• admiralteal@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Make up your mind, guy. Which is it? Do we need to increase transportation spending for people in the countryside or not?

    You can’t have it both ways here. Either there are tons of people in the countryside meaning it makes perfect sense to fund transportation projects for them or there aren’t and it doesn’t. You can’t have it both ways.

    Policies at country level generally applies to those living on the countryside same as urbanites

    Sure, in Singapore they do. Because Singapore is a city state on an island. Its countryside is a different fucking country.

    But everywhere else in the world, that’s total bullshit and you know it. Just utter tripe. You don’t run the same policies and projects for the countryside as you do for the cities.

    I’m tired of the wealth transfer from cities to the countryside. I’m tired of the tax dollars of the 85% of people that live in cities being used to build more roads and highways for the <15% of people that live in the fake “exurban” countryside and sprawling suburbs and lack the imagination to see that even there, the car doesn’t need to be a religion.

    • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Erh I don’t think you’re making sense… and generally your argumentation is a lot of rebuttals and no sources either.

      So as an example let’s take the taxation in my home country - Belgium. We generally decided that cars are a source of pollution and that everyone should move away from the more polluting ones. To do that taxes were generally raised for cars not matching a given norm.

      That you are rich or poor, from the north or south, countryside or city-side we have the exact same taxes.

      If you’re poor and in the relative countryside you’re screwed ; public transport offer is getting shittier each years and soon older cars will be banned effectively or way too expensive to be affordable for the less fortunate / those that cannot already swap to compliant cars.

      But I see that you’re an angry dude - you should redirect that energy into something more positive.

      • Not_mikey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Are you against those taxes then, cause the premise sounds fair. Cars are dangerous and pollute a lot, whether they’re in the countryside or in the city.

        They’re also expensive, especially older ones that you have to repair constantly. Seems you’ll do more good for the poor in the countryside making the public transit better than getting rid of the tax. You know, direct your energy into something positive like sustainable public transit, instead of a technology that’s slowly killing us.

        • admiralteal@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s almost a moot point in his case. The Belgian “countryside” is all towns and small cities. Every bit of it should be served by some kind of transit. It’s only about 350km the long way across with a population of almost 12 million. There’s hardly a hectare in it where you aren’t a bike ride from a town center. Even in the dead center of Hodge Kempen you’re still adjacent to small, fairly dense town.

          He just falls for the typical false dichotomy that you’re either in the “countyside” or you’re in a major metropolis. When the reality is, most people live in small towns and small towns are still urban.

          He replied to a guy talking about the states and applied just completely wrong standards of what both what good transit and the countryside are because his own experience doesn’t map to what the other guy was talking about.