Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan02
Canada has always been a society where the person with the most ability to pay the taxes pays the most, not the person who uses the most services.
|
Making the suburbs pay their own way means that the people that live there will consequently be the ones that have the ability to pay the most taxes. Or is it only ok when people who live in the inner city see their cost of living become unaffordable so that they have to relocate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan02
You're not subsidizing anyones lifestyle choice, you're just bitching about the costs of maintaining yours in a soceity like Canadas, I hear Russia has some pretty good tax laws for the well off if you're not happy here, atleast that's what the hockey players tell me.
|
It costs more in taxes (directly or indirectly) to live in the inner city than someone who has a similar dwelling in the suburbs, despite it actually costing less to provide services. That's a subsidy. Maybe you should move to Quebec, I'm sure you'll fit right in with your interpretation of what's "fair" taxation - apparently it means getting more from the government than you put in for no particular reason other than that it's always been that way and the teat is very difficult to let go of.
We are not talking about kicking the urban poor out of their homes here, so spare the social justice talk. The majority of new developments are priced in the $350 - 450 000 range, which is affordable only to the middle class; the majority of people living in the inner city are also middle class, like me. The money is moving around in the same demographic, not flowing from the rich to the poor like you are trying to portray.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan02
Your post to me shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why people move to the suburbs, they move there because it's the only place they can afford.
|
No, they move there because it's the only place they can afford a HOUSE. People don't NEED to live in houses, apartments work just fine all over the world, including here. What amazes me is that so many of the same people that complain about a culture of entitlement are the same people who think a house and a plot of land is their right; the hypocrisy doesn't occur to them as it's apparently hard to be objective when it's your own sacred cow being led off to the slaughterhouse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan02
All that will do is increase the rate of expansion of the outlying communities(Airdrie, Cochrane, Okotoks etc) who use Calgary services and pay 0 taxes.
|
Someone living in Airdrie uses their water, power, and transport systems at no cost to Calgary. Yes, they do use our roads, but they would use our roads if they lived in the city anyway.
It would be interesting if a study was done to see if it actually costs the city more to subsidize the entire infrastructure of a new community than it does if that same community is built on someone else's dime; if the city makes $2000 in taxes but it costs $4000 a year to support that taxpayer, is that actually a better idea than getting $0 in taxes but only costing $500 in support?
Further, there are ways to discourage bedroom communities; toll roads already being mentioned as one. Paying unsubsidized transit fares is another. Reserving parking garages for city residents only is another.
Lastly, before the tired "social engineering" argument comes out, realize that we already live in a socially engineered city - one that encourages people to live in identical and sterile communities, drive a good distance to work, and drive again to shop at regional megamalls. Again, just because that's the way it's always been doesn't mean it's the way it should be.