3 ms·

And the irony here is that you're complaining about taxing the poor while living in an affluent suburb. Unless you still live with your parents, you chose to li

And the irony here is that you're complaining about taxing the poor while living in an affluent suburb. Unless you still live with your parents, you chose to live in a part of the city with expensive housing and no public transportation. Move to Franklinton and you'll have buses and scooters and no need to own a car. Most of my neighbors have cars but they don't use them most days. I bike to the gym and all of downtown. I do take my car grocery shopping (carry bags on bus or scooter sucks) and to work (when I go) but that's it. I enjoy cars but I avoid driving out of obligation. The lifestyle you chose is car-centric but you chose it, and I think that's a very important detail.

ericmay 4y ago
> And the irony here is that you're complaining about taxing the poor while living in an affluent suburb. I'm not sure how this is ironic. Maybe you mean how poor voters tend to vote against their own self-interest? > The lifestyle you chose is car-centric but you chose it, and I think that's a very important detail. We're moving to GV next month specifically to move away from this lifestyle and we only have one car that we share. Economic freedom dictates what decisions you make at different points in time. FWIW you can criticize something that you yourself are doing, especially when you are fighting against all societal incentives at the same time. A trivial example is an overweight physician suggesting that you need to lose weight. If we're still talking Columbus, almost all incentives for housing are geared only toward a car-centric lifestyle. I'm not going to criticize people for choosing that. I am going to raise awareness that continuing to push those incentives is a bad idea and highlight the continued unnecessary costs for doing so.