Good post. I think you have to provide options, including public transportation, but ultimately you have to allow the individual the freedom to make the choice. People are always going to make economic choices that benefit them, and once you make the alternatives sufficiently valuable to them they'll leave their cars in the driveway. To artificially drive up the cost of driving the private automobile is quixotic at best, because you merely hurt the people that can least afford the added expense. Even socking it to the rich guy eventually hurts the little guy too, as illustrated by the Yacht tax example.

 

Yeah that big 1 degree is going to be the end of us all.

So you guys propose we tax SUVs? Is it not enough of a barrier to buying that they cost what they do? Or the fact that they do get terrible gas mileage? W/ the mileage that low it costs a freakin fortune to fill those things up. Is that not a "tax" in itself. Considering that everytime you pay gas you pay a tax on it. Being they use more gas the pay more taxes for the use of the fuel. Hmmmm......

Vehicle emissions is the last thing that the tree hugger enviromentalist should be thinking about right now. The vast majority of polution in the world today does not come from Vehicles. It comes from factories and manufacturing plants. They should put their time and effort into reducing the emissions of those facilities rather than pick on cars, trucks, and SUVs. Hell as clean as the new cars are now in terms of emissions there is nothign to worry about.

California huh... Wonder why they have the pollution problem they do. Wonder if its because they have one of the greatest populations of manufacturing around LA? Could that be a possibility? I think so.

I think its funny that people here are saying that they should tax SUVs and vehicles w/ low gas mileage. Whats to say it would stop w/ SUVs. Next thing you know it would be sports cars and trucks. Wonder where our hobbby would go if all of us got taxed for what we drove. Oh wait... as I mentioned before... I guess those of use who mod and get worse gas mileage than the guy next to us do pay more taxes... Every time you pay for gas!!!

 

OK - Time to Chime...



Count me in on that - even though I own an F250 that weighs 7000#. (It is a diesel though and gets @ 20mpg.)

I would like to add that the tax should be governmentally regulated and distributed to non-profit agencies to study and develop alternative fuel systems for not only cars/trucks, but also for home heating and industrial use as well. The technology could be auctioned or transferred to the private sector for commercialization once proven, much like NASA has served our technological development here for years now.


Yeah, I got the $600 check for my wife and kid in October of 2001... then when I went and had my taxes done in Jan 2002, I got all excited about getting my $2700 back... until my preparer took $600 off the bottom line. I went nuts - "What are you doing?!?!" I asked. I was informed that the $600 was a "credit" that was basically an advance on the return, and was either taxable income if you were got no return, or was to be deducted from the return you were owed.

You had to have a spouse and kid(s) to qualify, and the gov't also knew that those requirements gives you the double dependent claim and more $ back on your taxes. It was a game of semantics that gave the appearance of a "tax refund" that was like free money from Uncle Sam, when it was really nothing more than a simple advance of your own money under the name of "tax relief" to satisfy a political promise.
Blah... I know a snooker-job when I see one, and I've got to see 2 of them now.

And before you say a word, I HAVE MY RETURNS HANDY - they could be scanned and posted in short order.
The same happened to my sis, and numerous of my fellow employees. It was a political sham IMO - nothing less.
I am "financially stable", so the $600 was no biggie to me, but to someone living day to day that thought that was THEIR money to spend, it could have led them to OWE money on their 2001 taxes in 2002 - an UNEXPECTED bill that could hurt.

I'm gonna spare everyone the DEM VS. REP debate here, but I personally don't like the current administration's handling of finances and the budget. And I DAMN SURE don't want to see them find yet another source of MY FUNDS to support military occupation and the non-competitively bid rebuilding of oil fields so they can bring oil here and fleece me again at the pumps. Thank you very much, but no thanks - very much.

BTW, I agree with your position on the environment and politicians 100% - just don't quite see it like you do with regard to the tax thing.


My last point - what's the big deal with our conversation rolling into EMISSIONS? I know it relates to cars and gov't policy, but the thread topic was more tied to fuel ECONOMY, not emissions. We here in the States are about as clean as tailpipes get anywhere in the world. Problem is our "clean" vehicles average @ 17mpg collectively, while other countries are getting nearer to 30. The USA is a large FUEL PIG.
So while I don't want to see our cars get worse in the emissions to get the better fuel economy I DO want, I'm just not seeing the emphasis on emissions that has come up in the last several posts...

 

I think before the Gov't starts pushing avg joe consumer around they should convert there fleets and the USPS to 100% emissions free. How much fuel does the Postal service use each year? Make them switch to hydrogen first.

 

To suggest money needs to be given to government agencies and non-profits for research is a tad naive IMO, if I can say so respectfully.

When the day comes that oil starts to get scarce and prices start to really go up, the free market will move to respond with alternative fuels and technologies to fill the void, because there will be an opportunity to make money. The private sector can do this far faster than government can do. That is simply free markets vs. command and control economic distribution (capitalism vs communist-style planned economies). Not saying public research isn't a fine persuit but the private sector is far better at applied technology than the public sector. Examples from history can be supplied to demonstrate the point.

I would ask 2 things of anyone who thinks they don't pay enough in taxes. 1, do you itemize your return? 2, do you send an extra check to the government to make sure you've paid your fair share?

ProudPony, as for the child tax credit...I'm not talking about that. I don't have kids, but in 01 every tax payer got a check. It was the '03 refund that was based on an increased child tax credit. My wife and I each got a check....this was from Bush's first tax cut. I totally agree with you on the administration and their spending habits (not the war, I still think it was the right thing to do and the people are better off over there), but the tax cut is the least of our budget woes and perhaps the only mechanism prompting growth in our economy right now.

One huge thing in the tax cut was the acceleration of depreciation schedules, allowing companies to expense out the depreciation of their equipment faster, and enouraging new capital invesment to replace older equipment. That drives up durable goods orders, which increases retail sales and factory outputs, which increases profits, which reduces pressure to layoff workers and perhaps influences positive hirings. It was something not talked about too much because everyone was too busy complaining about "tax cuts for the rich."

 

Brace yourself for the price of a stamp if that happens.

 

1) Dingell's an idiot, ultra-leftist.

2) Screw anybody that wants me to send the government more money for ANYTHING. If you saw what I pay in taxes, you'd cry for me.

3) The rest of you who would like to pay more taxes, just send the government a check right now - because if you vote for a Democrat, you might as well staple a check to the ballot, and that means EVERYONE HERE.

 

The topic went towards emissions after people started discussing global warming etc. My post was in rebuttle to that.

All a tax on SUVs over 5000 lbs does is inhibit American car makers, and the rich. It is the rich who can afford to buy them in the first place, so I guess by the tax it would be yet another jab to get back at the rich who have done well for themselves or had family member who have done well to provide for their family.

And no I am not a rich person. My family has always had to scarpe to make ends meet, and hell I am still a broke college student at this point, but even I have my eyes open enough to know that the rich pay the majority of taxes in this country. Why do they not deserve a little break at some point?

Here is the stat for ya. The top 50% of the wage earners in the US pay 96.03% of taxes. How is that for ya?

I think all that a tax on SUVs would do is basically the same thing that the Yacht tax did for the US Yacht builders. You tax SUVs then the rich will just buy expensive cars or go elsewhere with their money. When they do elsewhere w/ their money. When they go elsewhere w/ that money the big 3 will shut down production of the SUVs, being that they are major producers of them. Then they shut down the plants that they were made in and you got thousands of people on the streets without a job b/c someone felt it was good to tax an SUV b/c the fuel consumption was to much.

 

Ain't that the truth. And when they raise the taxes again, all it will do is take money out of every one here's pockets that they would have normally gone out and spent in the economy, where b/c of taxes on sales and business income they make their money anyways. Doesn't make much sense to me.

 

If they really care about pollution, look into Commercial Trucking, Municipal and private Busing, Aviation and the millions of tons of emission put out from launching Space Shuttles and rockets....I'm SICK TO DEATH of the constant whining about passenger car emissions, which have improved more than 30% in the last 10 years alone...BUT GUESS WHY THEY PICK ON US???
To generate revenue...with the least amount of disruption of the big government economic machine...We have to bear the Tax burden, so I guess we should have to bear the Smog burden too?..

I'll agree, I see NO reason in this day and age why an intermediate SUV should get less than 20MPG. My '88 5600lb EFI Suburban hits 18mpg highway, but a Newer smaller Explorer can't seem to rise above 16mpg. And my Suburban ALWAYS "Fast-Passes" its "E" checks..Tax them more???NO, Tax big polluters, Commercial: busing, trucking, Aviation. Hold them to a standard, even if it's a little more tollerant than ours...And make the Gov't pay a fee for every launch into space...

I've held a theory for some time that possibly the deep pockets of the Oil companies such as Exxon, have assured them of a world full of poor milage cars, by private and Gov't "lobbying".(..ie:bribing..)
If they made a huge increase in fuel economy, overnight, some say it would crash global economies...just as I've have heard people say the same about cures for diseases such as cancer, we have built huge industries around such things and are dependant on them to a degree..

Also the company I work for has been building and certifying "Smokeless Diesel" Busses for use in inner cities of California such as L.A. where smog is a HUGE problem, or so they say..and have had much success so far, polluting less than a comparable gas Bus.
California has had the "toughest Emission Standards" in ALL of the U.S, why then has there been so little improvement in their "Problem"? I've seen studies, lately, that have shown that there is MORE oil in Alaska and off the shores of Texas, than in ALL of the Middle east...I'll look them back me if you need me to?
It's also been proven that there is more Ozone Pollution from certain oak trees and farm animals, than Cars, BUT Guess What??They can't tax or collect "Fees" from them... And as for "Fuel Crisis', truckers have admitted that in the 70's gas Crunch, they were payed to fill up their tankers and "Sit on them"...It's all about Economic Positioning...
And most "Global Warming" is just Global Shifting, the same reason the Middle East, that once was green and fertile, is now mostly Desert...it's one of those deal with it fact of life things..

 

damn wussy enviromentalists! Nothing is ever good enough for them! Cars today pollute only a fraction of what they did in the 60s (1 hundred times better.....or more?)

And except for SUVs and pickups (and even those are better then they were) cars today get pretty damn good mileage.

 

Don't mean to sound like I'm on the rag, or pounding on your POV, but I am fortunate enough to see many sides of the box in my position. I work for a large conservative company, yet I work day to day with small job shops to get my machines built and parts made. I live near the booming metropolis of Charlotte, yet my home is in a county with only @20,000 people in it, and our county seat populates @1200, so I get to enjoy the small-town perspective too. I just want everyone to open their eyes to EVERYTHING going on around them, not just what's in the news today.

And FWIW, we need to start another thread - we've TOTALLY hijacked Charlie's interesting topic.

Sorry Z284ever - didn't mean to turn the tide this way.

 

I would say that there has been a large improvement, so would the AQMD. (The South Coast AQMD is the air pollution control agency for Orange County and major portions of
Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside counties in Southern California.)

Take a look at this study http://www.aqmd.gov/news1/smog_season_2002.htm

I'll pull a few bits out for you.

"While the Southland’s air quality still is unhealthful many days of the year, smog levels here have dropped dramatically in the last quarter century and continue to improve each year"

"The American Lung Association’s ‘State of the Air 2000 Report’ and its ‘F’ grade for the Los Angeles area doesn’t do justice to the tremendous ongoing effort by businesses, local governments and individuals to reduce all sources of air pollution.

"As a result of those efforts—and AQMD’s regulations—the air is cleaner now than it has been since before World War II.

"During the late 1970s, Southland residents each year endured up to 121 Stage 1 Episodes, when air quality was so unhealthful that everyone was cautioned not to exercise heavily outdoors.

"We have not had a Stage 1 Episode since 1998," Wallerstein said. "The number of days per year when air quality exceeds the federal ozone standard has dropped from 208 in 1977 to 36 last year. This is proof that our aggressive efforts to reduce emissions have paid off with improved air quality."



Yeah, let's see some links. I would really like to see these studies you are talking about. Sounds like speculation and conjecture to me.

 

Somehow, I thought this thread was going to turn into a conversation about affordable diesels for American cars and trucks.

 

Like ProudPony said, this thread started about about fuel economy and CAFE. Emissions are a separate issue (except for CO2, which of course is directly tied to combustion - and breathing). Global warming is a separate topic, and a discussion of how real it is doesn't really fit here.

Fuel economy is important in its own right. For our country, the less we are dependent on outside countries for our energy, the better (especially the unstable mid-East region). Speaking of unstable, if/when the oil wells do dry up under the desert (not saying it will be soon), if we don't have some sort of alternate energy source available, you can pretty much say game over. We think the mid East is a little dicey now, imagine what will happen when they lose their primary source of income, and the industrial world loses its lifeblood (oil).

Improving fuel economy is a noble goal (efficiency in general is usually a good thing, at least when it comes to energy). Waste is not. I try not to waste food. I turn off lights when I leave the room. Etc. etc.