News   Jul 25, 2024
 194     0 
News   Jul 24, 2024
 737     1 
News   Jul 24, 2024
 1.4K     1 

Toronto soon to be North America's 4th largest?

Drivers pay the complete cost of their vehicles and pay for a portion of the cost of the tax payers streets through licencing, parking fees and gas tax. That seems fair even if it is a hell of a lot more than the other users..

Of course you have to pay for your own private property...and what it takes to run it. Why should that factor in? Some of us consume a lot of cigarettes and Macallan 18 (which is a lot of tax)...Does that mean we can justify hogging 98% of the road without paying any extra? None of these taxes are city revenue anyway...but hey.

Parking fees have nothing to do with it either. The roads are for T R A N S P O R T A T I O N. The fact that car drivers have to leave their cars on public property when they are finished their trip just adds insult to the whole equation.

Again...I'm not saying don't do it...go ahead. Car drivers just need to start paying for the fact that they hog basically the whole road. EVERYONE has a right to use the road
 
Absurd? That's the extent of your argument? The only thing that's absurd is when people make bold claims without proof, and then call other people absurd when they don't believe such claims, without even bothering to make a proper argument.

Well, to be honest, I never imagined anybody would question such basic common sense.

If it weren't for public transit (supported by walking and cycling), the economic development would be limited to the fixed capacity of the roads to supply it with people getting there by cars. In a car-dependent city, the maximum level of traffic congestion becomes the cap on the economic activity. To the extent that a city is transit dependent, development can continue to grow, while congestion remains constant.

Look how congested downtown traffic is already during the peak morning trips...and cars only account for less than 30% of the work trips to downtown each morning. How could everybody who travels to downtown everyday to work, school, shop, entertainment, culture, etc, etc possibly do that if they all drove a car there? They couldn't obviously...and the result would be a much smaller downtown if cars were the only means of transportation. I mean comon, 100,000 people work at King & Bay...where would you park 100,000 cars even if it were possible for them to all converge on that small spot at the same time?

If just the 45,000 passengers who arrive at Union Station by GO train in ONE HOUR on a typical weekday were to all drive instead, you would have to quadruple the capacity of both the Gardiner and the DVP to accommodate them. That's forgetting the fact that the local roads they spill onto couldn't handle it, and nowhere to park all those cars. And that's just one hour of Go trains...many times more arrive by TTC.
 
Of course you have to pay for your own private property...and what it takes to run it. Why should that factor in? Some of us consume a lot of cigarettes and Macallan 18 (which is a lot of tax)...Does that mean we can justify hogging 98% of the road without paying any extra? None of these taxes are city revenue anyway...but hey.

You smoke therefore you should pay significantly higher provincial taxes for medical care. You are hogging the medical system and costing all of us non-smokers billions. Smoking is voluntary.

The notion that drivers are 'hogging' the road is just ridiculous. Roads are for cars!
 
WRONG!

You smoke therefore you should pay significantly higher provincial taxes for medical care. You are hogging the medical system and costing all of us non-smokers billions. Smoking is voluntary.

The notion that drivers are 'hogging' the road is just ridiculous. Roads are for cars!

Read the book Fighting Traffic
The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City
by
Peter D. Norton

From this link:

Fighting Traffic
The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City
Peter D. Norton

Table of Contents and Sample Chapters

Before the advent of the automobile, users of city streets were diverse and included children at play and pedestrians at large. By 1930, most streets were primarily motor thoroughfares where children did not belong and where pedestrians were condemned as "jaywalkers." In Fighting Traffic, Peter Norton argues that to accommodate automobiles, the American city required not only a physical change but also a social one: before the city could be reconstructed for the sake of motorists, its streets had to be socially reconstructed as places where motorists belonged. It was not an evolution, he writes, but a bloody and sometimes violent revolution.

Norton describes how street users struggled to define and redefine what streets were for. He examines developments in the crucial transitional years from the 1910s to the 1930s, uncovering a broad anti-automobile campaign that reviled motorists as "road hogs" or "speed demons" and cars as "juggernauts" or "death cars." He considers the perspectives of all users—pedestrians, police (who had to become "traffic cops"), street railways, downtown businesses, traffic engineers (who often saw cars as the problem, not the solution), and automobile promoters. He finds that pedestrians and parents campaigned in moral terms, fighting for "justice." Cities and downtown businesses tried to regulate traffic in the name of "efficiency." Automotive interest groups, meanwhile, legitimized their claim to the streets by invoking "freedom"—a rhetorical stance of particular power in the United States.

Fighting Traffic offers a new look at both the origins of the automotive city in America and how social groups shape technological change.

You can download a sample chapter from the book at this link (PDF).
 
Last edited:
Where'd the thread about Toronto becoming the 4th largest city in North America go?
 
You smoke therefore you should pay significantly higher provincial taxes for medical care. You are hogging the medical system and costing all of us non-smokers billions.

Your argument is almost too silly to reply to. The amount of medical care you may use is based on your entire lifestyle, of which smoking represents a very small factor. We'd be way far ahead by charging over-weight people higher taxes.

And as for the "billions" you speak of...here's the facts from the Province's own website....

Tobacco-related disease costs the Ontario health care system $1.6 billion a year.
Tobacco tax revenues were approximately $1.4 billion in 2005-06.

And that's taking the $1.6 billion figure at face value. Smoking doesn't really "cause" anything...it simply increases your "risk" for certain things. Shockingly enough, the same studies show it actually DECREASES your risk of other things (like Parkinsons & Alzhimers).


The notion that drivers are 'hogging' the road is just ridiculous. Roads are for cars!

Either legally or historically...you are simply incorrect.

Cars have basically taken over the roads, that's for sure.
But face it....the party is kinda over.
 
And that's taking the $1.6 billion figure at face value. Smoking doesn't really "cause" anything...it simply increases your "risk" for certain things. Shockingly enough, the same studies show it actually DECREASES your risk of other things (like Parkinsons & Alzhimers).


Keep talking and let me know I'd you need any more rope with which to hang yourself.
 
You smoke therefore you should pay significantly higher provincial taxes for medical care. You are hogging the medical system and costing all of us non-smokers billions. Smoking is voluntary.

The notion that drivers are 'hogging' the road is just ridiculous. Roads are for cars!

You eat red meat, excessive carbs and live in a polluted city....voluntarily. Your argument is null.
 
Your argument is almost too silly to reply to. The amount of medical care you may use is based on your entire lifestyle, of which smoking represents a very small factor. We'd be way far ahead by charging over-weight people higher taxes.

....

And that's taking the $1.6 billion figure at face value. Smoking doesn't really "cause" anything...it simply increases your "risk" for certain things. Shockingly enough, the same studies show it actually DECREASES your risk of other things (like Parkinsons & Alzhimers).
Not only has tobacco been experimentally shown to cause cancer, its role as a risk factor is both as strong and as well demonstrated as (and in many cases / for certain diseases, stronger and better demonstrated than) obesity's role as a risk factor (yes, obesity, like smoking, is also a "risk" factor, but like the tobacco aspect of smoking, the lipid and adipocyte aspects of obesity have also been experimentally demonstrated to be causative for certain diseases). It's also not really that surprising that the soup of psychoactive compounds in tobacco, like nicotine, might have some effects (causative or otherwise) on neurological diseases like PD or AD, but any beneficial effects are more or less nullified by the effects of all the other toxins and carcinogens in the mix.

All this doesn't automatically support the simple-minded view that lifestyle choices should dictate higher "health taxes". Just had to speak up whenever semi/pseudoscientific crap is spewed.
 
It's been a while since we have had a population thread. These threads are fascinating because they provoke so much hostile back and forth antagonism. I'll just put in my two cents before this comment is buried in 5 pages of comment/response between actors:

I dion't think there is anything intrinsically good or bad about population growth. Accepting the idea of no population growth is hard because I believe we have a factory setting in our brains wired to associate growth with accummulation and accummulation with optimism. More people means more people on our team, more support. Think of the passion we have for sport. Caring passionately, investing emotional energy in dudes kicking a ball around is really quite insane. But the feelings are real. We feel genuine fulfillment and loss if our team wins or loses. So the concept of population growth which is abstract because we cannot really experience it with our senses, stimulates both our desire to obtain more and our feeling of belonging to a social context that is winning, a winning side.

Yes of course higher or lower populations have implications of what kinds of activities or life-styles or experiences we can have. But I submit that this has nothing to do with why we care or care to argue why they are good or bad. The city represents a real trade-off between the fulfilment of various human desires. You can discuss objectively the impact of cities on an individual issue, but to make a larger value judgement like "lots of people good, less people bad" or "less people good, lots of people bad" is futile.
 
Just had to speak up whenever semi/pseudoscientific crap is spewed.

Well, if you can prove that smoking-related medical treatment is a bigger burden on health care costs (factoring in the taxes collected from tobacco), than the poor diet & exercise issues associated with being overweight, over the lifetime of that person, then I will gladly eat my words. I'm implying that overweight issues cover more conditions that require more medical treatment, starting earlier and more often than smoking related medical issues do.

This is ONLY to counter the idea by another poster that smokers should be centred out for taxing, based on their "burden" on the health care system...not because I have any intentions of downplaying the real health issues attributed to smoking.

And please...pseudoscience is almost completely owned by the anti-smoking brigade (which is why they have convinced almost everyone that "ETS" kills people).
 
And please...pseudoscience is almost completely owned by the anti-smoking brigade.

We prefer the term 'humans who don't want to die prematurely due to self-inflicted stupidity' if you please.

And to retort your earlier point:

http://www.caot.ca/default.asp?pageid=245

Tobacco is the number one risk factor for preventable death and disease in Canada. Nearly 7 million Canadians smoke, and an estimated 45,000 of them die every year of tobacco related diseases. The economic burden of tobacco use is very high; it is estimated that smoking-related diseases cost Canada $3 billion per year in direct health care expenses. This does not include the cost of lost productivity, increased insurance premiums and other indirect expenses, which increase the cost of tobacco use to society to $11 billion annually.

Drivers: 1
Smokers: -$11,000,000,000
 

Back
Top