Taxes are generally not used to subsidize already successful businesses at already successful locations serving already successful people.
WHAT?! Have you ever even LOOKED at the last few federal budgets? Let alone the NDP's platform...
A successful business at a successful airport with successful passengers don't really need a subsidy. If one of the few businesses growing in a recession needs a subsidy then doesn't every business deserve money too?
No. They don't "deserve" a subsidy because Stephen Harper (or Dalton McGuinty) eats poor people's babies. They *may* get one because their proposal meets bi-partisan criteria with respect to things like job creation and economic stimulus. What is funnier is that opposition isn't coming from some paleo-conservative Reform-esque CPC splinter group opposed to *all* government intervention, but a party whose line is never more complex than "The Conservatives (or Liberals) aren't spending enough fast enough!" Jesus, two weeks ago the NDP's President argued in the Star that we should start subsidizing Air Canada for no reason.
Why would it make sense for tax payers to pay for a bridge or tunnel required for private successful business and airport developer Porter?
The same reason it makes sense for 36% of the economy to be composed of government spending, we think the benefits outweigh the costs. If you think the tunnel won't do that that is a credible argument, but why bother pretending as though transit infrastructure being partially subsidized by the public sector is somehow abnormal? We all know it is blatant crap and the people who are aghast at spending 30m for a tunnel to YTZ are totally okay with spending tens of billions for a high speed rail line that will do exactly the same thing and serve exactly the same market. Hypocrisy is an understatement.
Anyways, last I checked, the bridge would be owned and operated by the TPA. That is a public asset, not a private company.
Who says anything business is evil. I just don't think we need to give profitable businesses tax payer dollars. If you want to go hand the owner and executives of Porter a handout do it yourself.
Why are you behaving like an idiot? If you don't think we should build a tunnel, fine, start giving reasons why it is a bad idea. What is totally incomprehensible is this pseudo-libertarian crap where, out of the blue, using taxpayer moneys is evil. I can't wait to see you foaming at the mouth about CBC subsidies, or subsidies to profitable companies via mechanisms like Scientific Research and Experimental Development Tax Credits. Subsidies to profitable video game companies like Ubisoft. Subsidies to profitable farmers. Subsidies to political parties. Subsidies to private companies like Bombardier or GM. God knows the subsidies given to profitable wind and solar companies.
I really don't know why I have to explain this to you, but everyone knows you are nothing but a fair-weather libertarian of convenience. We all know you have no real opposition to government intervention and are probably a big fan of it. We all know you are just trying to have cake and eat it to by selectively choosing where to be Ayn Rand and where to be Naomi Klein. We all know the entire Anti-Porter crowd has run out of anything approaching a coherent thought and that is why it is resorting to the dumbest possible argument for a mostly left wing group: complaining about taxes.
You think that people flying regularly on business are the low paid workers and the ones flying once every couple of years to Cuba or Vegas are the highly paid? I have never heard of a low paid worker needing to be flown places for business. Usually they are low paid because their abilities are more easily found and therefore why would they need to be flown somewhere?
No. You, for some totally unknown reason, keep with the ridiculous argument that Porter is somehow "exclusive." Any idiot can go right now to Porter or AC's website and see with utter ease that anyone who can afford traveling to Cuba or Vegas or whatever other "common man" resort of your choosing can afford traveling to any location served by Porter. If they can afford one, they can afford another. That basically disproves the visibly dumb claim that Porter is some kind of club for jet-setting millionaires. It is actually an incredibly economical way to travel, hence the popularity amongst those on a budget.
