5 ms·
Half of the US population lives paycheck to paycheck and they need cars. I'm not sure their minimum wage can afford them carbon taxes.
by akomtu 6y ago
Half of the US population lives paycheck to paycheck and they need cars. I'm not sure their minimum wage can afford them carbon taxes.
- wayanon 6y agoIt’s weird because I associate car ownership with wealth! I’m in my 40s in London in the UK earning an ok salary and neither me nor many of many friends have a car.
- 5etho 6y agoyet in rular Poland, only rich people (or disabled, elderly, wihout driver license, who have no other choice) can live comfortably without car
- philk10 6y agoLondon has the Tube and buses and bike lanes - try living in the US without a car... ( ex-pat Brit now in the US)
- theshrike79 6y agoIn the US people may be homeless, but they'll still have a car. It's THAT essential to living...
- holtalanm 6y agowhere I live, having reliable transportation (i.e. owning a car) is pretty much a job requirement wherever you work. a lot of people don't exactly understand just how _sprawling_ the US is.
- throwaway1777 6y agoOutside of the big cities in England almost everyone has a car too. Most of the US is like that.
- akomtu 6y agoI don't know much about London, but in the US the arrangement is that expensive cities provide work and hoards of minimum wage workers live in exurbs 1-2 hours away from those cities. They have to wake up at 6 am, spend an hour or more in atrocious traffic on a highway with other minimum wage workers, then do the same in the reverse at the end of the day. On a bus it would take 2x longer. They don't have a choice. Now if you force them to swap their rusty gas cars for ev ones (beware, 3k usd for them is a massive expense) and force them to spend 1 hour a day recharging those ev cars, the US economy would stall as the wealthy hipsters in the cities won't do the service jobs.
- theshrike79 6y agoJust one point of contention here: You don't "spend" time recharging an EV unless your one-way trip is longer than the maximum range. You get where you're going, plug in and come back to more power than you had before you left.
- zip1234 6y agoOr we could just allow construction of more housing in cities?
- rswail 6y agoMaybe provide a fleet of clean, well run, electric, regular scheduled, buses and they won't have to sit in the traffic in their individual cars. Provide bus depots with car parking in the exurbs so that there is the possibility of short driving commutes to/from the depot. Use smaller, much more frequent, shuttle buses to pickup/drop off "on demand" between houses and those hub depots, then they don't need the car to get there.
- dojomouse 6y agoDo what Canada does; add a carbon tax and distribute the proceeds. This is generally a progressive tax scheme so low income people end up with MORE money.
- bananabreakfast 6y agoNot sure that matters when their house is burning down in the much more common forest fires or flooding due to more extreme storms.
- DoreenMichele 6y agoThe optimal solution for that is better city and regional planning so waitresses and the like can find low cost housing near work and for it to be generally viable to make life work without a car.
- akomtu 6y agoThese kind of suggestions prompt a snarky response. Imagine an emergency meeting to discuss the leaking co2 problem in a 200 story tower we live in. Everybody knows that the source of the leak is the old plumbing and rusty electrical wiring. Suddenly, someone shows up in the midst of the discussion and presents a solution: we just need to replace plumbing and wiring.
- DoreenMichele 6y agoIt's a little more like saying: Everybody knows the source of the leak is old plumbing and the root cause is an old handbook effectively denying residents the right to repair. Let's update the handbook so that residents can do some repairs.
- nawitus 6y agoPoorer countries in Europe tax fuel more. If you raise fuel tax, people will find ways to buy less fuel. Generally this means more efficient (often smaller) cars, and perhaps prioritizing living more near to jobs etc. The main problem is that fuel tax should be increased slowly so people can change their consumption accordingly.
- UnpossibleJim 6y agoThe difference is, even the poorer countries in Europe have a better bus and train system than the majority of America. Now, granted, America is much larger so I hate these comparisons. Many European countries are the size of an American state, but compare any US state and the bus and train system will almost certainly pale in comparison. I'm all for a fuel tax, but I'm also a huge proponent for a decent alternative to the single car transport system that America is so very reliant upon. People talk about biking, but being able to bike to a decent and available transit station would be a dream come true to a huge swath of the American population. /end rant
- alkonaut 6y agoSo change fuel/carbon taxes not just slow enough for people to adapt but for infrastructure to adapt.
- martinald 6y agoThis isn't really true. My experience in Europe is that cities over 500k population generally have decent public transit systems that you can use all the time. Below 100k population they are likely terrible, infrequent and not enough routes (there are exceptions, but it is rare). In between 100k and 500k it's a coin flip whether they are good or bad. Regardless it is definitely not the case that people drive less in Europe because they are taking public transit way more - EU and US basically have the same modal share - maybe !0% more people taking transit that driving, but not really a huge difference. What is very different is the length and distance of commutes in the US. The average american drives 3-4x more distance than the average european, so fuel taxes can be 3-4x higher in Europe than US and the consumer pays the same. This is really a result of the inefficient urban design many places in the US have, with huge sprawl leading to enormous commutes. This is a much harder thing to fix (and it also precludes better transit systems due the very low population density).
- IdiocyInAction 6y agoThe US is far richer than Europe, with an average GDP per capita of over 10000$ higher than most western European countries. Alabama is about as rich as Germany, for instance. So if Europe can do it, then the US could easily do it.
- greedo 6y agoIt would be more accurate to say that Alabama residents are about as rich as Germans per capita. Germany's overall GDP is roughly 16x as large as Alabama.
- dtwest 6y agoOverall GDP isn't a measure of richness. Luxembourg is richer than India, it doesn't matter that India's overall GDP is higher.
- stefan_ 6y agoA lot of these people live paycheck to paycheck because they throw a large chunk of it at an oversized car loan.
- Pxtl 6y agoCanada uses a revenue neutral system where effectively all the money goes into a big pot and then is divvied up evenly, so it doesn't impact COL. The math says the majority of Canadians, particularly the working poor, come out ahead. As the program grows, the payout check is switching to quarterly (up till now it was annual on your tax rebate)
- _ph_ 6y agoThese kind of changes have to be gradually phased in so that people and economy can adjust. Be it raised wages, living closer to work, using other means of transportation or just more economic cars. The actual fuel costs paid per kilometer driven are probably less for the average european car than for a truck in the US, as the average european car uses so much less fuel.
- cycomanic 6y agoThis argument is being brought up every time someone talks about any (especially environmental) fix that would cost money. By now I believe there is a certain part of the political spectrum in the US who need the poor just to make these arguments, because otherwise maybe someone would've done something about the issue. Ironically the ones who shout loudest about the poor people who can't afford these measures, are also the ones with the strongest resistance to fixing the huge economic disparities in the US.