# Green Vehicle or Gas Guzzler?



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Hi everyone,

Well, this is interesting news from the Budget report today:



> Changes for the environment
> 
> 
> A performance-based rebate program will offer up to $2,000 for the purchase of a new fuel-efficient or efficient alternative-fuel vehicle.
> ...


I think it is about time that people got rebates like the above for buying into a fuel efficient vehicle or alternative fuel vehicles. Right now, the only kind of rebate is for the alternative fuel vehicles I believe.

Even better is, people who buy into SUVs could be paying up to $4000 levy when buying a new SUV.

I just finished watching the blurb on the 11:00pm news where they had Toyota saying that they are happy as they continue to increase their sales in the fuel efficient market of their vehicles year to year. Where as Chrysler and the others are scared that this new tax levy on SUVs will put a lot of workers out of work, because the big 3 car makers in North America have not paid attention to the environment and continue to make and build heavy gas guzzlers over the years and continue to do so. This is where they are making the money right now, where as companies like Toyota have a great start into the business of fuel efficient vehicles and are looking good. 

Maybe this will be the wake up call to the big 3 automobile car makers in North America? To start caring for the environment and stop making so many huge gas guzzler vehicles and concentrate on helping out the planet a little more.

What is your input? What do you think of the new tax levy on SUVs and other gas guzzlers vehicles? Is it fair? Do you agree? Should people who drive fuel efficient vehicles receive even more then $2000 rebate?


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

I haven't had the opportunity to review the budget. What about folks who purchase alternative fuel/fuel efficient SUVs? I'll be in the market later this year.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I don't see why the government should be punishing those that buy SUVs - Having a petrol guzzling vehicle, they already pay more taxes at the pump given consumption....

Good luck finding a decent vehicle that qualifies....


> Fuel-efficient cars will get a rebate, while a green levy will be slapped onto inefficient vehicles, payable by the manufacturer or importer.
> 
> That means a car that uses 5.5 litres or less for each 100 kilometres will gain a $2,000 rebate, while a car that uses 16 litres or more per 100 kilometres will pay a $4,000 levy.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070319.wbudgetmainstory19/BNStory/Front/home


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Probably wont apply to commercial vehs. or full size pickups and vans.

I agree with AS as far as the "taxed at the pump" assertion.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Toyota Yaris uses 5.5L/100km on the highway. I think most subcompacts, some compacts, and I think I even saw a few midsizes officially creep the highway gasoline usage under the magic 6L/100km mark.

I do agree with the levy though, and I think that for those who really want SUVs, a $4,000 levy is not going to be a deterrent. Keep in mind there are small SUVs that won't get dinged. Toyota has their gas guzlling Sequoia and FJ Cruiser but they don't seem worried.

On a side note, Ford and Chevy both have subcompacts in Europe and Asia, why not bring them over to Canada?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacGYVER said:


> What is your input? What do you think of the new tax levy on SUVs and other gas guzzlers vehicles? Is it fair? Do you agree? Should people who drive fuel efficient vehicles receive even more then $2000 rebate?


Given the politics, "feebates" are an ok approach, combined with tightening efficiency standards. They are also split into two vehicle classes (cars and minivans/suvs/trucks) , so a relatively more efficient SUV can still get credit. This is not unusual for such programs.

Taxing the fuel is much better because that takes into account driving habits (SUVs don't emit anything on their own). So this tax hits car-poolers that occasionally drive in inefficient cars, but rewards aggressive solo drivers that drive a lot in efficient cars. I hope one of the other parties stands up for the better option.

Info on the program:
http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc3e.html#fuel-efficient


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Good luck finding a decent vehicle that qualifies....


exactement

5.5 l / 100 km?
not many of those in the showroom


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I was surprised to see them exclude pick up trucks. In Alberta that means they have excluded 90% of the vehicles on the road.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Sinc,

I'm suprised you're suprised. Many pickups are used for work-related use. Plus, it would next to impossible (at this point in time) to create a full-size truck that gets 100km/5.5L. I have a pick up and use it as a pick up, they can be a neccessary evil.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Sinc,
> 
> I'm suprised you're suprised. Many pickups are used for work-related use. Plus, it would next to impossible (at this point in time) to create a full-size truck that gets 100km/5.5L. I have a pick up and use it as a pick up, they can be a neccessary evil.


Then I guess you would be surprised to know that about 75% of young guys and girls out here drive pickups and judging by the number of them on our crescent alone with no business names on the door, your theory that most are used for work is flawed. Out here they are used to "drive to work" and nothing more.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

I've been trying to find out more details regarding how this is going to be implimented and I can't seem to find anything.

Personally I think this a good start. Clearly things could have gone a lot further. I didn't think the Conservatives had it in them to even go this far, so in this regards they have exceeded my expectations.

Ontario already has a tax credit for Hybrid and alternative fuel cars. There are lots of options available. Toyota, Honda, Ford, Lexus all have Hybrid vehicles, I understand that Nissan also has one coming out soon as well. In addition most manufacturers also have high efficiency vehicles that qualify (ie. Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, VW TDI, Hyundai Accent, Kia Rio, Smart, etc...)

Seriously, what was Chrysler thinking with their all Hemi line up. 

Since I just purchased a Honda Civic Hybrid I of course want to know the details of this incentive.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Here is a link to the fuel efficient rebates, there are a few suv's on there:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environment/ecotransport/ecoauto.htm


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Thanks... figures. If I could have waited a month I could have got another $2000 rebate on my car. Oh well.

FYI between the Ontraio Tax incentive and the Federal rebate that is close to $4000 off the price of a Hybrid vehicle. Price is no longer the excuse to not buy that type of vehicle (pardon the double negative).

Now where is that Hybrid mini van?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Someone mentioned this AM it does not apply to used vehicles and so creates an incentive to buy those.

Exempting pickups is a joke - there is no reason for that - commercial vehicles can be written off anyways 
Japan and Europe have many superb efficient commerical vehicles. This is just a loop hole for the weekend yahoos.

The auto industry has always got a free ride in this category on the fuel standards.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Now where is that Hybrid mini van?


Have a soft spot for hockey mom's? 

I heard reaction yesterday on the radio, the biggest complaint was "how am I going to get the kids to hockey practice" if I could only smack people through the radio.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Exempting pickups is a joke


I didn't understand this either, I thought of maybe the farmers, but I guess they can write it off too. This really isn't a deterent to those who adore their 5th wheels. 

I wonder if they brought back the el camino if it would be exempt, viva el camino!


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Ah ha! Found the Green Levy list:

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc3e.html#levy


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There are lots of us that need a larger vehicle for biz, transporting kids etc but have little choice in "green". There are many that car pool kids and people around.
There are no high tech diesels yet and no hybrids.
The Escape is a joke for space. ( most SUVs are a joke for space compared to a MiniVan )
The Saturn Vue might be an alternative but not sure I trust a GM Hybrid early on.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> I didn't understand this either, I thought of maybe the farmers, but I guess they can write it off too. This really isn't a deterent to those who adore their 5th wheels.
> 
> I wonder if they brought back the el camino if it would be exempt, viva el camino!


Because currently pick-up trucks are classified in the same category as big trucks. There has always been issues around this, especially when it came to safety standards as compared to cars. I guess the auto industry wanted it that way. In Ontario, if you buy a pick-up, the dealer will place commercial plates on it vs. auto plates. You then have to get a little sticker for your plate to indicate it's used for personal use and not as a commercial vehicle, otherwise you need periodic inspections and are subject to other MOT rules just like a tractor trailer would.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Um the caravan gets 12 L per 100/km so there is no levy on it, I'm sure there are others too.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Bastards!!!...
I'm not on the list for my Derbi 150 scooter,
I don't take delivery of it until later this month too.

Dave tptptptp


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Sinc, I meant to exlude Alberta. 8) That's truck country; how could you have it any other way. If they imposed a tax on trucks they'd be lookin' at a coup des tate (sp?). That be a good way to bankrupt business' as well as Ford, GM, Dodge.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The "light trucks" have been a loophole for emissions and for fleet mileage for years.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

kind of sux I have 1 Mini that gets 5.2L/100kms thats better fuel mileage than the Toyota Yaris but I won't be able to get a rebate if I buy another Mini, the fact that the car is over 30 years old and I've had it tested and it passed with flying colours according to the guy who tested it he said that the car was actually cleaner than allot of cars that he had seen with fuel injection.

Laterz


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Hummer owners will be sad to learn the time for going from zero to 60 cannot be calculated for their vehicles. 

It seems that before the Hummer can get up to speed, it has to stop for gas.


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

I'm glad to see them bring this in but wish they'd extended it to trucks as well. Give a way out for trucks registered to a business or farm (not hobby farm) but tax the rest as there's a huge number being used in cities as cars not 'work'. Most minivans should be ok as they're not that bad on fuel...and are usually a better fit then an SUV anyway for a typical family if you get past the 'soccer mum' mentality.

Also when they speak of fuel efficiency are they talking highway or city or some combination?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Andrew Pratt said:


> Also when they speak of fuel efficiency are they talking highway or city or some combination?


They average the two out, I believe it is a 55/45% split.

I agree trucks should have been hit too, so many people compensating for their short commings with a hemi. But for farms and construction, they make sense, not so much with the urban lifestyle.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Like I said earlier, the number of trucks in Alberta that are not used in farming, ranching or business runs very high. About 40% is my guess and they should not be excluded for the gas hogs they are.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

See earlier point, imposing a tax on trucks; even to non-busniess related use would ruin Ford, GM, Chev. Toyoto would take a hit, I don't see those trucks used in contruction, landscaping, etc. Honda does not make a truck; that's right they don't; the Ridgeline is a unibody 2007 El Camino which is El Crappo.

Yes Hummers are pigs for sure. So we're clear as well... the H2 and H3 are not Hummers. One is a Silverado, the other Colorado. There is only one Hummer! The AMC General!

...man, am I ever in a cranky tear today...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> See earlier point, imposing a tax on trucks; even to non-busniess related use would ruin Ford, GM, Chev. Toyoto would take a hit, I don't see those trucks used in contruction, landscaping, etc. Honda does not make a truck; that's right they don't; the Ridgeline is a unibody 2007 El Camino which is El Crappo.
> 
> Yes Hummers are pigs for sure. So we're clear as well... the H2 and H3 are not Hummers. One is a Silverado, the other Colorado. There is only one Hummer! The AMC General!
> 
> ...man, am I ever in a cranky tear today...


What do you call this if it is not a truck?

http://automobiles.honda.com/models/model_overview.asp?ModelName=Ridgeline

Like I said, 40% of trucks in Alberta (by my estimate) are used as simple transportation and nothing more. The policy would in no way ruin those manufacturers as trucks used for business would be exempt.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Car manufacturers are complaining that the Toyota Yaris gets an unfair advantage... who's fault is it if Toyota stuck with a fuel efficient 1.5L engine while the other manufacturers went on a HP war?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

dona83 said:


> Car manufacturers are complaining that the Toyota Yaris gets an unfair advantage... who's fault is it if Toyota stuck with a fuel efficient 1.5L engine while the other manufacturers went on a HP war?


I know of one complaint about the Honda Fit, there is like a .1 L difference between the Yaris and the Fit, which I think is a little anal to exclude the Fit because of this. And from what I hear the Fit is a better overall choice for a car.

It's all splitting hairs anyway, depending on the driver and how the car is driven can alter fuel consumption to a point where they would or would not qualify for the rebate. The small cars are also a fan favourite for modding which would also affect its consumption.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

EPA figures are already 22% lower than test situations (16 km of stop and go with speeds no higher than 45km/h for city mileage figures, 16 km of 70km/h consistent driving for highway mileage figures). Driving at 105km/h I normally exceed highway EPA estimates by 10%. In the city (90% city streets 10% freeway), I normally land smack dab between city and highway mileage during when I don't do jackrabbit starts, etc.

Toyota tuned their Yaris for fuel economy unlike Honda which tuned the Fit to be a fun more spirited car to drive. The Fit's design is 6 years old, I think the Yaris is a better car. According to my calcs, doesn't the Corolla qualify for the rebate too?


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

You are showing a Honda site; of course they are going to say it's a truck...a truck has bed rails. You take the box off that thing and it will fall apart. That pile of garbage is an oversized El Camino.

From Wikipedia: SUT also stands for Sport Utility Truck, basically an SUV with a truck bed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> You are showing a Honda site; of course they are going to say it's a truck...a truck has bed rails. You take the box off that thing and it will fall apart. That pile of garbage is an oversized El Camino.
> 
> From Wikipedia: SUT also stands for Sport Utility Truck, basically an SUV with a truck bed.


Ah yeah, Wiki.

I should have known. Real reliable, that source.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> CAW president says government's 'Green' vehicle incentives hurt domestic automakers and Canadian workers


http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/070322-1.htm

I'm surprised Buzz is going after the government when it should be the manufacturers that should be answering why they are incapable of building a fuel efficient 4 cyl engine. GM, Ford, Chrysler spent years building inefficient 6 and 8 cyl engines and in the 80's they should have seen the writing on the wall when companies like Honda and Toyota started to invest huge amounts of money on fuel efficient 4 cyl engines. Yeah I feel bad for the thousand of workers that are about to loose there jobs but blaming the government is not the answer at least not in this case.

Laterz


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

We all know the big threes main problem is not the cars they build but the unions that build them.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> We all know the big threes main problem is not the cars they build but the unions that build them.


The union may have had their part in the 80's, however at this point poor planning and abysmal market consumer research are the reason the big three are getting hammered by imports not the unions.


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> There is only one Hummer! The AMC General!


Make that "AM General"... nothing to do with the manufacturer of the legendary Pacer and Gremlin 

They stopped making them in 2006 and even then, there aren't enough H1s on the road to be a factor.

FWIW, I agree with your assessment of the Ridgeline as well...


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Sinc 80) I knew someone was gonna mention Wiki...some doctor probably wrote it.

AM General, thanks...keep slidin' the "c" in there; those were kill'r cars.

I didn't know they stopped makin' them. I hoped to buy one some day.

As far as solutions; I think the rebate should applied but not the levy. The rebate will help even things out.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Some interestings statistics from Transport Canada



> TRANSPORTATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT
> 
> In 2003, 25.7 per cent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Canada came from the transportation sector: 74 per cent from road transportation, four per cent from domestic aviation, three per cent from rail and three per cent from marine. Off-road and pipelines accounted for the remaining 16 per cent of total transportation-related GHG emissions.
> Between 1990 and 2003, GHG emissions from on-road passenger travel increased by roughly 14 per cent; from on-road freight transport activity, they increased by 60 per cent. The passenger and freight transport activities over the same period increased by 23 and 120 per cent, respectively. This indicates that activity levels and GHG emissions had not tracked each other.
> ...


SOURCE:
Annual Report 2005 --Highlights


----------



## teknokracy (Apr 8, 2003)

Levies on cars that are using a lot of gas makes sense in a certain way. Vehicles that use more gas arent necessarily more inefficient, they just inherently use more gas. There should be a rebate to encourage people to buy cars that use less gas, but not a punishment for buying a large vehicle - some people do need large vehicles for their work! Not every contractor can drive around in a Hyundai. I personally think that there are other measures to enact instead of gouging us even more on our already expensive vehicle purchase prices. If they are in fact going to levy this money on new car purchases, let's see that money applied towards a gas discount for everyone. A few cents per litre will make a huge difference in peoples minds - they will pay less for gas but pay more in the end if they are buying a large vehicle.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Teknokracy:

Any vehicle that uses more gas then normal is inefficient to begin with. Do we all need 87 L tanks to drive across town and back or to hop into the soccer mom mobile and drop the kids off around the corner to school? I don't think so, a much smaller vehicle with a much smaller tank could be used instead. Or have we forgot to learn how to walk?

Lets look at how we as humans use our vehicles. We Canadians are so freaking spoiled when it comes to driving our vehicles, we no longer walk to the corner store, or walk a few feet to the public school around the corner to drop our kids or actually go to school. Everyone drives their vehicle no matter how close or how far their destination is. It is out of hand here in Canada and we depend too much on our vehicles when we could be using other modes of transportation or our own feet at times. 

Do most people need a Hummer to drive to the corner store? Or drop off their kids at school and go home again? Nope! Some people actually have a Hummer just for those needs and nothing else. I live in the Golden Triangle of Southern Ontario, which is home to RIM. I see more Hummers and gigantic SUV guzzlers being driven by employees who work at RIM just for the fun of it. They are not using them as one might think. This area is rich with wealth which also means expensive huge ass SUVs or fancy sport cars that eat gasoline like it is coming out of the tap. You look at the people who live within 2-5km from RIM for example, hardly anyone car pools to work, they all drive their fancy gas guzzlers to work, filling up a lot of parking lots scattered all over the RIM area and beyond. When you visit some of these newer housing areas, you will see a lot of Hummers, Escalades, fancy sport cars etc.... in the drive ways. Lets face it, people love their vehicles and don't care about gas or pollution. Most people in this area could care less about the gas prices, they don't mind one bit paying $120 to fill up or maybe $80 - $100 when it comes to their SUVs. Now if you lived in Toronto, that would be a different story, as Toronto's gas prices are always lower then ours here in the Golden Triangle cities. We pay quite a bit more. For example last week we were paying 106.9/L Toronto was still at 100.0/L and when they increased it, it went to 104.9, by the end of the week in Toronto it had dropped back towards 100.0/L while here in K-W area it stayed at 106.9, then this week it slowly dropped to 104.9

Now lets look at all those "single driver" SUVs and other gas guzzlers who head out onto the 401 to Toronto each and every morning/day/night to work and back from the Golden Triangle area. That is a lot of useless pollution each day on our highways when there are other ways of getting to Toronto. Car pooling really hasn't taken off, as I rarely see a vehicle full with 4 passengers or even 2 for that matter when travelling on the 401 each day. We have a train system in place, and the price is now down to $17 each way per person, but that is too costly and doesn't make sense for a person to pay if they travelled every day to work to Toronto. Too bad the government or corporations couldn't figure out a cheaper method of payment to take the train/bus etc... instead of driving on the 401 to Toronto from this area. I know I would do it in a heart beat, if the cost was driven down to the point where it was even for the average cost of fuel per week to drive back and forth.

I look at a city like Vancouver, and they have the Sky Train system, which does extend well out over an hour ride to some places outside of Vancouver city and into the sub urbs. The cost is not astronomical to take it from the sub urbs and is quite fast at up to 80km/hr down the track. You basically pay the same fare like riding on a transit bus or buy a monthly pass like most people do here when using public transport. It is not the same concept like the TTC in Toronto, the Sky Train is actually faster and more efficient all around. Once again, I'm surprised the Ontario government can't come up with a better way to utilize our awesome railway system that is in place from some of the cities or areas like the Golden Triangle area to Toronto and back.

I guess for now, taxing the big users and giving breaks to the little guy makes sense for now, but how long will that last and how effective will it be in the long run? For anyone who travels the 401 from K-W to Toronto on a daily basis, it is virtually a 3 lane bumper to bumper full of vehicles all the way down in the morning, that gives you an idea of how much traffic uses the 401 to get to work. In the evening forget about it, you're stuck in traffic jams that don't move for quite some time. Then when you get into K-W and off the 401, you're stuck again and not moving along highway 8. But, we are always surrounded by huge SUVs all over the 401 all day, it seems to be the life of most Canadians to own the biggest baddest vehicle possible and make sure to be the first to run it off the road in the winter .

I blame the big 3 car companies in North America who think they need to invest in helping us pollute more, by building ridiculous huge vehicles that we don't need on our roads. Meanwhile Asia and parts of Europe are changing their ways and making more efficient vehicles each year. It is a step forward, more so then our big 3 right here in our own country. Too bad the environment wasn't a priority when they designed the latest gas guzzlers eh?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

> According to the 2004 Canadian Vehicle Survey, there are 17.7 million (in scope) light vehicles (i.e. gross weight less than 4,500 kilograms) in Canada. This includes 10.1 million passenger cars and station wagons, 2.8 million vehicles listed as vans, 3.4 million pickup trucks and 1.7 million sport utility vehicles (SUVs).


I guess that 1.7 million SUVs must all be on the 401... at the same time. 



> Vans, SUVs and light trucks accounted for 45 per cent of vehicle-kilometres in 2004. They were driven on average more than cars and station wagons (17,000 versus 15,300 kilometres) and had a marginally higher vehicle occupancy ratio (1.75 persons) compared with 1.57 for cars and station wagons.


Must be soccer moms.

Source: Transport Canada


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

teknokracy said:


> some people do need large vehicles for their work!


Then they would be claiming it on their taxes anyway. If a contractor needs room then a truck, which has no levy, would be the better choice anyway. The money they save from not having to pay a levy can go towards a cap for the truck. Unless they are constantly carrying around 4+ passengers and not tools.

I know several people with larger vehicals and I don't understand the mentality that they "need" the room just in case. The times you "need" the room for moving, or your trip to Ikea, the money saved on a smaller car can go towards renting a cargo van for those times they "need" the room.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Size of gas tank is indeirectly irrelevant to gas mileage. A Yaris with a 200 litre tank would only slighty use more gas (due to weight). A truck with a 10 litre tank would burn almost as much gas too; just have to fill up more.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGYVER said:


> Once again, I'm surprised the Ontario government can't come up with a better way to utilize our awesome railway system that is in place from some of the cities or areas like the Golden Triangle area to Toronto and back.


I have to violently agree with this statement. It is a crime that Go Service doesn't extend into Niagara or further up towards Barrie.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> I have to violently agree with this statement. It is a crime that Go Service doesn't extend into Niagara or further up towards Barrie.


Bingo!!!:clap: 

Where do they think everyone is coming from?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Why are they there?? is the better.....and addressable question.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Me personally, my Stoney Creek condo cost my wife and I 3 years ago $163K, the same compairable in Oakville or Mississauga would have been $300K+. For a first time home buyer this makes a big difference. As well, there are other reasons, maybe big city life isn't for all of us, but we have to go where the jobs are.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

It's going to be interesting to see what happens to the big car and SUV industry,
If this gas guzzling tax deters too many people from buying bigger cars then we
may end up being a used car and new pickup truck society.

Dave


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm not sure the carrot stick alone will do it - high fuel prices will be needed as well.

••

JJ


> Me personally, my Stoney Creek condo cost my wife and I 3 years ago $163K, the same compairable in Oakville or Mississauga would have been $300K+. For a first time home buyer this makes a big difference


Exactly why my post on the problem with spiralling land prices being so destructive. 

I suspect this might start to occur here.



> Mar 23 2007
> *'Generation rent' opts for lifestyle over home ownership*
> (The Irish Times Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)
> 
> ...


http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/03/23/2438294.htm

With density concerns almost mandatory now - I suspect this aspect will be more prevalent as single dwellings are replaced with multiple units.

I see Paris has adopted my transaction fee idea I'd like to see for Toronto.



> You may be rather surprised at the extra +/- 8% on the purchase price that you have to pay to the Notaire. Only a small portion of this goes to the Notaire for his fee.* The bulk of the rest is a one time state property purchase tax.*
> 
> *The consolation is that thereafter, the annual property tax is a relatively low sum, usually only a few hundred euros.*


 :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> I see Paris has adopted my transaction fee idea I'd like to see for Toronto.


I hope you were paid an appropriate consultant's fee for coming up with this.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I wouldn't suggest anyone rent if they can afford to buy. We just made $40K on the sale of our house, in just 2.5 years. We basically lived for free, plus we're paying off our student loans early. I think buying a house is the best investment you can make, renting is just flushing money down the toilet. 

Not sure what the renting market is like over in Ireland but if you have ever rented here you usually have to sign a 1 year lease. So being able to pick up and move isn't always easy as they try and make it sound. Access to cultural and entertainment outlets? You can find that in any city. And have you ever tried to get your landlord to fix something? Again not as easy as it sounds.

Of course neither is buying a house, there are a lot of hidden costs. But if I had to do it over again 3 years ago I would have made the same decision.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> I wouldn't suggest anyone rent if they can afford to buy. We just made $40K on the sale of our house, in just 2.5 years. We basically lived for free, plus we're paying off our student loans early. I think buying a house is the best investment you can make, renting is just flushing money down the toilet.


This is one reason why I think owning a house is still a cool thing, not to mention potentially a very wise investment. If you can make money on the sale of your house, why not? If your asking price is simply meeting current market conditions and you were wise (or fortunate enough) to get into the market at an optimum time, the strategic sale of a house can be a true economic springboard for its owners... you can scale up to a larger place, or invest your windfall elsewhere... pay off accumulated debt, set up a college fund for the kiddies... do any number of things. How often do most of us realize such large sums in one lump? The only other instances I can think of is winning a lottery ticket prize or gaining a sizable inheritance from the death of a loved one.

I am only sorry I didn't get into the market far sooner than I eventually did.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

And what if you had lost $40k?? Do you really think it always goes up??
I have memories of several associates who ended with mortages twice the size of the value of the property.

Things may not always be as good as they appear on the ownership end from a societal aspect as well. There is good evidence we can end up feudal serfs in thrall to our own land unable to move to where the jobs are.



> The Renter's Manifesto: Why home ownership causes unemployment.
> By Tim Harford
> Posted Saturday, March 17, 2007, at 12:09 AM ET


 interesting observation.

http://www.slate.com/id/2161834/

http://www.newstatesman.com/199906280006

Strange and unexpected to me only 1/3 of Swiss own their houses yet unemployment is low and the economy robust.

One wonders how much of our crisscrossing the GTA and traffic congestion is due to being bound to ownership??
Maybe the renter kids have the right of it.

Is the gas use issue being addressed from the wrong end. Maybe increased labour mobiity incentives would reduce miles travelled to work.
Of course higher mileage standards on their own is no bad thing.



> Automakers fear tougher fuel standard
> 
> *Tories are considering efficiency plan that would be stricter than U.S. rules*
> Mar 06, 2007 04:30 AM
> ...


 :clap:

http://www.thestar.com/article/188536


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

That is the chance you take, choose where and what you invest in wisely, case and point income trusts. You also lose $40K in less than 4 years renting, if the market is bad, you don't really need to sell. 

And US housing market is a lot different than ours here in Canada, i.e. ours is booming, theres is not. Sure the bubble may burst at some point, but the doom and gloomers have been saying that for years.

Again, Switzerland is what an eighth the size of Canada, housing isn't seeing the same amount of growth as it is here. Canada has room to grow, and it is going to happen.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

What JJ said.

MD, you never cease to amaze me - please point out where I said that those who purchase homes are impervious to treacherous dips in the economy or crashes in the real estate market. I did however talk about strategies and wisdom. If that's enough for you to springboard into another feverish link-fest, so be it... LOL.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Getting back on track...somewhat.

Hey Max, I think there are times when Macdoc could power this car:

http://www.gizmag.com/go/7000/










Pickup version:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.canadamortgage.com/calculators/rentvsown.cgi

Calculator for renting versus owning.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

kps said:


> Pickup version:


Kps, put me down for the pickup version... I could use a handy city commuter like that. We were out running errands today and checked out the interior of a Smart from very close-up... danged if it ain't fairly spacious for such a bug of a car. I would seriously consider this baby as a second vehicle, or something like the ones you linked to - small footprint for parking and easy on fuel consumption.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> What JJ said.
> 
> MD, you never cease to amaze me - please point out where I said that those who purchase homes are impervious to treacherous dips in the economy or crashes in the real estate market. I did however talk about strategies and wisdom. If that's enough for you to springboard into another feverish link-fest, so be it... LOL.


We bought our house in 1988 for $95,700.00. It's a 1,160 sq. foot bi-level on a double lot with an attached double and detached single garage and our mortgage payment is $738/month with a balance of $22,000 or so, gone in under three more years.

I had it appraised last week.

$432,000.00. 

Tell me again about a bad investment MacDoc?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MD would rather read your lament that you had lost a several thousand dollars so that he could puff up his chest in affirmation that he was right to warn us all of impending doom for home owners.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

does that golf cart with a box come with a skirt...I thought this was a Canadian site; looks like some are trying to convert this to ehMac.fr.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

My partner was lamenting that it seemed that the choice of cars for the incentives was "odd"... Seems Diamond Jim is picky...


> Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's department made a last-minute change to the budget that allows cars built at the General Motors plant next to his riding to qualify for federal climate-change incentives even though environmentalists say the cars are gas guzzlers.
> 
> The two six-cylinder vehicles, the Chevrolet Impala and the Monte Carlo, are produced at the GM plant in Oshawa, a riding narrowly won by the Conservatives in the past two elections. The plant is minutes away from Mr. Flaherty's riding of Whitby-Oshawa, where the local economy is closely linked to the GM plant, with many residents employed at GM or in spin-off jobs tied to the plant.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070324.wxethanol24/BNStory/National/home


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Max, here's the full lineup of the "air" cars. I'm impressed with the technology (compressed air), but it would be interesting to see how it would perform in cold climates.

http://www.theaircar.com/models.html


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Cool stuff - thanks for the link, kps. We're going to see some real innovation in cars over the next ten years. We're certainly going to need it.

Funny how all of those cars share many of the same characteristics - weight, max carrying weight, recharge time, etc. I guess it's still very much in the theory stage and they don't have much in the way of operating prototypes. The smallest one looks cool but I wonder how comfortable it would be to drive for the taller people among us... I'm roughly 6' 2" and I have concerns about legroom. But I'm told by a 6' 4" friend who test drove a Smart that it's surprisingly comfortable, so who knows...


----------

