Asking the gov to proactively shrink or limit animal products is a non-starter because there are just too many (voting) consumers who would be outraged. It would be political suicide. Same for cars. Forcing car owners out of cars would be political suicide as well.

But what I find baffling is there seems to be no chatter about the fact that the US gov gives (millions?) in subsidies to livestock farmers. And Europe gives tax breaks for “commercial” cars (mischaracterized personal cars). If the gov were to end the subsidies, there could be no reasonable complaint that the gov is interfering. Because in fact the gov would be ending their intervention.

  • @neanderthal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    157 months ago

    In the US, the majority live in a place where having a car is all but mandatory. People don’t know any different and are sold propaganda that anything else is of the boogeyman of the day. So when people want bike infrastructure, transit, zoning changes, etc, they freak out.

    • @i_dont_want_to
      link
      67 months ago

      Even as someone that can no longer ride a bike (disabled), I would be THRILLED with better bike infrastructure and essential businesses closer together. (Those big parking lots were such a pain when I only walked.)

      Before I could afford a car, every time I had a complaint about how I couldn’t get around, it seemed the answer was always “work hard and get a car.” Our public transportation sucked bad, it was plain not safe to ride a bike, and walking was impossible in some areas.

      I really hate that I live in a city but something like buying a gallon of milk requires a car (or delivery). It’s pretty ingrained into us as a culture and I really only saw it for myself when I was destitute and had to get by without most things people had. Many of those things were doable but not having a car really screwed me over. It shouldn’t be like this, but when I bring it up, my peers roll their eyes at me. Aaaaargh.

    • @activistPnk@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      IIRC, the only way to get a tax break for owning a car in the US is if you do a hack of not driving straight to work but you stop somewhere for coffee then drive to work. Something about multiple stops being a loophole. But is that loophole being abused on a notable scale?

      There’s also a loophole in the US where if you rent a car instead of buy one, there are some shenanigans that enable a simple commuter to write it off. But again, I don’t think that’s being abused on a large scale.

      Europe is quite loose with the car write-offs. The car just has to be company-owned and from there it can be used simply for commuting to and from an office. So you have a phenomenon where a majority of cars are company cars being used for personal errands.

      • @neanderthal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        47 months ago

        You don’t get a tax break for personal vehicles. If you use it for business purposes for a business you operate (i.e. own), you can claim it as a business expense.

        Cars are subsided by our zoning, minimum parking requirements, and car centric transport infrastructure.

        • @activistPnk@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          17 months ago

          Where are you talking about? Your first paragraph sounds like Europe, but your second paragraph sounds like the US.

            • @activistPnk@slrpnk.netOP
              link
              fedilink
              5
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Since you said “car centric transport infrastructure”, and zoning, that really sounded like the US. The US has some really fucked up zoning that forces commercial buildings to be separated from residential zones, which forced the norm of driving cars to work. Europe allows homes and businesses to intermingle. In fact, it’s common for a ground floor shop to have residential dwellings on the floors above it.