Expect to pay more to use national parks
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
You have to pay to ensure that the park isn't damaged by people. Those that don't want to enjoy a park undamaged by people don't have to pay - they can stay at home.
I'd prefer that it go to avalanche control. Aren't RCMP a different department than Parks?
You really should take advantage of a night course called "Reading 3" offered in your neighbourhood.
As I don't generally make a habit of responding to idiots, I'll just post a general statement. You don't primarily cut funding to areas according to their importance but rather according to the amount of waste.
Are we supposed to worry about things that MIGHT happen? I don't believe in "borrowing" trouble. :lol:
Parc Canada hires their own people to pick up litter and stuff from people visiting the park.
I am sure the fees get fed into the giant buracracy and then is supplemented with tax dollars. I have no problem with more coming from the fees and presumably less from tax dollars.
Its a government department with unionized employees. Of course there is waste. Are you suggesting we sell the parks to private industry and fire all the lazy unionized workers?
Fees are tax dollars. They just have a different name so people will think they aren't being taxed.
I'm not suggesting anything as of yet. I'm just trying to understand JLM's position. He seems to be saying that we should cut funding to health care and give it to parks because A) Parks are important and B) there is more waste in the health care system. I doubt he has much support for A and there has been no evidence put forward to support B. As for your idea of privatizing the parks, I see no reason not to explore that option. I see no reason not to look at all the option before we ask taxpayers to pay more. It's the fiscally responsible thing to do. Of course, I understand your position when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
There is a big difference. If I am in Toronto and never go anywhere, if it comes from taxes, Parks are paid for by me with little use to me. If you go to a Park, you are taxed via fee for using the park. User pays. Much better system.
And if park entrance is $20, it is reasonable to perhaps charge $5 drive through fee -- a road toll (also a fee I support rather than general income tax).
I'm not really arguing which system is better. I'm just saying they are both taxes. The government is providing a service and collect money to provide that service. It is a tax though. Since you feel this is a much better system, do you think it should be extended to all government programs? Do you think a greater portion of the costs of each department should be covered by user taxes?
Yes, where applicable. Some services are provided to people other than the taxpayer and if those are worthy, they should be funded by income tax. But stuff that you are getting using something, you should pay rather than the taxpayer in general.
Obviously, if all taxes were user pay or GST type taxes, I would expect a corresponding reduction in personal income tax. This should not be just another tax grab.
What or where do you deem it applicable?
So health care for instance. How much of your health care are you willing to pay for?
Last edited:
That is a moot point! A bigger concern is the method of payment that is forced upon us!
Sounds great to me. We should take the debt servicing costs in this country and divide them amongst the population based on year of birth. Since you got to use far more of the resources than I did, you can pay a higher percentage of the debt cost.
How many of these are you willing to help pay for?
I am a senior - Canada Benefits
Well, this is where it gets fun. Personal opinions of what is applicable will vary.
My own is if you are using a park, driving a road, purchasing a product, or some other elective activity, that would be where the tax/fee should be. If its not elective, then it should come out of income taxes.
Healthcare is not elective. However, a small fee/deductible for a doctor's visit would not upset me.
So your still on this are you? The user pay system is is more of a keep us out of more debt plan.
But CPP and EI should be restricted to only pay what you put in or what is made on what you put in.
We can argue about whether welfare or other payouts or tax deductions for union dues should be voided.