The result becomes a severe obstinance against expanding transit into areas that don't pay for it, because of this level of micro-targeting. Look at Hamilton, which doesn't just differentiate between rural and urban areas when taxing for transit, but divides it up by ward. Which argument seems more right depends on where your audience's interests lie. Because when you put your cases like that, you're both right, but you both can't be right. Me? I'm pretty happy some of my tax monies are going up north to improve the quality of drinking water in isolated communities.Īnd this is why the ultimate answer to this kind of question is always a political one. We pool revenues on to the city/regional/provincial/federal pot and we entrust them to spend in the ways that society benefits the most from that money. You get the picture, taxes do not work on a per use basis. ![]() I also want them to pay for the department of agriculture, which I never use either. I never go to the townships, so I want to make sure that none of my tax money goes to them ever since I don't use their facilities. I don't get sick, so I want a discount on my medicare taxes. ![]() I don't drive a car, so I don't want to pay road taxes. I don't have kids so I want a discount on my school board taxes. I am an unswerving supporter of LRT but I don't think people should have to pay for something when there community is not serviced by it. (08-28-2016, 07:19 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: (08-28-2016, 03:36 PM)Elmira Guy Wrote: Charging fees to the townships for services they do not benefit from is absurd.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |