Quote:
Originally Posted by Roflmao
Ahh what a lively discussion haha. Just a thought for the whole crowd here... last I checked buses ran on gasoline, or at least diesel. I remember back in my high school days of riding the public bus, our fares got increased as gas increased. So... my thought process is that the people who can't afford cars STILL pay into the tax correct? They just do not pay as much, which makes sense because thats the way the entire tax system is set up, the less money you make the less taxes you pay. Just a thought for all those people who say everyone who takes the bus doesn't pay into the tax....
The reason I brought the post up and thought the idea was retarded was because of the global warming. Personally I am with DGthe3 in saying the idea of funding mass transit is a great idea, at least in the major cities. This however should not get labeled with global warming, but instead something to the effect of a pollution control act. Imagine this everyone, you own your Camaro, and instead of pumping tons of money into it as a daily driver in gas and maintanence, you get to drive it whenever you WANT to, and not when you have to. Know what would make this possible? An awesome mass transit system. Would you rather sit in traffic or take a state of the art bullet train running on air (with the help of magnets) to work? I pick the train.
Be honest, if the mass transit was a LOT better, you would be using it for those of you in major cities.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGthe3
I was thinking about this thread about an hour ago, and it seems we have missed part of the point. We began debating funding for mass transit, which isn't what this tax is about. Not directly at least. The purpose is to lessen the impact on the environment. I hate the fact that its getting labeled as a global warming tax, but we gotta play the cards we're dealt. So looking at it from an impact perspective, it makes sense to have them pay for the solution to the problem they are making. Thats why I don't like calling it a global warming tax. But cars do emit more pollution and CO2 per occupant than buses and trains do. So by helping to make public transit a more attractive alternative, it will draw more riders, reduce the cars on the road, and improve the air quality for everyone.
I take some of the responsibility for losing some focus with my comments in the second half of my post (#11).
|
The City doesn't pay the same for gas that public drivers do. City vehicles get gas at cost or close to it. So, if the city was going to tax it's own buses by making them pay for it in addition to everyone else then I'm all for it. But the details of the article say it will be enforced at the pump or on vehicle registration. In this instance I'd support CAFE before I'd support this. At least with CAFE the cost is directly related to the root cause. If you believe that global warming is caused by gases emitted from cars. All I'm saying is if you want to make mass transit better then everyone should bear the cost. Until you can prove the global warming is really caused by greenhouse gases produces by cars, in spite of the fact that the earth has been on a cooling trend for the last few years, then I don't buy that car owners should pay for a transit system that isn't as effective as owning a car.
And yes people who make less money should pay less money in taxes. But they should pay the same percentage as everyone else.
Edit: I totally agree that in certain cities, like DC, mass transit is AWESOME. when I go there I never rent a car and can always get around where I need to in the city. But, if I lived there I would still own a car. I would just drive it a lot less. I can tell you from experience there isn't a single city in CA that has a transit system anywhere near what you find in a place like DC. These CA transit projects are grossly mismanaged and way over budget with huge project problems. So that is another reason why I would be fired up if the cost of fixing these projects fell on car owners only.