http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/budget2007/index.html

read the first 3 points under "changes for the environment"

The first two aren't so bad but that third one needs to be deleted.

 

get a tune up, move to alberta. problem solved.

 

Wonderful.

Nothing like forcing North American automakers one more step towards economic disaster, of course to the benifit of import makers. I wonder how the CAW is going to like that, when all of a sudden people don't buy hundreds of thousands of Ford trucks a year. This seems like almost a complete opposite move, any ontario governemnt should know that if you **** off the teachers or the CAW, you don't get re-elected.

 

36 million dollars..Divide that by 10..equals 3.6 million..per province..now take that and Divvy it up to all the towns and Cities..Doesn't leave alot of Money....Frankly,I'm Not Worried.Since I am getting up in the Age Category..By the Time the Fuel Shortage and the Laws Governing the Consumption of Fuel come into Effect..I, Myself will be a Fossil!..So Really I am Exempt!..haha!

 

how would moving to alberta solve this?? It's a federal budget, meaning, all of canada.

oh yeah and trucks are exempt...isn't that smart, exempt the BIGGEST gas guzzlers of them all...genius, sheer genius.

 

All a waste of time. Please! Pulling over or getting rid of a few 20yearn old cars is a joke.

How about the amount of pollution aplane emits during just take off!

How about the emissions generated to make one new car. Or how about the pollution the factorys emit.

This is all a joke. Target the real offenders. Companys.


Then target the stupid familys with 4 cars a household or the billion people that travel in one car on the 401 driving from durham region to toronto everyday.

 

What exactly is the problem with that? From what little I've heard they're going to offer money to people who want to move from an old pile into a newer vehicle. You never know, it might be financially adventageous to buy some old lump right before you want to get a new car. Imagine potentially getting rid of the shell that's left of your parts car and getting paid for it? If anyone has some specific details, post them so intelligent discussion can be had.

 

Generally and financially you are better off driving whatever you currently own than going out and buying a new vehicle.
Somewhere i heard that if you went out and bought a brand new jetta TDI you would DIE before the better fuel mileage would pay for itself.

 

Personally I like all the points, mostly.

Firstly as Dave said, 36 million is essentially enough money to make signs Nation wide......thats about it.

Secondly, anyone owning a 20+ year old car who ISN'T an enthusiast (i.e. never drives the damn thing anyway ) more than likely SHOULD have their car off the road. Trust me, I see crap-tonnes of old heaps driving around that probably emit as much C02 as any SUV out there. Not to mention that probably 80% of them will be in reality unfit for safe driving in the not to distant future.

Yes indeed.

I don't think its going to force them any closer to disaster then what they've dug themselves into over the past two decades. The gas guzzler tax will be applied across the board so even the Acura SUV that has an EPA rating in the target zone will be taxed. Its an actual incentive to produce vehicles with lower emissions....This is a very good movement I think.

I dunno where you read that but its entirely situational. If I'm driving the shop truck (98 Chevy, 350 Vortec 2500 series) and spending $100/week on fuel, then go to a new Jetta and spend $30/week on fuel to drive the same distance it won't take long to start building an excess wad in my pocket. But if you go from a sunfire to a jetta it will take a little longer. Its just math, no absoultes here.


But I think the automotive end of the new budget is actually pretty good. There's always room for improvment and there will always be comlaints.....but I'm happy with the direction things are headed.

 

I, too, don't have any problem with this.
2000$ off a fuel-efficient car... great! I heard Toyota is considering selling their Hybrid versions for the same price as the regular versions, so that would mean getting an hybrid for CHEAPER than a regular version.

A levy for more polluting vehicules, well the manufacturer will only jack up the customer's price. So, if you still want a non fuel-efficient car, well... pay for it!

And 36 mil OVER 2 years... or 18 mil a year.... it's like a penny just fell out your pocket while taking out a 1000$ bill and you didn't notice it... big loss!

 

Sounds pretty good to me too. I don't think they're talking about forcing everyone with an older car to report to the crusher, more likely a financial incentive to people with old smoking heaps to trade it on something newer and less worn out. And $36m over two years won't go far towards that anyway.
As far as taxing gas-guzzlers heavier, amen to that, way too many people are driving big trucks and SUV's to do the job a Golf or a Prius could do (ie., mainly commute to and from work, with no passengers). If people have a reason to drive the gas guzzler, like a tradesman's truck or van, they will, and the tax may even be part of their expenses and so be able to be written off. For everyone else, it might be a bit of a wake-up call; "Do I, the soccer mom, really need a quad-cab 2500 4x4 or H2 to get groceries and drop off the kids for school?" Hmm...
As far as hurting the domestics, yes it probably will impact them heavier, they've relied on high-profit, low cost trucks and SUV's to keep afloat, since for much of the last 30+ years they haven't paid enough attention to producing competitive product compared to the Europeans and Japanese. They've been more focused on marketing and margins and bottom lines, forgetting that making good cars that people want to buy makes all that other stuff a lot easier. And as far as the CAW goes, overly generous wage and benefit packages going back to at least the 70's are a big part of why the domestics are in trouble, although you'll never hear them boasting "we're the reason $2400 of the price of a new GM is going to pay benefits and buy-out packages for guys who aren't even working here anymore! I'm not anti-union, but it's hard not to notice that strong, and relatively inflexible unions that didn't recognize the game was changing have hurt the competitiveness of the domestics. Of course, there's been plenty of stupidity on both sides of the table in that regard.

 

With these get old cars off the road programs usually what happens is people turn in stuff that had been sitting in their yard not running anyway. The people daily driving old junkers still can't afford a new car with the extra incentive. Seems improved mass transit would be an overall better idea.

(says the guy who commutes to work in his 22 year old Rx-7 because he doesn't really like new cars )

 

Larger vehicles are already taxed -- they burn more gas. I'd be all for it, if all of a sudden, gas wasnt' taxed anymore. But i'm sick of all these ******* taxes, because they NEVER go away. You think if we realized a way to make gasoline in a lab for 3 cents a gallon that they'd drop a heavy vehicle tax? **** no. The goverment needs us driving gas guzzlers, smoking and drinking to stay afloat financially.

 

If you think our fuel taxes are bad, look to Europe or Japan to console yourself. As far as gas taxes go - I'm inclined to think they're probably too low - we're noticably higher than the US, but nothing close to Europe - and look at the result - Europeans drive less, use public transit more, have less urban sprawl, and drive smaller, more fuel and space efficient vehicles. Ditto for the Japanese, although they use registration and other taxes in addition to fuel levies.

Quite aside from the environmental benefits of lower per-capita fuel consumption, they do so because they have always been fuel importers (as is Canada, when it comes to gasoline - Alberta is already running dry on the light crudes suited to gasoline refining, so even though Canada is a net oil exporter, a lot of our gasoline base stocks are imported). Being dependent on foreign crude is bad economically, not only because of the economic and strategic influence over us it hands to others (think of the 1973 Arab oil embargo, for example), but because the dollars spent on foreign energy are lost to the domestic economy.

As far as taxes in general go - the government will find a way to harvest the dollars it feels it needs regardless - if everyone stopped smoking, drinking, or God forbid, driving, they'd just levy new taxes to replace the lost income. But at least I can and do choose not to smoke, drink, and other than my non-daily driven 7, I choose efficient cars.