I wish private vehicles were taxed yearly based on the damage they do to the roads divided by the average number of passengers based on vehicle type. Road damage scales with vehicle weight to the fourth power.
frostbiker
joined 2 years ago
It also doesn't take into consideration that, as far as I know, US-bound slaves were bought in west Africa, meaning that locals were responsible for capturing and selling their neighbors as slaves, and thus profited from slave trade themselves.
What a terrible day to be literate. Why am I not surprised to read that he is a conservative 🙄
We need any help we can get to net zero carbon emissions, and lab-grown meat is one of the many things that moves the needle in the right direction. Not everybody is going to ride a bicycle and switch to a vegan diet, so the more low-carbon alternatives we make available, the better.
That is a good point. If they are not in a car, they must be either poor or stupid, which means they don't really deserve the same rights as regular people (i.e. drivers).
If you tax their profits, they can raise their prices all they like, those profits will just get taxed, too.
They still make more money than if they didn't raise their profits. It doesn't incentivize then to lower their margins like competition would.
A business is not like an individual. A heavily taxed individual may choose to work fewer hours or retire early, but a business won't.
Riding a bike doesn't necessarily mean owning a bike.
Places like Toronto or London have bicycle sharing programs where for a small monthly fee you can go to one of many stations around the city, pick a bike and leave it at any of the stations near to your destination. The maintenance staff ensures that all stations have some bikes available and that the bikes remain in working condition.
If you tax an oligopoly, what do you think they will do in response? Lower their margins, or raise their prices?
What we need instead is more competition. Maybe something like lower taxes for independent or small grocery chains.
Vehicle safety needs to expand to the other side of the windshield.
I would take it further and day that regulations should prioritize the safety of the people outside the vehicle over the people inside, for the simple reason that the people buying the vehicle already have a strong incentive to maximize their own safety, while they currently have zero concerns about the safety of pedestrians.
Pedestrians, on the other hand, don't have the freedom to choose which vehicle runs them over, so it is up to regulations to advocate for them because nobody else will.
Whatever is most pleasant/convenient for the trip I'm trying to make, as long as it is not a car, because cars are disproportionately noisy, polluting and a danger to my neighbors, and I don't want to contribute to that.
If all the options were equally available and convenient, then for me walking > cycling > streetcar > train > bus.
This has been done in the past in other countries. Multiple times. What were the consequences? Is that what you want to happen in Canada?
Learn from history, people.
It nearly does. The government collects the fines, which reduces public deficit, which allows the government to either lower taxes or spend more relative to what it would do otherise, which means money ends in the pockets of citizens either way.