You are reading a single comment by @William. and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • As M. Greenbank said, it's just incentivising lower polluting cars. Sound policy

    Dunno. I kind of feel that if the cars really are that gross (and are they any more gross than say other types of conspicuous consumption like frequent long distance air travel / super motorbikes / lambos / bitcoin etc?) they should be regulated out completely. Going nuts on the tax on them is icky. Looks like a cash grab, not a policy implementation.

    Ultimately it's not going to get folks out of cars, so I'm not sure why we'd be cheering it.

  • Dunno. I kind of feel that if the cars really are that gross (and are they any more gross than say other types of conspicuous consumption like frequent long distance air travel / super motorbikes / lambos / bitcoin etc?)

    They are more ubiquitous and cause more social harms than any of those things.

    they should be regulated out completely.

    Yup, high tax is a logical first step. If the ban is done in stages there is less impact on jobs and economy. E.g we needed to ban coal but it was done in a way that caused unnecessary hardship. If all the wankpanzer plants shut down overnight alot of jobs would be lost. If sales gradually dip companies can adjust.

    Ultimately it's not going to get folks out of cars, so I'm not sure why we'd be cheering it.

    It reduces the number of people who can afford large cars.

About

Avatar for William. @William. started