iseeyyc wrote:cheapgreek wrote:Ditch the EAS program. When one chooses to live in a rural area, it has many advantages, I.E. low home costs, light car traffic, small schools, etc. A disadvantage is no local air service and driving to a nearby airport with commercial service.Skywatcher wrote:I can just hear the pigs oinking every time this topic comes up. Why does a "socialist" nation like Canada not have an EAS like program when we have many similar, far flung communities with no air service? How about Australia? The U.S. is addicted to Federal government debt and programs like the EAS although small in global numbers is part of the problem.
In Canada we have a similar landmass to cover and 1/10 the economy to support it. Even though the distances between cities are greater, we are accustomed to this and do not expect RJs providing hourly service to everyone. Its Q100's at premium prices, or driving.
Imagine someone in the USA who earns $50k, that same person in Canada earns $50k Canadian (1/3 less buying power) and has to deal with higher costs of everything (shipping, bilingual labeling, etc). Flying is more of a luxury here as the cost is higher relative to the average income.
EAS has no reason to exist. Suck it up. Its easy for Americans to forget how much their propped-up dollar has helped subsidize their ways. That advantage continues to slip away. Future spending has to be more closely scrutinized.
It's not quite as you described. While there is no EAS or similar program, Northerners and "Intermediate" residents get a direct tax credit for simply living "up there"
"Basic residency amount: This is a credit for simply living in a zone. The credit is now $8.25 per day for living in a northern zone, and one-half of this, or $4.13, for living in an intermediate zone"
That said, I agree the individual then has the freedom to decide how to use the money and business isn't getting subsidized by the taxpayers.