Gas Prices

Feel the need to discuss something other than weather? This is the place to do it.
User avatar
Abby_wx
Charter Member
Posts: 3214
Location: Abbotsford, BC
Contact:

Re: Gas Prices

Postby Abby_wx » Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:41 pm

The gas price thing is just another consequence of rapid population growth in a region with infrastructure that is ill-prepared for it. We are so under-prepared in so many other ways, but it's easier to focus on something like gas prices because it's something most of us can relate to.

Rather than blame each other we should be putting the blame squarely where it belongs on the federal government for not making sure more immigrants settle in less populated areas, not to mention for allowing the absolute idiocy that is the Quebec Immigrant Investor Program. https://globalnews.ca/news/3886743/queb ... vancouver/

But I guess Trudeau would say we should be grateful we have thousands of rich people driving around in their BMW SUVs, sucking up all of our gas, while jacking up house prices and consuming health care dollars and putting next to nothing back into the economy. :roll:
"It's not logical... it's meteorological."

Near Hwy 1 McCallum exit; elevation 55 m (180 ft).
https://www.wunderground.com/personal-w ... =IBCABBOT1

User avatar
Hound
Charter Member
Posts: 2641
Location: N.E. Surrey, BC

Re: Gas Prices

Postby Hound » Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:02 am

I agree Abby. Actually the door should be closed on immigration to BC. Especially from China and India. This also brings to light the disaster that will be when the earthquake hits.
Fraser Heights, Surrey. (Elevation: 85 M. 278 Ft.)

User avatar
Abby_wx
Charter Member
Posts: 3214
Location: Abbotsford, BC
Contact:

Re: Gas Prices

Postby Abby_wx » Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:29 pm

Hound wrote:I agree Abby. Actually the door should be closed on immigration to BC. Especially from China and India. This also brings to light the disaster that will be when the earthquake hits.


Yeah. I've thought about this quite a lot from many different angles, read a lot of papers on the subject, and I'm inclined to agree that it should be cut dramatically... at least for Metro Vancouver & The Fraser Valley. The main roadblock is the decades of propaganda by groups who have vested interests in the status quo. I'm staying away from the racial discussion, so I won't comment on the ethnic origin of immigrants.

The main supporters of high immigration levels are typically business owners and governments. It's a win-win situation for both of those groups, and probably the only thing they consistently agree on. Immigration not only provides a constant supply of cheap labour, but also an ever-increasing pool of consumers, which businesses love for obvious reasons, but governments love just as much because more consumption equates to more tax revenue.

Not surprisingly, those motivations are swept under the rug in favour of a sanitized message of "diversity", branding anyone who disagrees a racist and thereby deflecting any rational discourse.

Critics of reducing immigration sometimes point to future labour shortages, despite the fact that it's widely acknowledged that automation will eventually reduce the size of the labour force. Whether this impending labour shortage is real or imagined, most agree it's because Canadians are not having as many children as they used to. One obvious reason for that is because people simply can't afford to raise kids after paying a million dollars or more for a house. Many couples decide to leave the area in order to start families, while those who opt to remain decide to delay having children or skip having them entirely. Even those who do choose to start families here often find that they are forced to leave (this happened to a good friend of mine).

Reducing immigration to minimal levels would cause housing supply to quickly catch up and eventually exceed demand, allowing home prices to drop significantly. If home prices were cut in half, fewer families would opt to leave the area, and they'd have substantially more money left over for raising children.

The pro-immigration lobby also points out that reducing immigration would slow the growth of tax revenue. This is correct, but they conveniently forget to mention that infrastructure costs would also trend down over time. A slower-growing population needs fewer new schools, roads, utilities, hospitals, and other major capital expenditures.

Who else has noticed that the bigger a city gets, the more insatiable they become for taxes? Why is that? With more people paying taxes, shouldn't tax rates actually decrease due to economies of scale? Well, it doesn't actually work that way because infrastructure costs per capita actually increase disproportionately with population density. The greater the population of an area, the more services they demand, and the higher the cost of delivering those services. Some reasons for these additional costs include more expensive real estate, space constraints requiring creative engineering, and higher wages in cities. To me, this completely puts to bed the notion that we need more immigration so that governments can collect more taxes. Sure, they do end up collecting more in taxes all right, but the benefits are vastly overstated, if they exist at all.

Oh, and fewer people means fewer gas shortages. But we may be past the point of no return already. Unless we can actually reduce our consumption, some additional supply will be needed.
"It's not logical... it's meteorological."

Near Hwy 1 McCallum exit; elevation 55 m (180 ft).
https://www.wunderground.com/personal-w ... =IBCABBOT1

User avatar
Glacier
Weather Enthusiast
Posts: 2351
Location: Okanagan

Re: Gas Prices

Postby Glacier » Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:14 am

Gas tax went up, but the price of gas went DOWN 10 cents/litre! Down to 118.9 here in Vernon!

Suckkas!

User avatar
Glacier
Weather Enthusiast
Posts: 2351
Location: Okanagan

Re: Gas Prices

Postby Glacier » Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:18 am

Abby_wx wrote:Who else has noticed that the bigger a city gets, the more insatiable they become for taxes? Why is that? With more people paying taxes, shouldn't tax rates actually decrease due to economies of scale?

BINGO!I have been wondering about this for a long time! I asked a city councilor in Lumby (a small village near Vernon of 2000 people), and she told me that it's because in small towns you have volunteer fire departments, yadda, yadda, but as you get bigger, you pay bigger wages, which more than eats up the potential savings. In smaller towns and cities you have fewer tax payers, so you're forced to save costs, but in big cities there are no incentives to speak of for reigning in costs. I don't know if I buy this explanation entirely, but it does make some sense.

User avatar
Abby_wx
Charter Member
Posts: 3214
Location: Abbotsford, BC
Contact:

Re: Gas Prices

Postby Abby_wx » Fri Apr 06, 2018 8:40 pm

Glacier wrote:
Abby_wx wrote:Who else has noticed that the bigger a city gets, the more insatiable they become for taxes? Why is that? With more people paying taxes, shouldn't tax rates actually decrease due to economies of scale?

BINGO!I have been wondering about this for a long time! I asked a city councilor in Lumby (a small village near Vernon of 2000 people), and she told me that it's because in small towns you have volunteer fire departments, yadda, yadda, but as you get bigger, you pay bigger wages, which more than eats up the potential savings. In smaller towns and cities you have fewer tax payers, so you're forced to save costs, but in big cities there are no incentives to speak of for reigning in costs. I don't know if I buy this explanation entirely, but it does make some sense.


I think it's due to a few different factors. For example, a small town probably wouldn't consider putting in bike lanes. Not only don't they have the money, but there is less demand for that infrastructure. The streets are probably less crowded, so bikes and cars can co-exist more easily. It's different in a bigger city where more people demand bike lanes because there are more cyclists and traffic making cycling more dangerous.

It also doesn't help when elected representatives can vote themselves pay raises and bonuses in any amount they choose, like they did in Metro Vancouver just a few days ago... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.4598747

They typically offer some lame excuse like "We need to attract the best and brightest people." The previous BC Liberal government also used a similar argument when voting their MLAs huge raises, and so did BC Ferries.

What happened to people who want to join politics because they actually care about serving the community as opposed to earning huge salaries. Are we sure those people (who want the big salaries) are the ones we really want running things?

But anyway, I definitely think that municipal politicians get starry-eyed at the potential tax revenue from more immigration to their cities. That's more property development, which means more tax revenue to burn on whatever they want, including raises for themselves. They only consider how much more they can spend, not how much they could potentially save taxpayers.

Of course they love their pet projects, especially "environmentally friendly" ones like light rail. :lol:
http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/surrey-h ... il-transit
"It's not logical... it's meteorological."

Near Hwy 1 McCallum exit; elevation 55 m (180 ft).
https://www.wunderground.com/personal-w ... =IBCABBOT1

User avatar
Typeing3
Weather Enthusiast
Posts: 4545
Location: Coquitlam, Elevation 25m (80ft)

Re: Gas Prices

Postby Typeing3 » Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:59 pm

Abby_wx wrote:
Glacier wrote:
Abby_wx wrote:Who else has noticed that the bigger a city gets, the more insatiable they become for taxes? Why is that? With more people paying taxes, shouldn't tax rates actually decrease due to economies of scale?

BINGO!I have been wondering about this for a long time! I asked a city councilor in Lumby (a small village near Vernon of 2000 people), and she told me that it's because in small towns you have volunteer fire departments, yadda, yadda, but as you get bigger, you pay bigger wages, which more than eats up the potential savings. In smaller towns and cities you have fewer tax payers, so you're forced to save costs, but in big cities there are no incentives to speak of for reigning in costs. I don't know if I buy this explanation entirely, but it does make some sense.


I think it's due to a few different factors. For example, a small town probably wouldn't consider putting in bike lanes. Not only don't they have the money, but there is less demand for that infrastructure. The streets are probably less crowded, so bikes and cars can co-exist more easily. It's different in a bigger city where more people demand bike lanes because there are more cyclists and traffic making cycling more dangerous.

It also doesn't help when elected representatives can vote themselves pay raises and bonuses in any amount they choose, like they did in Metro Vancouver just a few days ago... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.4598747

They typically offer some lame excuse like "We need to attract the best and brightest people." The previous BC Liberal government also used a similar argument when voting their MLAs huge raises, and so did BC Ferries.

What happened to people who want to join politics because they actually care about serving the community as opposed to earning huge salaries. Are we sure those people (who want the big salaries) are the ones we really want running things?

But anyway, I definitely think that municipal politicians get starry-eyed at the potential tax revenue from more immigration to their cities. That's more property development, which means more tax revenue to burn on whatever they want, including raises for themselves. They only consider how much more they can spend, not how much they could potentially save taxpayers.

Of course they love their pet projects, especially "environmentally friendly" ones like light rail. :lol:
http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/surrey-h ... il-transit

On the topic of light rail...while it will almost certainly be a disaster in Surrey, it might be so bad of an idea out your way in Abby. http://www.railforthevalley.com/the-need/
East Coquitlam. Elevation 25m(80ft).

Spring/Summer 2018
Last freeze: April 2 (-0.8C)
First 15C: March 11 (17.9C)
First 20C: March 12 (21.4C)
First 25C: April 24 (25.3C)
First 30C: May 13 (30.8C)
Hottest Temp 2018: 31.3C (May 14)

User avatar
Abby_wx
Charter Member
Posts: 3214
Location: Abbotsford, BC
Contact:

Re: Gas Prices

Postby Abby_wx » Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:36 pm

Typeing3 wrote:On the topic of light rail...while it will almost certainly be a disaster in Surrey, it might be so bad of an idea out your way in Abby. http://www.railforthevalley.com/the-need/


Yes, I think that makes more sense than the Surrey proposal. It's better to design the rail system first, and let development follow. Surrey is doing the opposite -- trying to cram it into an already developed area that was never designed to accommodate it.

We can use the existing train tracks in the valley, and there are enough people who would probably use the system, but we're not so densely populated that its construction would present massive problems.
"It's not logical... it's meteorological."

Near Hwy 1 McCallum exit; elevation 55 m (180 ft).
https://www.wunderground.com/personal-w ... =IBCABBOT1

User avatar
SardisBCwxman
Charter Member
Posts: 5730
Former Username: Missionbcwx
Location: Chilliwack B.C. (South Sardis) Elevation: 85 ft.

Re: Gas Prices

Postby SardisBCwxman » Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:43 pm

Can't tell which stations have the cheapest prices out here in Chilliwack they all seem to be the same, yet in Mission the Petro Can @ 7th and Cedar Way seem to drop prices first, followed by the Safeway gas bar down on Lougheed. Currently it's 142.9 here I thought I saw 139.9 just the other day, rip off!
All l want for Christmas is a tin of sardines

User avatar
SardisBCwxman
Charter Member
Posts: 5730
Former Username: Missionbcwx
Location: Chilliwack B.C. (South Sardis) Elevation: 85 ft.

Re: Gas Prices

Postby SardisBCwxman » Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:46 pm

Abby_wx wrote:
Typeing3 wrote:On the topic of light rail...while it will almost certainly be a disaster in Surrey, it might be so bad of an idea out your way in Abby. http://www.railforthevalley.com/the-need/


Yes, I think that makes more sense than the Surrey proposal. It's better to design the rail system first, and let development follow. Surrey is doing the opposite -- trying to cram it into an already developed area that was never designed to accommodate it.

We can use the existing train tracks in the valley, and there are enough people who would probably use the system, but we're not so densely populated that its construction would present massive problems.
Agreed! starting from Chilliwack there's certainly enough traffic on Highway 1 early in the a.m. on weekdays to consider this.
All l want for Christmas is a tin of sardines


Return to “General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest