The Analyst Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 This is a fantastic idea. I hope it goes through. And to all the bleeding heart drivers, quit crying and shut up already. It's not your god-given right to drive everywhere. You give me $50 per day for my time wasted on transit and then I'll change my stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lateralus Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 This is a fantastic idea. I hope it goes through. And to all the bleeding heart drivers, quit crying and shut up already. It's not your god-given right to drive everywhere. How many god-given rights does one have? Anything not on that list should be taxed and controlled to any degree? Awesome! I need to drive for my work, many people do. Plus I have a sweet ride! Of course I'd want to drive everywhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 You give me $50 per day for my time wasted on transit and then I'll change my stance. How about you just not spend x thousands of dollars on a car and gas and maintenance and all other costs and call it even? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbo Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Ya, all this griping about the HST, when obviously if that doesn't happen they will simply tax something else. I could care less how they tax, I am more intested in how they spend. P.S. If roads were designed solely for private motor vehicles they would be much cheaper and take less land. Trucks and buses add enourmously to costs. Buses and trucks do use the roads, but generally only arterial ones. Probably 70-80% of roads in Vancouver will never see a bus or a truck in their existence, they exist purely for cars. Plus trucks normally carry goods, which is important to our society, and public transit helps battle carbon emissions, which is very good for all of us. While in the meantime a guy in a car is only helping himself and maybe whoever he's driving. So I definitely think that drivers should have to pay more for roads than non-drivers. And of course, in the end, getting more people out of cars and onto buses/bikes/etc is obviously good for EVERYONE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Analyst Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 exactly, for the majority, driving is an essential part of living and working. Those those who are forced to do it, you're penalizing... these are supposed to be improvements for everyone... thus, everyone should pay. I have no problem paying them, if we're treated equally. the point is to create alternative to driving, giving solutions... give the drivers an incentive, not a penalty. My time is valuable. I lose money and my company loses money if i'm not there able to perform my job. To some people, you could care less if you waste away in gridlock for 2 hours... I on the other hand have more important things to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbo Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 How many god-given rights does one have? Anything not on that list should be taxed and controlled to any degree? If they're detrimental to society, then YEAH why not? Awesome! I need to drive for my work, many people do. Plus I have a sweet ride! Of course I'd want to drive everywhere! Most people who drive to work (most, not all), don't NEED to... they WANT to. And will refuse to give up any convenience not to. And hey I'm not suggesting we ban cars. If people want to drive, a $100 levy is not going to kill them. You can still drive all you want, just help fund our buses so the rest of us can take them and help keep your air clean and we'll be even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbo Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 exactly, for the majority, driving is an essential part of living and working. Those those who are forced to do it, you're penalizing... these are supposed to be improvements for everyone... thus, everyone should pay. I have no problem paying them, if we're treated equally. the point is to create alternative to driving, giving solutions... give the drivers an incentive, not a penalty. My time is valuable. I lose money and my company loses money if i'm not there able to perform my job. To some people, you could care less if you waste away in gridlock for 2 hours... I on the other hand have more important things to do. For the majority? No, for the minority. The majority of people are lazy and only drive everywhere because they want to. And if you're such an important person at your business, I'm assuming they pay you well enough for you to afford an extra levy and a toll or two. No one is forcing you out of your car. Hell, this levy will be good for you, it'll get people out of their cars (meaning less gridlock for you) and it'll improve the quality of the air you breathe every day. What's your problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahzdeen Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 If they're detrimental to society, then YEAH why not? Most people who drive to work (most, not all), don't NEED to... they WANT to. And will refuse to give up any convenience not to. And hey I'm not suggesting we ban cars. If people want to drive, a $100 levy is not going to kill them. You can still drive all you want, just help fund our buses so the rest of us can take them and help keep your air clean and we'll be even. but that's a $100 tax on top of taxes drivers already pay, which is why people are crying for at least the fair treatment of everyone, car driver or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Analyst Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 How about you just not spend x thousands of dollars on a car and gas and maintenance and all other costs and call it even? my car is bought and paid for, and in fact you add my annual insurance of 1300 + gas of 20/week + 70 quarterly oil changes... (plus i can use it whenever i feel like not tied to train schedules) 1300 + 1040 + 280 = 2620 annual expenses. or sell car 73 x 12 for 1 zone bus pass (876) + 161 x 12 for WCE (1932)= 4008 annually or 4x28x12 for parking at wce station (1344)+ 161 x 12 for WCE (1932)= 3276 <not to mention with this method I still pay for my car> give you heads a shake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbo Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 but that's a $100 tax on top of taxes drivers already pay, which is why people are crying for at least the fair treatment of everyone, car driver or not. But those taxes are pretty much exclusively to fund their own driving habits. It's like if we charge smokers higher health insurance, and they come back with "No fair! We already pay taxes on cigarettes!" And if they just gave everyone in the province a $100 transit levy, what would be the incentive to get out of your car? I like that I have the option of not paying it, I just have to choose not to drive. The idea is to get others to make the same choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 but that's a $100 tax on top of taxes drivers already pay, which is why people are crying for at least the fair treatment of everyone, car driver or not. This is the thing, it's been more than fair for decades, this is just bringing it closer to actually representing the real cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) my car is bought and paid for, and in fact you add my annual insurance of 1300 + gas of 20/week + 70 quarterly oil changes... (plus i can use it whenever i feel like not tied to train schedules) 1300 + 1040 + 280 = 2620 annual expenses. or sell car 73 x 12 for 1 zone bus pass (876) + 161 x 12 for WCE (1932)= 4008 annually or 4x28x12 for parking at wce station (1344)+ 161 x 12 for WCE (1932)= 3276 <not to mention with this method I still pay for my car> give you heads a shake You can't just not include the cost of your car because it's paid for. You still bought in the first place... This is the problem with cars, you think the only costs are the up front price of the car, gas and insurance. When in reality there are so many more costs, as I listed before. Add those all up and you'll give your head a shake at how much you're really spending. Edited July 31, 2009 by inane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 right. new areas of housing would not require busses. Not saying all new roads will be used by busses, but to completly ignore that point serves as a flag to the credibility of the report. Besides the fact that the roads for new housing areas, new or upgraded, should be free with regards to the taxpayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbo Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 my car is bought and paid for, and in fact you add my annual insurance of 1300 + gas of 20/week + 70 quarterly oil changes... (plus i can use it whenever i feel like not tied to train schedules) 1300 + 1040 + 280 = 2620 annual expenses. or sell car 73 x 12 for 1 zone bus pass (876) + 161 x 12 for WCE (1932)= 4008 annually or 4x28x12 for parking at wce station (1344)+ 161 x 12 for WCE (1932)= 3276 <not to mention with this method I still pay for my car> give you heads a shake You missed a few points: 1) You didn't include maintenance for your car. It won't break down every year, sure, but over time the maintenance will average out to raise the cost/year. 2) I strongly think you're underestimating your gas usage, given how far you claim you have to drive. And even if you're not, you're not taking into account that gas prices are predicted to be on their way up soon. 3) You can claim bus/train passes on your tax return, so you'll save a nice amount there. Good luck claiming gas on your tax return. Not to mention the smaller things, like you're not polluting when you're on the bus, you can do things on the train that you can't do in a car (read a book, write an email, whatever), you don't need to worry about getting into an accident, you don't have to clean your car, etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 But those taxes are pretty much exclusively to fund their own driving habits. It's like if we charge smokers higher health insurance, and they come back with "No fair! We already pay taxes on cigarettes!" And if they just gave everyone in the province a $100 transit levy, what would be the incentive to get out of your car? I like that I have the option of not paying it, I just have to choose not to drive. The idea is to get others to make the same choice. Never mind that the smokers die a nice early death keeping the CPP payments with the feds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbo Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Never mind that the smokers die a nice early death keeping the CPP payments with the feds. Well, except for the federal tax dollars we use to help them with their gum disease, heart attacks and lung cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Analyst Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) fine let's add to the equation me selling my car.... SOURCE: buysell 2002 Mazda Protege 5 2002 MAZDA PROTEGE 5 167000km 2002 MAZDA PROTEGE 5 ES, 167,000 km, $7500 (negot) 5dr, Manual, FWD, 2.0l, 4 Cylinders more... $7,500.00 July 26 1300 + 1040 + 280 = 2620 annual expenses. or sell car 73 x 12 for 1 zone bus pass (876) + 161 x 12 for WCE (1932)= 4008 annually Extra commuting cost, 1388 per year - in 5 years, i would having paid the same amount as the value of the car and yet end up with no asset in the end.... hmm that makes a lot of sense... Edited July 31, 2009 by The_Analyst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lateralus Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 If they're detrimental to society, then YEAH why not? Most people who drive to work (most, not all), don't NEED to... they WANT to. And will refuse to give up any convenience not to. And hey I'm not suggesting we ban cars. If people want to drive, a $100 levy is not going to kill them. You can still drive all you want, just help fund our buses so the rest of us can take them and help keep your air clean and we'll be even. Who determines if they are detrimental to society? That list would long, very long...... You want me to fund the buses that you use and I don't? Shouldn't you be paying for a service that you use more? Everyone should be paying or no one...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahzdeen Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 You can't just not include the cost of your car because it's paid for. You still bought in the first place... This is the problem with cars, you think the only costs are the up front price of the car, gas and insurance. When in reality there are so many more costs, as I listed before. Add those all up and you'll give your head a shake at how much you're really spending. True. But I bought my car for $10,000 5 years ago. It's still going strong, but let's say I amortize that cost to 5 years. That's $2000/year. Now let's factor in that it takes an extra 30 minutes to and from the nearest bus stop, an extra 45 minutes each way more to take the bus. That's 2 hours per day extra that I'm not at work or at home. That's (including 2 weeks vacation and holiday, so let's say 240 business days) 480 hours per year. Even at minimum wage, that's $3,840. People value their time at far more than minimum wage. So until that opportunity cost comes down, a lot of people are going to continue to use cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 fine let's add to the equation me selling my car.... SOURCE: buysell 2002 Mazda Protege 5 2002 MAZDA PROTEGE 5 167000km 2002 MAZDA PROTEGE 5 ES, 167,000 km, $7500 (negot) 5dr, Manual, FWD, 2.0l, 4 Cylinders more... $7,500.00 July 26 1300 + 1040 + 280 = 2620 annual expenses. or sell car 73 x 12 for 1 zone bus pass (876) + 161 x 12 for WCE (1932)= 4008 annually Extra commuting cost, 1388 per year - in 5 years, i would having paid the same amount as the value of the car and yet end up with no asset in the end.... hmm that makes a lot of sense... Well while I think your math is simplistic and missing several factors, fine, maybe it still makes sense for you to drive. The point is that there are thousands of people who could do that math and it wouldn't make sense. Those are the people that need to switch to transit or other alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now