12-21-2017, 08:12 AM
I found this bit interesting: "When taking the train, you can be productive for one hour until the masses flood the train and it becomes challenging to do anything other than juggle your bags."
I can see the logic. On a train, especially when "the masses flood it" (ugh), you're not as productive as when you're in whatever your special place is, in a flow, with no distractions. But I think it's reasonable to say the entire train trip is- or can be- productive. Coming from Kitchener, we're lucky enough to be guaranteed seats, so one can check one's calendar and e-mails, even if it's not practical to expect to get creative work done. And even being able to rest (as opposed to focusing on driving) is productive if it means you can be more focused for the meeting you're spending all these resources to attend. They did allude to that part.
Every time we see one of these comparisons, someone inevitably feels the need to point out that their twelve-year-old beater, or their new PHEV, doesn't cost x to drive to Toronto, or the incremental cost is the better one to use, or whatever. The CRA rate is designed to reflect actual costs across a wide stratum of the driving population. It's what's reasonable to use. Anyone who thinks it's way too high probably isn't thinking much about the depreciation on something that costs at least $15,000 new.
I can see the logic. On a train, especially when "the masses flood it" (ugh), you're not as productive as when you're in whatever your special place is, in a flow, with no distractions. But I think it's reasonable to say the entire train trip is- or can be- productive. Coming from Kitchener, we're lucky enough to be guaranteed seats, so one can check one's calendar and e-mails, even if it's not practical to expect to get creative work done. And even being able to rest (as opposed to focusing on driving) is productive if it means you can be more focused for the meeting you're spending all these resources to attend. They did allude to that part.
Every time we see one of these comparisons, someone inevitably feels the need to point out that their twelve-year-old beater, or their new PHEV, doesn't cost x to drive to Toronto, or the incremental cost is the better one to use, or whatever. The CRA rate is designed to reflect actual costs across a wide stratum of the driving population. It's what's reasonable to use. Anyone who thinks it's way too high probably isn't thinking much about the depreciation on something that costs at least $15,000 new.