|
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
 Posted - 06/21/2012 : 17:42:54
|
... are total and complete assholes. One of their dishonourable members is actually going to propose that if you want to have fun on any of our lakes or rivers you should pay a user fee.
WTF?!?!?!
Yes, supreme douchebag Bruce Stanton is serious about proposing this confiscatory tax. The water falls from the sky and makes a lake or river, the government had sweet piss-all to do with it. If they think any sensible person will pay they can think again. If introduced, this is one of those laws which, as I have said repeatedly, should not merely be ignored, but should openly and blatantly be broken. And anyone who does knuckle under and pay had better be doing so in order to force a court challenge, or they will forever be my enemy. This is really no different from charging you to breathe air, or absorb sunlight. I thought conservatives were all about reducing taxes and allowing people the freedom to live their lives unfettered by government interference. Guess I was wrong.
Charge the lock users higher fees if you like, but leave everyone else alone. Oh, wait a minute, charging higher lock fees would mean that some millionaires might have to fork out an extra $5 every time they took their 40' cruiser through. No, can't have that, they can't afford it. A blue-collar fisherman in his 14' tinny might grumble too, but they will pay and be glad the locks are there.
|
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2012 : 19:46:08 [Permalink]
|
Actually, this might be one thing I agree with the libertarians about.
I'm paying taxes right now with which the Federal government hires rangers and other staff for National parks I may not ever visit. Those taxes also cover maintenance of roads I may not ever take advantage of. Why not instead charge a user fee to cover such things, and lower my taxes?
Okay, I'll tell you why not: because that will block poor people from having access. And I would never argue that my tax dollars shouldn't go towards EMS or fire crews who might be required for accidents above-and-beyond what any particular park had the foresight to include in its budget. Yeah, screw user fees.
But it's not like user fees are drastically different from funding the staffing and upkeep of parks, lakes and rivers through a universal tax. These things need to be paid for, it's just that with a user fee, only those who use the land would pay. With everyone paying we can better assure that everyone can go enjoy themselves safely, and not find unusable roads, vandalized facilities, parks overrun by deer, etc. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2012 : 21:45:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Actually, this might be one thing I agree with the libertarians about.
I'm paying taxes right now with which the Federal government hires rangers and other staff for National parks I may not ever visit. Those taxes also cover maintenance of roads I may not ever take advantage of. Why not instead charge a user fee to cover such things, and lower my taxes?
Okay, I'll tell you why not: because that will block poor people from having access. And I would never argue that my tax dollars shouldn't go towards EMS or fire crews who might be required for accidents above-and-beyond what any particular park had the foresight to include in its budget. Yeah, screw user fees.
But it's not like user fees are drastically different from funding the staffing and upkeep of parks, lakes and rivers through a universal tax. These things need to be paid for, it's just that with a user fee, only those who use the land would pay. With everyone paying we can better assure that everyone can go enjoy themselves safely, and not find unusable roads, vandalized facilities, parks overrun by deer, etc.
|
Yeah. But it's more than just about access, really. It's the principle. Like Rat said, putting up a fence around nature and charging for admittance feels morally obscene. Most of our national parks are sites of unrivaled natural splendor, attractions that can educate the young, connect people to their history, foster a sense of stewardship and engender nationalistic pride. They benefit us by making our society better, even if we never visit them ourselves.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/21/2012 21:48:30 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2012 : 22:07:53 [Permalink]
|
In the US, National Parks and probably most State Parks not only are supported by taxes, but by access fees as well. It's been that way so long that the battle must have been lost generations ago.
If most Canadians feel as strongly (!) as you do, Rat, then it seems the Conservatives have stumbled into an issue with as much potential for revolt as the Democrats in the US did when they actively supported gun control legislation. I take it the Canadian attitude is that the wilderness is everyone's, and nobody better get between them and it? |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2012 : 08:46:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
They benefit us by making our society better, even if we never visit them ourselves. |
Good point. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2012 : 09:49:37 [Permalink]
|
| In Canada, wouldn't it be logistically much easier to fence in all the cities, then charge users fees to enter them? |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2012 : 17:28:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
They benefit us by making our society better, even if we never visit them ourselves.
|
Exactly. And how do we determine who benefits and therefore should pay? The marina owners of course, but what about restaurant owners? Some may benefit from boat traffic, but some customers arrive by car. Some are local and walk. Same for any other business in a town along the waterway, whether it's a bookstore or a brewery. The whole infrastructure is so complex that there is no way a fair rate for everyone could be calculated. And what about when those business owners take the money they've earned and visit Toronto? Then the money comes back to those who took it out there.
It's just a big tangled mess, and as far as I can see the only way to do it fairly is to keep the status quo; pay for it out of general revenues accrued through taxes on everyone. Right now a low-income family in Toronto can save a little and take their kids out for the day on the lakes, enact user fees and they might not be able to.
Of course, they could raise lock fees a little. Oh wait, then a multi-millionaire would have to pay another couple of bucks to get their 40' yacht through the system, can't have that, can we? Don't want to hurt the 'job creators'.  |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2012 : 19:33:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
In Canada, wouldn't it be logistically much easier to fence in all the cities, then charge users fees to enter them?
|
It'd be more profitable to charge fees to get out. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2012 : 22:35:56 [Permalink]
|
Those places probably attract foreign tourists who would not be subject to any kind of across-the-board tax. With no user fee, they would essentially be getting a free ride.
It's a little naive to say it's the same as charging for air. Human beings cause massive amounts of damage to natural environments just by being there. Soil erosion, waste products etc, it takes a lot of money to maintain nature.
|
 |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2012 : 05:02:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
...it takes a lot of money to maintain nature.
|
No, it costs nothing to leave something alone. Nature has maintained itself for billions of years without us.
In this case there is a human-constructed infrastructure that does need maintenance, the quibble is over who pays.
We never had a lot of money when I was growing up, but my parents would regularly save up some money for little trips to places like Fenelon Falls and rent a boat so that we could go fishing. A lot of lower income families might not be able to give their children that pleasure if there are extra fees added to things like boat rentals and other water activities. If they have to raise my taxes a little bit to maintain the system that's fine by me, I'll gladly pay an extra couple of bucks a year so that everyone can enjoy it. That's basically the way our health care system runs; everyone pays so that everyone benefits. And who can deny the emotional health benefits of having a free playground for all?
|
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2012 : 06:27:18 [Permalink]
|
| oh please, why correct something that had an obvious meaning. people don't leave nature alone, hence it has to be maintained. get a life. |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Conservative Party of Canada...
