Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Renegade

Rural Subsidies

Recommended Posts

To disentangle these costs and put them on the proper tax base would cost us more than we'd save,

Actually in the case of services this is not true. All that is require is the government or its affiiated agencies not intefere in setting the cost of these services so that they can be set at market levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seem to conclude that I want a subsidized transit system. I do not. Let us assume for a minute that you are right that a transit system would not get built if it were not for government intervention. Why not recover the cost of that building from user fees of that transit system? If the users aren't willing to pay for it, why should anyone else be expected to? Many toll bridges are funded in this manner.

The problem is your city needs that system to function whether it is subsidized or not. You may not use the the transit system but if your city can't function properly without it, you could find yourself unemployed. Just because you don't use something personally, doesn't mean you don't need it.

Doesn't really matter to me how much support I get. I didn't indicate I was on one side of the issue or the other. Simply that it was a good question worthy of further examination and I didn't presume an answer.

OK but I was getting the impression that you feel someone else should invest in infrastructure so it would be there for you to use if you chose to do so and that you only feel you should have to pay for it on a one time basis if in fact you do. It doesn't work that way. Even though you may not use something personally, your livelihood and even your life can depend on those who do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is your city needs that system to function whether it is subsidized or not. You may not use the the transit system but if your city can't function properly without it, you could find yourself unemployed. Just because you don't use something personally, doesn't mean you don't need it.

Let's assume that a city needs a transit system to operate. The cost should be borne by the direct users of the system. Any other secondary beneficiaries of the system will pay by getting passed on the costs incurred by the direct users. For example, let's say transit cost $5/ride to reflect its true cost. That increased cost is passed on to businesses who employ workers who use the transit through higher wages. In turn the business pass on those costs to consumers of that product.

OK but I was getting the impression that you feel someone else should invest in infrastructure so it would be there for you to use if you chose to do so and that you only feel you should have to pay for it on a one time basis if in fact you do. It doesn't work that way.

I'm not sure what I said that gave you that impression but it is incorrect. I believe I should pay for the infrastructure I use regardless of if I use it ocassionally or constantly. The amount I pay should be proportonate to my use of it. If there are sufficient of us which have a demand for that infrastructre, there is economic justification for investing in the cost of that infrastructure, and it should be paid back by the users of that infrastructure. If there is insufficient demand, the infrastructure should not be built.

Even though you may not use something personally, your livelihood and even your life can depend on those who do.

Sure, and I would indirectly incur those cost. I may indirectly benefit from a trucker using roads, which I don't directly use, however if the cost of those roads is passed on to the trucker, he will pass it on to me through the cost of the product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, and I would indirectly incur those cost. I may indirectly benefit from a trucker using roads, which I don't directly use, however if the cost of those roads is passed on to the trucker, he will pass it on to me through the cost of the product.

Let's say you have a heart attack. The hospital is on the other side of the river but there is no bridge because you had no personal use for one. Bit late to decide you need one, don't you think? Doesn't matter because there were no ambulances either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's say you have a heart attack. The hospital is on the other side of the river but there is no bridge because you had no personal use for one. Bit late to decide you need one, don't you think? Doesn't matter because there were no ambulances either.

If it was just me neediing a bridge then I doubt one would ever be built even if I was dyng. However if sufficient people needed the bridge for ambulance services, that cost would be passed on to the ambulance service and then on to me.

Why would you believe no abmulance services would exist? By your logic no lawyers woudl exist either, but yet they do\. Afterall I don't pay for the set-up cost to create legal services until I actually use them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may not, but I do. Why should an urban dweller care if a rural dweller has telephone service as cheap as the city?

Because I see it as basic service that is imperative in todays society. And it amounts to mere nickels in savings if they cut it out.

You may complain that cottage owners are taxed beyond the services they use, however they must feel strongly enough that their cottage is worth it or else they would not own the cottage. Alternatively they can mobilize and if there are sufficient numbers advocate for a user-pay system.

Actually it goes far beyond being taxed for services that are used. It goes so far as not getting any services. Water? Nope. Sewer? Nope? Plowing? Nope. Garbage pick up? Nope. and it goes further in that the Town discriminates against seasonal residences in that they amend garbage scheds so that cottagers cannot leave garbage for pickup under threat of penalty. They also like to schedule "free" days at the dump for things that are accumulating (beds sofas paint etc) in November and March. Hmm....when are seasonal residents at their lowest usage numbers?

As for amending the market value assessment , it has been tried, and currently is still ongoing without any success. And the MVA's they come up with are historically the highest that can be found in that area without regard to "one offs" that skew the results.

As for advocating a user-pay system you are only half right. They use, we pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because I see it as basic service that is imperative in todays society. And it amounts to mere nickels in savings if they cut it out.

Basic services are more efficiently provided where there is a greater concentration of people. And while you are right that the savings are small, it is the principle I'm referring to not the actual amounts.

Actually it goes far beyond being taxed for services that are used. It goes so far as not getting any services. Water? Nope. Sewer? Nope? Plowing? Nope. Garbage pick up? Nope. and it goes further in that the Town discriminates against seasonal residences in that they amend garbage scheds so that cottagers cannot leave garbage for pickup under threat of penalty. They also like to schedule "free" days at the dump for things that are accumulating (beds sofas paint etc) in November and March. Hmm....when are seasonal residents at their lowest usage numbers?

As for amending the market value assessment , it has been tried, and currently is still ongoing without any success. And the MVA's they come up with are historically the highest that can be found in that area without regard to "one offs" that skew the results.

As for advocating a user-pay system you are only half right. They use, we pay.

You are refering to a different price and service level discrimmination that I am. You are talking about a rural governmental discrimminating within a rural community. IMO both types of price discrimmination can be eliminated by moving to a pay-for-services model, however the entrenched beneficaries of the current model will resist any change which forces them to pay for the true cost of th services they consume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it was just me neediing a bridge then I doubt one would ever be built even if I was dyng. However if sufficient people needed the bridge for ambulance services, that cost would be passed on to the ambulance service and then on to me.

And if you couldn't afford whatever it took to get you to the hospital, I guess you would be dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basic services are more efficiently provided where there is a greater concentration of people. And while you are right that the savings are small, it is the principle I'm referring to not the actual amounts.

The principle is valid. But the actuality of it I dont think is. It would cost one homeowner multi thousands to have one single line put in to service his rural home. Telephones poles, the cables to supoprt, the holes to dig to put poles in, the lines to run down a lonely roadwith one house....it would cut them off. If they (Bell) have to put that amount in the kitty and divide amongst the rst of us so be it.

You are refering to a different price and service level discrimmination that I am. You are talking about a rural governmental discrimminating within a rural community. IMO both types of price discrimmination can be eliminated by moving to a pay-for-services model, however the entrenched beneficaries of the current model will resist any change which forces them to pay for the true cost of th services they consume.

Is that even possible?

I see so many problems with that. Who will pay for garbage disposal? Plenty will, and plenty will bury it or toss it in the bush.

What about water....if a line breaks who pays?

Sewer, who pays for broken lines, back ups, etc? What if the whole infrastructure collapses, will we all get a bill for a $1000 ?

How do we collect it?

I agree that the resistance to change is there, but I can also see why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in a rural area to the north of Toronto . As has been mentioned here we have no natural gas , sewers , city water nor do we have a local police station , public library , community center , public housing or public transportation other then the Go bus that travels through our hamlet . The county i live in does send the city of Toronto over 10 million a year for social services where i can not vote for or against the people who spend my money . Us people out here in the hinterlands may not pay what some think is the correct amount for some of the few services we do receive but we use far far less services over all .

Edited by Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in a rural area to the north of Toronto . As has been mentioned here we have no natural gas , sewers , city water nor do we have a local police station , public library , community center , public housing or public transportation other then the Go bus that travels through our hamlet . The county i live in does send the city of Toronto over 10 million a year for social services where i can not vote for or against the people who spend my money . Us people out here in the hinterlands may not pay what some think is the correct amount for some of the few services we do receive but we use far far less services over all .

Edited by Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The principle is valid. But the actuality of it I dont think is. It would cost one homeowner multi thousands to have one single line put in to service his rural home. Telephones poles, the cables to supoprt, the holes to dig to put poles in, the lines to run down a lonely roadwith one house....it would cut them off. If they (Bell) have to put that amount in the kitty and divide amongst the rst of us so be it.

I disagree. If it cost many thousands of dollars to put in Telephone poles, cables, etc than the homeowner should either bear the cost, or decide it is not econmically viable to live there. Tell me, if I decide to put up a house in the desert, are you going to pay to run my phone, cable, and other infastructure?

Is that even possible?

Absolutely, and getting more possible everyday. With technology we will be able to track everything from which roads a person drives on to how much electricy they are consuming and collect that information in a cost efficient manner.

I see so many problems with that. Who will pay for garbage disposal? Plenty will, and plenty will bury it or toss it in the bush.

That same situation exists now on the commercial side. Business have to pay for garbage disposal based upon the disposal bins they use. They do so, because the risk of disposing it another way would be a hefty fine. There are many behaviours people could do, but don't because there is a threat of punitative action.

What about water....if a line breaks who pays?

Sewer, who pays for broken lines, back ups, etc? What if the whole infrastructure collapses, will we all get a bill for a $1000 ?

How do we collect it?

I don't really follow what you point is. If your Rogers cable line breaks, who pays? Obviously it is Rogers because they own the infrastructure and pass on the cost through monthly usage. If the location you reside is prone to higher infrastucture costs, (for example the water line is constantly beaking), I suppose the company providing the service would charge you more for the product you are consuming.

I agree that the resistance to change is there, but I can also see why.

Yes I can too. It is because people would rather others bear cost that they themselves have incurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if you couldn't afford whatever it took to get you to the hospital, I guess you would be dead.

Of course, but that is not about the proper allocation of infrastructure cost, but rather more a statement on if we had or didn't have socialized medicine which is a whole different issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I live in a rural area to the north of Toronto . As has been mentioned here we have no natural gas , sewers , city water nor do we have a local police station , public library , community center , public housing or public transportation other then the Go bus that travels through our hamlet . The county i live in does send the city of Toronto over 10 million a year for social services where i can not vote for or against the people who spend my money . Us people out here in the hinterlands may not pay what some think is the correct amount for some of the few services we do receive but we use far far less services over all .

As I've said before, I dont' think you should have to pay 10 million for social services to Toronto or any other city, and if you use less services you should pay less, however for the services you do use you should pay the true cost of providing those services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMV, the rights of the individual should never be oughtweighted except is extreme cases. In any case, you have not shown in any of your examples that what the "good of society" is.

Sure. And what of it? Libertarianism only make sense if its principles are followed consistantily. I guess that makes it "extreme", huh?

Good question. Maybe we shouldn't.

I am of a libertarian persuasion myself, but there are times when the societal good have to be considered above that of an individual. If not, how would any roads ever get built? Answer that and you have your answer.

And libertarianism, if followed consistently = Anarchy. It is extreme if it is followed consistently by it's very definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, but that is not about the proper allocation of infrastructure cost, but rather more a statement on if we had or didn't have socialized medicine which is a whole different issue.

Sure it is. You would expect someone else to provide that infrastructure so it would be there when you need it. Then you would pay. Why should they?

So being dead would be OK with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I live in a rural area to the north of Toronto . As has been mentioned here we have no natural gas , sewers , city water nor do we have a local police station , public library , community center , public housing or public transportation other then the Go bus that travels through our hamlet . The county i live in does send the city of Toronto over 10 million a year for social services where i can not vote for or against the people who spend my money .

Dont you mean you send it to Queens Park, the same as everyone else does? As for voting, if you are of age then sure you have a say in what is done with the money...not much say but the same as all others.

Because if that isnt what you mean then I dont know what you are getting at.

I am pretty sure the city of TO uses less tax money than they generate .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am of a libertarian persuasion myself, but there are times when the societal good have to be considered above that of an individual.

I have seen no evidence of of your "libertarian persuasion", so I'll take the statement at face falue.

Maybe you'd like to define what "societal good" or "common good" is. Personally, I think it is just an excuse used by people who somehow want to override individual rights.

If not, how would any roads ever get built? Answer that and you have your answer.

How did the internet get built? (And no I don't mean the original ARPANET, I mean the actual infrastructure that now connects most of the world). Answer that and you have your answer.

And libertarianism, if followed consistently = Anarchy. It is extreme if it is followed consistently by it's very definition.

If by "Anarchy" you mean lack of a central authority coercing others, sure I agree. If you are "of a libertarian persuasion" as you claim, you would agree that we should avoid a central coercive authority when possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You would expect someone else to provide that infrastructure so it would be there when you need it. Then you would pay. Why should they?

For the same reason, someone grows food, pumps oil, and generates electricity without expecting me to pay for the upfront cost. They do so because it is in their best interest to do so.

So being dead would be OK with you.

You are convinced that I'd be dead if I followed my principles. I am convinced I would not. I am so convinced that I'd be willing to take my chances.

Edited by Renegade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seem to be making an argument that the cost for providing some services such as mail are the same in rural areas as for urban areas. Would you agree, that IF the cost can be shown to be different and the cost to provide rural service is held artifically low, then such a situation should not be justified?

If the cost to produce grain is higher because of rural land prices, why not simply pass on those cost to the consumer? Why does a rural community need subsidized services to produce grain?

You are introducing regional issues where there are none. The same rural-urban split applies equally within a province and to all provinces.

I'm saying that there is the likelyhood of a tradeoff, and it works out to roughly the same.

The higher taxes that are appraised on cottage and farmland are a tradeoff to the subsidies we get if any, the cost is passed off to urban consumers, 9 dollar wheat and 11 dollar canola anyone.

You introduced the regional issue complaining how cities subsidized everything, I merely corrected you.

Most country people vote tory which means in principle getting less services all around, so I don't see why your complaining about country people getting services when our vote pattern suggests we want less services and more of our own money in our pocket.

Holy crap I'm in agreement with Guyser, Hell froze over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the same reason, someone grows food, pumps oil, and generates electricity without expecting me to pay for the upfront cost. They do so because it is in their best interest to do so.

So if no one else was willing to pay the upfront cost for say an ambulance service so that you could use it at your convenience, you would die. Same goes for such things as police and firefighters. My house is on fire. Your VISA number and expiry date please, we'll put you on the list. My house is being robbed. Same answer. Or, sorry but business has been a little slow lately so we let had to let a bunch of people go. We just can't fit you in.

You are convinced that I'd be dead if I followed my principles. I am convinced I would not. I am so convinced that I'd be willing to take my chances.

People do act in their best interest, that is why we have emergency services for everyone. They are acting in your best interest whether you like it or not. That is why you won't die in spite of your principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...