3 ms·

Vancouver and Toronto really suffer because they're the warmest parts of a huge cold country and everyone wants to live there. Maybe global warming will mean mo

by u678u 6y ago

Vancouver and Toronto really suffer because they're the warmest parts of a huge cold country and everyone wants to live there. Maybe global warming will mean more people will want to live further North or inland. Ideally the government would try harder like not tax people who live in smaller cities.

29083011397778 6y ago
Let me start with the reminder that global warming means wider, less predictable swings. Not just warmer weather. But more to the point, taxing people less doesn't always help. Alberta, with it's no provincial sales tax, is a place I'm leaving for the exact reason that there's no money for infrastructure or services. Without taxes there are no backstops for me to fall back on (like a robust transit system). To me, that's more financial insecurity, not more.
- totony 6y ago
  Selective lowering of taxes doesn't imply less money for infrastructure for the affected areas. Gov could (should imo) tax big cities more to develop underdeveloped cities.
  - 29083011397778 6y ago
    The Federal government will assist with highway and road maintenance, but they are technically and legally the responsibility of the provinces and territories [0] As Alberta collects less tax revenue (in PST & GST) than several other provinces [1], they have less available to spend on infrastructure. My life is made worse (through rock chips and potholes) due to the government of Alberta not collecting more taxes. While you're right the feds could make up the difference, that seems extraordinarily unlikely - their argument, to my knowledge, has always been that provinces should help themselves (that is, collect tax revenue approximately equal to the other provinces) before demanding more from equalization payments. I would assume they'd take a similar stance regarding other spending. Please correct me if I've misunderstood or assumed incorrectly though :) [0] https://www.loc.gov/law/help/infrastructure-funding/canada.php https://www.loc.gov/law/help/infrastructure-funding/canada.p... [1] https://www.transfereaserelocation.com/canada-which-region-has-the-lowest-tax-rate/ https://www.transfereaserelocation.com/canada-which-region-h...
    - totony 6y ago
      >that seems extraordinarily unlikely Isn't this the issue then? Assuming a north province can have taxes equal to e.g. BC and Ontario seems erroneous. What's the incentive in living in harsher climate, less populated area?
- u678u 6y ago
  > Without taxes there are no backstops for me to fall back on (like a robust transit system). To me, that's more financial insecurity, not more. Agreed I meant tax residents of Toronto and Vancouver more and use the money to subsidize other regions.

by u678u 6y ago

29083011397778 6y ago

Let me start with the reminder that global warming means wider, less predictable swings. Not just warmer weather. But more to the point, taxing people less doesn't always help. Alberta, with it's no provincial sales tax, is a place I'm leaving for the exact reason that there's no money for infrastructure or services. Without taxes there are no backstops for me to fall back on (like a robust transit system). To me, that's more financial insecurity, not more.

totony 6y ago
Selective lowering of taxes doesn't imply less money for infrastructure for the affected areas. Gov could (should imo) tax big cities more to develop underdeveloped cities.
- 29083011397778 6y ago
  The Federal government will assist with highway and road maintenance, but they are technically and legally the responsibility of the provinces and territories [0] As Alberta collects less tax revenue (in PST & GST) than several other provinces [1], they have less available to spend on infrastructure. My life is made worse (through rock chips and potholes) due to the government of Alberta not collecting more taxes. While you're right the feds could make up the difference, that seems extraordinarily unlikely - their argument, to my knowledge, has always been that provinces should help themselves (that is, collect tax revenue approximately equal to the other provinces) before demanding more from equalization payments. I would assume they'd take a similar stance regarding other spending. Please correct me if I've misunderstood or assumed incorrectly though :) [0] https://www.loc.gov/law/help/infrastructure-funding/canada.php https://www.loc.gov/law/help/infrastructure-funding/canada.p... [1] https://www.transfereaserelocation.com/canada-which-region-has-the-lowest-tax-rate/ https://www.transfereaserelocation.com/canada-which-region-h...
  - totony 6y ago
    >that seems extraordinarily unlikely Isn't this the issue then? Assuming a north province can have taxes equal to e.g. BC and Ontario seems erroneous. What's the incentive in living in harsher climate, less populated area?
u678u 6y ago
> Without taxes there are no backstops for me to fall back on (like a robust transit system). To me, that's more financial insecurity, not more. Agreed I meant tax residents of Toronto and Vancouver more and use the money to subsidize other regions.