You can't just tax someone becuase they have a big vehicle, some people have big families. Some NEED 4x4, and some need to tow more than 1000lbs.

Taxing just because you have a truck/SUV would be unfair to a lot of rural people who actually use a truck for what it is made for.

A more fair way of doing things would be to tax based on miles driven. The guy with the Impala that drives 30,000 a year is using more gas and poluting more than the guy with the Tahoe that drives 10,000 a year.

Hopfully DoD and 6 speed automatics will offer enough of a MPG boost until hydrogen use becomes realistic.

 

Not if the Impala gets 3x the milage of the truck. My insuracne already rewards me for living closer to work or car pooling (based on miles driven).

You're right, it's not far to those who actually need the vehicle and used it as such (work). I guess one way around that could be to register the vehicle under your business. It's a sad case of a few hurting a lot.

 

We have different viewpoints on the government (I have no problem with taxes as long as it's consentrated on consumption & income tax is left alone), but I suspect we are still on the same page here.

Although the most obvious way would be a hefty fuel tax, that would hit everyone, drive up transportation costs (including Truck, Rail, and Air freight) and suddenly we are looking at recession and inflation again.

But a hefty tax on vehicles over 5000 pounds (again, excepting business use related to delivery, construction, or farm use) targets the "vanity" crowd (as was so accurately put) and encourages people to purchase more reasonable (not small) SUVs. Using the Lincoln Navigator & Aviator as examples (one looks like a scale model of the other), shows the direction the big 3 can go without sacraficing looks & luxury, while maintaining all the qualities of the big SUVs, except insane size and waste.

Back to taxes & government, over the past few years, they essentially gave themselves a pay cut to give money to the top 5% of taxpayers, where if this had been forgone, our accumulated deficit would probally be paid off or close to it, and we'd be able to actually fund alot of these anti-terrorism inititives that's been approved but unfunded due to the federal deficit.

If the same people who at the moment can write off an Escalade, a Navigator, an H2 or even an H1 at the same time I have to pay an extra 10% on MSRP on my next new vehicle, I really have no sympathy towards them, and I no problem with the goverment getting the money.

Not only do we head off the tree huggers and decrease our need to import oil, it also decreases the likelihood my income and Social Security taxes will increase, while what we get in return drys up.

 

California is a great example of a link from car emissions and the environment. People were getting sick and dying there because the pollution from uncontrolled vehicles.



Probably? Got any facts to back that up? Didn't think so.

Here's one, IF the US drilled into ANWR, and relied solely on the oil from it, it would last approxamately 1 year. This is according to studies done by the United States Geological Survey back in 1998. So much for plenty, huh?


If it wasn't for those pansey-assed environmentalists, there would be a lot less environment left for you and me to enjoy.

Keep that in mind next time you go outside and beathe all that fresh air.


Back on topic of the diesels, I am really excited to see where diesel engine technology will go in the US after 2005 when the low-sulfur diesel fuel regulations go into effect.

 

I don't know about you, but I got a check for $500 in '01 and I'm getting a decent return this year for the first time in 3 yrs (we've paid in 3 yrs in a row). Yeah the rich get more back because they pay more in. But to suggest that us little guys got squat is not entirely honest. Besides, rich people getting a tax cut is good for all of us. How many poor people do you know that own and start businesses? When's the last time you got a job from a poor guy? Rich people spending money makes the economy go...

As for the budget hole, I blame out of control spendocrats rather than the tax cuts. There's also something called the war on terror that is costing us a few bucks too. I just think its overly simplistic to blame it on the tax cuts alone, particularly when it is basically proven fact that cutting tax rates, thereby increasing disposable income and reducing the cost of doing business, increases overall economic activity, thereby growing the tax base and increasing tax revenues to the government. This has been done time and time again and it works. I'm more upset at Bush for his spending rather than the tax cutting, and congress gets blame in that too.

As for the SUV issue, I can't say I'm real real thrilled with a tax I see as arbitrarily set at 5000lbs. So a 4995 lb car is no tax but 5000 lbs incurrs the full bill? And why 5000? Why not 5500 or 4750? Who decides why that number is the best number? I'd rather see it progressive than just set a flat weight above which the full force of the tax is implemented.

ideally though I prefer to let consumers make free choices. When it no longer makes economic sense for them to purchase those massive vehicles they won't buy them anymore. But for now, people get paid good money to build those SUVs, and make accessories for them, and change the oil on them, etc.

Best example of this is the Yacht industry. When Clinton took office, they implemented an obscure tax on Yacht sales, one of those "sock it to the greedy" taxes. Well, it utterly destroyed the U.S. yacht building industry because the rich ended up buying from Europe to escape the tax. All the little guys that made their living building yachts for rich people lost out, not the rich. So eventually the tax was repealed and the industry recovered.

I dont' particularly care for Ford Excursions and H2 hummers, I see them as an ode to excess and more of an ego trip than serving any actual usefull purpose. SUVs are popular due to pracitcality, but how practical is something that is too huge to park in your garage and only gets 12mpg?

But having said all that, its not my place to judge other's automotive preferences, or to say that one guy is wrong for being excessive on an SUV while others might think buying a $50K Corvette that does 170mph is equally or more excessive.

So, I'll NOT buy an H2 but my personal opinions on the relative merits of owning one will not force me to decide I have to punish other people for being successful and spending their money how they see fit, even if I don't agree with it.

 

I got a better idea. lets just tax everyone that doesn't drive a compact car that gets 35+ mpg. I mean, if you want to go and buy yourself a mid sized car or a sports car, you can pay more.. for those vanity people. I mean, how pratical is a sports car when you can't even drive it effectively in the snow and only get about 20 mpg? When you can get 35+ mpg in an economy car and have the same amount of interior space?

I'm sure the government will wisely use this extra money too.



BTW, while we're at it, we might as well start restricting how much energy we can consume at home, and heavily tax people that use more.. I mean, there's no need to live in a 500 sq feet, added 100 sq ft per additional person..


Even if we do find an unlimited supply of energy, that doesn't pollute, and is relatively cheap.. ... they'll still charge us the jacked up rates and ration it out.. cause they can.

 

Ever hear of the Kyoto treaty? Basically a massive (like 4% of GDP) tax on developed nations supposedly because we pollute and consume the most energy while the developing nations would get off basically free despite the fact that per capita they pollute much worse than any modern industrialized nation.

Ultimately the far-left environmentalists are always revealed as actually anti-capitalist, and placing massive tax and redistributive plans on commerce and the free market is a way of bring a more marxist vision to the world order. Same people that protest at all the G8 free trade conferences.

Research has shown the Kyoto treaty, despite its multi-trillion dollar price tag, would produce somewhere around a 0.0038 of a degree reduction in the rate gobal temperature rise over the next 20 years. That's cost effectiveness!!! Suffice to say I'm glad we never signed on to it.

 

Dont get me started on politicians and the "fuel crisis". A politicain who threatens me with environmentalists is one politician who needs not to be in office.
Car pooling. Another way for the government to keep its thumb on us. Takes one more little bite out of the individualists.

 

Huh? What's wrong with car pooling? Last time i checked it asn't mandatory. Back in the 80's my Dad drove the van pool vehicle for GE. Everyone in that really liked it so they bought the van when GE discontinued the program and they kept it for another 3-4 years until people moved or the thing just didn't run anymore and the group didn't want to purchance another van.

I don't see how the gov't had its thumb on them...

 

From the 'don't raise the bridge, lower the water' way of thinking...

What if we got tax credits based on what and how we drove? I'm not an economisist, so I've absolutely no clue how this would work. I guess it's like saying my Z28 is rated at 26 hwy compared to Mr. Jones' Suburban (which is registered as personal use) gets 15 hwy. Now perhaps my tax return gets a .5% multiplier bonus or something (admittedly being really simplistic here). This would be a version of the tax credits given for hybrids and alt fuel vehicles.

Or perhaps it's based on how much gas you bought and the formula works from there?

No one likes being punished into something, so let's try to reward and encourage.

 

Ohhhh K Hyde

 

I cannot understand why anyone would continue to believe that environmental scientists and the lefties are making up global warming. It's not like any of the environmental groups stand to make huge sums of money from making this stuff up. Unlike say the oil companies and their lobyists who stand to loose huge sums of money - so they just continue to dismiss global warming as the work of crackpot, tree-hugging commies.

So please explain to me, the motivation for all those 'tree-huggers' to invent global warming? Why would they warn us that we may run out of fossil fuel 50 years from now? Who among them is going to profit from this?

Also many people don't understand that global warming is nowadays a catch all term for a great many differnent changes we're seeing in climate. E.g. cold areas may become very hot and warm areas may become much colder. Areas may experince surges in water levels whilst others may start to become deserts.

 

Read this and then tell me you believe 100% that global warming is real

Pt 1 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...6/120003.shtml

Pt 2 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...7/145520.shtml

My main point is that after all these years it is still inconclusive...far from definite. FOr every piece of research saying its true there is another saying its not.

"Michaels is fond of bringing in Thomas Kuhn’s thinking from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Scientists have created a global-warming paradigm for themselves that benefits them—as a cause and as a livelihood. They won’t easily be dissuaded from it. "

 

How did we come out of the ice age? It must have been from cavemen discovering fire and having camp fires.

The earth goes though cycle of warming and cooling on it's own. Man does effect it, but it is minimal.

 

Hmmm....All this political BS for a 1 degree temperature change in the last 100 years?? Ah, ok Im concerned..... I can't stand any of the enviromentilists that say the world is going to melt in 50 years and were going to run out of oil....