40th Canadian Federal Election - Welcome to another Conservative Minority (whee!)

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

According to Statscan, in 2005, 81% of Canada's population lived in urban centres. For most employees in urban environments, it is possible to walk/bike or take public transit to work. Your completely unsubstantiated claim that "NO one would be able to go to work because it would cost WAY to much" is a total fallacy.

Furthermore, if gas prices increased to the point that commuters were discouraged from driving, demand for public transit would increase which would in turn lead to better/expanded infrastructure being built.

Statistics are often disconnected to the real world. How is this so called "Urban centre" defined? Even within the major cities there are commutes that would not be feasible if done with our crappy transit system.

As for your theory on demand for public transit = better product, THAT is the total fallacy. What makes you think our city politicians will suddenly rush everything through without a hitch after 20 years in the making to build one freakin' leg of LRT, and I'm sure Calgary is not the only city with such an inefficient city council.

Even assuming they did catch up to the Euros and Asian standards for transit, who is going to pay in the end? The taxpayer. Now you have ANOTHER TAX on top of the carbon tax on top of all the other taxes you are already paying. (Yes you still pay the carbon tax even if you don't drive, it would just show up in your bus pass and everything you eat and buy).

Tax Tax Tax, it's the Liberal way, The Man always sticking his hand in the hard working middle-class Canadians' pockets to subsidize the ones too lazy to take control of their own lives, because the social safety net will always be there for them.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

So what. How was that sudy done?

According to the link, the data was retreived from the 2001 census.

good for the 100,000 that live down town and can walk to work and there distance is 5 meters to work, what about the 100,000 that drive to work every day?

Most have the option to take public transit, they just choose not to as they find driving to be more desirable. Higher gas costs would provide a disincentive to driving and transit use would increase. Increased demand for transfit would also necessitate the City funding it better and expanding service in areas where it needs improvement.

The people that live in airdrie, okotoks, chestermere? What about the 50 mins travel time that cost money while your car idles?

What about them? They made a lifestyle choice to move outside of city limits but work in the city. Part of that lifestyle includes a longer commute and less access to public transit. Anyone who chooses to live in those areas was surely aware of this reality when they moved there.

[MarchHare]

Even assuming they did catch up to the Euros and Asian standards for transit, who is going to pay in the end? The taxpayer. Now you have ANOTHER TAX on top of the carbon tax on top of all the other taxes you are already paying. (Yes you still pay the carbon tax even if you don't drive, it would just show up in your bus pass and everything you eat and buy).

I have absolutely no hard data to back up this point, so take it with the appropriate grain of salt.

Even if taxes were increased to offset improved public transit, I suspect many people would end up with more money in their pockets thanks to savings on driving-related items like gas, maintenance, repairs, etc. Many might also be able to rid themselves of a vehicle completely, leading to further savings because they no longer have car payments or insurance bills.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Higher gas costs would provide a disincentive to driving and transit use would increase.

How much higher are we talking? Gas is still pretty cheap when you compare it to vehicle costs. Way less than half of my yearly vehicle ownership costs or less than 2% of my total annual spending is used on gas. In reality if the price of gas doubled I would drive just as much. I would still drive to the mountains every weekend and I would still drive to the mall when I need to shop.

Lets look at some numbers... If the average city driver in Calgary is only driving 8km/day he's only spending about $2/day in an SUV or $1/day in a Civic on gas. (based on 400km/tank city @ $100 tank in the SUV and $50 tank in the Civic) Now staying in Calgary lets consider that parking is $25 a day. So as it stands the SUV driver pays $27 a day and the Civic driver pays $26 a day. If the price of gas were to double that SUV driver would pay $29 a day and the Civic driver $27 a day. Do you honestly think this is enough to move people away form driving?

[MarchHare]

Also, many people who own SUVs have kids and need room for more than themselves and groceries.

Emphasis added.

I call BS. Unless off-roading is your hobby (which isn't the case for the vast majority of SUV owners), nobody needs an SUV.

My parents never had the need to own a large vehicle when my sister and I were kids. The biggest car they ever had was a Ford Taurus, and that had plenty of room to lug me and a couple friends to the rink with all of our hockey gear.

[Ronald Pagan]

Even assuming they did catch up to the Euros and Asian standards for transit, who is going to pay in the end? The taxpayer. Now you have ANOTHER TAX on top of the carbon tax on top of all the other taxes you are already paying. (Yes you still pay the carbon tax even if you don't drive, it would just show up in your bus pass and everything you eat and buy).

That's the point of a carbon tax or pricing carbon emissions through a cap and trade (both policies achieve essentially the same results if designed with similar parameters). The point that you aren't understanding is that your consumption of fossil fuels has social and environmental costs that aren't reflected in the price. Therefore goods that are more or less carbon intensive will be priced accordingly to reflect those social and environmental costs. Goods shipped from far away with have a higher carbon intensity and therefore we should place price signals on those goods to reduce their consumption. The great thing about carbon taxes or carbon pricing is that it follows the equi-marginal principle in that no one individual is being forced to stop consuming anything but the net aggregate emissions reductions will be achieved more efficiently than a simple regulation against carbon emitting behaviour or goods.

If you really like dragon fruit from Vietnam then you can still go ahead and buy it with a higher price thanks to the carbon tax. You or others will make tax payments savings (and thus carbon emissions reductions) on other goods you consume.

Tax Tax Tax, it's the Liberal way, The Man always sticking his hand in the hard working middle-class Canadians' pockets to subsidize the ones too lazy to take control of their own lives, because the social safety net will always be there for them.

The Man? Liberal? middle-class Canadians subsidizing lazy people? What the hell does this ideological blather have to do with the discussion at hand?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by kevman

How much higher are we talking? Gas is still pretty cheap when you compare it to vehicle costs. Way less than half of my yearly vehicle ownership costs or less than 2% of my total annual spending is used on gas. In reality if the price of gas doubled I would drive just as much. I would still drive to the mountains every weekend and I would still drive to the mall when I need to shop.

Lets look at some numbers... If the average city driver in Calgary is only driving 8km/day he's only spending about $2/day in an SUV or $1/day in a Civic on gas. (based on 400km/tank city @ $100 tank in the SUV and $50 tank in the Civic) Now staying in Calgary lets consider that parking is $25 a day. So as it stands the SUV driver pays $27 a day and the Civic driver pays $26 a day. If the price of gas were to double that SUV driver would pay $29 a day and the Civic driver $27 a day. Do you honestly think this is enough to move people away form driving?

I'm not sure what the magic number is that would cause many people to abandon their cars, but no doubt someone has done a study on that.

As I'm sure you're aware, when gas was around the $1.50/L mark earlier this summer, there was a measurable decline in North American fuel consumption. To my knowledge, this is the first time when the price of gas has actually had an impact on driving habits in NA.

[FFR]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Emphasis added.

I call BS. Unless off-roading is your hobby (which isn't the case for the vast majority of SUV owners), nobody needs an SUV.

My parents never had the need to own a large vehicle when my sister and I were kids. The biggest car they ever had was a Ford Taurus, and that had plenty of room to lug me and a couple friends to the rink with all of our hockey gear.

When you have a large family you do. I have 3 brothers. So there were four of us growing up. No way would we ever go anywhere in a family sedan. Can you imagine sitting 3 across - front and back - to go everywhere? It wouldn't work. You would'nt be able to take vacations as you wouldn't have enough room for luggage.

As soon as there were four kids, we bought a Safari van (eight seater - used to be a cargo van). There was no way you could make a family sedan work with a 6 person family. Especially when we all became teenagers.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Emphasis added.

I call BS. Unless off-roading is your hobby (which isn't the case for the vast majority of SUV owners), nobody needs an SUV.

My parents never had the need to own a large vehicle when my sister and I were kids. The biggest car they ever had was a Ford Taurus, and that had plenty of room to lug me and a couple friends to the rink with all of our hockey gear.

But what is your definition of an SUV? Honda CRVs and Ford Escapes are SUVs, yet they are built on a car chassis, and are similar in fuel economy. Don't forget, to a European, a Ford Taurus is quite a large vehicle, probably unnecessarily large.

Also, what FFR said.

[Ronald Pagan]

When you have a large family you do. I have 3 brothers. So there were four of us growing up. No way would we ever go anywhere in a family sedan. Can you imagine sitting 3 across - front and back - to go everywhere? It wouldn't work. You would'nt be able to take vacations as you wouldn't have enough room for luggage.

As soon as there were four kids, we bought a Safari van (eight seater - used to be a cargo van). There was no way you could make a family sedan work with a 6 person family. Especially when we all became teenagers.

Yep carbon taxes will disproportionately affect larger families for some of the reasons you list. That's why the tax plans implemented in BC and proposed by the Liberals offer tax credits for families. The Liberal plan gives an universal $325 per child credit. That should more than offset the carbon tax payments from owning a car capable of carrying those kinds around.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by FFR

When you have a large family you do. I have 3 brothers. So there were four of us growing up. No way would we ever go anywhere in a family sedan. Can you imagine sitting 3 across - front and back - to go everywhere? It wouldn't work. You would'nt be able to take vacations as you wouldn't have enough room for luggage.

As soon as there were four kids, we bought a Safari van (eight seater - used to be a cargo van). There was no way you could make a family sedan work with a 6 person family. Especially when we all became teenagers.

How do you think families back in the 50s and 60s got around? This was a time when SUVs and minivans didn't exist and families were much larger (it was quite common for parents to have five or more children). My dad grew up in a family of six kids (four boys, two girls), they only owned one vehicle, and it certainly wasn't an SUV or van. Granted, cars were bigger in those days, but they didn't have three rows of seating like vans and many SUVs do today.

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by Slava

I have no doubt if the roles were reversed that the Liberals would be roundly chastised for the exact same policies.

In Dion, for all his other faults, you have a candidate who actually talks about the issues. He puts out plans for discussion. Case in point: The Green Shift. Sure not everyone agrees that this policy is the way to go, but what exactly do the conservatives plan to do to reduce our impact on the environment?

This is my take and it's in no way representing anybody else's views, Conservative, Liberal, or otherwise...

If the Liberals were the ones cutting enough taxes and the Conservatives were pushing this idiot carbon tax I'd be gladly voting Liberal.

The Conservatives' plan is to not do stupid things that would tank the country's economy further than the global crisis did already, ie by implementing something as fundamentally idiotic as the Green Shift. They are encouraging savings and investments for all with the TFSA, they've cut enough taxes with a minority gov't to keep a pulse in this country's economy amidst the shat-show going on around the world today.

Canada as a country has a population density so low that we generate a minuscule amount of any form of pollution in the world, not just GHG. Here is this high & mighty out-of-touch French professor, telling the me I need to be taxed more so he can look good building up the surplus and spend it on his friends' golf courses, while telling everyone he's doing something to improve the environment? How exactly are you going to make an impact, even if you had all the tax dollars in the world, when your carbon footprint is equivalent to a teaspoon of sand in a beach?

I'd sooner vote for Jack Layton before I give Dion my vote. At least Jack is too clueless to sugarcoat his tax-me-to-death agenda with the environment, he just wants me to subsidize his social programs spending.

</rant>

Feel free to flame away, I will return to read later tonight.

[FFR]

While the theory is good, it still doesn't add up. So they give familes $325 per child. Say that helps cover extra costs associated with owning a large vehicle. It will not cover extra costs associated with owning a larger house to accomodate the family (higher heating costs), or the increase in costs of food (as they need to buy more than the "average family", or the increase in costs of clothing (even the cost of clothes will go up becuase they have to be shipped from somehwere) etc. etc.

Yes, having a large family is a lifestyle choice, and definitely takes some sacrifices and you go into it knowing it will cost more money. But with the carbon tax, large families will be affected more than smaller families and the $325 credit isn't going to cover all the affected costs. Neither are income tax cuts, especially considering a lot of people with larger families are lower or high end incomes who either don't pay income tax or won't be affected by tax cuts.

[edn88]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

1. NPD minority - The Liberals and Conservatives have both had their shots and neither has done particularly well. Time to give the NDP a shot. Maybe they can repair some of our ailing social programs and health care system.

2. Liberal minority - The Conservatives have not impressed me. Time the pendulum swings back a bit.

3. Conservative minority - Don't want a Conservative government but if we have to have one, definitely needs to be a minority. If the Conservatives get a majority, you will see the social conservatives come out of the woodwork.

1. Ask our fine neighbors in BC how giving the NDP a chance worked out for them? If Jack Leyton were handed the reins of our government, I would seriously have to consider moving to a different country.
2. The pendulum has not been over the PC world long enough for the pendulum to even think about swinging back to a the Liberal party
3. Perhaps it is time to see a Conservative MAJORITY to see how well they can do without their hands tied.

[FFR]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How do you think families back in the 50s and 60s got around? This was a time when SUVs and minivans didn't exist and families were much larger (it was quite common for parents to have five or more children). My dad grew up in a family of six kids (four boys, two girls), they only owned one vehicle, and it certainly wasn't an SUV or van. Granted, cars were bigger in those days, but they didn't have three rows of seating like vans and many SUVs do today.

I think life in the 50's and 60's was INCREDIBLY different from life today and you can't even begin to make that comparison. Size of cities was smaller (therefore transportation to work was shorter and may not have even required a car), cost of living was different, societal expectations were different (almost all families in that time were large families), laws were different. IIRC, my mom (who grew up in a family of 8 children) would travel in one car (as your dad) and they would shove them all in there. None of them had seatbelts. They all just squished in and travelled to where they were going. That's not allowed now. It's a completly different society and I'm not sure exactly how you can make that comparison.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How do you think families back in the 50s and 60s got around? This was a time when SUVs and minivans didn't exist and families were much larger (it was quite common for parents to have five or more children). My dad grew up in a family of six kids (four boys, two girls), they only owned one vehicle, and it certainly wasn't an SUV or van. Granted, cars were bigger in those days, but they didn't have three rows of seating like vans and many SUVs do today.

Are you sure about that? The average station wagon was the size of a small tank, and many had a third row of seating in the trunk area, typically facing the back... at least my buddy's 1980 Caprice wagon did, and that was considered standard. Most larger cars pre 1985 could seat 6 men, and the wagons could seat up to 9. Maybe some older posters have some more info.

Minivans and SUVs are the new station wagon.

[peter12]

How to people seriously talk about an NDP government seriously? Regardless of the fact it would be an absolute disaster, the most they can achieve is <18% of the vote. Not even half of majority territory.

Hilarious idealists.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

In Dion, for all his other faults, you have a candidate who actually talks about the issues. He puts out plans for discussion. Case in point: The Green Shift. Sure not everyone agrees that this policy is the way to go, but what exactly do the conservatives plan to do to reduce our impact on the environment?

I think the thing there is they don't and that's exactly the brand they are trying to implicitly advertise to voters who are shamed into silence by the new environmentalism. They are the party for the person who isn't willing to reduce their standard of living so we can be an idealistic nation while the rest of the world's inaction renders our sacrifices useless. Quite frankly I'm not willing to freeze in the winter waiting for a bus so China can build more coal-fired generators with the permission of the UN because "It's up to the G8 to lead by example to get the ball rolling."

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I think the thing there is they don't and that's exactly the brand they are trying to implicitly advertise to voters who are shamed into silence by the new environmentalism. They are the party for the person who isn't willing to reduce their standard of living so we can be an idealistic nation while the rest of the world's inaction renders our sacrifices useless. Quite frankly I'm not willing to freeze in the winter waiting for a bus so China can build more coal-fired generators with the permission of the UN because "It's up to the G8 to lead by example to get the ball rolling."

Agreed.

Re: Cost of driving: Taking transit to work for me would add at least 1.5hours to my day, which at the hourly rate I bill at is $60 more than offsets the cost of gas. I would much rather my time be spent at home than on a bus then a train then a bus.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that there are a lot of conservative supporters who aren't willing to live by the rules that they advocate for the liberals. The fact is that Harper is purely looking to buy votes. He has spent $9 billion dollars in the weeks leading up to the election. Now he is cutting the taxes on diesel, which adds more to that figure. To top it all off he was running a razor thin line between deficit and surplus at the beginning of the year!

Most of that was already budgeted and is NOT new spending.