Google sponsored links
I, for one, would like to see this car-centric living impossibly expensive and as inconvenient as possible.
I like to see these policies implemented, it's not going to happen in North America, but we carfree people can only dream.
$20 per gallon for gasoline and diesel sounds like a good number.
However, there should be subsidies for the following:
- transportation for products (shippers)
- occupation requiring the use of automobile (contractors, landscapers, etc)
- large item deliveries
A 200% tax on every new automobile sold.
Excessive parking fees, or better yet, no parking spaces at all. I don't fancy seeing people's property parking on public road. Just think of how less land is required with there were no parking spaces.
What do you think?
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
I see a pointless thread predicting a nation of 200 million contractors
That'd basically kill the economy in one blow. Which I'm against, not so much because I like my car, but more because I would like to eventually be able to find employment after college, so I can have a home to live in, etc. People forget the the automotive industry and related industries account for a few whole percentage points of the entire economy. Want to cause another great depression? Do what Mr. Bubbles here wants to do.
Getting rid of the cars you hate so much will actually make your lives worse unless you're already isolated from society and are completely self-sufficient. If you live a "normal" lifestyle, things won't be so great for you.
I for one would like to see idealistic youth thinking about the consequences of imposing their spartan lifestyle on others in different situations from them.
subsidies for the following...(contractors, landscapers, etc)
Sure, take their cars away--but my god, don't make them do their own gardening. We're not animals. :)
Around here the poor landscapers are "having" to cut back and may even fold:eek: due to drought. I really think that the upcoming poor economic performance, world oil and coal production are going to do a good job of limiting people's choices for a lot of things. Read an interesting article from Tom Whipple (http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2395&Itemid=35) this morning about the fast approaching distinction between the haves and the have nots. There is a lot going on the world that the average person doesn't know or care about, all the ones around me seem to care about is that the cost of gas to transport their FLA to WM is going up. They could care less that there are massive underlying issues that are probably going to take all of that away from them. BTW it is all the Republicat/Demicans fault BTW.;):p
I have no problem with increasing taxes on fuels if it will be used properly to fund mass transit and other alternates. I am not a big fan of subsidies...look where that has taken us on the ethanol front (another goverment/big business boondoggle)
Aaron:)
I, for one, would like to see this car-centric living impossibly expensive and as inconvenient as possible.
I like to see these policies implemented, it's not going to happen in North America, but we carfree people can only dream.
$20 per gallon for gasoline and diesel sounds like a good number.
However, there should be subsidies for the following:
- transportation for products (shippers)
- occupation requiring the use of automobile (contractors, landscapers, etc)
- large item deliveries
A 200% tax on every new automobile sold.
Excessive parking fees, or better yet, no parking spaces at all. I don't fancy seeing people's property parking on public road. Just think of how less land is required with there were no parking spaces.
What do you think?
I think this is more or less what they have in most of developed Europe. Seveal third-world countries are going down this path as well - Brazil has 100%+ tax on cars, Singapore forces you to retire cars over 10yrs old, an Accord costs $70k...
I'm a fan of freedom of choice, and not a fan of attempting to legislate social morality.... but that's just me:rolleyes:
Cheers
Considering that Tata has introduced a cheap automobile in India--it's not going to get better any time soon.
East Hill
Why not move to Myanmar if you are unhappy about how little your government is controlling you.
I, for one, would like to see this car-centric living impossibly expensive and as inconvenient as possible.
I like to see these policies implemented, it's not going to happen in North America, but we carfree people can only dream.
$20 per gallon for gasoline and diesel sounds like a good number.
However, there should be subsidies for the following:
- transportation for products (shippers)
- occupation requiring the use of automobile (contractors, landscapers, etc)
- large item deliveries
A 200% tax on every new automobile sold.
Excessive parking fees, or better yet, no parking spaces at all. I don't fancy seeing people's property parking on public road. Just think of how less land is required with there were no parking spaces.
What do you think?
I would be curious to know why you would like to see these things implemented. What is the major reason?
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see less cars on the road. The two major reasons for me would be: ease and safety of cycling, and a reduction in pollution.
There would also be a host of spin-off benefits. A reclaiming of green space as well as a reduction in consuming of finite resources come to mind. If first world societies were forced to use other means, like walking or cycling, this would also probably give us health benefits.
However, our love affair with the combustion engine and the automobile is only a symptom of our misplaced priorities. In today's consumer world, we are given the freedon to choose whatever we deem necessary to our existence. Common sense and environmental morality are very hard to legislate.
Just look at what happened during the last civic election here in Vancouver. Then, the current administration (Larry Campbell's party) promised to dedicate two of the six lanes on the Burrard Street Bridge to bicycles, during their civic campaign. Sullivan countered with upgrading (widening) the cross walks, but I haven't seen that as of yet.
Before one starts levying taxes and prohibitive charges for vehicle owners, one must first remove tax credits/loopholes and put incentives/credits where they belong.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/cars_pickups_suvs/tax-incentives-suv-loophole-vs-clean-vehicle-credits.html
I think that if everyone would throw away (recycle) their TV's first, the world would be a much better place.
I'd love to see less parking lots, less paved areas and far more vegetable gardens. But I think people have to first get rid of those wasteful monoculture lawns before we'll even start on driveways, let alone parking spaces.
Gasoline will get too expensive for the masses soon enough.
A carbon tax or effective cap & trade system would probably accomplish all this in a more gradual fashion, with little or no disruption of the economy.
On the municipal level, I see the value of thoughtful urban planning to reduce parking and improve infrastructure for non-automotive traffic. Everybody knows that urban sprawl is a big problem, and local governments should work to reduce it.
People wonder why we're in economic recession:
We've based our economy on cars (which we don't need), and houses (in impractical places) to justify the cars.
I think implementing something like what mrbubbles is saying would actually save the economy, by revitalizing the housing market as people re-gentrify the cities.
A significant improvement that few people are talking about is to require SUVs to meet the
same efficiency standards as cars.
By taking parking off the road you wouldnot reclaim green space you would create a new market of surface parking lots which bring with them their own set of problems. I would love to see fewer cars on the road but the ideas put forth are not a productive way of achieving your goal.
Why not look at development patterns that use massive amounts of land to locate gigantic houses for smaller and smaller families. Or the trend towards commercial developments that consist of on site parking that segrgates the building from the street. What aboot the horrible lack of public transportation in this country. If you don't live in a major metropolitan area chances are good you are forced to drive as product of unmitigated development over the past 30 years.
Basicly the problem is not limited to the cost of gasoline or peoples decision to drive but also the land use and development patterns that have evolved in this country. The surburbanization of this country has had a huge impact.
A significant improvement that few people are talking about is to require SUVs to meet the
same efficiency standards as cars.
This has already been done,just a few weeks ago in the new energy bill.
Instead of the high taxes proposed by the original poster, we'd see more of an impact if those of us who are car-free and car-light would simply continue to live the way we do, showing that there are alternatives to automobile use.
I, for one, would like to see this car-centric living impossibly expensive and as inconvenient as possible.
I like to see these policies implemented, it's not going to happen in North America, but we carfree people can only dream.
What do you think?
I think your heart is in the right place, but you play chess zero moves ahead. ;)
Instead of the high taxes proposed by the original poster, we'd see more of an impact if those of us who are car-free and car-light would simply continue to live the way we do, showing that there are alternatives to automobile use.
As long as car use is cheap, there's no need for an alternative, according to most people. (and by most, I mean 99 per cent.)
I'm a fan of freedom of choice, and not a fan of attempting to legislate social morality.... but that's just me:rolleyes:
Cheers
I'm a fan of freedom of choice too, I just want to influence choices with higher prices. :)
I, for one, would like to see this car-centric living impossibly expensive and as inconvenient as possible.
I like to see these policies implemented, it's not going to happen in North America, but we carfree people can only dream.
$20 per gallon for gasoline and diesel sounds like a good number.
However, there should be subsidies for the following:
- transportation for products (shippers)
- occupation requiring the use of automobile (contractors, landscapers, etc)
- large item deliveries
A 200% tax on every new automobile sold.
Excessive parking fees, or better yet, no parking spaces at all. I don't fancy seeing people's property parking on public road. Just think of how less land is required with there were no parking spaces.
What do you think?
[Bolds mine.]
Without an intelligent alternative--not merely a "we all should ride bikes" response--it is a proposal so ill conceived as to not be worth discussing.
Now is an increase in gas taxes a good idea? Maybe. Of course not to $20/gal; steep taxes will destroy the economy, really destroy the economy and do enormous harm.
Now we could use some improvement on regional mass transport, which too few American cities have developed. Railroad electrification, better surface light rail, electric buses and a developing infrastructure for privately-owned electric vehicles. Fuel taxes can and should play a part in funding this kind of improvement.
As long as car use is cheap, there's no need for an alternative, according to most people. (and by most, I mean 99 per cent.)
But car use isn't cheap. A new car will probably cost between six and 12 months' take-home wages. That's a huge outlay of cash. Anyone who's bought a new car understands the payments quite well. A used car is cheaper, but it's still a lot of money. Insurance and repairs are also significant. Parking comes with a price. Fuel is probably the cheapest part of the equation and it's getting more expensive each year. None of this begins to include the psychological effects of sitting in traffic on a daily basis or dealing with road rage.
The problem isn't cheap cars. Instead, we've created a society where, in many areas, there are few other practical transportation solutions.
Those of us who are car-free or car-light are demonstrating that there are some alternatives. If we can live in such a way that car-free or car-light living become attractive and realistic, we may start to see others joining us. But if we make it look like a hardship, cars will still be the transportation method of choice, even if they are expensive to own and operate.
Newspaperguy,
I agree with your comments, but from what I have observed most people in the US have no clue about the total cost of anything, all they see is the monthly or weekly payment vs the take home pay. FWIW I don't see things that way, but then again I have a tendency to research and analyze things to death before I plop down my hard earned money for them. If you tell someone that an $18,000 pickup will end up costing them over $21,000 not including depreciation, they will think you are crazy all they are looking at is that the payment is $350 a month and chances are very good they will roll that same vehicle over into a new one before it is even close to being paid off. FWIW we normally pay cash for our vehicles and drive them for a long time. I am very fortunate in that company covers my vehicle costs for work or I wouldn't be driving one or working there.;)
This also applies to people I see spending hours and dollars driving around looking for the best deal...ie; cheapest price. Most, if not all of the time the negate any potential savings by the driving and wasted time. My favorite quote of late has been: "They know the price of everything, but the value of nothing." (I know it was originally directed at cynics) I primarily direct it at people that are trying to convince me that the cheapest price is always the best choice...
Aaron:)
I'm a fan of freedom of choice, and not a fan of attempting to legislate social morality.... but that's just me:rolleyes:
Cheers
There are many built in subsidies for car use, like the billions that are spent on roads and highways which are mostly then made freely available to drivers. Some of those roads, like controlled access highways, bar bicycles from using them. So in effect "legislation", or at least some government agencies, are already using tax dollars to favour certain citizens or reward certain behaviours over others.
I'd love to see fewer cars, but if gas were to go to $20 tomorrow the entire economy would crash.
I consider the root of the problem that our government has based our economy on the housing market to a large extent. We have done everything we can to encourage home ownership, then designed/zoned cities such that people are living further and further away from a city center.
If gas prices continue to rise you eventually reach a tipping point when people start trying to sell their suburban homes. If this happens to quickly - as in a drastic price increase on gas - the value of homes starts to drop, new construction stops, jobs start to go away, people start to become unemployed in houses that they cannot sell for enough money to pay off their loans.
The fallout would make the subprime fiasco seem pleasant.
There are many built in subsidies for car use, like the billions that are spent on roads and highways which are mostly then made freely available to drivers. All those roads promote commerce. Did the good you purchase arrive at the store via helicopter? Or on on a truck? We take cheap and easy transportation of goods for granted but it doesn't come for free.
I for one, like to see people dream big. Because even after you comprimise with the real world, you need big dreams to motivate innovation in the ways we live.
Excessive parking fees, or better yet, no parking spaces at all. I don't fancy seeing people's property parking on public road. Just think of how less land is required with there were no parking spaces.
Currently, businesses and other buildings in probably most cities in the USA are required to provide a certain number of free parking spaces to their patrons, depending on the size of the building. It couldn't be such a bad thing to relax those requirements a little. You could put up a restaurant in the parking lot of a big box retailer and still have enough parking spaces left over, and at the same time you would be providing more jobs and more tax income for the city.
All those roads promote commerce.
But subsidies for roads harm transportation by rail, which is more energy-efficient, and local production, which is the most efficient of all.
But subsidies for roads harm transportation by rail, which is more energy-efficient,Fair point but railroads get subsidies too.
and local production, which is the most efficient of all.With a good transportation system, local production is observably less efficient since noone does it. This has been the case since the time of Queen Victoria. In the UK, a system of canals started the process but railroads really set in motion the transition from local craftsmen (seamstress, cobbler, etc) to larger scale production. I suppose you could argue that local production is more efficient if transportation of goods is expensive enough but only if you have the raw materials at hand.
In the USA, I don't believe freight railroads are subsidized at all, although passenger rail transportation (Amtrak) is.
Economies of scale may make larger operations in rural areas more efficient overall than smaller ones closer to their customers, but it would be nice if the two could at least compete on an equal footing.
Currently, businesses and other buildings in probably most cities in the USA are required to provide a certain number of free parking spaces to their patrons, depending on the size of the building. It couldn't be such a bad thing to relax those requirements a little. You could put up a restaurant in the parking lot of a big box retailer and still have enough parking spaces left over, and at the same time you would be providing more jobs and more tax income for the city.
I live in a town which has limited downtown parking. When shoppers can't find a place to park, they'll just keep driving, 20 kilometres down the road to the next community where parking is not at a premium. And soon, they make a habit of shopping out of town.
I'd like to see less dependance on cars, but I also realize we live in a world where cars are the dominant means of transportation.
All those roads promote commerce. Did the good you purchase arrive at the store via helicopter? Or on on a truck? We take cheap and easy transportation of goods for granted but it doesn't come for free.
So you're saying we should levy taxes on the public for their own good? Funny, I think so too.
I for one, like to see people dream big. Because even after you comprimise with the real world, you need big dreams to motivate innovation in the ways we live.
:beer:
Pricing car lifestyle expensive so people can't afford them
The liberals have been trying to do this for years with firearms and tobacco. All they've managed to prove so far is that it doesn't work.
I hate cars and I hate what they have done to this country.
But, States like Vermont, Maine, NY(upstate) Wyo, Dakotas etc
people regularly have to drive 10 miles just to get a quart of milk.
Driving 40 miles to a 10.00 an hour job is the standard. The 'system'
has determined that this is the way we proles should subsist. If you
tax Vermonters as mentioned in the OP you will kill a whole state of
people, biblical plague style. You cannot force a lifestyle on the majority
of the people and then make it prohibitively expensive. The fallout of
the bu$h corporate welfare platform is showing how this doesnt work
currently to a lesser degree. I propose taxing Developers, the bane of our
existence, outrageous sums in impact fees, study fees etc and forcing them
to provide amenities to alternative transportation if and when they decide
to follow through on any plans that are not specifically urban renewal.
The common man is already taxed way too hard for politicians playtime.
Newspaperguy,
I agree with your comments, but from what I have observed most people in the US have no clue about the total cost of anything, all they see is the monthly or weekly payment vs the take home pay.
That's a good point. I was just talking with a coworker yesterday (who knows I own a car but very, very rarely use it) and I mentioned that in 2007 I spent $394.16 on gas. He was shocked at how much that was! I can only imagine his shock if he added up his own gas receipts.
So you're saying we should levy taxes on the public for their own good? Funny, I think so too.Sarcasm noted but I think we can all agree that it already happens for better or worse. I confess that the arrogance of the phrase "for their own good" really grates against me.
That's a good point. I was just talking with a coworker yesterday (who knows I own a car but very, very rarely use it) and I mentioned that in 2007 I spent $394.16 on gas. He was shocked at how much that was! I can only imagine his shock if he added up his own gas receipts.
He probably spends about that much every 4-6 weeks, if he stopped to think about it. If you want to make him really choke...tell him you know a guy that spent over $7,000 on fuel last year...me:o:eek: Fortunately mine is reimbursed by my company.
Aaron:)
I hate cars and I hate what they have done to this country.
But, States like Vermont, Maine, NY(upstate) Wyo, Dakotas etc
people regularly have to drive 10 miles just to get a quart of milk.
Driving 40 miles to a 10.00 an hour job is the standard. The 'system'
has determined that this is the way we proles should subsist. If you
tax Vermonters as mentioned in the OP you will kill a whole state of
people, biblical plague style. You cannot force a lifestyle on the majority
of the people and then make it prohibitively expensive. The fallout of
the bu$h corporate welfare platform is showing how this doesnt work
currently to a lesser degree. I propose taxing Developers, the bane of our
existence, outrageous sums in impact fees, study fees etc and forcing them
to provide amenities to alternative transportation if and when they decide
to follow through on any plans that are not specifically urban renewal.
The common man is already taxed way too hard for politicians playtime.
If you want to curb sprawl, I suppose we could start by taxing properties on square footage of land used in construction (footprint). Then perhaps a tax on development based on solid surface relative to total land (runoff area), and finally, remove the tax deduction on mortgage interest on notes that exceed 110% of the mean U.S. home price.
Taxing developers just builds cost into the initial sale price. Removing the incentive to overspend on overly-large homes and outsized lots far from city centers by attaching costs to the purchasers of those properties will do more to curb demand. Taking away the mortgage interest deduction above a reasonable limit would have been a good idea fifteen years ago; we might not be in the subprime mess we're in right now had there been a better market-based brake on spending. All the mortgage interest deduction has done is fueled housing price inflation. Canada does not have a mortgage interest deduction at all and they are far from hurting.
Instead of the high taxes proposed by the original poster, we'd see more of an impact if those of us who are car-free and car-light would simply continue to live the way we do, showing that there are alternatives to automobile use.
Somehow I don't think that would have much of an impact. Seattle is supposed to be a very bike-friendly city, and even here, less than 1.5% of people use bikes as their primary mode of transport. All those people whizzing past me in their SUVs don't seem to be all that inspired to get out from behind the wheel, and things won't change any time soon unless it gets too expensive to keep driving the 5 blocks to Starbucks.
What do you think?I think maybe we need to forget about walling off the southern border and start worrying about the northern one.
And thanks for asking!
I for one would like to see idealistic youth thinking about the consequences of imposing their spartan lifestyle on others in different situations from them.
This +1,000
I don't like to eat Italian food so I would like to see the government impose a 200% tax on all spaghetti sold in North America.
(another goverment/big business boondoggle)
Aaron:)
LIke the small farmers aren't enjoying the price hike in corn right?
I really don't think that artificially making car-reliant lifestyles expensive is necessary. With diminishing oil supply, a supply which will eventually become far too expensive as a viable source of energy, this will naturally become the case without any legislative intervention.
Walling off the Canada/U.S. border would be bloody awesome too. That'd make driving more expensive even faster. You see, we actually have oil. Then people like six jours will get to whine and complain that it's all the fault of us damn Canucks, because somehow, it always seems to be.
I really don't think that artificially making car-reliant lifestyles expensive is necessary. With diminishing oil supply, a supply which will eventually become far too expensive as a viable source of energy, this will naturally become the case without any legislative intervention.
Good point.
A diminishing oil supply will lead to price increases. It will also eventually lead to shortages which will disrupt all forms of fossil fuel transportation. For this reason, I'd like to see governments take some action to help wean us off our present oil dependency. We can go through an inconvenient and uncomfortable period now or we can go through a painful and chaotic transition later.
LIke the small farmers aren't enjoying the price hike in corn right?
It would be cheaper to just cut them a check. Probably 85-90% of the corn that is sold in this country is under the auspices of AGM, not the small farmer. There are many other items that can be processed to provide more ethanol at a lower price and using fewer acres. I can't find the link, but in general of the farm subsidies something like 75% go to big corporate farms...not the small farmer, one of the reasons there are so few left.
Aaron:)
I think an additional $1.00/gal federal tax to supplement the existing infrastructure
was necessary about 10 years ago.
If we were going to try true VC then we would have to make our driving
laws like the Germans and end the asinine many drivers AND cyclists behave
on the roads.
Or make bicycle friendly lanes and path available paid through state or local fuel
taxes.
$20/gal? Study the "Great Leap Forward" and you'll learn the price of
unintended consequences.
CE
Good point.
A diminishing oil supply will lead to price increases. It will also eventually lead to shortages which will disrupt all forms of fossil fuel transportation. For this reason, I'd like to see governments take some action to help wean us off our present oil dependency. We can go through an inconvenient and uncomfortable period now or we can go through a painful and chaotic transition later.
I agree completely. While I don't think the government necessarily needs to artificially make cars more expensive, it should make the alternatives cheaper. I would like to see more subsidies and initiatives taken with the intention to create an infrastructure which can be supported without oil - biodiesel for cars (unless we get some breakthrough in battery technology, this is more feasible than electric cars IMO), and solar, hydroelectric, wind, current, and nuclear for electricity generation. And like you say, it will be a LOT easier and more feasible to get these things done now while we still have a reasonably stable energy infrastructure than wait until the last minute when we won't be able to guarantee production of these necessary alternatives on the large scale requisite to support our North American lifestyles.
I can't find the link, but in general of the farm subsidies something like 75% go to big corporate farms...not the small farmer, one of the reasons there are so few left.
Aaron:)
I'm fighting the urge to start a big rant about farm subsidies. It's great if you're the grower of one of the 5 (?) crops used primarily to create over-processed foods, or to feed livestock.
What, you'd rather grow carrots, broccoli and peas? No money for you... Yet another reason why a whole box of little debbie's cost less than a single apple (at least one worth eating). It's ridiculously expensive to eat fresh (especially organic) foods in a city now.
I agree completely. While I don't think the government necessarily needs to artificially make cars more expensive, it should make the alternatives cheaper. I would like to see more subsidies and initiatives taken with the intention to create an infrastructure which can be supported without oil - biodiesel for cars (unless we get some breakthrough in battery technology, this is more feasible than electric cars IMO), and solar, hydroelectric, wind, current, and nuclear for electricity generation. And like you say, it will be a LOT easier and more feasible to get these things done now while we still have a reasonably stable energy infrastructure than wait until the last minute when we won't be able to guarantee production of these necessary alternatives on the large scale requisite to support our North American lifestyles.
You simply cannot depend on the government to make a worthwhile decision. That's why we have subsidized biodiesel and skyrocketing corn, egg and meat prices. All over a "feel-good" technology that was marginal on its best day.
The lawmaker who presented the bill, and the lobbyist who wrote it for him should both be disposed of permanently.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.