Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Luke_Orlando t1_iv097t6 wrote

Reply to comment by insofarincogneato in Some Shadyside residents having tires deflated, messages left behind by CompletePen8

I agree.

But, getting large cars out of cities is working to improve infrastructure. Hard to build trains and bike lanes when every single spare patch of ground is covered by F-350s and parking lots.

Discrouaging the use of vehicles in places like London through gas taxes has been very effective in increasing the use of public transit into and out of the city.

The simple fact is that doing something is better than doing nothing, and blaming the lack of action on inept politicians rather than the consumers buying needlessly large vehicles by choice is just passing the buck.

Both things need to happen: reduce dependence on cars and provide attractive alternatives. One can't happen without the other.

5

insofarincogneato t1_iv2b6gq wrote

I get the sentiment about our dependence on cars, but the parking space and lane size doesn't change from Silverado to Prius, they have always been the same size. How do you account for our lack of rail and our dependence of freight trailers on the highway and city streets? How would consumer vehicle choice change that? You believe the problem across America with rail is space? It's capital and who controls it. The rest of the country has plenty of space.

I already referenced gas taxes and how corrupt politicians didn't use that for any good, as it just created more burden on the working class. The owning class is passing the buck and you're subject to their propaganda that the consumer free market has anything to do with creating actual change.

Our dependence on cars is directly tied to the choices that politicians make. Do you also believe our dependence on foreign oil is mutually exclusive to supply and demand? Because you're missing the part about money and power that American imperialism thrives on. You think the military industrial complex making us money fighting for oil and control is gonna let the free market influence change?

London is doing it, awesome. What's more likely, Brits want more options then us or our problem is unregulated capitalism?

Nah, you're just trying to pat yourself on the back. We need to cover electric transportation next? I have news for you about where our rare minerals come from.

1

Luke_Orlando t1_iv2g0nv wrote

>ah, you're just trying to pat yourself on the back. We need to cover electric transportation next? I have news for you about where our rare minerals come from.

Don't make assumptions about me to make your argument seem more condescending. It's petty and makes you look bad.

Electric vehicles are good in some ways and problematic in others. Rare earth minerals like lithium are just that- rare, and they won't replace current demand for cars. I never said otherwise, so don't put words in my mouth.

Unregulated capitalism is certainly the problem. No doubt.

But to your point, yes, actually larger vehicles have actually increased the average sizes of required parking spaces in many areas. My township passed a law increasing regulation size of spaces from 8 feet to 10 feet, or 9 feet with a buffer.

Larger vehicles often times don't fit in on-street parking and block bike lanes. Many trucks and SUVs do, literally, have twice the footprint of a sedan or smaller vehicle that carries the same number of passengers.

One common counter argument is that this taxes the working class. My counter argument is "not if they're actually using it for work".

If one actually has a truck or SUV that is required for their job, it is possible to write off the taxes and gas purchases on the vehicle as a business expense, meaning it costs them less money to use and operate the vehicle. Is this option fully available to everyone? No, but it would be a great way to relieve burden on small business owners, while taxing the people who purchase oversized vehicles for vanity purposes.

As far as corrupt politicians go? All we can do is vote. I plan to on the 8th. I hope you do too. :)

2

insofarincogneato t1_iv571gm wrote

So my daily driver is a compact pickup truck with a class 2 weight designation. I live in a rural area where roads don't always get plowed and I use it to haul pellets for heating... Among other useful things. My concern is that because it's not capital, or tax deductible because it's not used to earn an income; there'd be a tax Id have to pay simply for how and where I live that directly disenfranchises us as working class folks for no good reason.

Unfairly burdening the working class with taxes to fix the problems created by the free market is not a progressive idea in my opinion and I have strong reservations about it. Should it depend on my truck's weight class? That doesn't change what I need it for, but a larger truck would be more useful to me. (The reason I got a smaller truck is for fuel economy and driving in town).

I think if you believe in a healthily regulated free market under capitalism (I'm not a capitalist, but that's a whole other conversation), you need to address and consider need while also change our culture which would address the problems that American exceptionalist consumerism causes.

I typed this next part out first before adding more before it, but I'm gonna still leave this here as it expands on my point....

You seem to suggest that there are only two reasons folks have a truck and only one of them is valid and I don't understand that belief, partly because "work" is a very subjective term especially when it comes to what tax code and law considers how needs are addressed but we agree on a lot of other things regardless. Good chat all in all.

0

Luke_Orlando t1_iv59xbm wrote

Yeah, again, I never suggested that rural areas should adopt those policies.

I specifically said "cities", usually interpreted as extremely high density areas.( in which public transit is a reasonable option.)

So you wouldn't be regularly subject to the theoretical policies I would support. 👌

1

insofarincogneato t1_iv5e8d3 wrote

For me that just sounds like people can do whatever they want if they can afford it, so it only really effects poor people if anyone which is what my hangup is. To me the key is changing culture rather then policy, which I guess you'd still need to do to support said policy anyway. 🤔

1