• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

New Canadian Politics Thread

MindzEye said:
lol, fair enough.



The fuel tax really only (partially) addresses emissions. There's a bunch of hidden costs that society is footing the bill on so that 25% of Canadians can pretend that they haul more than one load of lumber every 3 years or tow a boat more than twice a summer.

- Despite advances in passenger car safety tech (and decreases in drunk driving rates), fatality rates per accident have gone up for people in passenger vehicles since 2008. Light Truck vehicle weights are up approx 20% over that same period and hood height is up 11%. Trucks are heavier, harder to drive and physics is physics. Hit me with something bigger than me, I lose way more often that you do. Trucks are also way, way more likely to kill pedestrians or cyclists when they come together, compared with passenger cars.

- The amount of road damage isn't a progressive scale. 5000LB isn't 1.66x more damaging than 3000LB. NTSB in the US calculates weight per axle x 2 to the 4th power for calculating road damage caused by vehicles. So for example a 5093 pound F150 (2547 lb per axel) vs a 3517 BMW coupe(1759 pound per axel) would work out to the F150 causing ~6.4x the amount of damage.

The North American middle class lifestyle is an externality generating machine that we then turn around and demand that the government hide from view so we don't have to think about them, but without making us actually pay more for any of the knock on effects.
Click to expand...

Ya, fair points.

I still think it would be a tough policy to implement though, as far as who has a legitimate use for a big truck and who doesn't. I know plenty of folks who live in rural Ontario who use their trucks as they're intended to be used on a weekly basis, but don't have a "business" need for them.

I definitely get the appeal as an individual voter based on the points you've made, but I think it would be a political loser for any party that pitches it. You'll bleed votes in the 905 for sure, where every second driveway has a F150 or a Tahoe.

North America has definitely gone insane with the size of trucks, I won't argue with that. Fracking keeping gas prices down in the late 2000's and 2010's really supercharged the U.S. truck culture which bleeds across the border. I don't blame anyone for wanting one, but 80% of people could be using something like a Colorado or a Ranger. Or even Ridgeline or the new Ford Maverick - basically a car with a truck bed.

For comparison, here's what a regular everyday truck looks like in Australia:

 
Our next
Neurospasm said:
Can we handle everyone charging EV’s on our power grid? It seems every summer we hear about record power usage. What does mass adoption of EV’s do to that?
Click to expand...
Most EV charging happens overnight, a typically low demand time. Also with some smart engineering charged EVs plugged in during the day could act as a local energy source to REDUCE daytime grid demand.
 
WellPlayed said:
I still think it would be a tough policy to implement though, as far as who has a legitimate use for a big truck and who doesn't. I know plenty of folks who live in rural Ontario who use their trucks as they're intended to be used on a weekly basis, but don't have a "business" need for them.
Click to expand...

Then pay the tax...

I mean, that's the point. Pay for the additional societal costs your choice of lifestyle (and the vehicle that suits it) generates in our shared reality. Even if there was something like an additional 2-3% tax assessed on the purchase of a new vehicle over X weight per axle, it wouldn't start to cover the additional costs that non truck owners are paying to subsidize their lifestyles.

WellPlayed said:
I definitely get the appeal as an individual voter based on the points you've made, but I think it would be a political loser for any party that pitches it. You'll bleed votes in the 905 for sure, where every second driveway has a F150 or a Tahoe.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that the venn diagram of truck owners and conservative voters is closer to being a circle than most people would guess. I also don't think you would see many urban Canadians really give a fuck. Include an exemption for anyone with a registered business.

WellPlayed said:
North America has definitely gone insane with the size of trucks
Click to expand...

Insane is the right word, and the rest of us are paying for the insanity.
 
MindzEye said:
Then pay the tax...

I mean, that's the point. Pay for the additional societal costs your choice of lifestyle (and the vehicle that suits it) generates in our shared reality. Even if there was something like an additional 2-3% tax assessed on the purchase of a new vehicle over X weight per axle, it wouldn't start to cover the additional costs that non truck owners are paying to subsidize their lifestyles.



I have a feeling that the venn diagram of truck owners and conservative voters is closer to being a circle than most people would guess. I also don't think you would see many urban Canadians really give a fuck. Include an exemption for anyone with a registered business.



Insane is the right word, and the rest of us are paying for the insanity.
Click to expand...
Our driveway has a Yukon and a Silverado and we don’t vote CPC. I would be down for a smaller vehicle but they keep making the crossover SUVS AWD which are mostly FWD until needed and I prefer RWD/4X4. I don’t care for Jeep. I’ll probably end up with a Subaru next time around. That being said, when you live in the snow belt it’s entirely helpful to be driving a larger vehicle.
 
MindzEye said:
Then pay the tax...

I mean, that's the point. Pay for the additional societal costs your choice of lifestyle (and the vehicle that suits it) generates in our shared reality. Even if there was something like an additional 2-3% tax assessed on the purchase of a new vehicle over X weight per axle, it wouldn't start to cover the additional costs that non truck owners are paying to subsidize their lifestyles.
Click to expand...

I get it, but our society subsidizes all kinds of personal choices and lifestyles that are more costly. So I guess its a question of how far you think it should go. People who smash 5 mountain dews a day are going to have more dates with the healthcare system. Do we want a soda tax? It's a legitimate question but I lean toward its fine for society to subsidize some different lifestyle choices to a point.

I also have a hard time believing that somebody who decides they just want to live a quiet life on a couple acres out in the middle of bum fuck Ontario, mostly drives municipal back roads, uses water from a well, and hangs out with their rural living neighbors on the weekend somehow has some overall net societal cost that they need to make up for because they choose to own an F150. But I'm sure I'm about to get refuted on that because, as zeke said, you are fucking intense btw ;)
 
WellPlayed said:
I get it, but our society subsidizes all kinds of personal choices and lifestyles that are more costly. So I guess its a question of how far you think it should go.
Click to expand...

2-3% on the sale of a new vehicle with more than ~2250lb per axle, scale that up a bit to cover 3/4 & 1 ton. A couple of additional grand financed over 60 months isn't exactly forcing hardship on someone paying 70-80K or more for a new truck.

WellPlayed said:
People who smash 5 mountain dews a day are going to have more dates with the healthcare system. Do we want a soda tax? It's a legitimate question
Click to expand...

Yes. We rightfully tax tobacco and alcohol for their harms.

In wealthier countries, that sugary-beverage price elasticity averages about -0.8, meaning that for every 10 percent increase in the price of soda, purchases decline by 8 percent. (Price elasticity averages about -0.4 for tobacco and ranges between -0.5 and -0.8 for alcohol.) Not surprisingly, people with less money tend to be more sensitive to price increases, and research in lower-income countries and communities reports even higher price elasticity, so that a 10 percent price increase results in more than a 10 percent reduction in purchases.

WellPlayed said:
but I lean toward its fine for society to subsidize some different lifestyle choices to a point.
Click to expand...

We're at a point in the game though where society has subsidized the shittiest aspects of western culture for decades and created monsters that need to be tamed. So while I absolutely support the right of every single Canadian to drive a 1 ton diesel while chain smoking darts and mainlining pepsi, I also politely ask that they pay for something resembling the total costs of their lifestyle choices.

WellPlayed said:
I also have a hard time believing that somebody who decides they just want to live a quiet life on a couple acres out in the middle of bum fuck Ontario, mostly drives municipal back roads, uses water from a well, and hangs out with their rural living neighbors on the weekend somehow has some overall net societal cost that they need to make up for because they choose to own an F150. But I'm sure I'm about to get refuted on that because, as zeke said, you are fucking intense btw ;)
Click to expand...

Said person should be happy then if we start paying more attention to externalities. They might end paying a little bit more for some of their choices, but a little bit less for other choices that don't force external costs onto society.
 
People generally react negatively when asked to internalize societal costs. But in this case, they will be partly internalized by the insurance industry which will be the principal private intermediary for climate related costs. Either a wide range premiums will go up significantly, or some status quo lifestyle choices will simply be uninsurable (hello low-lying coastal communities.) Financing climate-adverse activities will also be costly.

To use a finance expression, we have “lived beyond our means” from a climate perspective. The consequences will be profound, and include lifestyle and behaviour.
 
WellPlayed said:
Ya, fair points.

I still think it would be a tough policy to implement though, as far as who has a legitimate use for a big truck and who doesn't. I know plenty of folks who live in rural Ontario who use their trucks as they're intended to be used on a weekly basis, but don't have a "business" need for them.

I definitely get the appeal as an individual voter based on the points you've made, but I think it would be a political loser for any party that pitches it. You'll bleed votes in the 905 for sure, where every second driveway has a F150 or a Tahoe.

North America has definitely gone insane with the size of trucks, I won't argue with that. Fracking keeping gas prices down in the late 2000's and 2010's really supercharged the U.S. truck culture which bleeds across the border. I don't blame anyone for wanting one, but 80% of people could be using something like a Colorado or a Ranger. Or even Ridgeline or the new Ford Maverick - basically a car with a truck bed.

For comparison, here's what a regular everyday truck looks like in Australia:

Click to expand...
Beauty ute
 
WellPlayed said:
How about people who haul horses and boats. Is that a good reason? Or should boats be banned to? Who shall be the minister responsible for deciding what a good reason for a pick up truck is?

I'm sorry some guy in a pickup cut you off once or something, but some of the arguments for this shit are just as dumb as somebody owning an F350 with no use for it.

Gas prices and electric vehicles are going to sort this shit out soon anyway. Hang tight.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about banning anything? It's a very simple concept. You want to own a big honking truck that you don't really need, fine and dandy. But be prepared to pay for the added environmental impact of your decision. People in general and especially in North America have become used to being able to make decisions without having to consider consequences because governments and regulatory bodies don't bother to differentiate. But obviously the environmental impact of an F530 is more than that of a Kia Soul so why should they be treated the same? The way to get people who don't really need big vehicles to reconsider their choices, aside from the sticker price of the vehicle itself and the price of gas, is to tack on a higher environmental levy of some sort. You tax behaviors that you wish to discourage and offer tax incentives for behaviors you wish to promote. That's why a pack of smokes now costs nearly $20.
 
MindzEye said:
2-3% on the sale of a new vehicle with more than ~2250lb per axle, scale that up a bit to cover 3/4 & 1 ton. A couple of additional grand financed over 60 months isn't exactly forcing hardship on someone paying 70-80K or more for a new truck.



Yes. We rightfully tax tobacco and alcohol for their harms.

In wealthier countries, that sugary-beverage price elasticity averages about -0.8, meaning that for every 10 percent increase in the price of soda, purchases decline by 8 percent. (Price elasticity averages about -0.4 for tobacco and ranges between -0.5 and -0.8 for alcohol.) Not surprisingly, people with less money tend to be more sensitive to price increases, and research in lower-income countries and communities reports even higher price elasticity, so that a 10 percent price increase results in more than a 10 percent reduction in purchases.



We're at a point in the game though where society has subsidized the shittiest aspects of western culture for decades and created monsters that need to be tamed. So while I absolutely support the right of every single Canadian to drive a 1 ton diesel while chain smoking darts and mainlining pepsi, I also politely ask that they pay for something resembling the total costs of their lifestyle choices.



Said person should be happy then if we start paying more attention to externalities. They might end paying a little bit more for some of their choices, but a little bit less for other choices that don't force external costs onto society.
Click to expand...
This.

Try going to Australia and see how people react when you tell them that you take a 20 minute hot shower every day. In Oz, fresh water is precious and expensive and they are ruthless when it comes to stigmatizing and penalizing people who waste it. But here in NA where fresh water is everywhere, we think nothing of it. Us conserve water? What for? And I can guarantee you that pickup trucks aren't selling big in Europe where you have to practically mortgage your first born just to fill the tank. We in North America have had it far too good for far too long and now the piper is asking to be paid. So going forward nice things are going to cost more money and we, like people in the rest of the world, are going to have to think before we spend.
 
So I walk outside at lunch today. In downtown Edmonton. So much honking because of freedom? what the fuck do they want freedom from? and why so many american flags?
 
worm said:
So I walk outside at lunch today. In downtown Edmonton. So much honking because of freedom? what the fuck do they want freedom from? and why so many american flags?
Click to expand...
things get real murky as soon as you start applying a semblance of logic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top