• lepinkainen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Allow them, don’t ban.

    BUT make owning one so expensive and annoying nobody wants to get one.

    Extra taxes, extra costs, don’t let big gas guzzlers in city centres etc.

    • OshaqHennessey@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 minutes ago

      So, pass a ban that only applies to poor people and let the rich continue to do whatever they want still since they can afford the fine?

    • gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Nah, just ban them.

      Extra Tax and Fees just makes it a poor people tax, and rich assholes will carry on as if nothing changes. A straight-up ban makes them not appear at all.

    • myfunnyaccountname@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Americans are paying 100k for these fucking things now. Taking out 10 year long loans to pay for it. And then crying about gas prices on twitter. Not sure cost will stop people. People are idiots.

    • Rcklsabndn@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Agreed, wasn’t it a ‘work truck’ heavy vehicle tax break after the fuel crisis in the 70s that created these monstrosities?

      (Please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m late for work.)

      • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 hours ago

        AFAIK yes, that’s the loophole. If a vehicle is heavy enough then the law assumes it must be for “work” and thus some pollution laws don’t apply.

        Car manufacturers noticed this and thus the massive “Sports” “Utility” Vehicle was born.