Gas Tax

[Cartman]

A real shocker?

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/07/28/godfr...ey_cities040728

[kimmy]

A real shocker?

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/07/28/godfr...ey_cities040728

A Liberal campaign promise gets put on the back burner? And there are strings attached?

No, sadly it is not very shocking at all.

-kimmy

[playfullfellow]

No big shock here either. I wonder what other promises they will back off on now? Hmmmmmmmmmm maybe if we would have voted in more Liberals like some have suggested around here, that might have helped. NAH, then they would not do anything at all until just before the next election. Again, the Liberals prove to be puppet masters, everything has a few strings attached to it.

[Big Blue Machine]

I think we should raise the gas tax for two reasons:

1) More renevue for the governments

2) More conversation of petrolum

Also I think the provinical and federal government should take the PST and GST off all hybird and eceonomy cars.

[kimmy]

I kind of agree, except for the phrasing.

I don't really care if petroleum is conserved, I just think less should be burned. It's not the decreasing supply that worries me, it is the increasing amount of pollution in our air.

-kimmy

[caesar]

Not really shocking. They cannot give directly to the cities as that is a provincial responsibility to deal with the municipalities. An agreement must be worked out with the provinces; any deal does take time. They need to make agreements and ensure that the cities do get the extra revenue.

I don't know where you live, Big Blue but gas taxes here in BC and Vancouver in particular are already extremely high. The government does not need more revenue; they need to use what they are getting wisely and to quit wasting our money. Get rid of patronage appointments and start running this country in a more business like way. Appoint the best person for the job; not whoever they owe a political favour to. That is one promise Martin made then quickly ignored.

[kimmy]

People who don't like paying high fuel taxes are certainly welcome to park their SUVs and drive an Insight, take the bus, or use their bicycles. Vancouver residents should be in favor of higher gas taxes it would unclog some of those ridiculously choked streets and maybe even make a dent in that yellow-brown dome of pollution that's visible all the way from Victoria.

-kimmy

[caesar]

We don't need higher gas taxes. Spoken like a teenager not old enough to drive. We need our cars for many things. Buses do not serve all areas well. Who is going to do the grocery shopping by bus and end up standing???

SUVs can be used for transporting goods; can't put much in one of those tiny deathtrap cars. Can't pack much of anything in those tiny cars. People who drive them may as well take a bus where they can be more comfortable and safe.

[kimmy]

I think that if you investigate crash safety ratings, you'll find that "death-trap" is not an accurate description of most small cars. And unless your family is bigger than the Waltons and Brady Bunch put together, you can fit a week's worth of groceries into a fuel efficient vehicle with no difficulty.

I also think that if you're honest, you'll concede that one doesn't need a 6000 pound, 300hp off-road vehicle to carry groceries or get the kids to soccer practice. If one is genuinely concerned about cargo space, a minivan can hold at least as much as an SUV, and deliver twice the fuel economy. I think you'll also concede that most people who purchase SUVs have no intention of ever taking them off-road. Most people purchase these large, ridiculously inefficient vehicles as status-symbols, with no consideration of the environmental cost that their ego-trip is causing.

I've noticed you're fond of calling people teenagers. I am old enough to drive, I owned a car, and got rid of it. I made a personal choice, based on my lifestyle, beliefs, and economic common sense. Even for people who do need a large or powerful vehicle on occasion, they don't need it all the time. Fuel taxes are a way of getting people to make smarter transportation choices.

I think that higher fuel taxes are the only way of getting people to bear a fair share of the environmental cost of their lifestyle. Sadly, hitting people in the pocketbook seems to be the only way to get the message through.

What is fairer than a fuel tax? People who use the most fuel pay the most tax. It's beautiful in its simplicity.

-kimmy

[caesar]

What do you do when you need a larger vehicle for errands; rent it. Why should I not drive a vehicle that will not crumble in an accident and leave me dead or crippled. Until they make roads for cars only without dump trucks or large trucks that will squash me like a bug; I will drive a vehicle that gives me a fighting chance for survival.

A single person who lives on a good transit line may have an option not to drive but seniors or people with families would find it very difficult to pack home the groceries on a bus. Young people today have no courtesy and do not get up to give seniors a seat. I even was on the skytrain with a man who had one leg and one arm; nobody offered him a seat. disgusting.

[playfullfellow]

Driving a small car in some instances may be a viable solution but most areas of Canada are long distances away from a large center. Not very many people want to ride in a tin can for 4-5 hours. As a person who relies on his vehicle to haul around my tools and supplies, a compact car would not do the job.

If the government took more in taxes, they would just piss it away on more useless programs as Caesar says. Tax money from gas taxes is supposed to go back into road construction and infrastructure but almost 80 percent of it goes into general revenue. I would not really care to pay the taxes if the money was used in a positive manner and helped to rebuild our pothole infested roads.

[kimmy]

If you're getting all this utility and safety from your SUV, then you and you alone are the beneficiary... but everybody who lives in your city has to live with the pollution you create. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect you, the person who has decided he/she deserves this extra convenience, to compensate your fellow citizens for the inconvenience resulting from your choice. Since the amount of pollution you create is directly proportional to the amount of gas you burn, an environmental per-litre levy on gasoline would be an ideal solution.

As for the rest, long-haul highway duty isn't a primary need for most Canadians, as the overwhelming majority of us live in urban centres or within short commuting distance. The ability to carry large loads isn't a strong argument for SUVs, as minivans, and pickups are all superior at that and most deliver considerably better fuel economy. I seldom see an SUV being used as a tow vehicle, or carrying any sort of load, or for that matter even carrying more than 2 people. When I see the way many SUV-owners drive, I don't think safety is a primary consideration in their lives either.

Try to rationalize it any way you want, but we all know that the reason most SUV-owners bought SUVs has nothing to do with safety or cargo. Many people buy ridiculously large pickup trucks for the same reason. While many pickups are used as working vehicles or tow-vehicles, there are plenty of people who do not need any of their vehicle's capability, and just drive them to show off... "cowboy SUVs", I suppose. That's fine... do whatever you want, it's your money, but there is an environmental cost that you should pay.

-kimmy

[Stoker]

I've got a better idea then possably punishing tradesmen and the like that need a pick-up or even those that just want an SUV. Instead of raising taxes on the purchase of these cars/trucks/SUVs and/or that of Gas, let's stay with the status quo.

Now where my idea is different, instead of forcing a negative change on people, let's instead bring forth a possable positive choice. Let's offer zero sales tax on the purchase of "green vehicles", tax rebates for companies that purchase "green fleets", all government fleets to be green and allow green vehicles to drive in the HOV lanes without restrictions.

[kimmy]

Why not both?

Tradesmen and other people or businesses who need larger, more powerful vehicles as part of their livelyhood already claim transportation-related expenses on their tax returns anyway. An environmental levy on fuel wouldn't be an impediment.

I agree with the idea of offering incentives to choose smarter options, though

-kimmy

[caesar]

They already have incentives; lower gas usage.

Writing off expenses still cuts into their profits and WE get to pay increased costs. It is always passed onto the consumer.

Why concentrate on the vehicle. Many people with smaller cars choose them due to their high mileage per litre of gas. I may drive a less fuel efficicent vehicle but only use it for necessary times. I walk to the store; take a bus to work.

It is time we looked towards overall mileage; that goes for car insurance rates, too.

I pay more for the larger car but am seldom on the road. Someone with a small car maybe constantly on the road.

[kimmy]

That is why an environmental levy on each litre of gas makes sense. The amount of pollution you create is directly proportional to the amount of gasoline you use. If you burn 10 litres in a Civic, you might go farther than if you burn 10 litres in an Escalade... but ultimately you've burned 10 litres of gas either way, and created a corresponding amount of pollution.

Ever notice how people are all in favor of the environment right up to the part where their own lifestyle might be affected?

-kimmy

[I miss Reagan]

I've got a better idea then possably punishing tradesmen and the like that need a pick-up or even those that just want an SUV. Instead of raising taxes on the purchase of these cars/trucks/SUVs and/or that of Gas, let's stay with the status quo.

Now where my idea is different, instead of forcing a negative change on people, let's instead bring forth a possable positive choice. Let's offer zero sales tax on the purchase of "green vehicles", tax rebates for companies that purchase "green fleets", all government fleets to be green and allow green vehicles to drive in the HOV lanes without restrictions.

This here is the difference between the liberal's and conservative's mentality. The lib's solution to every problem is to tax and punish the wealthy for working hard, and appease the complainers by throwing money at them. The right would rather provide a positive incentive for people to change.

[Big Blue Machine]

Kimmy,

You don't need to fill up as much when you are in a civic.

[Slavik44]

Kimmy,

You don't need to fill up as much when you are in a civic.

I belive that was mentioned it was said you coudl go farther in a civic on 10 litres of gas but in the end you have used 10 litres of gas.

[caesar]

Quote; "The right would rather provide a positive incentive for people to change. "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do they intend to do that; it seems by turning the middle income working class into minimum wage earners.

[caesar]

Big Blue; The gas mileage is not as important as how much you use your car. I have a SUV and use less than $40 per month; others that have a civic use it constantly and use more than my $40 per month; hence they add more pollution.

[Big Blue Machine]

But do you guys like my idea of taking the PST off all hybrid and economy cars?

[Cartman]

As long as the hybrid truly gets excellent mileage, why why not? I have not really been impressed with many of them. I would like the gov't to go even further and offer non-refundable tax credits for those who own environmentally friendlier cars. I drive a little car and I try to drive it as little as possible.

[Big Blue Machine]

We should also give tax credits for regular transit users

[Big Blue Machine]

What do you think of that?