If you tax their profits, they can raise their prices all they like, those profits will just get taxed, too.
They still make more money than if they didn't raise their profits. It doesn't incentivize then to lower their margins like competition would.
A business is not like an individual. A heavily taxed individual may choose to work fewer hours or retire early, but a business won't.
Riding a bike doesn't necessarily mean owning a bike.
Places like Toronto or London have bicycle sharing programs where for a small monthly fee you can go to one of many stations around the city, pick a bike and leave it at any of the stations near to your destination. The maintenance staff ensures that all stations have some bikes available and that the bikes remain in working condition.
If you tax an oligopoly, what do you think they will do in response? Lower their margins, or raise their prices?
What we need instead is more competition. Maybe something like lower taxes for independent or small grocery chains.
Vehicle safety needs to expand to the other side of the windshield.
I would take it further and day that regulations should prioritize the safety of the people outside the vehicle over the people inside, for the simple reason that the people buying the vehicle already have a strong incentive to maximize their own safety, while they currently have zero concerns about the safety of pedestrians.
Pedestrians, on the other hand, don't have the freedom to choose which vehicle runs them over, so it is up to regulations to advocate for them because nobody else will.
Whatever is most pleasant/convenient for the trip I'm trying to make, as long as it is not a car, because cars are disproportionately noisy, polluting and a danger to my neighbors, and I don't want to contribute to that.
If all the options were equally available and convenient, then for me walking > cycling > streetcar > train > bus.
More seriously, with the increasing popularity of tall motor vehicles like SUVs and pickup trucks, curbs don't provide nearly as much safety to pedestrians as they used to.
I wish we regulated vehicles better so that curbs remained useful at protecting people.
But was he wearing a helmet? High visibility clothing? Did he stay on the sidewalk defensively? Did he look both ways? Did he have front and rear lights?
Safety is a two way street, you know.
I think we should mandate pedestrians to have a license and pay taxes. They are constantly violating traffic laws, anyway. They deserve it.
I would like to understand what you are saying.
The "crabs in a bucket" idea refers to:
The analogous theory in human behavior is that members of a group will attempt to reduce the self-confidence of any member who achieves success beyond the others, out of envy, jealousy, resentment, spite, conspiracy, or competitive feelings, to halt their progress.
How does it apply here? She is not "achieving success beyond the others" and we are not trying to stop her from doing so. Quite the opposite! We are trying to help people who find themselves in a similar position make the best out off the budget they have so that they can make ends meet like we do.
In other words, we are crabs who have gotten out of the debt bucket and are trying to help others come out as well.
The other analogy you seem to be alluding to is the "frog in a pot":
The boiling frog is an apologue describing a frog being slowly boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in tepid water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death.
What I can tell you from experience is that during periods of hardship, the ability to adapt makes a huge difference and puts you in a much better position mentally and financially when things inevitably get better. Because this too shall pass.
In any case, it’s too easy for people to say that they aren’t making enough money when it’s their spending habits that really hurts them.
Yup. It happens at all income levels, too. There are surgeons out there with nice homes, new cars, vacations and everything, but still living paycheck to paycheck. If you don't prioritize saving, guess what? You don't have savings.
She would be living a safe, healthy and financially functional, but it would not be a sustainable, happy, and enjoyable life
As somebody living modestly, I'm laughing at this. It seems like people either overestimate how much satisfaction they get from their expenses, or they underestimate the peace of mind that comes from living within your means. I suspect it's mostly the former.
She lives in a college town. The vast majority of people in Canada live in urban centers. So, for most single people in Canada, spending less than $200/mo in Internet+phone is trivially simple.
That is a good point. If they are not in a car, they must be either poor or stupid, which means they don't really deserve the same rights as regular people (i.e. drivers).