CodeMonkey
Active Member
I'm for Toronto becoming a province; my point was, its' easier to join a fraternity then to get both other provinces and federal government to approve Toronto and area in becoming a province.
|
|
|
- Thread starter AlvinofDiaspar
- Start date
brockm
Active Member
I really have to disagree with most of the sentiment here. I think a lot of people here suffer from what I'd call an infrastructure fetish.
The truth of the matter is, that Canada is in a relatively good financial position, and there is every reason to believe that the road ahead in the context of the global economy will be fraught with difficulty and turbulence. There are serious economic imbalances in the world today that are starting to, and are already creating serious fiscal problems for sovereign governments.
Europe is currently in the middle of bailing out several of it's smaller economies, whose governments are literally weeks away from fiscal collapse due to massive amounts of loans maturing in an environment where they can not obtain affordable credit due to their fiscal position.
Ontario and Quebec are both on a collision course with fiscal disaster right now, with serious structural deficits.
The argument that government must invest in infrastructure in bad times just doesn't fly with me. This common wisdom has been at work since the end of the second world war, and this "wisdom" has overseen the gradual degradation of the balance sheets of almost all the world's developed countries. Despite nearly thirty years of the greatest economic expansion in human history, we managed to sink ourselves to levels of debt that are unprecedented.
We are consistently mortgaging our future. This demand, this protest everyone is making is a demand to invest billions upon billions of dollars the province and federal government do not have. We have culturally become too used to getting what we want, even when we don't have the money. For consumers, it's their credit cards. And for the government, it's been their central banks that will just run their printing presses to pay for everything.
When the government borrows money -- as anyone who is economically trained well-understands -- it created consumer price inflation due to an increase in money supply, and it necessitates future tax increases, which decreases productivity.
If we want a transit system that keeps up with demand, then we are going to have to pay for it out of real capital. Not capital pulled out of the government's ass and offset to a future generation to deal with the consequences. It's time we made the TTC profitable, and if that means making a Subway ride $3.75, then so be it. If that means instituting fare zones, so be it.
People need to learn to pay the cost of what they use. If the real cost of transporting someone across Toronto on transit is $3.25 (and by my calculations, that's about what it costs), then we need to make people bear that cost. At the same time, I have no trouble making gas taxes bear the lion's share of maintaining roads and highways.
Transportation costs money. It costs energy and labour, and fixed-link systems have high capital costs. This needs to be reflected in the pricing structure. And if that means more money out of your pocket, so you can't afford to buy lunch out every day and you have to bring a bagged lunch to work everyday: so be it. That's reality, folks. Things cost money.
And I live in Toronto, do not own a car, and this would hit me in the pocket book. But let's be very honest here. If they raised a subway ride to $4.00 a trip, I'd still take the subway. It would still be more economical than owning a car. Even if I took the subway twice a day, every day, it would be less than $300 a month. The cost of car ownership is far higher than that.
And you know what, if the higher cost actually improved service, facilitated expansion of the network, and took fiscal pressure off City of Toronto and the Province, I think everyone would be a winner. And if poor people are a problem, then I say we can institute a subsidy program for them, but not for everyone else. If you can afford the bear the cost, you should.
</rant>
The truth of the matter is, that Canada is in a relatively good financial position, and there is every reason to believe that the road ahead in the context of the global economy will be fraught with difficulty and turbulence. There are serious economic imbalances in the world today that are starting to, and are already creating serious fiscal problems for sovereign governments.
Europe is currently in the middle of bailing out several of it's smaller economies, whose governments are literally weeks away from fiscal collapse due to massive amounts of loans maturing in an environment where they can not obtain affordable credit due to their fiscal position.
Ontario and Quebec are both on a collision course with fiscal disaster right now, with serious structural deficits.
The argument that government must invest in infrastructure in bad times just doesn't fly with me. This common wisdom has been at work since the end of the second world war, and this "wisdom" has overseen the gradual degradation of the balance sheets of almost all the world's developed countries. Despite nearly thirty years of the greatest economic expansion in human history, we managed to sink ourselves to levels of debt that are unprecedented.
We are consistently mortgaging our future. This demand, this protest everyone is making is a demand to invest billions upon billions of dollars the province and federal government do not have. We have culturally become too used to getting what we want, even when we don't have the money. For consumers, it's their credit cards. And for the government, it's been their central banks that will just run their printing presses to pay for everything.
When the government borrows money -- as anyone who is economically trained well-understands -- it created consumer price inflation due to an increase in money supply, and it necessitates future tax increases, which decreases productivity.
If we want a transit system that keeps up with demand, then we are going to have to pay for it out of real capital. Not capital pulled out of the government's ass and offset to a future generation to deal with the consequences. It's time we made the TTC profitable, and if that means making a Subway ride $3.75, then so be it. If that means instituting fare zones, so be it.
People need to learn to pay the cost of what they use. If the real cost of transporting someone across Toronto on transit is $3.25 (and by my calculations, that's about what it costs), then we need to make people bear that cost. At the same time, I have no trouble making gas taxes bear the lion's share of maintaining roads and highways.
Transportation costs money. It costs energy and labour, and fixed-link systems have high capital costs. This needs to be reflected in the pricing structure. And if that means more money out of your pocket, so you can't afford to buy lunch out every day and you have to bring a bagged lunch to work everyday: so be it. That's reality, folks. Things cost money.
And I live in Toronto, do not own a car, and this would hit me in the pocket book. But let's be very honest here. If they raised a subway ride to $4.00 a trip, I'd still take the subway. It would still be more economical than owning a car. Even if I took the subway twice a day, every day, it would be less than $300 a month. The cost of car ownership is far higher than that.
And you know what, if the higher cost actually improved service, facilitated expansion of the network, and took fiscal pressure off City of Toronto and the Province, I think everyone would be a winner. And if poor people are a problem, then I say we can institute a subsidy program for them, but not for everyone else. If you can afford the bear the cost, you should.
</rant>
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
But you have to admit that the scenario you propose - user fees reflecting the real cost of transportation both on the train and on the road - is incredibly unlikely to happen, as any government proposing it would be incredibly unpopular.
Your logic is sound, but we have to work within the bounds of our current political and fiscal reality.
Your logic is sound, but we have to work within the bounds of our current political and fiscal reality.
brockm
Active Member
I don't agree. This is the political reality, whether people accept it or not. People don't accept the fact they can't afford a two weeks in the Bahamas either, with their $23,000 of credit card debt. But we know they really can't.
We are a culture of debt. And we are not accustomed to concepts like saving, restraint, and austerity anymore. No, we are the "I want it now!" culture. But having it "now" means you're not going to have something else -- possibly something you need -- tomorrow.
We have short memories in this country. Really short memories. At the beginning of the 1990s, Canada's fiscal position was that of a third-world country. We were in danger of losing our credit rating, interest rates were out of control, and government defaulting on it's debts was a real possibility. Then we had the Chretien Liberals come in and turn that around at the Federal level, and the Mike Harris Tories come in and turn that around at the Ontario level. And it caused real pain for everyone.
Unfortunately, some people are still of the opinion that the pain endured in the 1990s was unnecessary and overdone. Well, look at the numbers folks. If it wasn't for the actions of people like Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, and Mike Harris... Canada wouldn't be so strongly positioned today. They forced us to endure pain, to pay for our past mistakes. And we've now backslid into the pre-1990s mentality of spending on credit and turning our noses up at well -- people like me.
When will people wake up and realize that you don't get something for nothing?
We are a culture of debt. And we are not accustomed to concepts like saving, restraint, and austerity anymore. No, we are the "I want it now!" culture. But having it "now" means you're not going to have something else -- possibly something you need -- tomorrow.
We have short memories in this country. Really short memories. At the beginning of the 1990s, Canada's fiscal position was that of a third-world country. We were in danger of losing our credit rating, interest rates were out of control, and government defaulting on it's debts was a real possibility. Then we had the Chretien Liberals come in and turn that around at the Federal level, and the Mike Harris Tories come in and turn that around at the Ontario level. And it caused real pain for everyone.
Unfortunately, some people are still of the opinion that the pain endured in the 1990s was unnecessary and overdone. Well, look at the numbers folks. If it wasn't for the actions of people like Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, and Mike Harris... Canada wouldn't be so strongly positioned today. They forced us to endure pain, to pay for our past mistakes. And we've now backslid into the pre-1990s mentality of spending on credit and turning our noses up at well -- people like me.
When will people wake up and realize that you don't get something for nothing?
Eug
Senior Member
The "infrastructure fetish" probably comes out of the fact that transit infrastructure in Toronto isn't as good as it should be for a city of the size of Toronto. And I don't support $4 subway fare, nor do I support a $300 per month TTC pass. It should be much, much lower than that IMO.
And I say this as someone who drives everywhere and usually does NOT take transit.
However, at the same time, I don't think we should be overpaying people just because we're used to overpaying them. Maybe this is a good time for the TTC to re-examine their union contracts, and perhaps the governments will finally negotiate with the benefit of the TTC clients in mind.
And I say this as someone who drives everywhere and usually does NOT take transit.
However, at the same time, I don't think we should be overpaying people just because we're used to overpaying them. Maybe this is a good time for the TTC to re-examine their union contracts, and perhaps the governments will finally negotiate with the benefit of the TTC clients in mind.
brockm
Active Member
Eug, you just demonstrate my point. You talk as if the fare level should be a matter of opinion, of feelings -- a subjective whim. Instead of something that reflects fiscal and economic reality.
And saying that you're expressing those feelings as a non-regular transit user does not enhance the value of your argument in any way. Make an argument, and support your case. I don't suffer people who feel the need to make vapid self-qualifications for unsupported arguments.
And saying that you're expressing those feelings as a non-regular transit user does not enhance the value of your argument in any way. Make an argument, and support your case. I don't suffer people who feel the need to make vapid self-qualifications for unsupported arguments.
Eug
Senior Member
Heh. That's amusing considering you've basically just made a statement that transit fees should be x-amount (numbers which you pulled out of your behind too) just because you don't support such public funding of infrastructure. Guess what? I do. I thought it should have been obvious.
Reality is that a $300 per month transit fee is punitive for low income Torontonians, and furthermore encourages driving for those with higher incomes. Remember transit use went up when gas prices were higher. It's not a leap in logic to expect that transit use would go down when gas prices are as they are now, and transit prices go up.
brockm
Active Member
First of all, you didn't full read my post then, since I said I'd be open to subsidies for low-income riders. Second of all, a fee that realistically reflects the cost of the transit system is by definition not punitive. How can paying the cost of what you take/use be something that is tantamount to punishment? In fact, borrowing billions of dollars today, that children who aren't even born yet will have to grow up and pay interest on is far more punitive than what I'm talking about.
Only somebody who viewed transit as an owed entitlement could come to that conclusion. But, full disclosure and all, I'm a libertarian capitalist -- so I know I'm speaking from a minority position.
Last edited:
Eug
Senior Member
Yeah cuz making someone pay $100000 a year for basic cancer care isn't punitive either.
brockm
Active Member
It's not punitive. It may be "unfair" by some ethic or morality. But it's not punitive. By using punitive in this context, you imply the act of charging someone X amount of money for X service is intended to punish them.
Imprisoning someone is punitive. Fining someone is punitive. Litigating against someone is punitive. Demanding reimbursement for a service provided is not. I'm sorry, but you're using the word punitive very liberally to say the least.
I mean, you might as well say that death is punitive then. Which you could then expand, by virtue of death being endemic of all life -- that the act of being born is punitive.
Words lose meaning when you use them so loosely.
Last edited:
Eug
Senior Member
Semantics. If you wish, just substitute "very unfair" instead, in the context modern Canada.
Just as I consider easily accessible health care necessary for Canadians, I consider easily accessible transit necessary for Torontonians.
brockm
Active Member
What do you mean "semantics"? Look, you're projecting a morality as objective truth here. It may be your opinion, as framed by your morality and ethics, and projected through your political positions that healthcare and transit are "necessary" -- as you put it, but there are of course those who disagree with such moralities.
So of course I take issue with you using a word like "punitive" in such a loaded way. It's the hijacking of language to serve a political end, and to deny the opposing view through linguistic device as opposed to argument. Much like how socialists using capitalism and fascism interchangeably. Or conservatives use liberal and communism interchangeably. When people do things like that, it's a sign of intellectual dishonesty and a closed mind.
Last edited:
Eug
Senior Member
"punitive" is used in this way quite commonly, as a method of emphasis, and is in no way comparable to calling capitalism fascism (or liberal communism). But like I said, if you don't like it, feel free to just substitute "very unfair" in its place.
brockm
Active Member
Yes, it's used that way very commonly by people with left-of-centre political views. Hence, it's use is inherently political. Even if a majority used it that way, it's use would be equally dishonest. And in any case, that's a classic argumentum ad populum defence, that doesn't really fly.
My purpose here is not to debate your political views. But I am a stickler for people's use of loaded language as I believe it reduces the quality of discussion between those who disagree.
Eug
Senior Member
It would seem that is your belief anyway. I work in right of centre environment and I can assure you that its usage is not limited to lefties.
I guess some to the right of me might actually share the same concept of "fairness" too. But we digress...