And where else should the government get that money then?
And looking at the article, if off-grid is more economic for the resident for that kind of life, then it's also more economical for the government. Everybody wins. Subsidizing that would eliminate that win/win.
That said, as carbon pricing rises, the calculus on propane power may shift over time... which, I assume, will result in such residents loudly opposing carbon pricing.
Anecdotally, Philadelphia is the poorest county in our state, while Chester county is the richest. Seems like suburban areas bring in the most money and can afford excellent infrastructure, while infrastructure in the city is in constant disrepair.
One could say the same if you choose to be a car-less urban dweller who relies on transit and high-density infrastructure.
You can stereotype and caricature people both ways, neither helps the discussion.
You can stereotype and caricature people both ways, neither helps the discussion."
Car-less urban dweller pays ticket fees for transit, so the argument doesn't work.
They aren't car-less because they are saving money - if you give everyone who uses public transport a car, gridlock will get so bad there will be bodies in the street.
Neither side can be diluted down to an anecdote, but I guess here we are all trying to do it anyways.
My point was actually about the stereotyping and the painting of all rural dwellers as recreational, as if urban dwelling is the only valid choice and everyone else is intentionally choosing a lesser or more difficult lifestyle.
The _overall_ point here is that connecting to any public utilities should not be made prohibitively expensive just because you live in rural areas.
In this case, the argument is not that it was "made" prohibitively expensive. It's that it is prohibitively expensive, and the debate is whether or not it should be made less expensive through subsidy by government actors.
This same debate will be occurring with providing other services to remote locations as carbon costs get incorporated into the prices of distribution of services. It's not going to get better.
"Isn't that why the government has the power of taxation or the ability to levy fees?"
My point was that some taxation is based on usage, so charging those using the utility would make sense. This would mean still charging the people connected. Otherwise, who would the government tax to subsidize these other citizens?
I've seen it done this way for many different projects.
Thats literally the opposite of how taxes work. What you are describing is called charging the customer.
Taxes are paid independant of usage, my taxes pay for schools wven if I dont have kids. Someone with 10 kids but less income pays less taxes for schools.
False.
That's only one example of a tax. How about gas taxes to pay for the roads they use?
In the US, the latter two are not broadly considered necessities in rural areas. The situation varies but wells, where possible, and septic systems are extremely common away from urban metros and towns of a certain size.
In any case, water and sewer are indeed considered necessities and you are unable to sell or convey a house in the state that I live without a functional water or sewage system, whether on public water/sewer or on well / septic. If you have a non-functioning well or non-functioning septic (outhouses are no longer allowed), then you can't sell your house, and also you are in risk of having your own house condemned. So these are indeed necessities.
Then they plan and redistribute that money to the agencies, corporations and departments that provide essential services for the population, and it gets spent on offering and managing those services. (Yes this is a simplified explanation)
Not sure how it works where you live but I suspect it's probably similar.
My point was that some taxation is based on usage, so charging those using the utility would make sense. This would mean still charging the people connected. Otherwise, who would the government tax to subsidize these other citizens?
They don't use Loonies anywhere else.
As my Canadian aunt says: money is made round to go around.
The cost of hook up is the time of the people to do that job, which means they can't do anything else.
Is Canada that short of electrical engineers that it can't maintain its current grid and add new connections?