carmen510
Deity
I know some people who prefer SUVs and minivans as a "safer" car, in the sense that if an accident occurs, your car won't crumple up as much as if you were driving, say, a Volkswagen beetle.
So you're just an elitist who cannot possibly understand the problems of people who aren't massively wealthy. Good for you.
I know some people who prefer SUVs and minivans as a "safer" car, in the sense that if an accident occurs, your car won't crumple up as much as if you were driving, say, a Volkswagen beetle.
The problem with that in the US is the lack of alternatives in transportation. So while I think we should tax fuel more than we do now, we could not, for example, tax fuel as high as most of Europe does. It would be utterly crippling to low to moderate income people, rural people, and many businesses.
Forcing people to not drive would very quickly result in better alternatives.
If you price people out of driving, you immediately raise the demand for bus routes, and can increase both the frequency and locations of bus stops.
Moving is really not that difficult.
I see you are a city dweller with blinders on.
And you're only in your mid-20s and had a landlord car available for a period. You don't have a big period of car driving under your belt in your life yet.
And? I'm hopeful robo-taxis allow me to sell my car within the next decade.
What will they run on? Are the robo-taxis magically going to run bus lines or railways to every group of farms to make commuting to work for, say, health insurance feasible?
Moving is really not that difficult.
Huh? They run on roads, they're like regular taxis minus the driver.
I'm not really sure how that's relevant though? If you live on a farm and are commuting for work, rather than working on the farm, you should move. (Or get a new job that you can do from the farm.)
For a family that's living paycheque to paycheque it can be incredibly hard.
Plus, a lot of people don't like change.
What you're proposing is drastic and won't work.
I was thinking the fuel. Are we operating under the assumption that electric energy and batteries are clean? I suppose if it has rails instead of a battery it might actually be a step up for the environment from internal combustion instead of backwards like a Prius(debatable, I know).
Sure sure. Would you like to take a look at the rates of the Chicago Tribune? They're running a special right now and have a discounted rate for 3 months! Oh, I'm sorry, are you eating at the moment? When would be a better time for me to call back?
Interesting to get "boot-strapped" as an argument style. You really believe I haven't looked at employment in my area and what positions offer telecommuting? Not a ton man. And it still doesn't help at all with getting to the mechanic, or the grocery store, or school, or well, fribbin' anything. And they aren't going to run public transit out this way. The idea of taxing fuel inefficient vehicles is a mixed solution. It screws people who happen to need to buy a pickup, for say construction jobs or a farm or any number of things regardless of their driving habits, but taxing fuel is worse. I already buy the most fuel efficient vehicles I can find in my price range. An old Neon and Corolla have been the last two I've gone through. Even taking steps to try and manage those costs having some group of Yuppies decide that people driving to the bar is sufficient reason to tax a lifestyle and demographic group they don't value is still massively regressive. Even on the urban poor who lack safe and timely public transit for jobs they need to travel to "nicer areas" to hold down. Which is fine I guess, if you just assume that moving isn't hard and they should have done it already. Which they haven't, presumably, because they're stupid.
You haven't? You're totally ignoring the situations most people who this would affect are in and would have to go through if this was implemented. That can't possibly lead to a good solution. It'd only work in a video game.
I'm assuming by the way that you're proposing to increase the price of gas fourfold instantly. That's what wouldn't work. What would work is a gradual increase, which is sort of happening anyway.
The amount of fuel used for getting groceries and such is pretty negligible, before I started commuting to my current job my fuel costs were ~$5/month.
I'm fine with construction and farm jobs passing on fuel costs with higher prices
People would figure it out and get over it.
I don't think it would particularly matter in the long run.
For the sake of being practical, I'd give 6 and 12 months notice to doubling of prices, and use the extra revenue to compensate homeowners for lost home value due to the increased gas prices.
I know some people who prefer SUVs and minivans as a "safer" car, in the sense that if an accident occurs, your car won't crumple up as much as if you were driving, say, a Volkswagen beetle.