Quote:
Originally Posted by comrade
Are there really "a lot" of people in this situation? This seems like the kind of statement that requires some evidence to support it. It would be a shame to spend politicians time and complicate the tax code only to find that "a lot" of people isn't all that many.
|
You raise some good points, "a lot" is of course based on my personal perspective and not a general rule. It is an assumption expand that out to the general public, however I am sure it's something that could be done. I am not sure I can stress enough that this isn't some well hashed out plan of mine but merely a thought I had while reading an off-topic discussion. There may be merit to it, may not be, that's the point of discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by comrade
If the distance were reduced to 15km or something like that (based on your post) would it really even have a huge effect on people living close to work? Would it be worth the lost tax revenue?
|
As to the second issue of whether the distance being reduced to a smaller number would have the desired impact, again, it's theoretical OF COURSE. It might well be the case that there isn't a significant difference overall and it would surely be hard data to capture and correlate. It's not quite as simple as lost revenue from taxpayers, there are more factors which would need to be accounted for. I could argue that less vehicles on the road isn't in the governments best interest as it would cut into their oil and gas revenues however I would hope this wouldn't be a factor.
Our city is already one of the worst with regard to urban sprawl, and with a fast growing population and infrastructure that is starting to lag behind that growing population the city needs to do something or we will have serious issues moving forward.