[RUEZ]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Doesn't need nor want. Vancouver is a black hole.

Well we wouldn't have the Canucks without Vancouver so it serves it's purpose.

[Gunnair]

RUEZ RUEZ:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Doesn't need nor want. Vancouver is a black hole.

Well we wouldn't have the Canucks without Vancouver so it serves it's purpose.

Not good enough...

[OnTheIce]

Bruce_E_T Bruce_E_T:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

[
You're criticize places in Toronto that bring tourism and jobs to Ontario....Tax dollars to Ontario.

People don't come to Ontario to spend money in butt-fuck-nowhere, they come to major urban areas and drop tons of money.

Be happy that major urban areas all over Canada help support small-town Canada because your tax dollars certainly aren't enough!

Excuse me. I live in Waterloo Region west of Toronto. We have a Toyota plant, lots of manufacturing, food processing plants, Insurance companies, 2 Universities, 1 Community College plus solid High Tech companies. We can take care of ourselves.

You seem a little confused. Toronto stays afloat on tourist dollars, not everyone.

I wouldn't consider Waterloo small-town Ontario (considering it's a "City"), so I wouldn't get your panties in a bunch and assume I'm talking about where you live.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I don't give a fuck about that.

I'm speaking specifically about his insinuation about single people in trucks are just there for commuting.

$1:

It's just ridiculous how many huge V8-engined pick-ups I see here in Edmonton with only one passenger driving to and from work.

And I'll stand behind my assertion - many Edmontonians with pick-ups do use them to commute to and from work. I can't speak for Calgary because I don't live there, but I'd wager they have the same mentality there we have here. All it takes is a glance around the parking lot at work to prove it. Same goes for the commute too - lots of pick-ups with a single passenger driving down 97st into downtown.

Anecdotally, I know half a dozen people (most single, though the married ones own a car for the spouse too) with pick-ups who drive them because they look cool, they have a big engine, or because they are up high and feel safer than a car. Not one of them really needs a truck, they just want one. And not one of my friend's pick-ups has a hitch for towing a trailer, like Lemmy does.

[bootlegga]

Lemmy Lemmy:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Yeah, under my 'idea', farmers and rural folk who actually need a truck wouldn't pay a penny extra. Same goes for contractors, businesses, etc. The extra fees would come from those who just WANT a pick-up (or any gas guzzling V-8) to drive around town in, not those who need a pick-up.

How do you define "need"? I don't "need" my Tundra every day, nor as part of my job, per se. But I need it when I want to go up north fishing. I need it when I want to move my boat trailer. I need it when I have to make a trip to the dump. I need it to get to work in bad weather 'cause I live in the sticks an hour from campus.

Distinguishing between work, farm and pleasure vehicles is already an abused system. The guy in town here that owns the multi-million dollar feed mill drives a $100K Escalade with farm plates on it. Yeah, that's a farm vehicle alright.

A carbon tax needs to have as broad an incidence as possible to be effective. If we're going to go that route, there should be no exemptions. You use more carbon, you pay more tax. Period.

I'd probably classify your truck as want, not need. Sure you might need it some days, but I'm sure a more fuel efficient vehicle would probably suffice most of those days (depending on how big your boat is I guess).

And it's not like you still couldn't have it - it's just that when you renew your registration, it'd cost more than someone's car or minivan would.

As I said, BC already has a carbon tax, they don't need two - but maybe that's just me.

[Unsound]

I'm pretty much with Boots on this one. Lot's of people with trucks who don't really need them.

Looking at an F150 myself. Don't really need it, but I like it.

And honestly, the supercrew cab has more room for the family than my SUV does. That's actually why I looked at one in the first place, friend of mine showed me how easily a car seat fits in his. In the Jeep I can't sit in front of the rear facing seat. Just no room. In the F150 it's no problem. We could even have another kid if we wanted.

That said, I could go for a station wagon or a mini-van if space was my only criterea. I just want the truck because it's cool, and I would be prepared to pay a bit extra for that.

I do see problems with the practicality of determining who is or isn't eligible for a rate based on "needing" the truck. Could cost more in bureaucracy than it's worth to monitor that people aren't cheating. That's why I'd honestly rather see a slight increase in gas taxes if neccesary. It's the fairest way to ensure that those who drive the most, in the most inefficient vehicles, pay the most.

As for people who need these vehicles, I believe there are already mechanisms in place to either claim fuel on your taxes, or to get reimbursed by your employer.

[Gunnair]

bootlegga bootlegga:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I don't give a fuck about that.

I'm speaking specifically about his insinuation about single people in trucks are just there for commuting.

$1:

It's just ridiculous how many huge V8-engined pick-ups I see here in Edmonton with only one passenger driving to and from work.

And I'll stand behind my assertion - many Edmontonians with pick-ups do use them to commute to and from work. I can't speak for Calgary because I don't live there, but I'd wager they have the same mentality there we have here. All it takes is a glance around the parking lot at work to prove it. Same goes for the commute too - lots of pick-ups with a single passenger driving down 97st into downtown.

Anecdotally, I know half a dozen people (most single, though the married ones own a car for the spouse too) with pick-ups who drive them because they look cool, they have a big engine, or because they are up high and feel safer than a car. Not one of them really needs a truck, they just want one. And not one of my friend's pick-ups has a hitch for towing a trailer, like Lemmy does.

Walk around the parking lot of the base here and you'll see a ton of trucks - all used for commuting. We're a two vehicle family (car and truck) but we've planned our life to ensure that only one of us has to drive (I can ride my bike or walk) Those that buy the house out in the burbs with the 30 - 45 min commute so that they can have a bigger place or some acreage and choose to then commute in their F250 or jacked up Ram increase the demand on a resource that is growing scarce.

Frankly, I hate high gas prices, but there doesn't seem to be much that lures drivers out of their vehicles or drivers into vehicles that are better on a scarce resource as well as the environment than high gas prices. So jack 'em up until the Hummers and Rams are set aside as work/rec vehicles.

Or, quit you bitching and enjoy paying for your lifestyle choice.

[Gunnair]

Unsound Unsound:

I'm pretty much with Boots on this one. Lot's of people with trucks who don't really need them.

Looking at an F150 myself. Don't really need it, but I like it.

And honestly, the supercrew cab has more room for the family than my SUV does. That's actually why I looked at one in the first place, friend of mine showed me how easily a car seat fits in his. In the Jeep I can't sit in front of the rear facing seat. Just no room. In the F150 it's no problem. We could even have another kid if we wanted.

That said, I could go for a station wagon or a mini-van if space was my only criterea. I just want the truck because it's cool, and I would be prepared to pay a bit extra for that.

I do see problems with the practicality of determining who is or isn't eligible for a rate based on "needing" the truck. Could cost more in bureaucracy than it's worth to monitor that people aren't cheating. That's why I'd honestly rather see a slight increase in gas taxes if neccesary. It's the fairest way to ensure that those who drive the most, in the most inefficient vehicles, pay the most.

As for people who need these vehicles, I believe there are already mechanisms in place to either claim fuel on your taxes, or to get reimbursed by your employer.

Frankly, I like my truck because it's cool as well. I could get a decent SUV that's better on gas that can pull a trailer for yard waste or an RV trailer. I chose not to and I therefore make careful choices of when I use it. That's why my 3 years old Tundra just cracked 12,000 km.

[OnTheIce]

Unsound Unsound:

I'm pretty much with Boots on this one. Lot's of people with trucks who don't really need them.

Looking at an F150 myself. Don't really need it, but I like it.

And honestly, the supercrew cab has more room for the family than my SUV does. That's actually why I looked at one in the first place, friend of mine showed me how easily a car seat fits in his. In the Jeep I can't sit in front of the rear facing seat. Just no room. In the F150 it's no problem. We could even have another kid if we wanted.

That said, I could go for a station wagon or a mini-van if space was my only criterea. I just want the truck because it's cool, and I would be prepared to pay a bit extra for that.

I do see problems with the practicality of determining who is or isn't eligible for a rate based on "needing" the truck. Could cost more in bureaucracy than it's worth to monitor that people aren't cheating. That's why I'd honestly rather see a slight increase in gas taxes if neccesary. It's the fairest way to ensure that those who drive the most, in the most inefficient vehicles, pay the most.

As for people who need these vehicles, I believe there are already mechanisms in place to either claim fuel on your taxes, or to get reimbursed by your employer.

Nobody needs anything beyond the basics. Enough room for you and your family.

People don't "need" a Mustang, Porsche or any sports car anymore than they need a truck....but at least the truck is more practical.

[SprCForr]

Whew, so my Impala is OK then.

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

As I said, BC already has a carbon tax, they don't need two - but maybe that's just me.

I'm not sure if they want that tax to apply to all of BC, or just to the area served by Translink. Also, the BC carbon tax just goes into general revenue, and the mayors would want something dedicated to Translink. I think a regional gas tax is the way to go. Translink also funds roads, so it's the drivers who use them paying for them. Plus, transit benefits drivers, so they should kick in a piece there too.

[eureka]

SprCForr SprCForr:

Whew, so my Impala is OK then.

If it is 2006 or later or, preferably, the new six cylinder.

[herbie]

One of the most annoying things driving to Vancouver for a visit is travelling a thousand klicks of potholed two lane highway (too busy to safely pass most of the time) and seeing THOUSANDS of workers employed on a SkyTrain project, freeway to Whistler or new Port Mann bridge.
The road to Prince Rupert, which is supposed to be a super port is a freaking joke, and the gov't idiots spend dick shit on improvements. When they do, it's 1500m of passing lane blasted out of solid rock (as expensive as they can make it to 'prove' it's a bad investment) and then you're back to 30 kms of absolutely flat two lane road with 10,000 semis or tourist campers coming at you so you can't pass again.
What's the big news in PG? A whole $14 million in 'improvements' on Hwy16. Some resurfacing and tree cutting.... near Endako. Mining and logging trucks are chewing the shit out of our highways here to keep the shitheads in the Mainland going.

[andyt]

herbie herbie:

One of the most annoying things driving to Vancouver for a visit is travelling a thousand klicks of potholed two lane highway (too busy to safely pass most of the time) and seeing THOUSANDS of workers employed on a SkyTrain project, freeway to Whistler or new Port Mann bridge.
The road to Prince Rupert, which is supposed to be a super port is a freaking joke, and the gov't idiots spend dick shit on improvements. When they do, it's 1500m of passing lane blasted out of solid rock (as expensive as they can make it to 'prove' it's a bad investment) and then you're back to 30 kms of absolutely flat two lane road with 10,000 semis or tourist campers coming at you so you can't pass again.
What's the big news in PG? A whole $14 million in 'improvements' on Hwy16. Some resurfacing and tree cutting.... near Endako. Mining and logging trucks are chewing the shit out of our highways here to keep the shitheads in the Mainland going.

The Port Mann is supposed to pay for itself over its lifetime with tolls. But now the people who would use that bridge are asking why they're the only ones who have to pay. Why not toll the Sea to Sky Highway, used primarily by tourists? That was a boondoggle by Campbell for the Olympics, thinking they would keep him in power for ever. YOu all in the hinterland paid contributed towards the Olympics, so thanks for sending the money. But, we are also paying, just a bullshit scheme.

Skytrain is definitely necessary, and is in part funded by the feds. If you all in the hinterland don't want to pay for those things, figure out a way to get the govt to quit importing people into Vancouver by the boatload. This used to be a nice little city.

[SprCForr]

eureka eureka:

SprCForr SprCForr:

Whew, so my Impala is OK then.

If it is 2006 or later or, preferably, the new six cylinder.

It most certainly is not. I prefer reuse to replace.