The mayors are just cowards. They want to tax our very movement but don’t want to be associated with it at the Fall vote.

@Richard

The only person I can think of that is known simply as Richard is Little Richard. Are you?

@Bill

Not hard to determine my last name. It would take less time to simply click on my name to get to my website than to make that “clever” comment. Rather ironic though coming from a Bill.

To save you the trouble and 1 second of time, here it is.

@Richard

I guess I just was not that interested in who you are. Still not.

Uh, thanks guys for mention me in the same sentence as music legends. I’m flattered but holy off topic, BrillBill.

Back to transit. The Province’s position makes little sense. They are fine with the region raising property taxes by whatever amount needed but won’t even give the Mayors the power to use other forms of taxes even though many people would prefer those taxes or fees to propert taxes.

So just who are they trying to appeal to. They should just give the Mayors the authority and then let the voters have their say on their political future during the municipal election. That is what democracy is all about.

Seems rather odd to call the mayors cowards and not christy clark for her lack of intestinal fortitude. Is there not a homeowner grant that the premier could cancel? Would this not be a financial boost to our transit needs ? C’mon christy get your head out of the LNG sink hole and lead.

Whether you call it cowardice or self-preservation doesn’t change the fact the Mayors, like all politicians in the Western economies, are afraid to be seen by the electorate as raising taxes. Socialists- oops progressives may think there is “there is enough wealth in the world” to pay for everything on the laundry list – transit, education, health care, housing and other social programs, mitigation of climate change, worldwide poverty – there isn’t. With economic growth rates of GDP around 2% we cannot grow out of our problem (and the actions of “environmentalists” to stop responsible growth doesn’t help) so the choices are to increase taxes which means less disposable income for taxpayers (and maybe get voted out), increase debt and shift the burden to future generations or be realistic on what we can afford. Perhaps successfully resisting the unreasonable demands of the BCTF is a good start on the third and better choice.

@13 Bill By charging a royalty of $46 per barrel for its oil Norway seems to be providing most of that laundry list of social programs, and has funded a sovereign wealth fund of over 900 million dollars. It amounts to over $180,000 per person.

The favorite cry of the right wing is T.I.N.A. There is no alternative! We live in a global economy, we must have low taxes and a favourable regulatory environment for business or we will never attract investment capital ever ever ever!

We are a resource rich nation with a small population, we don’t have to be hostage to the demands of capital. The example of Norway proves that we can charge a sufficient rent for the resources to fund our social programs. They dared the oil companies to pay the royalty or go home. They stayed and they have paid.

“So your solution to finding funding for all the problems of the world is a spontaneous, worldwide disarmament by all countries.”

Yes.

@Keith #15

I am glad you agree with me that we should be developing our natural resources for the benefit of Canadians and we need more people like you to stand up and counter the extreme views of many environmentalists that oppose all development of the oil sands. And I agree with you that we should ensure that Canadians receive a fair share of the benefits from our extractive industries. I would be interested in reading any research you have done or have read that would support your position that we are leaving significant money on the table that would seriously make a dent in the wish list that seems to grow daily.

@#19 Bill

thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/03/31/Canada-Lousy-Oil-Negotiator/

According to this researcher, royalties in Canada are $9 per barrel, less than 20% of what is charged in Norway. I would argue that quintuple the royalties/taxes would go a long way.

Re development. Obviously fossil fuels damage the planet, however 70% of goods movement and travel use fossil fuels. The government should be taking tax and royalty income from that industry and providing dedicated resources to the alternative energy industry until it can stand on its own from a cost perspective. We could be global leaders in a new industry if we had leaders with vision.

@Bill

Canada is obviously being played by state owned oil companies. The current royality scheme that has low rates until capital expansion is paid off encourages over building of short term capacity which increases the costs and lowers the price of oil. When Alberta tried to fix the royality rates, the oil industry funded the Wild Rose Party and the Conservatives backed down.

The current over expansion certainly is not good for Canada’s long term economy. Once the boom is over and the oil starts to run out, it will be pretty bleak.

@Richard #23

It’s not clear if you support resource development but with higher taxation to pay for social services or the oil should be left in the ground in which case how do you propose to pay for the wish list of expenditures, including transit expansion?

@Bill

A bit of both. Slowing down the pace of extraction decreases the cost and thus profits and potentially the royalities. Taxes on corporate profits would also help return money to the public.

Alberta is in the rediculous position of running deficits due to the need to expand infrastructure to accomidate the grow caused by the oil sands. They are hooked on expansion because they aren’t taxing the industry enough.

I state corrected. Alberta just reported a surplus although it was partly due to cuts to post-secondary education and hard lines taken on wages for doctors, teachers and civil servants that angered opposition party members and other critics.

The other reason was higher oil prices and a lower Canadian dollar, neither which are served by the planned massive expansion of the oil sands.

@Keith #30

I believe that government has an important role to play in our economy but as a referee between competing interests and not as a player. First, they can end up in a conflict of interest if they are also a player and second, government is not very good at managing (right or left).

For example, do you think government would tolerate the tragic outcomes in our health care system or child welfare cases if the services were the responsibility of private companies? Not a chance. Also look how poorly Translink and BC Ferries have been managed under the watch of a “business orientated” government.

While Statoil appears to be very successful for the Norwegians, I would say this is the exception and not the rule.

@teririch #32

It is amazing how some will overlook government failures in managing enterprises and instead look at other countries for success stories. Look at the CBC. It costs the Canadian taxpayer $1.1 billion annually just to try to break even when private broadcasting assets are very profitable.

“It costs the Canadian taxpayer $1.1 billion annually just to try to break even when private broadcasting assets are very profitable.”

Apples and oranges. The private broadcasters aren’t under the same obligation to provide the range of services delivered by the CBC, to a wider geographic area, in two languages. Nor, arguably, do the private broadcasters provide the same public service/oversight of government typically associated with the CBC’s investigative journalism efforts.

@Keith #34

Our family saves hundreds of dollars each year by purchasing optional car insurance coverage from a private insurer and I have no reason to believe that similar saving would not be possible if the mandatory coverage was available privately as well.

Privatization of a monopoly business like ICBC is not that simple. Sell it with the monopoly intact and you must have an effective regulatory regime in place to control rates which is not easy with insurance. Opening up the market to competition results in a loss to the taxpayer (even though there might be a gain to the consumer) as the business is “given away”. And you are right. The vast majority of voters are also consumers of car insurance and screwing up the privatization could be costly on Election Day. The downside is much greater than the upside for politicians.

As for your example of the Ford Pinto scandal, these events will happen but I would rather have the government in the position of taking appropriate action rather than being responsible for the organization that is having the problems. See examples in health care and children’s services.

Bill:

You compared the CBC to private broadcasters as an argument for private businesses financial acumen. I provided some reasons why it’s a faulty perspective. No reason to expand the discussion in this off-topic direction. Your original analogy doesn’t offer a useful comparison, that is all.

And again, by using PBS, you offered another apples to oranges comparison. Why not compare to the BBC or other state broadcasters to determine funding levels?