[PublicAnimalNo9]

raydan raydan:

Watch out PA9, you might get on his ignore list.

Big deal, I've had better people than him ignore me

[OnTheIce]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I've also noticed that despite the plan for more than a decade now to extend the GO Transit light rail to the Region of Waterloo,(population over 500,000) none of these latest plans include that extension. There's a SHIT-LOAD of commuters who travel from the Waterloo Region to the GTA for work every day.

There is daily GO train service to and from Waterloo to Union Station via the Kitchener Station. What else do you want?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I've also noticed that despite the plan for more than a decade now to extend the GO Transit light rail to the Region of Waterloo,(population over 500,000) none of these latest plans include that extension. There's a SHIT-LOAD of commuters who travel from the Waterloo Region to the GTA for work every day.

There is daily GO train service to and from Waterloo to Union Station via the Kitchener Station. What else do you want?

Oooops My apologies. Must have happened after I moved from there, which was only a few years ago.

[Nuggie77]

If the GTHA wants to improve their transit system, the GTHA should have to pay all the costs, not the entire province.

[Jonny_C]

In 1951 the average worker sacrificed one month's wages to taxes. Now you have to work SIX months to pay your taxes. And the government cries that it needs more money and (unbelieveably) some people agree, saying that we have to pay our share.

Well goddamn, how big does the government's share have to get before some people cry "Enough is enough!"?

[Xort]

Public transport is in almost all locations terrible, if a city or region wanted good transport they would focus and plan on private transport. But what they do is burden the private transit users with a huge chunk of the cost of the public transport. Then rather than trying to improve the overall transport system so it works planers end up making special rules for the public transport so it can sorta work.

I strongly support the idea that public transport should be self funding, and about the only direct help it should get is up front low intrest loans.
~
When ever I see a bus traffic lane because otherwise the bus would be stuck in traffic I can't help but think maybe we should be fixing the core problem of the poor system, not giving the busses a quick fix to help them try and cheat past the problems the people who pay for most of the bus's costs are stuck with.

Using fuel taxes to fund general expenses while roads suffer is a terrible practice, which has sadly become standard almost everywhere. The lowest it should go is 2 dollars in roads for every 1 dollar for general expenses.

[BartSimpson]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

In 1951 the average worker sacrificed one month's wages to taxes. Now you have to work SIX months to pay your taxes. And the government cries that it needs more money and (unbelieveably) some people agree, saying that we have to pay our share.

Well goddamn, how big does the government's share have to get before some people cry "Enough is enough!"?

Some people will insist that 'all of it' isn't enough.

[romanP]

andyt andyt:

People getting their asses to work certainly is a public good, since without it none of the public goods would get funded.

So, what most of you are saying, maybe without realising it, is that the problem is capitalism. if people didn't need to pay rent to landlords, or land taxes to the government, or condo fees, they wouldn't need a superficial job whose fundamental purpose is only to make money for paying a master.

consider that a large portion of the cost of running a transit system is in the fare itself. how much less would transit cost if one did not need to buy a specialised currency from the transit company in order to ride?

[romanP]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Here's a proposal, Andy:

I think you and I both agree that roads should be wholly funded by motorists' fuel taxes, vehicle registrations, and etc. Essentially, if you use it then you pay for what you use.

Following that logic, all mass transit systems need to be self-sufficient and should not take away from any other government budgets - like roads. Ideally, the simple way to effect this is to make these systems privately owned and operated. Perhaps government could even earn revenue by this method. Given that passenger rail used to be highly profitable then it stands to reason that it could be again.

since OC Transpo was privatised, the fare has only gone up significantly. i used to be able to buy a bus pass for $47 in 1992. now it costs $97, for the same service. corporations like profits, and the only way to make a profit from public transit is to charge more and more money for it. public transit should not be in the position of fucking over the people who need it most, which are the working poor, who already can barely afford the cost of traveling to a job where they will have the fruits of the labour stolen from them by another capitalist.

$1:

Bicyclists should also be licensed and have to pay registration fees on their bicycles if they're going to use the bicycles on city streets or government-provided bicycle trails. And those bicycle trails should be maintained solely by revenues raised from their users.

roads are barely impacted by bicycle use, and are largely paid for by land taxes. daily use of roads by vehicles that weigh two tons or more, as opposed to a 30lb bicycle with a 190lb adult riding it, impacts roads quite a bit. especially buses that uses the same asphalt pad to stop on a few hundred times every day - the ruts start to look like the pavement is lapping up onto the curb in a pretty short amount of time.

[andyt]

romanP romanP:

So, what most of you are saying, maybe without realising it, is that the problem is capitalism. if people didn't need to pay rent to landlords, or land taxes to the government, or condo fees, they wouldn't need a superficial job whose fundamental purpose is only to make money for paying a master.

consider that a large portion of the cost of running a transit system is in the fare itself. how much less would transit cost if one did not need to buy a specialised currency from the transit company in order to ride?

Fares more than pay for the cost of collecting fares. But I would make transit free. It would be a good subsidy for the poor. Consider that welfare no longer supplies transit passes. How is somebody on welfare supposed to get around to look for work, costing at least $5.50 round trip, more if they have multiple appointments? If they're searching diligently, that's 90 bucks a month - what do they do, not eat.

Can't agree with your first point. Most work is superficial in some way. My stepfather (PhD engineering) once explained to me: "work isn't supposed to be fun, why do you think they pay you for it." While I did make a midlife break to find work that was more meaningful to me, it's still work. Plenty of days I'd rather do something else, it has superficial aspects like any work, etc.

I can't see a world that wouldn't run on superficial jobs. Didn't happen in "communist" regimes either. If we're mostly going to have deep jobs, who will do the work to feed, house and clothe us? Those are all superficial jobs.

[romanP]

andyt andyt:

romanP romanP:

So, what most of you are saying, maybe without realising it, is that the problem is capitalism. if people didn't need to pay rent to landlords, or land taxes to the government, or condo fees, they wouldn't need a superficial job whose fundamental purpose is only to make money for paying a master.

consider that a large portion of the cost of running a transit system is in the fare itself. how much less would transit cost if one did not need to buy a specialised currency from the transit company in order to ride?

Fares more than pay for the cost of collecting fares. But I would make transit free. It would be a good subsidy for the poor. Consider that welfare no longer supplies transit passes. How is somebody on welfare supposed to get around to look for work, costing at least $5.50 round trip, more if they have multiple appointments? If they're searching diligently, that's 90 bucks a month - what do they do, not eat.

i'm not so sure that fares pay for themselves. many transit systems across Canada are adopting the Presto card system, Ottawa's alone costing $25M after all of the hiccups and nonsense. what do you think it would have cost to instead get rid of the fare?

$1:

Can't agree with your first point. Most work is superficial in some way. My stepfather (PhD engineering) once explained to me: "work isn't supposed to be fun, why do you think they pay you for it." While I did make a midlife break to find work that was more meaningful to me, it's still work. Plenty of days I'd rather do something else, it has superficial aspects like any work, etc.

i said nothing of work being fun or not. i said the jobs most of us are paid to do are superficial, and exist solely to pay a capitalist master while another capitalist master steals fruits of our labour.

$1:

I can't see a world that wouldn't run on superficial jobs.

imagine harder.

$1:

Didn't happen in "communist" regimes either. If we're mostly going to have deep jobs, who will do the work to feed, house and clothe us? Those are all superficial jobs.

feeding, housing, and clothing ourselves are not superficial jobs, they are essential to life. if we organise to make these things possible without paying capitalists, then there will be more time available to pursue more meaningful activities, and we will re-learn that there is meaning in feeding, clothing, and housing ourselves. some say revolution starts in the kitchen!

[Jonny_C]

romanP romanP:

i said nothing of work being fun or not. i said the jobs most of us are paid to do are superficial, and exist solely to pay a capitalist master while another capitalist master steals fruits of our labour.

What's the alternative? Share and share alike?

Worked for the Soviets, eh?

Every communist government has existed not by setting people free, but by oppressiing them.

[romanP]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

romanP romanP:

i said nothing of work being fun or not. i said the jobs most of us are paid to do are superficial, and exist solely to pay a capitalist master while another capitalist master steals fruits of our labour.

What's the alternative? Share and share alike?

Worked for the Soviets, eh?

Every communist government has existed not by setting people free, but by oppressiing them.

get yr politics right. every authoritarian communist** government has existed by not setting people free. (**read: capitalist and calling itself something else, which is something capitalists routinely do. capitalists like appropriating things to make money. see "Democratic People's Republic of China" or Disney's recent attempt to turn the Mexican Day of the Dead into a hokey trademark for further examples). in case you're still not sure, Marx wrote a hell of a lot more about capitalism than he ever did about communism, and what he wrote about communism said nothing of indigenous people, who are probably the most important part of any social struggle.

but wait, there is another flaw in what you've said. no government has ever set anyone free. people must free themselves.

[Jonny_C]

romanP romanP:

... but wait, there is another flaw in what you've said. no government has ever set anyone free. people must free themselves.

There's no flaw in what I said:

"Every communist government has existed not by setting people free, but by oppressing them."

You can debate other forms of oppression if you like, but my comment applies to the avowed communist goal, which is never achieved.