[quote=spinoza;4581035]No. I understood your first post to mean that people don't like what they are paying for, not that people don't know what they are paying for.[q/uote]
It meant both actually.
Quote:
|
Look, you didn't have much of a point in the first place.
|
Arrogant, brainless, nonsense.
Quote:
|
There's no way to raise local government revenue other than taxes or return on investments, so you were talking out of your arse anyway. I chose not to address it because it was obviously wrong and boring. What you mean is that the mayor should impose taxes and charges more palatable to YOU. You're entitled to vote based on that of course, but don't expect me to agree.
|
I don't expect you to agree, however I expect that you should at least try to debate on proper grounds without just assuming people's motives. You do it a lot, hence why debates involving you always lead down a shit path.
Quote:
|
The bit about refurbishment is a lot more interesting because you seem to assume that refurbishment bills always go up. It's not so, and it's a major reason why a big capital expenditure could go some way to bringing down ongoing maintenance bills. Try reading the published budget, it's a pretty good guide to what could be reduced.
|
Look, you obviously know your stuff, but what makes you ignorant is the assumptions you make. I'm involved in part of the underground refurbishment and I'm not assuming it will always go up at all, BUT it will always be there and always be at an inflated level.
My point, which you clearly misunderstood, is that forcing money out of car drivers (for example) to pay for an already pretty well funded public transport system which is failing for reasons not just due to financing is a pretty shit fix. Hence one of the reasons why the man is voted out. A lot of fellow business owners have done the same, purely because what the man offered us in shit in comparison to what he actually provided.