|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 07/29/2001 : 10:52:57 [Permalink]
|
The problem is not just emissions. Traveling a long distance to and from work means more time and wear and tear on the roads. I simply believe that lifestyle choices like that should be severly taxed since the rest of us pay for it in traffic congestion and road construction and maintenance. This severe tax would also be meant to discourage a destructive lifestyle like this. Then there are the environmental issues.....
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2001 : 11:50:24 [Permalink]
|
@tomic, for some of us living so far from the central area is a matter of economics not choice. I can not afford to live in a safe neighborhood close to the areas where I've worked. So you would penalize those who sole purpose in moving farther out is to find affordable housing. The move would not be then worth the savings I would have over living close to where I work.
Other problems arise with this issue when you consider a person who already lives in an area and takes a job farther from their home. This may not always be that persons choice. I lived 20 minutes round trip from my place of employment for over 5 years - then I was laid off. After two months the only job I could find was now a 45 minute trip one direction. Am I supposed to move then to accomodate the new job? I wouldn't live in that area of town if I was paid to do so. Then I was laid off from that job approximately 11 months later. Now I work the same distance in the opposite direction. Had I moved close to my second job (here) I would have a 1 1/2 hour commute. I can't afford to move for every job I find. I own my place and I like the neighborhood.
Where people live is a much a decision to not live in the city center as it is an economic decision for some. This would IMO be an unfair taxation of individuals for things that are to some extent out of their sphere of influence.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2001 : 12:13:48 [Permalink]
|
Hi @tomic! Lazy Sunday for gabbin' 
Let me tie two of your statements together so I can frame my rebuttal (sounds kinda gross. Shouldn't it be "refrontal"? But I digress)
quote:
The problem is not just emissions. Traveling a long distance to and from work means more time and wear and tear on the roads. I simply believe that lifestyle choices like that should be severly taxed since the rest of us pay for it in traffic congestion and road construction and maintenance. This severe tax would also be meant to discourage a destructive lifestyle like this. Then there are the environmental issues.....
In a market-driven economy, almost nothing is anticipatory. It is reactionary. Markets react to existing needs. The political arena is no different. Your proposed taxes are a reaction to a perceived "destructive lifestyle" by me as opposed to you. And YOUR lifestyle is benevolent and non-destuctive? Okee-Dokee.
So, here's what you're up against. I get in my pick-me-up truck and drive State Route 87, which has been maintained since the 1920s to a Rapid Transit (trolley) stop that has been maintained since the 1930s. The money I pay for transit and parking is REBATED by my employer by deducting said expenses from my gross income. So whatever taxes you impose have been effectively nullified. My employer is responding to market forces by making my place of employment less expensive to get to. Good recruitment incentive. Less staff turnover. DAMN! Bigger bottom line!
Now a tie-in with what you said earlier.
quote:
Some folks will hate this but it's something that I find to be true: Americans wait until the last minute(and sometimes past then) to fix anything. Part of me thinks that it will serve us right if the worst case scenario pans out. We can all sit around and point fingers at each other(another favorite American pastime) after the midwest begins to resemble the Sahara desert.
You're absolutely right! Since everything is tied in to our fossil fuel economy, NOTHING of any major consequence is going to happen until fuel prices go through the roof. Artifically imposed taxes are just that. They may be instituted with the best intentions, but they too are subject to market forces. And Dubya just dumped a boatload of 'em. So, you're going to impose more? Don't think so. The market place will be the ultimate arbitrator of environmentally inspired changes.
(:raig
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2001 : 15:23:23 [Permalink]
|
I'm sorry but I still feel that for many people it is a lifestyle choice and one that I shouldn't pay for. It is true that sometimes individuals change jobs and something would need to be done about that.
But where it's simply a desire to get away from it all, I don't want to pay in extra traffic, more emission, more taxes for roads etc.
I don't feel that the taxes are artificial. The money can be used to improve mass transit. There are hidden costs to usage that are not immediately obvious. So to me the taxes do not artificially make gas cost more. No, the taxes make gas the proce it should be. Driving is a luxury not a right. The taxes would also get some of the worst polluting vehicles off the road. I think it would an all around win-win situation.
I also have to mention that I find it amusing that Americans(as I have observed in this thread and elsewhere)fail to see that there is any real alternative to individual car ownership. Mostly it's because what we have had in the US for well over a half century is a culture based in that individual vehicle ownership. And all the owners seem to find it just too incinvenient to live a life lived by almost everyone else in the world.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2001 : 17:49:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I simply believe that lifestyle choices like that should be severly taxed since the rest of us pay for it in traffic congestion and road construction and maintenance.
quote:
I'm sorry but I still feel that for many people it is a lifestyle choice and one that I shouldn't pay for. It is true that sometimes individuals change jobs and something would need to be done about that.
@tomic, a tax like this should not be placed on people who choose to live where they are safe and can afford to live. If I were to be taxed like this it is quite probable that I would be unable to afford to go to work, let alone pay my rent. My budget is very tight. I could not afford to live closer to the city center, rent is too high. Where I can afford rent I'd be afraid to walk out my front door or sit in a room that is accessible to the street. There are many in this case.
If you feel an additional tax is necessary - follow California's model of a vehicle luxury tax based on vehicle weight. However, exempt any and all farm vehicles - farmers can ill afford the tax.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2001 : 18:00:52 [Permalink]
|
I am sure that there would need to be many exemptions. And others could probably draw up a workable law zillions of times better than I can. But it should not be so easy for folks to move further and further out to get away from it all and, ironically, end up bringing what they moved to get away from with them.
In areas without adequate alternatives there would obviously have be some allowance as well.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2001 : 19:10:31 [Permalink]
|
I don't think that it's a matter of choice anymore. After WWII, people started flocking to the new suburban "planned" communities. These were places where people could live and own a small piece of property without being subjected to having to have places where people frequent near them. The result is that you live in one area, shop in another (strip malls), and work somewhere else (indusrial parks or back in the city). Cities were allowed to rot. This has made people overly dependent on the automobile to the point where it's natural for someone to drive around the block now to go to a freind's house.
Cities are not inherently dangerous to live in. They are only dangerous because they are disproportionately poor and minority. Both groups who do not hold much political clout. The power structure resides in the suburbs.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2001 : 19:19:37 [Permalink]
|
I have been to the downtown sections of a few local cities(Portland OR, Vancouver, BC, Seattle WA) and they all have a revitalized downtown area with a lot of new housing. It's very upscale housing I might add. Around them are enough restaurants and shops to make owning a vehicle unnecessary.
I used to dislike the idea of living in the city but from what I have seen in these cities, it seems to be a great lifestyle.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2001 : 19:38:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I have been to the downtown sections of a few local cities(Portland OR, Vancouver, BC, Seattle WA) and they all have a revitalized downtown area with a lot of new housing. It's very upscale housing I might add. Around them are enough restaurants and shops to make owning a vehicle unnecessary.
I live in a rural area now but prior to the summer of 1994, I lived in Buffalo NY which is not a highly revitalized city but is getting there. The neighborhood in which I owned a house was an older one (circa WWI). I'll take the city life any day. The idea of revitalizing cities is recent and exists because the price of suburban and even rural property has gone through the roof. Also, I think some people are trying to be more expressive of their individuality and are rejecting the "cookie-cutter" suburbs. Reasonably affluent 1st time home buyers are the usual group moving to these city locations. Maybe there's hope for all of us yet.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 03:38:57 [Permalink]
|
In which case all internal combustion engines should be regulated to the same standards of emissions per power level as car engines.
That would help a lot.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 08:39:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
TD: Are you just going to discount any data which shows that it is cheaper to prevent it then to clean up afterwards? Is it because it would undermine your main argument for why Kyoto shouldn't go ahead?
Actually, I was just using that link as an example to try and make a point. I am not going to discount any data without a fair hearing, regardless of it's source. Unlike *cough* some of you *cough* seem to. 
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 08:58:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I am sure that there would need to be many exemptions. And others could probably draw up a workable law zillions of times better than I can. But it should not be so easy for folks to move further and further out to get away from it all and, ironically, end up bringing what they moved to get away from with them.
In areas without adequate alternatives there would obviously have be some allowance as well.
You're overlooking the marketing solution, @tomic. "If Mohammed cannot go to the mountain, bring the mountain to Mohammed". Or to put it another way, if it is too expensive for the work force to get to a place of employment, move the employment to the work force. If the taxes can't be removed, then the work force and /or employers will move to avoid the taxes. And just WHY did Boeing move their corporate headquarters out of Seattle?
Punitive taxes just aren't the answer. When the core cities are AFFORDABLE, provide good services and good schools, the people will come.
**************************************
quote:
In which case all internal combustion engines should be regulated to the same standards of emissions per power level as car engines.
That would help a lot.
What a marvelously simple solution, Bestonnet. What an appalling nightmare of enforcment. Let's hit the ball into your court. You're going to send the SEP (Small Engine Police) into the outback to check on emissions compliance on every ranch and sheep station. REALLY?
(:raig |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 10:49:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And just WHY did Boeing move their corporate headquarters out of Seattle?
The answer to the question has many parts but one of those that I heard again and again was that the traffic had gotten too bad here and our state government has had years to act and has sat on its hands instead.
From what I can tell, if most people live in the cities(and they do) and the employer is in the city then the employer is already where the workers are. If a few employess decide to commute 50 miles to work that is their decision. The rest of society should not have to pick up the tab for that. It amounts to a sort of welfare.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 03:32:23 [Permalink]
|
TD: Why did you ask:
quote:
Is it fair for me to just dismiss this as irrelavent without bothering to read it, since The American Prospect is claimed to be "the nation's most influential Liberal publication"?
unless you were dismissing it on ideological grounds?
As for the Small Engines, surely it would be possible to require all new ones to meet the requirements. It would take longer but would help quite a bit, coupled with an advertising campaing encouraging people to replace their old polluters it could be quite effecitve.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 08:23:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As for the Small Engines, surely it would be possible to require all new ones to meet the requirements. It would take longer but would help quite a bit, coupled with an advertising campaing encouraging people to replace their old polluters it could be quite effecitve.
The engineering challenge, as I see it Bestonnet, is this...
Design a small 4 stroke gasoline or diesel powered engine, preferably air-cooled that will meet the emission standards that you elude to in your posts. The engine should not have any computer components, but must be serviceable using a simple set of metric wrenches and other hand tools. The engine must be rugged enough to be used in any third world country or primitive area where simple replacement parts can be obtained or fashioned. If computer components are absolutely necessary, they must be completely modularized, plug and play, not to exceed $19.95 U.S. None of this $200 computer chip crap.
CASE IN POINT: I live in an Amish area of Northeastern Ohio. THE small engine of choice is a Honda 5hp gasoline engine. It is used to run washing machines, table saws, conveyor belts, pneumatic tools, and electric generators. When run through a gear set, it can run 3 ice cream makers at once (honest!  ) And any 10-year-old boy can strip it down and re-assemble it blind folded.
So, there's the challenge. If you add a lot of external pollution control stuff and / or expensive computer components, they will be stripped off or bypassed. There is a huge market for small engines that are 20hp or less.
(:raig |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
