year alone, we have built 3 bridges (30-40m ones, prestressed concrete underpasses)on the Team Gushue Highway and two more slated for next year ... yep, uber efficient. (don't get me started on the whole project being 2 years behind schedule though ...) Wanna hire me? And that money is already committed, so it can roll into more years. I was talking about billion dollar bridge...not oversized footstools....  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 21, 2015 2:22:13 GMT -5
Not sure what you are trying to say here? FYOI and FYOB......I'm pretty sure it means...Fund Your Own Infrastructure....Fund Your Own Bridge. I am against user-pay systems because I think it goes against the spirit of a community, a nation, and a people, and in this case it is over the line I have drawn in my head. A functioning, agreed-upon society that looks out for itself. I am even MORESO against it because of the corruption; why should I pay for a system twice, when the money is clearly not going to the right places? Once with my taxes, and once as a user? But the fact that there is corruption within the system does not make the system itself bad, only that it needs to be cleaned up. I get that you are saying that you shouldn't have to pay into a system that is corrupt, and I agree with that. But in either system (group versus user) the possibility (reality?) of corruption exists. So that needs to be cleaned up regardless of which way you go. What I was saying was that as member of the highest paying tax group in North America I see no NEED to add tolls to bridges (or roads), ESPECIALLY when it's not clear that tolls are actually going to do anything. Just as you would not be happy with a specific tax on you, just to pay for this bridge. Now if they clean up the corruption and use the money that we are already paying in taxes to fix bridges and roads, then so be it. That's what taxes are for. Infrastructure work needs to be done. Either it's paid for as a collective (through taxes) or by individual users (through tolls). Either way the possibility of corruption exists and needs to be addressed. But the second way seems very un-Canadian to me, as it is asking a very specific sub-set of the population to pay for something when the rest of the population benefits from things that the subset also pays for (and doesn't benefit from). I'm not against infrastructure payment. I'm against one city/province funding another city/province needs unless said COMMUNITY is too poor to do so. I heard from you and PTH how "Canadian" this is, but what I have not heard is any excuse for inability to fund your own bridge. Neither Quebec nor Montreal qualify as poor or incapable of paying for the bridge or infrastructure yourselves. If the political priorities are elsewhere, that is your choice. If it is against the "spirit" or "philosophy", that is your choice. If you don't want to fund a bridge, that too is your choice....and not mine to pay. Do you really think "spirit" wants to pay a brand spanking new $7,000 storm sewer tax ON TOP of all the other taxes? I got a letter at home, this is the assessment, this is the number, we need it for infrastructure, pay here. End of story. Yet all I hear is how paying for someone else's infrastructure is a "Canadian" thingy. If a Canadian community is too poor, sure. Otherwise.........FYOI and FYOB. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 21, 2015 2:26:13 GMT -5
you mean infrastructure spending was done by the Conservatives? you'd never know it here . . . all they did was eat babies and stifle free speech. Oh come on! They never ate babies. The kids had to be 4 years old at least. Sheesh. I have many delicious recipes..... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 21, 2015 2:50:30 GMT -5
I call myself "right winger" but in reality, it's based on economic conservative principle. Certainly "left" on social issues. For someone born dirt poor, I know nothing else but personal responsibility, hard work, living within ones means. So anything that remotely speaks as spending by borrowing or taxing others bothers me. A lot. I have seen it on a grand scale in Greece and now it's total economic ruins. I'm seeing it a smaller but certainly same path by Ontario Liberals....and now what? On a Federal level? Because "free money" buys votes? I would never vote for anyone who advocates it. Period. And I don't care what political stripe they are. You have to be careful with labels. Both the LIbs and Cons in Canada have run large deficits and both have run surpluses. The party you equate more with 'spending', the Libs, were in fact the party that reversed that very dangerous trend in the 90's. Probably from desperate need rather than any desire to do so, but you get the point. While I'm on that, the drunken sailor party in the US isn't the Dems, it's the Republicans. Reagan went berserk on military spending, running huge deficits and the guy who brought it back down, when he had free time from his dalliances, was Bill Clinton. Labels again. I'm advocating a relatively short period of 3 years of infrastructure spending because the stuff needs replacing anyways and money is dirt cheap now. That's a pragmatic, non-partisan approach. In fact, if you execute properly on the marijuana issue, you generate tax revenue (not from me, I pay enough in taxes for wine) and you reduce policing costs which would all help with the budget numbers. Duh. Mr. Harper, may he rest in peace, 'balanced' the budget this year, but not allowing spending. That's like having a plumbing leak in your house and not fixing it right away and then crowing that you've saved $500. BTW, I'm very much a fiscal conservative and social liberal (great club) and I don't like paying for other peoples services either. I'm just concerned about too great a focus on keeping every dollar in one's pocket compared to providing a service that benefits us. So Mary Jane will fund those bridges? How novel! For the sake of repeating myself...because I like to repeat myself repeatedly.... I never said I don't like/want/desire/embrace/kiss infrastructure spending. What I said repeatedly is that cities and provinces should fund their own. FYOI and FYOB writ large. Why? Corruption, moral hazard, deliberate under-spending, political vote licking, deliberate misdirection of funds, political expediency.....all of those are present to a greater degree when there is not a direct and very painful accountability of any given infrastructure project. Nothing says "spend like a sailor" when somone else is footing the bill. I brought up the local road I travel over on a daily basis. My city, most metrics a rich city that has no problem forcing you to fund infrastructure, had no money to pave that area for decades and within a year, they put in a water main, paved it. Tore it up, put a sewer extension, repaved it. WITHIN a YEAR. Normally, if it was a true locally funded project, it would get a patch pavement job and after it was complete, a repave. Or far more likely, it would be done in one go and over with. Just like a million other projects. You really think it was an "oops" moment when and someone forgot their wristwatch in sewer pipe? Or just another case waste and corruption because big brother Harper was footing the bill? BTW...if you got too much money....I can use some help on my new storm sewer tax. Which of course is different from my water and waste sewage billing. Which is different from my property tax. And then there is the garbage tax which is cooking in their books....... FYOI |
|
). I miss out on all of the boutique tax credits that Harper has promised. I'm just a sucker trying to get by . . . (woe is me).
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/6F6VF25GCFF2HFJCOITRJSGNPE.jpg)
