Author Topic: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?  (Read 40951 times)

RidinTheAsama

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 116
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #150 on: September 22, 2015, 12:03:27 PM »
Yeah, but that doesn't punish people who drive something someone else thinks is stupid enough - people obviously still buy trucks to drive!

If you want to reduce carbon emissions, tax carbon directly.  In all it's forms.

If you want to reduce people buying big trucks, tax trucks directly.

As an interesting hypothetical, what happens if people are buying big, jacked up, electric pickups?  They're still going to be less efficient than a Leaf, but they won't be polluting (directly) nearly as much.  And if someone who lives in an area with a lot of solar/hydro power buys one... what then?  How will you justify attacking their choice of transport?

I mean, I could pull my truck's engine, throw half a ton of batteries up there, toss half a ton of batteries in the back, and it'd only be slightly heavier than it is now.  I actually intend to work on this project at some point (with a local runaround truck).

If there were a direct carbon tax it could help sort out this problem as well.  All the emissions that went into manufacturing those batteries get paid for, the one who charges via solar pays differently than the one who charges via coal.

RidinTheAsama

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 116
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #151 on: September 22, 2015, 12:09:30 PM »
If the monetary cost of driving were to double overnight, many people would drive a lot less.  So actually, a tax applied in the right way does make the air cleaner. (please nobody attack the specific double'ing of cost phrase... just an example... haha)

Of course, but you're not looking at the big picture. All goods are transported using fuel, therefore, raising the price of fuel would also raise the price of every single product people buy, which will hurt low income and poor people the most.

Who is hurt more when $100 of groceries goes up to $120...the low income earner, or someone making $100k a year?

So give trucks that carry food a rebate for the gas taxes they pay, avoiding the problem entirely.

That doesn't really solve anything because all it really does is add another layer of beaurocracy and raise costs across the board. And, of course, food isn't the only thing low income people buy. Then there is the issue of trucks that carry some food and some other products. What will it cost to keep track, to issue refunds, and to prevent abuse or fraud on nation wide program where millions of commercial vehicles operate every single day?

There are already gas taxes on fuel purchased...those who use more fuel pay more tax. It's simple, it polices itself, and it doesn't require another layer of government.

This is why we have marginal tax brackets.  If the additional tax on all purchases (groceries in particular) hits the poor harder, then adjust marginal tax rates accordingly.  No new systems or bureaucracies necessary.

Additionally, this would help to make locally grown food more competitive in the market, thereby reducing the need to truck food all the way across the country in the first place.

And yes, everything gets more expensive for everyone... As it should be.  We are currently not paying the full price of our goods because we are deferring payments on cleaning up the environmental mess we are making.

We've strayed pretty far from policies to discourage excessive and inefficient driving, and are heading towards excessive and inefficient consumption in general... They are different topics but overlap in a lot of ways.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #152 on: September 22, 2015, 04:34:48 PM »
If you want to reduce carbon emissions, tax carbon directly.  In all it's forms.

Carbon is not pollution, it's one of the building blocks of life. In fact, the human body is 18% carbon. Plants need carbon to grow. Without carbon, all life on Earth would cease to exist.

I can understand taxing pollution, but carbon is not pollution.

RidinTheAsama

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 116
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #153 on: September 22, 2015, 05:47:21 PM »
If you want to reduce carbon emissions, tax carbon directly.  In all it's forms.

Carbon is not pollution, it's one of the building blocks of life. In fact, the human body is 18% carbon. Plants need carbon to grow. Without carbon, all life on Earth would cease to exist.

I can understand taxing pollution, but carbon is not pollution.

Oh goodness...

First of all, yes, carbon is a necessity of life.  And no one is saying we should eliminate it from the planet so no worries there.

BUT, anything is dangerous in excessive quantities.  Sulfur, phosphorous, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen are each also considered among the building blocks of life.  And too much of these are also dangerous.  Some of them have already formally been recognized as pollutants.

I fear we are heading for a climate change debate, and in that arena I have never (except a rare celebrity or 2) heard of anyone who decided to "switch sides" after even the most extensive and exhausting exchanges of "facts".  So maybe it's best if we just not go there.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #154 on: September 22, 2015, 06:20:27 PM »
If you want to reduce carbon emissions, tax carbon directly.  In all it's forms.

Carbon is not pollution, it's one of the building blocks of life. In fact, the human body is 18% carbon. Plants need carbon to grow. Without carbon, all life on Earth would cease to exist.

I can understand taxing pollution, but carbon is not pollution.

Oh goodness...

First of all, yes, carbon is a necessity of life.  And no one is saying we should eliminate it from the planet so no worries there.

BUT, anything is dangerous in excessive quantities.  Sulfur, phosphorous, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen are each also considered among the building blocks of life.  And too much of these are also dangerous.  Some of them have already formally been recognized as pollutants.

I fear we are heading for a climate change debate, and in that arena I have never (except a rare celebrity or 2) heard of anyone who decided to "switch sides" after even the most extensive and exhausting exchanges of "facts".  So maybe it's best if we just not go there.

I'd rather not go there again either, but it's hard not to respond to those who think another tax is a solution. Increased taxes never solve as many problems as they create.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12898
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #155 on: September 23, 2015, 06:57:03 AM »
Increased taxes never solve as many problems as they create.

[[Citation Needed]]

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1364
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #156 on: September 27, 2015, 06:11:13 AM »
Or perhaps it is because of the size of vehicle and a perception of comfort, all of which is bull shit.

Umm, no, it is NOT "bull shit."

I'm a big guy, about the size of an average NFL defensive lineman.

Trust me, my really basic "work" style truck with it's cheap cloth bench seats is a whole Hell of a lot more comfortable than squeezing myself into my wife's little Beemer (I have to fold myself into the damned thing) even though she has fancy leather bucket seats with heating/cooling, lumbar support and a whole lot of other stuff. 

None of it makes up for the fact that those seats are JUST TOO DAMNED SMALL.

Maybe a truck isn't more comfortable for YOU (I have no idea, because I'm not you), it is far more comfortable for me.

See, that's the beauty of a free country.  I get to decide which vehicle is best for me, and you get to choose what is best for you.

If you weigh 150 lbs and want to squeeze into a Prius or an econo-mini-smart-eco-whatever-the-Hell, go for it. 

But don't presume to lecture me on why I should do the same.   You ain't me, son.

I'm 6' and 210 lbs, and have no issue at all sitting in a Prius or most small cars.  Can I ask what your height and weight are?  Most of the people I've heard making your complaints are obese.  If this is your case, maybe the seat size isn't the real issue you should be addressing. . .

That's about the size I was in 8th grade, give or take.

That ain't "big," that's "a little bit larger than average."

My whole family is big, always have been.  Despite that, we tend to live a very long time.

Yeah, I'm big all around.  Over the last 30 years, I've gone from fit, big college athlete to "big former athlete who spends too much time in an office."  It ain't all that uncommon in the USA.  There are a lot of large people in this country.

Do I need you to "fat shame" me to get me to whip myself back into my college rugby weight?  No. 

Look, genius, people who are overweight don't need bullies, and especially chicken squat pencil necked bullies hiding behind keyboards, to tell them they are overweight.  This society tells them every day.

Unlike most overweight folks, who tend to wilt under the bullying and shaming of punks like you, I won't be intimidated by bullying from some jerk off on the internet.

Quote
If this is your case, maybe the seat size isn't the real issue you should be addressing. . .

Hey, big mouth wanna be bully, have you got a solution that will take me from from 6'5" and 320 to a relatively fit 6'5" 250 before I buy my next car/truck?

I didn't think so.

So don't be offended if I tell you to STFU and let me buy the vehicle that I feel is best for me.

And trust me, son, a "Prius" ain't got to cut it.

Just out of curiosity, just exactly what did you think you were adding to the conversation, other than being a fat-shaming bully?  Does it make you feel like a "big man" to quote your height and weight and call someone else "fat?"

If so, how small a man are you, really?

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1364
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #157 on: September 27, 2015, 06:17:29 AM »
But I double damned guarantee you that 18-wheeler is even more heavily subsidized.   

Really?


Quote
On average, a typical 80,000 pound GVW tractor-trailer truck pays $13,889 per year in truck highway taxes according to the above data. A hypothetical auto owner driving 20,000 miles per year at 25 mpg, and paying $100 in registration fees, ends up paying about $397 per year. So on average, looking at federal and state taxes, a tractor-trailer combination trucks pay about 35 times what a typical auto would pay based on national averages.

Link

I'm a truck driver. We pay a ton of tax out here just to operate. It's not our fault congress keeps raiding the Highway Trust Fund for their pet projects.

Quote
A new U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, compiled at the request of Senators Tom Coburn and John McCain, details how the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has obligated $78 billion over the last five years for “purposes other than construction and maintenance of highways and bridges.”

Link

No argument here.  The Feds mismanage funds everywhere, the most egregious being the mismanagement of the "social security trust fund."

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1364
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #158 on: September 27, 2015, 06:34:14 AM »
Or perhaps it is because of the size of vehicle and a perception of comfort, all of which is bull shit.

Umm, no, it is NOT "bull shit."

I'm a big guy, about the size of an average NFL defensive lineman.

Trust me, my really basic "work" style truck with it's cheap cloth bench seats is a whole Hell of a lot more comfortable than squeezing myself into my wife's little Beemer (I have to fold myself into the damned thing) even though she has fancy leather bucket seats with heating/cooling, lumbar support and a whole lot of other stuff. 

None of it makes up for the fact that those seats are JUST TOO DAMNED SMALL.

Maybe a truck isn't more comfortable for YOU (I have no idea, because I'm not you), it is far more comfortable for me.

See, that's the beauty of a free country.  I get to decide which vehicle is best for me, and you get to choose what is best for you.

If you weigh 150 lbs and want to squeeze into a Prius or an econo-mini-smart-eco-whatever-the-Hell, go for it. 

But don't presume to lecture me on why I should do the same.   You ain't me, son.

I'm 6' and 210 lbs, and have no issue at all sitting in a Prius or most small cars.  Can I ask what your height and weight are?  Most of the people I've heard making your complaints are obese.  If this is your case, maybe the seat size isn't the real issue you should be addressing. . .

At 6' and 210 is closer to the size of a receiver.

Yup, that's true these days.

I sometimes do some volunteer assistant coaching at one of the local HS teams to help a friend of mine.

It's not uncommon to see 17-year old kids who are 6'5 and 280+ playing HS ball.  That would have been freaking huge back in my day 30+ years ago.  Back then, any kid over 220 was pretty much a lineman (this was at a small school, but still).

One of the kids on the team is probably 6'8' and 320.  Makes me feel like a midget.  I'm not sure what they are putting in the water these days to make the kids so huge- I've heard theories that it's about growth hormones in cattle and the food we eat, but I have no idea.

Just read a story on MSN yesterday about a HS player who was 7'0" tall and 440 lbs.  WTF is that kid eating? :)

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1364
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #159 on: September 27, 2015, 06:37:40 AM »
http://www.ninersnation.com/2013/2/23/4021846/2013-nfl-combine-results-defensive-linemen-measurement

They're *big* - and, generally, quite tall.

And, often, tall people have problems with small cars.  I'm 6'0", and the only way I could drive a Mazda2 was with the seat all the way back.  If I were another few inches taller, I wouldn't be able to fit in that car comfortably, even if I were super thin.  Or if my legs were abnormally long for my height.

This isn't a problem in a truck.

Another problem with small cars I didn't mention before.

If you are tall, you often need to "fold" yourself into them, just to get in the door.

This wasn't a problem when I was 25 and fit, but now that I'm over 50 with a back injury, it's not easy to fold into my wife's Beemer.

But it's no problem at all in a truck or an SUV.

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1364
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #160 on: September 27, 2015, 06:45:00 AM »
So I just rented a Ford F150 (don't own a car, occasionally need one) from Budget that cost $40 less than the economy option. After a bit of gas math I decided it was worth it.

On the road it is such a pain to drive. It has to be a foot or more wider than a Civic (my preferred car), difficult to park, even in oversized american big box store spaces, unstable at high highway speeds, and with so many buttons that are more than an arms-length away from the driver because of how large the center console is. I had to lean over just to use the radio tuner.

 I really have no understanding of why anyone would want one and yet they are one of the best selling models in America. Clearly no one wants to rent them which is why it was the cheapest rental car option.

As a big guy, I always have the opposite reaction. I sit in a full-size truck and it feels remarkably spacious and non-cramped. The nicest vehicle I have ever driven was a full-size Chevy Silverado. The head was not bumping against the ceiling. The shoulders (and, alas, love handles) were not pushing over the side of the seat. The buttons were big enough for me to wear mittens (important in minus 30 Celsius) and still turn them. And the pedals were big enough and far enough apart that wearing a pear of Sorel pac boots does not mean pushing in two pedals at once. The kids could be in the back and there was STILL plenty of room to carry stuff, without the need to fold down any seats. So unlike our family station wagon, it's not a choice between kids or materials. And with a fibreglass topper, it can be a year-round hauler, with an enclosed trunk that can be removed when hauling building materials, soil, gravel, or anything else. Plus, recently getting the family car stuck on a non-maintained road simply because mud filled up the wheel wells after half a mile, bigger wheels and bigger wheel wells hold some appeal. I can definitely see why people like trucks, even though they are expensive to buy and run.

Disclaimer: I live in a condo and drive a Smart Car when not walking or biking. There is no way a full-size truck would actually fit into my life, or either my underground parkade at home or or the one at work. However, when out in the countryside, I do look longingly at them. I totally get why people like them. Most cars are a compromise between utility and economy. Economy is a good thing. But sometimes it is tempting not to have to compromise.

I actually test drove a Smart Car once just because my wife dared me to (she thought I wouldn't fit in it).  It was surprisingly spacious for the driver, more so than a LOT of much larger cars.

I'm not going to trade in my truck and buy one, but I was surprised at how comfortable such a small car was for a big person.

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1364
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #161 on: September 27, 2015, 06:54:48 AM »
Again, again... other inequalities deserve attention too... some other time, some other forum thread...


Yes, we could debate endlessly on the level of taxation and how it should be funded, but as you say, that is probably best done on another forum.

On this forum, I just want to defend my allegedly "evil" truck purchase.

Syonyk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3648
    • Syonyk's Project Blog
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #162 on: September 27, 2015, 07:13:45 AM »
I never could find a correlation between car size and driver size. I've driven some small cars that were very roomy, and some larger cars I could not find a comfortable way to sit in.

Generally, taller vehicles fit tall people better, though.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12898
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #163 on: September 28, 2015, 06:44:57 AM »

I'm 6' and 210 lbs, and have no issue at all sitting in a Prius or most small cars.  Can I ask what your height and weight are?  Most of the people I've heard making your complaints are obese.  If this is your case, maybe the seat size isn't the real issue you should be addressing. . .

Look, genius, people who are overweight don't need bullies, and especially chicken squat pencil necked bullies hiding behind keyboards, to tell them they are overweight.  This society tells them every day.

I didn't say that you were overweight.  I said that the only people who I've heard complain about the size of their car seats were overweight.  Based on your comments, this observation appears to hold true.


Unlike most overweight folks, who tend to wilt under the bullying and shaming of punks like you, I won't be intimidated by bullying from some jerk off on the internet.

My intent was to get to the root of the reason for your complaint about the size of seats in vehicles.  And we have.  And it appears to have nothing to do with the size of seats in cars.


Quote
If this is your case, maybe the seat size isn't the real issue you should be addressing. . .

Hey, big mouth wanna be bully, have you got a solution that will take me from from 6'5" and 320 to a relatively fit 6'5" 250 before I buy my next car/truck?

I didn't think so.

Absolutely, I do.  You can PM for ideas and suggestions.  I'm about the same weight now that I was in grade four, being fat isn't something that I'm unfamiliar with.  In the vast majority of cases, overweight is due to diet and exercise.  It's a simple fix . . . just hard to implement long term.

You would have to stop arguing with the straw man of me that you've been talking to though.


So don't be offended if I tell you to STFU and let me buy the vehicle that I feel is best for me.

You can buy whatever vehicle you want.  Just don't pretend that there's something wrong with the design of the seats in a smaller car (as you were doing) to justify it.


And trust me, son, a "Prius" ain't got to cut it.

Not if you fail to take responsibility for your health, no.  But I guess being a Libertarian you aren't big on personal responsibility . . .


Just out of curiosity, just exactly what did you think you were adding to the conversation, other than being a fat-shaming bully?  Does it make you feel like a "big man" to quote your height and weight and call someone else "fat?"

Check the posts I made.  I didn't call you fat.  Any shame you're feeling is due to the life choices you have made.  Again, if you're interested in changing these choices maybe I can help.  PM me.

I quoted my height and weight because I'm larger than the average person and fit quite comfortably in most vehicles.  I've got an uncle who is almost seven feet tall probably around 250, and he has had a few problems with the interior height of certain vehicles but has never mentioned a complaint about seat size.  Your complaints seemed curious, as I had never heard similar from a healthy person.

Based on your comments, you've thrown your hands up and said 'I need to drive a bigger car because I'm too obese to fit in regular seats'.  That's rationalizing the purchase of something rather than trying to fix the root cause of the problem.  Not an optimal way to approach things.

If you find my tone with you brusque, please review your own posts.  I've responded in kind.

RidinTheAsama

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 116
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #164 on: September 28, 2015, 03:35:26 PM »
Again, again... other inequalities deserve attention too... some other time, some other forum thread...


Yes, we could debate endlessly on the level of taxation and how it should be funded, but as you say, that is probably best done on another forum.

On this forum, I just want to defend my allegedly "evil" truck purchase.

I think the only time I used the word "evil" I clarified that it was not meant literally and was only stated for dramatic emphasis on the point being made.  I don't think truck owners are evil people.

I think we should all have the option of purchasing trucks (or any other vehicle) and driving them as far (or as little) as we like.  BUT ONLY when the systems in place force FULL payment for that driving, including ALL EXTERNAL COSTS that typically get ignored.

My only (vehicle-related) issue with what you've said remains that you claim to pay fully for your driving choices.  You don't.  None of us do. 

If you've been personally installing CO2 scrubbers, paying the medical costs any time a resident in the area of your driving has an asthma flare-up, patching potholes, installing noise abatement devices along your routes, and volunteering at wildlife rehabilitation centers all in direct proportion to the amount that you drive your truck then do-tell, and I will kneel before you and tell you I was wrong.

Until then, be thankful to the rest of society who subsidizes your driving/vehicle choices.

Oh, and please don't respond along the lines of how much more tax you've paid than most due to your extremely high income.  My arguments about your driving are equally directed at low-income people who scrape by to finance their vehicles and commute to minimum wage jobs.  None of us, rich or poor, should be incentivized to travel inefficiently. 

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5332
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #165 on: September 29, 2015, 06:28:27 PM »
Again, again... other inequalities deserve attention too... some other time, some other forum thread...


Yes, we could debate endlessly on the level of taxation and how it should be funded, but as you say, that is probably best done on another forum.

On this forum, I just want to defend my allegedly "evil" truck purchase.

I think the only time I used the word "evil" I clarified that it was not meant literally and was only stated for dramatic emphasis on the point being made.  I don't think truck owners are evil people.

I think we should all have the option of purchasing trucks (or any other vehicle) and driving them as far (or as little) as we like.  BUT ONLY when the systems in place force FULL payment for that driving, including ALL EXTERNAL COSTS that typically get ignored.

My only (vehicle-related) issue with what you've said remains that you claim to pay fully for your driving choices.  You don't.  None of us do. 

If you've been personally installing CO2 scrubbers, paying the medical costs any time a resident in the area of your driving has an asthma flare-up, patching potholes, installing noise abatement devices along your routes, and volunteering at wildlife rehabilitation centers all in direct proportion to the amount that you drive your truck then do-tell, and I will kneel before you and tell you I was wrong.

Until then, be thankful to the rest of society who subsidizes your driving/vehicle choices.

Oh, and please don't respond along the lines of how much more tax you've paid than most due to your extremely high income.  My arguments about your driving are equally directed at low-income people who scrape by to finance their vehicles and commute to minimum wage jobs.  None of us, rich or poor, should be incentivized to travel inefficiently.

In a society where all subsidies are paid by taxpayers, I'm not sure how this is a valid argument - you can't apply the "you don't pay your share" argument equally to people who pay no tax and to people who pay a lot. That's absurd.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #166 on: September 29, 2015, 07:11:18 PM »
In a society where all subsidies are paid by taxpayers, I'm not sure how this is a valid argument - you can't apply the "you don't pay your share" argument equally to people who pay no tax and to people who pay a lot. That's absurd.

It's selective outrage...trucks are treated differently here.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12898
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #167 on: September 30, 2015, 06:04:31 AM »
In a society where all subsidies are paid by taxpayers, I'm not sure how this is a valid argument - you can't apply the "you don't pay your share" argument equally to people who pay no tax and to people who pay a lot. That's absurd.

It's a fallacy to believe that all subsidies for driving are covered by taxes.

Pollution issues and problems that are being created today won't manifest themselves for years.  Many of them will be deferred to people not responsible for their creation, and not really paid for by society as a whole.

For example, the person who pays no taxes and owns no car but gets lung cancer because of years of living in a smog filled city is subsidizing those who drive in that city.

RidinTheAsama

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 116
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #168 on: September 30, 2015, 12:36:48 PM »
In a society where all subsidies are paid by taxpayers, I'm not sure how this is a valid argument - you can't apply the "you don't pay your share" argument equally to people who pay no tax and to people who pay a lot. That's absurd.

It's a fallacy to believe that all subsidies for driving are covered by taxes.

Pollution issues and problems that are being created today won't manifest themselves for years.  Many of them will be deferred to people not responsible for their creation, and not really paid for by society as a whole.

For example, the person who pays no taxes and owns no car but gets lung cancer because of years of living in a smog filled city is subsidizing those who drive in that city.

This is exactly what I meant.  If all the costs were actually being paid for by taxes, even in some abstract roundabout manner then JLee would be correct.  But many costs are not being paid by taxes, they are being deferred to future generations when it comes to environmental impacts, and they are being put onto the shoulders of individuals when it comes to health impacts (not just the air quality effects - more distance driven by more cars/trucks means more accidents, more lawyers fees, higher insurance for everyone, etc.)  These are the costs that should be incorporated in our driving choices.

And even if all these costs were currently covered by our taxes, I'd still say the system should be changed so that it is a more direct cost system, so that people actually see these costs when they make their driving choices, rather than having them hidden away not to be worried about.

Finally, music lover, my outrage is not at all selective.  It applies equally to all unnecessary and/or inefficient driving, in any vehicle.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #169 on: September 30, 2015, 05:24:59 PM »
In a society where all subsidies are paid by taxpayers, I'm not sure how this is a valid argument - you can't apply the "you don't pay your share" argument equally to people who pay no tax and to people who pay a lot. That's absurd.

It's a fallacy to believe that all subsidies for driving are covered by taxes.

Pollution issues and problems that are being created today won't manifest themselves for years.  Many of them will be deferred to people not responsible for their creation, and not really paid for by society as a whole.

For example, the person who pays no taxes and owns no car but gets lung cancer because of years of living in a smog filled city is subsidizing those who drive in that city.

Living in a city is a choice, there are both benefits and drawbacks.

If someone pays no taxes, then they are being subsidized by taxpayers. To claim otherwise suggests that you don't have the ability to think critically.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5332
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #170 on: September 30, 2015, 09:18:16 PM »
In a society where all subsidies are paid by taxpayers, I'm not sure how this is a valid argument - you can't apply the "you don't pay your share" argument equally to people who pay no tax and to people who pay a lot. That's absurd.

It's a fallacy to believe that all subsidies for driving are covered by taxes.

Pollution issues and problems that are being created today won't manifest themselves for years.  Many of them will be deferred to people not responsible for their creation, and not really paid for by society as a whole.

For example, the person who pays no taxes and owns no car but gets lung cancer because of years of living in a smog filled city is subsidizing those who drive in that city.

This is exactly what I meant.  If all the costs were actually being paid for by taxes, even in some abstract roundabout manner then JLee would be correct.  But many costs are not being paid by taxes, they are being deferred to future generations when it comes to environmental impacts, and they are being put onto the shoulders of individuals when it comes to health impacts (not just the air quality effects - more distance driven by more cars/trucks means more accidents, more lawyers fees, higher insurance for everyone, etc.)  These are the costs that should be incorporated in our driving choices.

And even if all these costs were currently covered by our taxes, I'd still say the system should be changed so that it is a more direct cost system, so that people actually see these costs when they make their driving choices, rather than having them hidden away not to be worried about.

Finally, music lover, my outrage is not at all selective.  It applies equally to all unnecessary and/or inefficient driving, in any vehicle.

Many of them are are. Have you ever had a few at-fault accidents and then priced insurance?

One could use your argument to claim that the existence of a family with children is subsidized by future generations who have to figure out what to do about over population and exhaustion of the earth's resources.  Claiming that costs are "subsidized" by people who don't yet exist is a misuse of the word and is, as mentioned earlier, a selective outrage.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12898
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #171 on: October 01, 2015, 06:05:07 AM »
In a society where all subsidies are paid by taxpayers, I'm not sure how this is a valid argument - you can't apply the "you don't pay your share" argument equally to people who pay no tax and to people who pay a lot. That's absurd.

It's a fallacy to believe that all subsidies for driving are covered by taxes.

Pollution issues and problems that are being created today won't manifest themselves for years.  Many of them will be deferred to people not responsible for their creation, and not really paid for by society as a whole.

For example, the person who pays no taxes and owns no car but gets lung cancer because of years of living in a smog filled city is subsidizing those who drive in that city.

Living in a city is a choice, there are both benefits and drawbacks.

Sure.   That doesn't change my point at all though . . . which is that taxes don't cover the cost of polluting, so the claim that "all subsidies are paid by taxpayers" is demonstrably wrong.  The price of driving is lower because we just ignore many of the future side effects.

If someone pays no taxes, then they are being subsidized by taxpayers. To claim otherwise suggests that you don't have the ability to think critically.

Yep.  Good thing nobody claimed that!  :P





Quote
Many of them are are. Have you ever had a few at-fault accidents and then priced insurance?

Many are, but not all.  Which is kinda the point that was being made.

Quote
One could use your argument to claim that the existence of a family with children is subsidized by future generations who have to figure out what to do about over population and exhaustion of the earth's resources.  Claiming that costs are "subsidized" by people who don't yet exist is a misuse of the word and is, as mentioned earlier, a selective outrage.

If you really want to get into pedantic hair splitting, sure we can stop using subsidy.  We can just substitute it with 'cost' and the points being made will be equally valid.  There are costs that the drivers of vehicles are protected from in our current system.  These costs are deferred to the future, and may be paid for by people who don't drive.  So, the original point - that drivers don't pay the full cost of driving - stands.

RidinTheAsama

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 116
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #172 on: October 01, 2015, 01:32:25 PM »

One could use your argument to claim that the existence of a family with children is subsidized by future generations who have to figure out what to do about over population and exhaustion of the earth's resources.

So what I'm hearing from you is approximately "Having children and causing overpopulation for future generations to deal with is a bad thing.  Therefore this other problem currently being discussed (driving too much) which will also leaves future generations dealing with the negative outcomes, should be ignored."

First, accepting one bad thing (overpopulation) is by no means a valid reason to accept other bad things (excessive/inefficient driving).

Second, no one has said anything about accepting overpopulation and ignoring it.  It's another pressing issue in our world that also deserves attention.  If it's important to you and you want to push for some sort of solution, or brainstorming session that could help come up with solutions, I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so.

So, back to that 'other problem currently being discussed'...  If you are ready to move on from "ignore it because other bad things are also happening", you might try:
1) "excessive/inefficient driving is not actually a problem" - I have a hard time imagining solid arguments that could make this point, but I try to be open minded and would gladly hear any you'd like to open up to discussion.
2) "our current system does not promote excessive/inefficient driving" - I feel similarly to this as to #1 above.
3) "the solution you are proposing to this problem is not the best one, here's how it can be done better" - At this point we'd both be in agreement that excessive/inefficient driving is indeed a problem, and that our current system actually promotes this problem; we could then constructively discuss potential solutions.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5332
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #173 on: October 01, 2015, 07:43:40 PM »

One could use your argument to claim that the existence of a family with children is subsidized by future generations who have to figure out what to do about over population and exhaustion of the earth's resources.

So what I'm hearing from you is approximately "Having children and causing overpopulation for future generations to deal with is a bad thing.  Therefore this other problem currently being discussed (driving too much) which will also leaves future generations dealing with the negative outcomes, should be ignored."

First, accepting one bad thing (overpopulation) is by no means a valid reason to accept other bad things (excessive/inefficient driving).

Second, no one has said anything about accepting overpopulation and ignoring it.  It's another pressing issue in our world that also deserves attention.  If it's important to you and you want to push for some sort of solution, or brainstorming session that could help come up with solutions, I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so.

So, back to that 'other problem currently being discussed'...  If you are ready to move on from "ignore it because other bad things are also happening", you might try:
1) "excessive/inefficient driving is not actually a problem" - I have a hard time imagining solid arguments that could make this point, but I try to be open minded and would gladly hear any you'd like to open up to discussion.
2) "our current system does not promote excessive/inefficient driving" - I feel similarly to this as to #1 above.
3) "the solution you are proposing to this problem is not the best one, here's how it can be done better" - At this point we'd both be in agreement that excessive/inefficient driving is indeed a problem, and that our current system actually promotes this problem; we could then constructively discuss potential solutions.

What you're hearing from me is:
Quote
One could use your argument to claim that the existence of a family with children is subsidized by future generations who have to figure out what to do about over population and exhaustion of the earth's resources.

Anything else you decide to infer is a product of your imagination.

The simple existence of humans on this planet causes unquantifiable future ramifications. If I paid $1,000 per mile, it would far exceed any remotely rational "costs" of my contribution to environmental pollution, but it wouldn't change anything of significance (except drain my wallet). So, until there is a quantifiable way to have people "pay for their choices" instead of a vague "you're creating problems we can't quantify yet that will be handled by future generations," how is a solution possible out of this thread - and how is this anything other than slamming people for choices that you have a personal problem with?

Pretty clever argument, though - claim that "people don't pay their fair share" and then go on to say how that's impossible, therefore you have an un-losable argument while staying within your stated terms.

In a society where all subsidies are paid by taxpayers, I'm not sure how this is a valid argument - you can't apply the "you don't pay your share" argument equally to people who pay no tax and to people who pay a lot. That's absurd.

It's a fallacy to believe that all subsidies for driving are covered by taxes.

Pollution issues and problems that are being created today won't manifest themselves for years.  Many of them will be deferred to people not responsible for their creation, and not really paid for by society as a whole.

For example, the person who pays no taxes and owns no car but gets lung cancer because of years of living in a smog filled city is subsidizing those who drive in that city.

Living in a city is a choice, there are both benefits and drawbacks.

Sure.   That doesn't change my point at all though . . . which is that taxes don't cover the cost of polluting, so the claim that "all subsidies are paid by taxpayers" is demonstrably wrong.  The price of driving is lower because we just ignore many of the future side effects.

If someone pays no taxes, then they are being subsidized by taxpayers. To claim otherwise suggests that you don't have the ability to think critically.
Yep.  Good thing nobody claimed that!  :P
I didn't say that..check your quote. :)

RidinTheAsama

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 116
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #174 on: October 02, 2015, 03:22:34 PM »
What you're hearing from me is:
Quote
One could use your argument to claim that the existence of a family with children is subsidized by future generations who have to figure out what to do about over population and exhaustion of the earth's resources.

Anything else you decide to infer is a product of your imagination.

Fair enough, but no matter how you word it, you seem to be saying that since we allow some bad things, we should therefore allow other bad things.  And this just doesn't have any weight to it.

Quote
The simple existence of humans on this planet causes unquantifiable future ramifications. If I paid $1,000 per mile, it would far exceed any remotely rational "costs" of my contribution to environmental pollution, but it wouldn't change anything of significance

No significant changes?  There would be one very quick and major change: people would drive less!
On top of that, there would be much higher funding for programs/research/other TBD... that could help to clean up the mess we are making.  So that's less mess-making in the first place, and more cleaning of existing mess.  (Please don't attack the simplified terms... I'm hoping we are all familiar with some of the specifics by now)

Quote
So, until there is a quantifiable way to have people "pay for their choices" instead of a vague "you're creating problems we can't quantify yet that will be handled by future generations," how is a solution possible out of this thread - and how is this anything other than slamming people for choices that you have a personal problem with?

I'm ok with people making the choice to have driving as a big part of their life.  I don't like it, but it's their choice to make.  The part I'm slamming is when those same people claim to be covering the costs of those choices for themselves

Quote
Pretty clever argument, though - claim that "people don't pay their fair share" and then go on to say how that's impossible, therefore you have an un-losable argument while staying within your stated terms.

I never said it was impossible.  I said it will be difficult to quantify with precision.  How to quantify it is one of the topics I think deserves more discussion (at levels far above this forum).


My goal here is to help some people realize that there are many more downsides to driving than the current personal financials would lead you to think.  And hopefully with a few more people on board with that, there will be more push/support for changes at the political level when the day finally comes.

And to be totally honest, I would also get great satisfaction from hearing a few more people say "Ya, it's true, my driving choices ARE being partly paid for by others... I should be thankful for that, and maybe do what I can to help lessen my load on society."

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1364
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #175 on: October 04, 2015, 03:45:14 AM »
You can buy whatever vehicle you want.  Just don't pretend that there's something wrong with the design of the seats in a smaller car (as you were doing) to justify it.

Apparently, you have a reading comprehension problem to go along with your personality disorder.

I NEVER SAID "there is something wrong with the seats in a smaller car."  I said THEY DON'T WORK FOR ME (because, well, they don't- or at least not on most small cars, there are exceptions).  This was in response to some jerk (I can't remember if it was you) who claimed that "people only buy trucks to "appear manly"" or similar ridiculous blather.

Quote
And trust me, son, a "Prius" ain't got to cut it.

Not if you fail to take responsibility for your health, no.  But I guess being a Libertarian you aren't big on personal responsibility . . .

What are you talking about?

Oh, I get it, you are being a know-it-all judgmental jerk who ASSumes anyone who isn't a pencil neck must be "unhealthy."

Son, I'm well past 50.  I've never spent a day in the hospital.  Never had a broken bone.  Never had any medical procedure more significant than the "you're over 50, so you need a colonoscopy" thing (btw, I passed that with no problems at all, thanks for your concern).  I'm plenty healthy. 

My whole damned family is big.  My grandmother was big even when she died at 101.  My great grandfather was big when he died at 100 after catching pneumonia. 

My parents are both big and well into their 80s with no serious health problems.  Their smaller, "fit" friends are dropping like flies.  The good news is, my dad is still big and strong enough to act as a pall bearer.

You can't really be foolish enough to be drinking the "anyone who doesn't fit the government approved size charts is going to die young" Kool Aid, can you?

Quote
  Again, if you're interested in changing these choices maybe I can help.  PM me.

If I ever take advice from someone like you on ANYTHING, please have the kindness to call the local Alzheimer's facility, because I'll probably be 95, dazed, and confused before that ever happens.

Quote
If you find my tone with you brusque, please review your own posts.  I've responded in kind.

I get it.  You are an overly aggressive, judgmental, keyboard warrior with a reading comprehension problem.

You are hardly unique on the internet.  Trolls, bullies, and punks are everywhere.

And to get back on topic:  I prefer trucks for all of the reasons I stated before.

We went out and test drove a new Silverado today.

As I still like to get the best value for my money, I actually like the no frills "work truck" version of the Silverado.  It's not as "no frills" as my 2002, but it's still pretty basic.  Minimal chrome, fabric seats (which I prefer, leather may look cool, but in summer in Texas, it's not fun if you wear shorts), far less "doo dads" than the other versions.

Anyway, I liked the truck, though it feels a fair amount bigger than my older Silverado.  It rides higher, just feels heavier, I practically had to push my wife into it (she's "vertically challenged," and it has no running board to help shorter people get in like the higher end models have). 

And, of course, the price is ridiculous (this statement, however, applies to almost all vehicles today).

Given that I don't drive a lot these days, I am also considering smaller vehicles.  Believe it or not, my large behind fit pretty comfortably into a Chevy Spark, which had far more room than I expected.  It's not my ideal vehicle because it is a bit small (and really under powered), but I will think about it because 1) it's cheap and 2) it's far more environmentally friendly.

I probably won't buy just yet, because my old truck is still running fine.  I also need to check the F150 and maybe the Toyota. 

Plus, I still hold out some hope that the car I really want to buy will become available sometime soon:

http://www.eliomotors.com/

I actually got to sit in one of the prototypes of the Elio a year ago, and it had an incredible amount of space.  Hard to believe though it may be, this car will probably fit anyone smaller than Shaquille O'Neal.

Anyway, I prefer trucks, but I'm not married to the idea.  I will consider smaller vehicles.

But if I DO CHOOSE a truck, it won't be because it makes me "feel like a big man" or similar ridiculous nonsense, it will be because I've decided it's the best vehicle for me.


libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1364
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #176 on: October 04, 2015, 03:53:23 AM »
Again, again... other inequalities deserve attention too... some other time, some other forum thread...


Yes, we could debate endlessly on the level of taxation and how it should be funded, but as you say, that is probably best done on another forum.

On this forum, I just want to defend my allegedly "evil" truck purchase.

I think the only time I used the word "evil" I clarified that it was not meant literally and was only stated for dramatic emphasis on the point being made.  I don't think truck owners are evil people.

I think we should all have the option of purchasing trucks (or any other vehicle) and driving them as far (or as little) as we like.  BUT ONLY when the systems in place force FULL payment for that driving, including ALL EXTERNAL COSTS that typically get ignored.

My only (vehicle-related) issue with what you've said remains that you claim to pay fully for your driving choices.  You don't.  None of us do. 

If you've been personally installing CO2 scrubbers, paying the medical costs any time a resident in the area of your driving has an asthma flare-up, patching potholes, installing noise abatement devices along your routes, and volunteering at wildlife rehabilitation centers all in direct proportion to the amount that you drive your truck then do-tell, and I will kneel before you and tell you I was wrong.

Until then, be thankful to the rest of society who subsidizes your driving/vehicle choices.

Oh, and please don't respond along the lines of how much more tax you've paid than most due to your extremely high income.  My arguments about your driving are equally directed at low-income people who scrape by to finance their vehicles and commute to minimum wage jobs.  None of us, rich or poor, should be incentivized to travel inefficiently.

In a society where all subsidies are paid by taxpayers, I'm not sure how this is a valid argument - you can't apply the "you don't pay your share" argument equally to people who pay no tax and to people who pay a lot. That's absurd.

Yup.  Taxation is always unfair.  Some people pay far more than their fair share (typically, affluent singles and child free couples), and some pay far less than their fair share (low income people with large families).

Therefore, I prefer to keep the nanny state, and hence the level of (largely unfair and unequal) taxation, to a minimum.

I would also posit that, if you are worried about "tax fairness," "the amount people pay to drive big vehicles versus small vehicles" would be near the bottom of the list of inequities in the system.

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1364
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #177 on: October 04, 2015, 03:58:23 AM »
In a society where all subsidies are paid by taxpayers, I'm not sure how this is a valid argument - you can't apply the "you don't pay your share" argument equally to people who pay no tax and to people who pay a lot. That's absurd.

It's a fallacy to believe that all subsidies for driving are covered by taxes.

Pollution issues and problems that are being created today won't manifest themselves for years.  Many of them will be deferred to people not responsible for their creation, and not really paid for by society as a whole.

For example, the person who pays no taxes and owns no car but gets lung cancer because of years of living in a smog filled city is subsidizing those who drive in that city.

Logic check.

What kind of "subsidy" do I get from someone who PAYS NO TAXES?  He may get lung cancer, and he may have a beef, but I sure as Hell get no "subsidy" from him.

Unless you can figure out a way to monetize diseased tissue from a corpse.

We won't even get into the epidemiology of this issue.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12898
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #178 on: October 04, 2015, 08:54:21 AM »
In a society where all subsidies are paid by taxpayers, I'm not sure how this is a valid argument - you can't apply the "you don't pay your share" argument equally to people who pay no tax and to people who pay a lot. That's absurd.

It's a fallacy to believe that all subsidies for driving are covered by taxes.

Pollution issues and problems that are being created today won't manifest themselves for years.  Many of them will be deferred to people not responsible for their creation, and not really paid for by society as a whole.

For example, the person who pays no taxes and owns no car but gets lung cancer because of years of living in a smog filled city is subsidizing those who drive in that city.

Logic check.

What kind of "subsidy" do I get from someone who PAYS NO TAXES?  He may get lung cancer, and he may have a beef, but I sure as Hell get no "subsidy" from him.

Unless you can figure out a way to monetize diseased tissue from a corpse.

We won't even get into the epidemiology of this issue.

He's paying in the future for your choice in the present.  If you don't want to call it a subsidy, then how about we just call it violence that you're inflicting on him by your actions?

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5332
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #179 on: October 04, 2015, 09:07:29 AM »
In a society where all subsidies are paid by taxpayers, I'm not sure how this is a valid argument - you can't apply the "you don't pay your share" argument equally to people who pay no tax and to people who pay a lot. That's absurd.

It's a fallacy to believe that all subsidies for driving are covered by taxes.

Pollution issues and problems that are being created today won't manifest themselves for years.  Many of them will be deferred to people not responsible for their creation, and not really paid for by society as a whole.

For example, the person who pays no taxes and owns no car but gets lung cancer because of years of living in a smog filled city is subsidizing those who drive in that city.

Logic check.

What kind of "subsidy" do I get from someone who PAYS NO TAXES?  He may get lung cancer, and he may have a beef, but I sure as Hell get no "subsidy" from him.

Unless you can figure out a way to monetize diseased tissue from a corpse.

We won't even get into the epidemiology of this issue.

He's paying in the future for your choice in the present.  If you don't want to call it a subsidy, then how about we just call it violence that you're inflicting on him by your actions?

I think you might be slightly insane.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #180 on: October 04, 2015, 09:07:52 AM »
In a society where all subsidies are paid by taxpayers, I'm not sure how this is a valid argument - you can't apply the "you don't pay your share" argument equally to people who pay no tax and to people who pay a lot. That's absurd.

It's a fallacy to believe that all subsidies for driving are covered by taxes.

Pollution issues and problems that are being created today won't manifest themselves for years.  Many of them will be deferred to people not responsible for their creation, and not really paid for by society as a whole.

For example, the person who pays no taxes and owns no car but gets lung cancer because of years of living in a smog filled city is subsidizing those who drive in that city.

Logic check.

What kind of "subsidy" do I get from someone who PAYS NO TAXES?  He may get lung cancer, and he may have a beef, but I sure as Hell get no "subsidy" from him.

Unless you can figure out a way to monetize diseased tissue from a corpse.

We won't even get into the epidemiology of this issue.

He's paying in the future for your choice in the present.  If you don't want to call it a subsidy, then how about we just call it violence that you're inflicting on him by your actions?

And yet, without exception, the quality of life and life expectancy in modern societies always exceeds that of countries with no national road/transportation system and limited personal vehicles.

If the opposite was true, you might have a valid point. But, the facts don't support your claim. What you also completely overlook are all the benefits that a modern road system and vehicle ownership provide...even if you don't drive, you benefit daily from a national transportation system that improves the quality of your life in immeasurable ways.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12898
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #181 on: October 04, 2015, 10:46:57 AM »
So you're claiming that personal automobile use makes those who don't own a car live longer?  Got anything to back up that claim?  We're not talking about transport trucks shipping goods, but guys choosing to drive in large trucks because they're too fat to fit in a car, or too insecure to drive one.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2015, 10:48:33 AM by GuitarStv »

Syonyk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3648
    • Syonyk's Project Blog
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #182 on: October 04, 2015, 12:54:02 PM »
Our current economy certainly relies on people being able to get around...

If you've just argued that driving a car is violence another person, though, it might be time to step back from the keyboard and go outside. Or join the Deep Green Resistance.

Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #183 on: October 05, 2015, 12:02:27 AM »
I think libertarian4321 has presented a good case for trucks, assuming that we consider personal automobiles in general to be a reasonable form of transportation.

I think it's worth noting that thinness is in part a mater of luck and privilege. If I ate huge servings of McDonald's, multiple times per day, every day, for many years in a row, I would still be thin, because that's just how my body works. There may be studies demonstrating an inverse correlation between health and obesity, but none of those studies suggest a perfect correlation. Part of it is chance. There is no reason to be rude to somebody because of their body shape.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2015, 12:06:31 AM by Cathy »

RidinTheAsama

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 116
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #184 on: October 05, 2015, 10:05:15 AM »
Again, again... other inequalities deserve attention too... some other time, some other forum thread...


Yes, we could debate endlessly on the level of taxation and how it should be funded, but as you say, that is probably best done on another forum.

On this forum, I just want to defend my allegedly "evil" truck purchase.

I think the only time I used the word "evil" I clarified that it was not meant literally and was only stated for dramatic emphasis on the point being made.  I don't think truck owners are evil people.

I think we should all have the option of purchasing trucks (or any other vehicle) and driving them as far (or as little) as we like.  BUT ONLY when the systems in place force FULL payment for that driving, including ALL EXTERNAL COSTS that typically get ignored.

My only (vehicle-related) issue with what you've said remains that you claim to pay fully for your driving choices.  You don't.  None of us do. 

If you've been personally installing CO2 scrubbers, paying the medical costs any time a resident in the area of your driving has an asthma flare-up, patching potholes, installing noise abatement devices along your routes, and volunteering at wildlife rehabilitation centers all in direct proportion to the amount that you drive your truck then do-tell, and I will kneel before you and tell you I was wrong.

Until then, be thankful to the rest of society who subsidizes your driving/vehicle choices.

Oh, and please don't respond along the lines of how much more tax you've paid than most due to your extremely high income.  My arguments about your driving are equally directed at low-income people who scrape by to finance their vehicles and commute to minimum wage jobs.  None of us, rich or poor, should be incentivized to travel inefficiently.

In a society where all subsidies are paid by taxpayers, I'm not sure how this is a valid argument - you can't apply the "you don't pay your share" argument equally to people who pay no tax and to people who pay a lot. That's absurd.

Yup.  Taxation is always unfair.  Some people pay far more than their fair share (typically, affluent singles and child free couples), and some pay far less than their fair share (low income people with large families).

Therefore, I prefer to keep the nanny state, and hence the level of (largely unfair and unequal) taxation, to a minimum.

I would also posit that, if you are worried about "tax fairness," "the amount people pay to drive big vehicles versus small vehicles" would be near the bottom of the list of inequities in the system.

It's not "tax fairness" alone that I see as the problem; it's tax systems that promote (rather than discourage) behaviour that has a net cost for society. 

Yes, our transportation network is very important, even necessary, to maintain our high standards of living.  But in the process of designing this system to be very efficient at moving goods, allowing rapid emergency response, etc. we have the side-effect of it being very easy and even encouraged for individuals to drive long distances, alone in a vehicle (some in a prius, some in an F-350 - neither is good) almost daily.  This is a system we know to be having negative consequences overall.

RidinTheAsama

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 116
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #185 on: October 05, 2015, 10:09:39 AM »
In a society where all subsidies are paid by taxpayers, I'm not sure how this is a valid argument - you can't apply the "you don't pay your share" argument equally to people who pay no tax and to people who pay a lot. That's absurd.

It's a fallacy to believe that all subsidies for driving are covered by taxes.

Pollution issues and problems that are being created today won't manifest themselves for years.  Many of them will be deferred to people not responsible for their creation, and not really paid for by society as a whole.

For example, the person who pays no taxes and owns no car but gets lung cancer because of years of living in a smog filled city is subsidizing those who drive in that city.

Logic check.

What kind of "subsidy" do I get from someone who PAYS NO TAXES?  He may get lung cancer, and he may have a beef, but I sure as Hell get no "subsidy" from him.

Unless you can figure out a way to monetize diseased tissue from a corpse.

We won't even get into the epidemiology of this issue.

Subsidy might be the wrong word here (and I don't agree with GuitarStv's use of the word violence either).
What you are doing in the scenario where your actions cause someone to get lung cancer is to create a cost to someone else, without paying for that cost.

If a cost that you create is paid for by someone else, is it a subsidy?  Maybe the terminology is wrong and it isn't... but it isn't a good thing, and our system should not encourage/allow it.

RidinTheAsama

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 116
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #186 on: October 05, 2015, 10:12:57 AM »
In a society where all subsidies are paid by taxpayers, I'm not sure how this is a valid argument - you can't apply the "you don't pay your share" argument equally to people who pay no tax and to people who pay a lot. That's absurd.

It's a fallacy to believe that all subsidies for driving are covered by taxes.

Pollution issues and problems that are being created today won't manifest themselves for years.  Many of them will be deferred to people not responsible for their creation, and not really paid for by society as a whole.

For example, the person who pays no taxes and owns no car but gets lung cancer because of years of living in a smog filled city is subsidizing those who drive in that city.

Logic check.

What kind of "subsidy" do I get from someone who PAYS NO TAXES?  He may get lung cancer, and he may have a beef, but I sure as Hell get no "subsidy" from him.

Unless you can figure out a way to monetize diseased tissue from a corpse.

We won't even get into the epidemiology of this issue.

He's paying in the future for your choice in the present.  If you don't want to call it a subsidy, then how about we just call it violence that you're inflicting on him by your actions?

And yet, without exception, the quality of life and life expectancy in modern societies always exceeds that of countries with no national road/transportation system and limited personal vehicles.

If the opposite was true, you might have a valid point. But, the facts don't support your claim. What you also completely overlook are all the benefits that a modern road system and vehicle ownership provide...even if you don't drive, you benefit daily from a national transportation system that improves the quality of your life in immeasurable ways.

As per my post above to libertarian4321,
Yes, road systems provide us with great benefits.  We just need to fine tune the system so that it can still provide those benefits, without also encouraging individual behaviour that is detrimental to all of us.

RidinTheAsama

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 116
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #187 on: October 05, 2015, 10:33:44 AM »
I think libertarian4321 has presented a good case for trucks, assuming that we consider personal automobiles in general to be a reasonable form of transportation.

I think it's worth noting that thinness is in part a mater of luck and privilege. If I ate huge servings of McDonald's, multiple times per day, every day, for many years in a row, I would still be thin, because that's just how my body works. There may be studies demonstrating an inverse correlation between health and obesity, but none of those studies suggest a perfect correlation. Part of it is chance. There is no reason to be rude to somebody because of their body shape.

I agree, it's not productive to make personal attacks especially in regards to body size/shape.
I also agree that in certain circumstances, the choice to own and drive a truck is perfectly reasonable.

To be specific about libertarian4321 who has provided lots of personal info, in my opinion his vehicle choice is somewhat justified - maybe he could have found a smaller or more efficient vehicle that met his needs if he had really tried, but it doesn't seem to have been a mindless or vain decision.  However, he claims that either
1) his choices are not affecting others, or
2) in the amount that his choices affect others his payments are enough to offset this. 
I can't tell which of these claims he is making, but I disagree in either case.

Sticking to libertarian4321 as an example, perhaps his actions and choices would remain totally unchanged under some of the systemic changes I suggest, only his monetary cost would be a little higher for them. 
Many people are far less mindful in their transportation choices, and their decisions would likely be heavily swayed by systemic changes.

Many of us mindful transportation decision makers would be in the same situation as libertarian4321 - we would see increases in cost that may or may not affect our transportation decisions. So be it.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5332
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #188 on: October 05, 2015, 01:08:56 PM »
In a society where all subsidies are paid by taxpayers, I'm not sure how this is a valid argument - you can't apply the "you don't pay your share" argument equally to people who pay no tax and to people who pay a lot. That's absurd.

It's a fallacy to believe that all subsidies for driving are covered by taxes.

Pollution issues and problems that are being created today won't manifest themselves for years.  Many of them will be deferred to people not responsible for their creation, and not really paid for by society as a whole.

For example, the person who pays no taxes and owns no car but gets lung cancer because of years of living in a smog filled city is subsidizing those who drive in that city.

Logic check.

What kind of "subsidy" do I get from someone who PAYS NO TAXES?  He may get lung cancer, and he may have a beef, but I sure as Hell get no "subsidy" from him.

Unless you can figure out a way to monetize diseased tissue from a corpse.

We won't even get into the epidemiology of this issue.

Subsidy might be the wrong word here (and I don't agree with GuitarStv's use of the word violence either).
What you are doing in the scenario where your actions cause someone to get lung cancer is to create a cost to someone else, without paying for that cost.

If a cost that you create is paid for by someone else, is it a subsidy?  Maybe the terminology is wrong and it isn't... but it isn't a good thing, and our system should not encourage/allow it.

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/guide/lung-cancer-causes

I thought we were talking about trucks, not smoking.

Air pollution is listed at "up to 1%" of all lung cancer deaths, and that's a broad category (vehicles, industry, power plants). The numbers at play here are, IMO, statistically insignificant. Also, in this case the cost someone is creating is equally applied on themselves as well as everyone else - it's not like truck drivers are exempt from their own emissions, so implying they affect others and not themselves is absurd.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2015, 01:14:43 PM by JLee »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12898
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #189 on: October 05, 2015, 01:34:55 PM »
It doesn't matter if you're also giving yourself cancer.  The important thing is that you're causing someone else harm by your actions, harm that could be avoided or minimized by choosing a different form of transportation.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5332
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #190 on: October 05, 2015, 01:59:49 PM »
It doesn't matter if you're also giving yourself cancer.  The important thing is that you're causing someone else harm by your actions, harm that could be avoided or minimized by choosing a different form of transportation.

I think you're causing more harm to my mental health by your ridiculous rantings than I am causing to anyone by owning a truck, which has about 600 miles of use on it in the last four months.

It's a long fall from that horse you're on...might want to be careful.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2015, 02:06:43 PM by JLee »

RidinTheAsama

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 116
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #191 on: October 06, 2015, 01:43:18 PM »
In a society where all subsidies are paid by taxpayers, I'm not sure how this is a valid argument - you can't apply the "you don't pay your share" argument equally to people who pay no tax and to people who pay a lot. That's absurd.

It's a fallacy to believe that all subsidies for driving are covered by taxes.

Pollution issues and problems that are being created today won't manifest themselves for years.  Many of them will be deferred to people not responsible for their creation, and not really paid for by society as a whole.

For example, the person who pays no taxes and owns no car but gets lung cancer because of years of living in a smog filled city is subsidizing those who drive in that city.

Logic check.

What kind of "subsidy" do I get from someone who PAYS NO TAXES?  He may get lung cancer, and he may have a beef, but I sure as Hell get no "subsidy" from him.

Unless you can figure out a way to monetize diseased tissue from a corpse.

We won't even get into the epidemiology of this issue.

Subsidy might be the wrong word here (and I don't agree with GuitarStv's use of the word violence either).
What you are doing in the scenario where your actions cause someone to get lung cancer is to create a cost to someone else, without paying for that cost.

If a cost that you create is paid for by someone else, is it a subsidy?  Maybe the terminology is wrong and it isn't... but it isn't a good thing, and our system should not encourage/allow it.

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/guide/lung-cancer-causes

I thought we were talking about trucks, not smoking.

Air pollution is listed at "up to 1%" of all lung cancer deaths, and that's a broad category (vehicles, industry, power plants). The numbers at play here are, IMO, statistically insignificant. Also, in this case the cost someone is creating is equally applied on themselves as well as everyone else - it's not like truck drivers are exempt from their own emissions, so implying they affect others and not themselves is absurd.

It was just an example... one that someone else started and I was just following.  Substitute asthma, premature birth, or one of many other ailments if you prefer.  Even if it's a small contribution to any given disease, it's a small contribution on the cost side, and 0 contribution on the benefit side.

jba302

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #192 on: October 06, 2015, 01:59:33 PM »
Yup.  Taxation is always unfair.  Some people pay far more than their fair share (typically, affluent singles and child free couples), and some pay far less than their fair share (low income people with large families).

Therefore, I prefer to keep the nanny state, and hence the level of (largely unfair and unequal) taxation, to a minimum.

I would also posit that, if you are worried about "tax fairness," "the amount people pay to drive big vehicles versus small vehicles" would be near the bottom of the list of inequities in the system.

Tangential discussion point:

I'm very curious - what would you do for taxation in terms of fairness? This ends up being basically a "how do you define fairness" discussion and I think trucks are neat despite being a little over the top for most people, that's a boring conversation.

In my mind, I think super rich people can both afford to pay a lot of taxes (since their marginal practical benefit from an extra million is basically nothing while a poor person practically benefits greatly from their increased dollars up to a point, which is assumptive for the broad middle but not a leap either), and have the most to lose in a society that doesn't pay taxes (nice cars need nice roads, high level of comfort is provided by the safety benefits of cops and law and order and such <-less assumptive but also hand waving a bit).

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1364
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #193 on: October 09, 2015, 05:38:32 PM »
It doesn't matter if you're also giving yourself cancer.  The important thing is that you're causing someone else harm by your actions, harm that could be avoided or minimized by choosing a different form of transportation.

Another childish and silly "argumen"
on your part.

Look, genius, essentially EVERYTHING ANYONE DOES can be considered to "cause harm" to someone else.  You buy a meal, you cause harm-think of all the energy and "carbon" that went into it- maybe you could minimize it by starving to death, you buy ANYTHING at the store, you cause harm for the same reasons (you could minimize it by not making that purchase- shall we do an in depth analysis of EVERY PURCHASE you've made in the past 10 years?).  You pass gas, you cause harm (maybe you should "minimized it" by shoving a cork up your butt).

It's insane to "call people out" with your inane "arguments" on anything you don't like (I suspect you only do it on behaviors you personally don't approve of) and claim "you are harming blah blah blah." 

Good God, you either have limitless time to make trivial and silly "arguments" (which would make you a full-time professional troll) or you are completely irrational.


libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1364
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #194 on: October 09, 2015, 05:39:21 PM »
It doesn't matter if you're also giving yourself cancer.  The important thing is that you're causing someone else harm by your actions, harm that could be avoided or minimized by choosing a different form of transportation.

I think you're causing more harm to my mental health by your ridiculous rantings than I am causing to anyone by owning a truck, which has about 600 miles of use on it in the last four months.

It's a long fall from that horse you're on...might want to be careful.

Yup.

Though we may be to partially to blame for feeding the troll. :)

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1364
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #195 on: October 09, 2015, 05:42:20 PM »
Yup.  Taxation is always unfair.  Some people pay far more than their fair share (typically, affluent singles and child free couples), and some pay far less than their fair share (low income people with large families).

Therefore, I prefer to keep the nanny state, and hence the level of (largely unfair and unequal) taxation, to a minimum.

I would also posit that, if you are worried about "tax fairness," "the amount people pay to drive big vehicles versus small vehicles" would be near the bottom of the list of inequities in the system.

Tangential discussion point:

I'm very curious - what would you do for taxation in terms of fairness? This ends up being basically a "how do you define fairness" discussion and I think trucks are neat despite being a little over the top for most people, that's a boring conversation.

In my mind, I think super rich people can both afford to pay a lot of taxes (since their marginal practical benefit from an extra million is basically nothing while a poor person practically benefits greatly from their increased dollars up to a point, which is assumptive for the broad middle but not a leap either), and have the most to lose in a society that doesn't pay taxes (nice cars need nice roads, high level of comfort is provided by the safety benefits of cops and law and order and such <-less assumptive but also hand waving a bit).

Fair taxation, even when people try, is hard.  Of course, our government really doesn't attempt to achieve fair taxation, they dole out favors (tax breaks) to people based on what those people do for the politician.

Since there is no way to be truly fair in taxation, it is best that we keep taxation, and the abuses of power and corruption behind it, to a minimum.

Bet you never expected to hear that argument from a Libertarian. :)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12898
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #196 on: October 09, 2015, 05:50:46 PM »
It doesn't matter if you're also giving yourself cancer.  The important thing is that you're causing someone else harm by your actions, harm that could be avoided or minimized by choosing a different form of transportation.

Another childish and silly "argumen"
on your part.

Look, genius, essentially EVERYTHING ANYONE DOES can be considered to "cause harm" to someone else.  You buy a meal, you cause harm-think of all the energy and "carbon" that went into it- maybe you could minimize it by starving to death, you buy ANYTHING at the store, you cause harm for the same reasons (you could minimize it by not making that purchase- shall we do an in depth analysis of EVERY PURCHASE you've made in the past 10 years?).  You pass gas, you cause harm (maybe you should "minimized it" by shoving a cork up your butt).

It's insane to "call people out" with your inane "arguments" on anything you don't like (I suspect you only do it on behaviors you personally don't approve of) and claim "you are harming blah blah blah."  Since there is no way to be truly fair in taxation, it is best that we keep taxation, and the abuses of power and corruption behind it, to a minimum.

Good God, you either have limitless time to make trivial and silly "arguments" (which would make you a full-time professional troll) or you are completely irrational.

So (since anything that anyone does causes others harm according to you) how does your reasoning on taxation work?  It doesn't matter if we keep taxation and abuses of power to a minimum since somewhere on Earth someone will be abusing power or taxing folks . . . following your argument.  Which makes this statement a little odd:

Quote
Since there is no way to be truly fair in taxation, it is best that we keep taxation, and the abuses of power and corruption behind it, to a minimum.

. . . because it sounds an awful lot like you're advocating for (what you see) as a reasonable minimization of harm to others.

jba302

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: What will replace Trucks as the next dumb purchase?
« Reply #197 on: October 13, 2015, 07:15:21 AM »
Fair taxation, even when people try, is hard.  Of course, our government really doesn't attempt to achieve fair taxation, they dole out favors (tax breaks) to people based on what those people do for the politician.

Since there is no way to be truly fair in taxation, it is best that we keep taxation, and the abuses of power and corruption behind it, to a minimum.

Bet you never expected to hear that argument from a Libertarian. :)

Well right, of course I would expect that :), and I think everyone would agree that minimizing taxes is appropriate to prevent wasting people's money etc. I'm just wondering how you specifically would apply it. I think understanding this type of thing helps people avoid arguments since it's a type of "I like sausage more than pepperoni because obviously!" situation.

As an extremely dumbed down example, you have person A making $25k a year and person B making $1M / year. For a public project, say a roadway or fixing a water supply issue, you could take the same from each and call it fair ($5k each let's say? so a tollway would be an accurate take on this variation, usage tax), or do you take $250 from A and $9,750 from B as a proportionate share (straight tax), or you could take virtually all of it from B ($9,999) and $1 from A and argue that there's no practical negative benefit to either (progressive style). Which one would you think is most appropriate?