Anyone have comments on this article, I'm not sure whether to take it at face value or not.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...-hybrids_x.htm

 

I'm sure Lutz and Ford are both really upset buyers continue to choose trucks and SUVs over more effiecient econoboxes and hybrids.

But I could care less if they apply an extra tax to SUVs with poor MPG ratings. Raising gas prices isn't the answer.

 

Makes sense if that's the goal ... but with tax hikes, it can't be all at once or politicians lose their jobs. This is what is occuring with cigarettes and tobacco, however, with those, it's a common evil so it's much easier to stand up for significant tax hikes.

 

Or is it a back handed way to get citizens to complain to the gov. about cafe

 

THat is BS

Its not like people go out car shopping and say "that car doesn't use enough gas, what else do you have". If someone made a 350HP coupe that got 50mpg for under $30,000 I would buy it. But auto makers don't give people that choice.

I have no problem with giving tax breaks to hybird, NG, electic, or hydrogen car owners.

The Gov't should try to help the auto industry build more fuel efficent cars, not bully consumers into driving what cars/trucks they want them to drive.

 

Agreed. Tax breaks? Yes, I can support that. INcreased taxes on bigger vehicles? No, and I can't honestly believe Lutz would support that given that SUVs are GM's biggest profit-makers. I can expect it out of Bill Ford because he's a Sierra Club environmentalist at heart.

Consumer demand for SUVs, plus the giant profit margins built into them, and the knowledge that yes we want our SUVs but any knucklehead woudl also tell you they wouldn't mind better MPG out of them either, should persuade automakers to increase large vehicle MPG w/o any government help.

 

Though i'll no doubt be in the minority on this, their position makes perfect sense.

The US IS going to raise fuel economy standards after the election (if you think voting for "conservatives" will prevent this, please put down the crack pipe), and the auto industry is trying to preempt this by trying to rightfully put the burden of improving fuel economy in the marketplace instead of dumping in on the auto industry via increased CAFE standards.

People are buying up large SUVs whether it's practical or not. Then, congress is going to mandate higher fuel economy standards by potentially linking these truck standards with automobile standards, resulting in even smaller cars simply because everyone and their brother prefers a Hummer, Expedition or Suburban when a Trailblazer or Aviator will be more than enough.

Like it or not, there will be some serious changes regarding our dependence on foreign oil, and congress as a group is going to push for it. Michagan's Democratic representative, Dingell, has been the firewall against efforts to up fuel standards. He gave a very clear warning that he's not going to be there forever (retiring?) and that congress is going to start regulating soon if the industry didn't take preemptive action first. And that's what this is, and why our industry is united on this.

I think CAFE is a waste of effort and should be completely repealed. It puts the burden on the auto industry to regulate their sales which should be done in the marketplace. If it takes a 50 cent per gallon tax (about $7 per tank.... about what I spend per day in coffee. ) then so be it.

Like everyone else, I'd prefer not to see expenses go up, but given a choice between seeing CAFE go up (possibly ending alot of future performance cars) or seeing fuel taxes go up (where I can still buy what I want), guess which one I pick.

Congress WILL be taking action to reduce oil imports. It's going to be one or the other, CAFE OR increased "usage fees", so we're going to have to choose. Unless someone comes up with a better choice, and talks to their congressman.

 

There is a disconnect between what society says it wants (more fuel-efficient vehicles) and what the individual consumer is lining up to buy, Ford said.


Obvisouly society does not want to drive more fuel efficent vechiles, or else we'd be buying more of them. This is all a bunch of political BS. The ones wanting more fuel efficent vechiles are the liberal tree-hugging greenies. Since they control the media, they can try to brainwash us with their politics.

 

Upping the gas tax will do nothing but take money away from the consumer and make the Gov't richer. I have to drive 25 miles a day to work and back no matter what gas cost. Lets not forget that when the cost of fuel goes up, the cost of everything goes up. Products have to get to the stores some how. The cost of mail and shipping will also go up. The only thing that won't go up is my pay at work.

If I owe a boat or any kind of trailer I can't tow it with an Aveo. Most cars only tow up to 1000lbs. Those people need SUVs, Trucks, and Vans.

 

Right again. Upping the gas tax enough to affect consumer choice is going to bring this economy to a halt faster than you can say 5th gen. Not only is it taking money out of the pockets of consumers who would have used that money to spend in other areas, thereby lowering overall economic activity--it'll also hammer companies like FedEx, UPS, Greyhound (they're already hanging on by a string), and any business, big or small, that relies on vehicles to deliver products or some such use. Another example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions and politicians that have an overly simplistic view of how the economy works.

Taxes merely increase the cost of doing business, and all taxes are ultimately passed on to the consumer. Tax BREAKS actually spur economic activity, however.

 

Thats right, its a CONSPIRACY! Trying to not run out of oil on Earth is just something liberal tree huggers support! Its political BS! Lets go back to the carbuerators days and keep the CAFE at 4 MPG!

The American public doesn't care about global warming or oil depletion until it affects us. Its in our nature... Hopefully we can get our consumption under control before its too late.

 

First, I think we need to agree that oil is a non-renewable resource and it is going to run out some day. Nobody knows when, but with third-world countries like China itching to have our standard of living, that day is getting closer and closer. Therefore, it is in everyone's best interest to conserve. But people won't conserve, or do much of anything for that matter, unless it affects something residing in their pants (in this case, I'm referring to their wallets).

Capitalism is a wonderful thing, but Adam Smith's invisible hand is not able to adequately price in variables such as having a non-renewable supply of something. So if the markets cannot do it, we are unfortunately resigned to having the government do it for us. We've already seen that CAFE doesn't work, and it's for a very simple reason: it works on the supply side of things, and those living on the supply side of things are rarely the ones that control a market. This is also why the US is losing its war on drugs: because they are going after the pushers, not the users.

A gas tax is the perfect way to promote conservation. It affects everyone to a certain degree, yet to a large extent the tax is avoidable. Don't like paying so much at the pump? Buy a smaller car. Or better yet, drive slower. I recently completed a long trip in my Zed where I got almost 35 mpg. It was more relaxing, I didn't worry about cops, and get this: I still got there. In other words, I didn't have to give up anything except spend an extra half hour on the road listening to CDs.

The ideal way to introduce such a tax is over a long period of time, say 10¢ a gallon over 5 years. That gives people time to adjust, and plan their next vehicle accordingly. It also allows manufacturers to adjust their model mixes.

(On the other hand, I'm completely against subsidizing hybrid or electric cars. Why should all taxpayers be forced to help someone buy their econo-mobile when it's the buyer who's reaping all the rewards? Sounds like some form of welfare to me. Keep it simple: you pay for your own vehicle, you pay for your own gas, and you make your decisions based on those factors.)

Lest everyone here forget, the US enjoys pretty much the cheapest gas prices in the industrialized world. Try going to Europe where they pay over $4.00 a gallon. Yet somehow, life goes on.

Just to address another point made above: the US is not "dependent" on foreign oil. I haven't looked at the figures lately, but I believe less than 50% is imported from the mideast. Basically the US is buying everyone else's oil while the getting's good, while keeping their own supplies for when things start to get scarce. I don't see anything wrong with that strategy.

 

I can't figure out why they want to raise CAFE. CAFE DOES NOT WORK. We've had it for ~24 years and we are driving LESS EFFICIENT CARS.

It doesn't work because:

• If the car gets great fuel economy, and gas is still cheap, you will DRIVE MORE, offsetting much of the benefit of having a more economical car.
  
• You force auto companies to make cars that no one wants to buy. They try to skirt around it by classifying things as trucks (PT, Magnum), heavy trucks (hummer, etc.) and the like.
  
• You get an "arms race" where you have a lot of econoboxes made to offset the Hummers, etc., so you get a great offset in vehicle sizes and weights, which creates crash incompatibilities. (BTW, if you can't afford or don't want to be part of this car size "Arms Race" you are more likely to die in an accident).
  
• If gas is still cheap people will not care about the mileage.
  
• People will only WANT a fuel efficient car if gas is more expensive.
  
• Raising CAFE will mean larger cars for the RICH, smaller cars for most of us, to offset their ratings.
  

Logically, the only way to make people WANT a more fuel efficent car is to make gas more expensive. This is probably the right thing to do, but it is a regressive tax and political suicide.

Oh well. I continue to laugh at the Irony every time I see an SUV with "Support the war on terror" bumper stickers.

 

More tax on gas is the WRONG IDEA. It won't help anyone but the people collecting the tax. Those that can afford to drive will keep driving no matter what the price is, and those that can't, will be screwed. It is also unfair to rural people who NEED to drive more but also make less. Gas is already taxed 50% we don't need anymore. Higher fuel costs also lead to higher inflation.

Believe it or not, not every American is as well off as us or the politicians. Poor Americans can't afford to go out and buy $20,000+ hybrid cars. And it also isn't practical for everyone to drive Aveo sized cars. Some people actually use pickup trucks daily or for work and others have big families and need a van.

If the Gov't wants to help then they should put more research dollars into finding cheap renewable fuel sources.

In the mean time how about offering a tax break for those who buy "high MPG" vehicles. Give people a reason to WANT to drive these cars instead of being BULLIED by the Gov't into driving them.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Z28x
More tax on gas is the WRONG IDEA. It won't help anyone but the people collecting the tax. Those that can afford to drive will keep driving no matter what the price is, and those that can't, will be screwed. It is also unfair to rural people who NEED to drive more but also make less. Gas is already taxed 50% we don't need anymore. Higher fuel costs also lead to higher inflation.

It doesn't matter whether or not you like it - its pure economics. The only way you will make people en masse "want" to conserve is to make not conserving costly. Tax breaks on hybrids is better than nothing - but it doesn't encourage less driving. More expensive gas = less driving AND more efficient cars.
If a gas tax were phased in, giving time for enough new (and used) cars to saturate the market, there wouldn't have to be a huge economic impact. Long distance commuters would replace their car with a more efficient car (maybe get a 4 or 6 instead of that V8) and the 95% of people who don't need an SUV would probably find that a car works just as well 99.9% of the time for them). Right off the bat, you could get a Diesel that is 30-40% more efficient with no loss in performance. The Diesel Jetta gets 50MPG Highway, better than what most Prius average overall - so take that Toyota.

IMO, I'd like to see some more gas tax and have them use it to A) build more roads B) build/subsidize more mass transportation. I'm sick of idling in traffic jams, and it's only getting worse. It takes me 1:20 to drive 25 miles to work. I know, it's just a fantasy, but I'd gladly pay $2.50 if it meant I could save an hour a day.

If the Gov't wants to help then they should put more research dollars into finding cheap renewable fuel sources.


....but there isn't any way to make renewable resources for the same cost as gas - it's cheaper to pump it out of the ground than to grow crops then convert them to liquid fuel.... it comes back to MONEY. If gas were more expensive, the economics of renewable fuel sources would make a lot more sense. If it were subsidized, you'd be STILL be paying for it, just not at the pump.

In the mean time how about offering a tax break for those who buy "high MPG" vehicles. Give people a reason to WANT to drive these cars instead of being BULLIED by the Gov't into driving them.
Sometimes it makes more sense to be "bullied." Sure, every joe thinks he should get whatever he wants, but we should be thinking about the country as a whole. If there is another gas crisis or OPEC really cut back, we'd be up ****'s creek. If supplies suddenly start drying up... any SUDDEN major disruption we're in trouble. We keep getting involved in mid-east conflicts that are either directly or indirectly related to oil and our presence in the region (because we need the oil).

I know I'm in the minority, but there's just something not right when bottled water cost 4x as much as gas and milk cost 2x and more than 50% of the cars sold are light trucks...