Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [carfree_cities] Re: Climate change: And still they slept on....

Expand Messages
  • mtneuman@juno.com
    On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:47:19 -0700 Philip Riggs ... An example of how the plan would work is provided as follows: A person voluntarily enrolls in the program
    Message 1 of 28 , Mar 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:47:19 -0700 Philip Riggs
      <priggs@...> writes:

      > By rebate, I assume it would work by having to file some paperwork
      > at the end of the year to collect, just as to claim a rebate for a
      > commercial purchase requires sending the UPC from the box, copy of
      > receipt, etc.

      An example of how the plan would work is provided as follows:

      A person voluntarily enrolls in the program by having the odometer of his
      vehicle read and recorded. After a year goes by, the person has the
      odometer read again, and if the odometer shows less than 6,000 miles for
      the preceding year, the person received a $400 check. If the odometer(s)
      shows less than 4,000 miles, the person receives $800. If the odometer(s)
      shows less that 2,000 miles, he receives a check for $1,200.

      The amounts paid per mileage threshold could be set higher, or lower,
      based on the overall transportation budget level and the desired results.
      A $30 application fee to enroll in the program would cover any
      administration cost associated with the program.

      The idea is not that different than what many insurance companies have
      done for years, which is to charge lower premiums to policy holders if
      they drive a their vehicles less than 7,500 miles a year. The difference
      here is that it would apply to all the vehicles registered to the
      household, not just a single vehicle, and the rewards would be higher.
      (The amounts paid per mileage threshold could be set higher, or lower,
      based on the overall transportation budget level and the desired
      results.)

      The simplicity and low cost of administering this concept is attested to
      by the insurance industry itself.
      http://www.centspermilenow.org/odometer.htm

      The plan would encourage people to choose locations for living that are
      closer to where they work, shop, and play, rather than choosing their
      residences at considerable distance from where they normally need to be,
      as is presently the case for many people who commute long distances to
      work.

      > Not a good idea. It burdens individuals who are not
      > the
      > problem. Additionally, people who would most benefit would equate
      > rebate with additional work and reject it.

      I've been paying the minimum rate to insure my vehicles for years by
      claiming the low annual mileage stipulation. It's not a high promotional
      item for American Family Insurance, because it doesn't bring in as much
      money in premiums, but people who know about (like me) don't reject,
      provided they choose not to drive much over the year.
      >
      > I agree with with the approach using taxes that put the burden of
      > not
      > only paying for oil use, but also the burden of associated paperwork
      >
      > (translate: time to do themselves, or money to pay someone else).
      > Moreover, there should be lots and lots of additional burdens that
      > should require personal attention (time and effort) from the
      > individual rather than only a financial burden that the wealthiest
      > can easily pay or hire someone else to perform.

      There would be no reason to hire anyone to do this. It'd be as simple as
      renewing your vehicle license every year. It'd be even easier if you
      didn't own or lease a vehicle at all. All you'd need to do is complete
      the one-page application form.


      > How revenues are used and distributed would be up to the government,
      >
      > just as "sin" taxes or any other taxes are now.

      That's the way fuel taxes are dispersed now. The government determines
      which highway and bridge projects get fund. The tax revenues go to the
      road building industry, to lay more concrete for more highway driving.
      That's a sin tax if there ever was one. The rest of your arguments don't
      apply to this proposal at all. The only ones who would benefit
      financially would be those individuals and families who drove less, or
      not at all during the year. But the benefits of reduced driving levels
      everywhere in the jurisdiction that chose to implement this would be
      immense in terms of public health, reduced public cost and the
      environment.

      > Education, as well as other social services, would be included in
      general revenues as long
      >
      > as a Bush type isn't in office to use it for a tax break based on
      > income or personal friendship. Thus the Bush rebate plan! "Give the
      >
      > money back to the ones who contributed the most."
      >
      > So I say forget rebates, increase cost and burden of use and keep
      > the
      > money for social services.

      Mike Neuman


      "But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call
      themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but
      at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of
      government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward
      obtaining it."
      - Henry David Thoreau
    • J.H. Crawford
      Hi All, Ok, this topic really is OVER. It isn t even about carfree cities. Yes, rebates might be made to work with a bureaucracy the size of, say, social
      Message 2 of 28 , Apr 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi All,

        Ok, this topic really is OVER. It isn't even about carfree cities.

        Yes, rebates might be made to work with a bureaucracy the
        size of, say, social security and lots of people doing
        enforcement (odometer cheating), and some way to figure
        out how to give the $2000 check to people who actually
        don't have a car (and some way to verify that they're
        not cheating, say sub-cutaneous RFID devices for everyone),
        and etc., etc., etc.

        Oh, and by the way, where does all the rebate money come from?
        Borrowed from the Chinese, I suppose.

        If you do a carbon tax, it really is simple to administer.
        Just tax at the well-head or whatever. No carbon in your
        energy? No tax. The tax money can be used for anything,
        even including paying back the Chinese.

        Regards,

        Joel


        >On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:47:19 -0700 Philip Riggs
        ><priggs@...> writes:
        >
        >> By rebate, I assume it would work by having to file some paperwork
        >> at the end of the year to collect, just as to claim a rebate for a
        >> commercial purchase requires sending the UPC from the box, copy of
        >> receipt, etc.
        >
        >An example of how the plan would work is provided as follows:
        >
        >A person voluntarily enrolls in the program by having the odometer of his
        >vehicle read and recorded. After a year goes by, the person has the
        >odometer read again, and if the odometer shows less than 6,000 miles for
        >the preceding year, the person received a $400 check. If the odometer(s)
        >shows less than 4,000 miles, the person receives $800. If the odometer(s)
        >shows less that 2,000 miles, he receives a check for $1,200.
        >
        >The amounts paid per mileage threshold could be set higher, or lower,
        >based on the overall transportation budget level and the desired results.
        > A $30 application fee to enroll in the program would cover any
        >administration cost associated with the program.
        >
        >The idea is not that different than what many insurance companies have
        >done for years, which is to charge lower premiums to policy holders if
        >they drive a their vehicles less than 7,500 miles a year. The difference
        >here is that it would apply to all the vehicles registered to the
        >household, not just a single vehicle, and the rewards would be higher.
        >(The amounts paid per mileage threshold could be set higher, or lower,
        >based on the overall transportation budget level and the desired
        >results.)
        >
        >The simplicity and low cost of administering this concept is attested to
        >by the insurance industry itself.
        >http://www.centspermilenow.org/odometer.htm
        >
        >The plan would encourage people to choose locations for living that are
        >closer to where they work, shop, and play, rather than choosing their
        >residences at considerable distance from where they normally need to be,
        >as is presently the case for many people who commute long distances to
        >work.
        >
        >> Not a good idea. It burdens individuals who are not
        >> the
        >> problem. Additionally, people who would most benefit would equate
        >> rebate with additional work and reject it.
        >
        >I've been paying the minimum rate to insure my vehicles for years by
        >claiming the low annual mileage stipulation. It's not a high promotional
        >item for American Family Insurance, because it doesn't bring in as much
        >money in premiums, but people who know about (like me) don't reject,
        >provided they choose not to drive much over the year.
        >>
        >> I agree with with the approach using taxes that put the burden of
        >> not
        >> only paying for oil use, but also the burden of associated paperwork
        >>
        >> (translate: time to do themselves, or money to pay someone else).
        >> Moreover, there should be lots and lots of additional burdens that
        >> should require personal attention (time and effort) from the
        >> individual rather than only a financial burden that the wealthiest
        >> can easily pay or hire someone else to perform.
        >
        >There would be no reason to hire anyone to do this. It'd be as simple as
        >renewing your vehicle license every year. It'd be even easier if you
        >didn't own or lease a vehicle at all. All you'd need to do is complete
        >the one-page application form.
        >
        >
        >> How revenues are used and distributed would be up to the government,
        >>
        >> just as "sin" taxes or any other taxes are now.
        >
        >That's the way fuel taxes are dispersed now. The government determines
        >which highway and bridge projects get fund. The tax revenues go to the
        >road building industry, to lay more concrete for more highway driving.
        >That's a sin tax if there ever was one. The rest of your arguments don't
        >apply to this proposal at all. The only ones who would benefit
        >financially would be those individuals and families who drove less, or
        >not at all during the year. But the benefits of reduced driving levels
        >everywhere in the jurisdiction that chose to implement this would be
        >immense in terms of public health, reduced public cost and the
        >environment.
        >
        >> Education, as well as other social services, would be included in
        >general revenues as long
        >>
        >> as a Bush type isn't in office to use it for a tax break based on
        >> income or personal friendship. Thus the Bush rebate plan! "Give the
        >>
        >> money back to the ones who contributed the most."
        >>
        >> So I say forget rebates, increase cost and burden of use and keep
        >> the
        >> money for social services.
        >
        >Mike Neuman
        >
        >
        >"But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call
        >themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but
        >at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of
        >government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward
        >obtaining it."
        >- Henry David Thoreau
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >


        ----- ### -----
        J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
        mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
      • Andrew Dawson
        ... Here in Montreal we have a similar thing going on with our buses. http://www.atuq.com/actualité/actualite_35.asp
        Message 3 of 28 , Apr 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Simon Baddeley wrote:
          >Car companies are astute at
          >using these methods to insinuate autodependency into the minds of the young
          >at an early age. We need ingenious ideas on school buses. As a regular
          >traveller on buses (with my folding bicycle) in Birmingham and elsewhere I
          >see ads for concessionary fares, ads against dropping litter, ads for bus
          >drivers. I would have thought some publicity for green travel such as
          >cycling would not run amiss and not be seen as competing with bus travel.
          >How about ad, congratulating passengers for choosing then greener option of
          >bus travel - showing the bus "footprint" compared to the number of cars
          >that
          >would be on the road if passengers were travelling that way.

          Here in Montreal we have a similar thing going on with our buses.
          http://www.atuq.com/actualit%ef%bf%bd/actualite_35.asp
          http://www.atuq.com/actualit%ef%bf%bd/actualite_36.asp

          Later, Andrew
        • Christopher Miller
          ... Interesting; I haven t been on a Montreal bus (as opposed to the Metro) for ages. Are they up on the buses already? One thing I think would be useful is to
          Message 4 of 28 , Apr 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            On Apr 1, 2006, at 8:21 PM, Andrew Dawson wrote:

            > Simon Baddeley wrote:
            >> Car companies are astute at
            >> using these methods to insinuate autodependency into the minds of
            >> the young
            >> at an early age. We need ingenious ideas on school buses. As a
            >> regular
            >> traveller on buses (with my folding bicycle) in Birmingham and
            >> elsewhere I
            >> see ads for concessionary fares, ads against dropping litter, ads
            >> for bus
            >> drivers. I would have thought some publicity for green travel such as
            >> cycling would not run amiss and not be seen as competing with bus
            >> travel.
            >> How about ad, congratulating passengers for choosing then greener
            >> option of
            >> bus travel - showing the bus "footprint" compared to the number of
            >> cars
            >> that
            >> would be on the road if passengers were travelling that way.
            >
            > Here in Montreal we have a similar thing going on with our buses.
            > http://www.atuq.com/actualit%c3%a9/actualite_35.asp
            > http://www.atuq.com/actualit%c3%a9/actualite_36.asp

            Interesting; I haven't been on a Montreal bus (as opposed to the
            Metro) for ages. Are they up on the buses already?
            One thing I think would be useful is to have these ads on TV and
            radio and in the papers as well (and not just the free "Metro"
            newspaper that belongs to the Swedish-owned international chain): it
            seems to me that targeting these ads only at transit users is setting
            one's sights a bit low...

            Here's a direct link to a PDF showing the ads in question, which are
            supposed to be placed in buses in the nine public transit
            corporations around Quebec:

            http://www.atuq.com/_library/images/contentImages/Visuels_regroupes.pdf

            "By taking public transit

            - Pierre and Sophie are getting rid of traffic jams
            - Jacqueline is taking care of smog
            - Pierre and Sophie are freeing up traffic
            - Lea is protecting the environment
            - John is saving the planet
            - Marie-Ange is freeing up traffic
            - Raymonde is keeping the economy rolling
            - Marc is fighting against the greenhouse effect"


            Christopher Miller
            Montreal QC Canada
          • Andrew Dawson
            ... This means money which is always in short supply when is comes to mass transit. ... It s in house. ... These things are better off on the back of a bus
            Message 5 of 28 , Apr 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Christopher Miller wrote:
              >Interesting; I haven't been on a Montreal bus (as opposed to the
              >Metro) for ages. Are they up on the buses already?
              >One thing I think would be useful is to have these ads on TV and
              >radio and in the papers

              This means money which is always in short supply when is comes to mass
              transit.

              >as well (and not just the free "Metro"
              >newspaper that belongs to the Swedish-owned international chain): it
              >seems to me that targeting these ads only at transit users is setting
              >one's sights a bit low...

              It's in house.

              >Here's a direct link to a PDF showing the ads in question, which are
              >supposed to be placed in buses in the nine public transit
              >corporations around Quebec:
              >
              >http://www.atuq.com/_library/images/contentImages/Visuels_regroupes.pdf
              >
              >"By taking public transit
              >
              >- Pierre and Sophie are getting rid of traffic jams
              >- Jacqueline is taking care of smog
              >- Pierre and Sophie are freeing up traffic
              >- Lea is protecting the environment
              >- John is saving the planet
              >- Marie-Ange is freeing up traffic
              >- Raymonde is keeping the economy rolling
              >- Marc is fighting against the greenhouse effect"

              These things are better off on the back of a bus than inside of one.

              Later, Andrew
            • Andrew Dawson
              ... On a foot note there are things like Operation Lifesaver. http://www.oli.org/ http://www.operationlifesaver.ca/ Also when it comes to promoting rail and
              Message 6 of 28 , Apr 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                >Christopher Miller wrote:
                > >Interesting; I haven't been on a Montreal bus (as opposed to the
                > >Metro) for ages. Are they up on the buses already?
                > >One thing I think would be useful is to have these ads on TV and
                > >radio and in the papers
                >
                >This means money which is always in short supply when is comes to mass
                >transit.
                >
                > >as well (and not just the free "Metro"
                > >newspaper that belongs to the Swedish-owned international chain): it
                > >seems to me that targeting these ads only at transit users is setting
                > >one's sights a bit low...
                >
                >It's in house.
                >
                > >Here's a direct link to a PDF showing the ads in question, which are
                > >supposed to be placed in buses in the nine public transit
                > >corporations around Quebec:
                > >
                > >http://www.atuq.com/_library/images/contentImages/Visuels_regroupes.pdf
                > >
                > >"By taking public transit
                > >
                > >- Pierre and Sophie are getting rid of traffic jams
                > >- Jacqueline is taking care of smog
                > >- Pierre and Sophie are freeing up traffic
                > >- Lea is protecting the environment
                > >- John is saving the planet
                > >- Marie-Ange is freeing up traffic
                > >- Raymonde is keeping the economy rolling
                > >- Marc is fighting against the greenhouse effect"
                >
                >These things are better off on the back of a bus than inside of one.

                On a foot note there are things like Operation Lifesaver.
                http://www.oli.org/
                http://www.operationlifesaver.ca/

                Also when it comes to promoting rail and the environment there hasn't been
                much out there either.
                http://www.imrcmodels.com/ho/html/45202.htm

                Later, Andrew
              • hcfdave
                ... from the ... class? No-- carbon tax money should be directed toward making fares affordable, and special programs for greatly lowered fares for people with
                Message 7 of 28 , Apr 6, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "J.H. Crawford"
                  <mailbox@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > >Where would you put all that added money once you collect it
                  from the
                  > >carbon tax?
                  >
                  > income tax reductions for the working poor and lower middle
                  class?
                  No-- carbon tax money should be directed toward making fares
                  affordable, and special programs for greatly lowered fares for
                  people with low income, people with disabilities, as well as also
                  for people who don't have drivers licenses (maybe there should
                  be a "non-driver registry" and checking system to make sure no
                  criminal motorheads rip off the system-- if that reeks too much of
                  privacy invasion, substantial penalties for those caught ripping
                  off the pubic transpo system-- for example, If someone's car
                  breaks and there happens to be a bus that can rescue them in
                  spite of this driver's direct responsibility for the demise of public
                  transpo, they should certainly pay maximum fare!)

                  Happily-Car-Free Dave
                • tokyotuds
                  ... Hi Ian, Here in Japan it is standard for employers to reimburse 100% of transit commuting costs to employees. My pass costs about US$75 a month (avg.
                  Message 8 of 28 , Apr 8, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Fiddies" <v03fiia@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Another suggestion that is in the pipeline is changing the law so that
                    > employers can give their workforce travel passes without them being taxed.
                    >

                    > Ian Fiddies
                    >

                    Hi Ian,

                    Here in Japan it is standard for employers to reimburse 100% of transit commuting costs
                    to employees. My pass costs about US$75 a month (avg. US$150 in Tokyo) and the
                    reimbursement is a non-taxable benefit for me, and is deductible on my employers
                    corporate tax. And the community suffers one less car on the road to the office.

                    A win-win-win situation....

                    I feel absolutely every tax authority should adopt this policy. Even better is to eliminate
                    the paperwork by simply making transit free to the rider as JH Crawford advocates.

                    Mata,
                    TokyoTuds
                  • Andrew Dawson
                    ... So make public transit free and pay for it all through gas taxes. Later, Andrew
                    Message 9 of 28 , Apr 9, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      tokyotuds wrote:
                      >Here in Japan it is standard for employers to reimburse 100% of transit
                      >commuting costs
                      >to employees. My pass costs about US$75 a month (avg. US$150 in Tokyo) and
                      >the
                      >reimbursement is a non-taxable benefit for me, and is deductible on my
                      >employers
                      >corporate tax. And the community suffers one less car on the road to the
                      >office.
                      >
                      >A win-win-win situation....
                      >
                      >I feel absolutely every tax authority should adopt this policy. Even
                      >better is to eliminate
                      >the paperwork by simply making transit free to the rider as JH Crawford
                      >advocates.

                      So make public transit free and pay for it all through gas taxes. Later,
                      Andrew
                    • Dan Kliman
                      ... That creates a big paradox, especially when the goal is car-free cities. In this scenerio, transit would become dependant on driving, and more
                      Message 10 of 28 , Apr 9, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- Andrew Dawson <m82a1_dawson@...> wrote:
                        > So make public transit free and pay for it all
                        > through gas taxes.

                        That creates a big paradox, especially when the goal
                        is car-free cities. In this scenerio, transit would
                        become dependant on driving, and more specifically,
                        gas consumption.

                        You would be placing transit at the mercy of the
                        perpetuation of car driving.

                        Dan
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.