| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Gas guzzler tax |
Topic: Gas guzzler tax
| Author | Message |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 5/16/2008 2:52:05 PM | show profile Here's a question... why does the gas guzzler tax (where manufacturers have to pay between $1000 and $7700 for each passenger car that is a "gas guzzler") not apply to SUVs, vans, pick-up trucks, etc.? No wonder GM, Ford and others just LOVE to sell us SUVs! No gas guzzler tax for them to pay on them! |
| catlondon | Posted – 5/16/2008 3:09:14 PM | show profile "SUVs are not subject to the Gas Guzzler Tax. When the law was first enacted in 1978, SUVs and light trucks represented less than 25% of the vehicles on the road, and were considered primarily work vehicles. Over the last three decades, the use of SUVs has substantially changed, but the law hasn't." From about. com's site on SUVs. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 5/16/2008 5:00:04 PM | show profile No doubt the argument than (as now) was that you don't want to hurt the small businesses that need these types of vehicles. But my guess is that the vast majority of SUV and vans are not needed for work. They should get rid of that exemption and even people who need it for work will be able to find more fuel efficient options with a lower tax rate than other choices. |
| astrahook | Posted – 5/16/2008 5:04:21 PM | show profile I get the feeling that even if they did that it would do nothing to bring down the price of gasoline. That can of worms is open...regardless of supply, now that that the can charge $4 a gallon why would they lower it |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 5/16/2008 5:06:57 PM | show profile I guess we're coming at this from different perspectives. I don't think the price of gas is coming down. Ever. I mean it might go down some for a while, but the long-term trend is up. I'm looking at ways to reduce consumption (for a whole host of reasons, but not to bring down the price of gas). |
| PluckyPane | Posted – 5/16/2008 5:28:56 PM | show profile actually, small biznesses ARE hurt by the tax. there's a whole industry called luxury transportation that has to pay this tax. my uncle has owned limousines for decades and he has to pay the tax on every new vehicle he buys, even the town cars. i don't know how he does it. he takes potential drunk drivers off the road and the gov't rewards him with more taxes on his service. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 5/16/2008 10:15:27 PM | show profile Plucky, maybe your relative could "change with the times" and be a leader and have an eco-limousine... there is a certain segment of the well-educated who would love to be able to get a lift in a very fuel efficient vehicle. The way I see it, stretch limousines are going to be one of our lesser priorities in the coming years. |
| Letterbox | Posted – 5/16/2008 10:47:50 PM | show profile I'd be interested to know who, besides high school prom dates and grieving families, ride in limos these days? |
| astrahook | Posted – 5/17/2008 8:12:38 PM | show profile I've seen at least 3 "eco" dry cleaners shut their doors so while it sounds like a great concept, im not sure the eco limousine business is ready for its day in the sun |
| chucho | Posted – 5/19/2008 5:14:29 AM | show profile As I understand it the aim of the tax is to penalize the manufacture of luxury vehicles with dismal fuel efficiencies. It sounds like there was a time when people only bought enormous vehicles for utilitarian purposes. When enormous duelly pickup trucks were only bought by farmers, and SUVs were only bought by small business owners, this probably made sense. As far as those limos are concerned, if they're commercial vehicles doesn't he get to write off a certain amount of the cost of buying them? (As a business expense?) Whatever he's paying for the "gaz guzzler tax" is written off as a business expense, so I doubt this gaz guzzler tax is a huge problem. And obviously if he's still doing it it must be worth it. People who run their own businesses always like to complain about the costs of doing so. Besides, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for gas guzzling -- except perhaps those involved in the guzzling of gas to fill Wal Marts with crap I can buy, like truckers. |
| PluckyPane | Posted – 5/19/2008 10:58:11 AM | show profile i honestly don't know too much about the luxury cars. what i've been told is that the dealer of the vehicle tacks the price onto the car through a tax, which according to my uncle is not tax deductible. my unc does really well because executives are still taking limos. the executives are the ones asking for the big gas guzzlers like the suv's. my unc also runs something called black cars in new york city but he says the mayor of the city is forcing him to buy all ecofriendly cars like the prius by the end of the year. i guess that's a good thing. |
| Stanley_Milgram | Posted – 5/19/2008 5:09:51 PM | show profile wow, an intelligent and civil discussion on MB. Have I gone back in time or am I just dreaming? |
| Rulebook2 | Posted – 5/19/2008 8:19:30 PM | show profile Why? Because our country is chock full of SUVs and trucks, particulary between the coasts, and not many lawmakers are ready to represent such an added tax for fear of the inevitable howling. That's a big problem we're going to face as we try and curb oil dependency amidst a subpar economy: in order to effectively curb demand, raising prices in some way, shape or form must be a part of the strategy. And good luck with that. |
| Letterbox | Posted – 5/19/2008 8:31:45 PM | show profile The problem might fix itself at the rate oil prices are climbing. Smaller and more efficient cars have become far more popular lately for everyday driving, leaving pick-ups and trucks for commerical users. Of course, there's still a ways to go. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 5/20/2008 10:47:03 AM | show profile Letterbox, I think you are probably right, we're already seeing sales of Prius's and other more fuel efficient cars taking off and sales of SUVs falling. Here's what I don't get. Why can't american auto makers produce something like a Prius? I thought we were the smartest, most innovative? For example, Chevrolet recently came out with a new Malibu, hybrid version. What a joke, the regular Malibu gets 25 miles per gallon and the hybrid version gets 27 miles per gallon. Is this the best they can do? What a disgrace. |
| chucho | Posted – 5/20/2008 12:03:55 PM | show profile This will only hit at part of the problem. America needs a public transportation renaissance. I just got back from Italy where it was mindlessly easy to move form one town to the next via a national rail system. Everyone rides bikes, too. Fuel efficiency standards are a good idea, but as you can see in Europe everyone drives small cars and still uses public transport. The social benefits are good, too. I have hillbilly cousins who did the "white flight" thing and live in pre-fab homes in the country. They're being hit hard by fuel prices. Also: their kids, some are falling into the trappings that happens in rural parts of America (where meth abuse in some places is an epidemic). If there was a statewide light rail system (like in Europe) these kids would have more to do, more independence, and they would be able to get away from some of the bad things happening in rural America right now. But no, my younger cousins have nothing to do but hang out with small groups of kids, many of whom are getting into recreational drug use and drinking because, simply put, they're trapped in the ennui of rural America. (It's not the 1920s anymore and kids aren't getting up at dawn to milk the cows.) I know this isn't the cure-all, but I firmly believe that there are amny uncounted social benefits to a national public transportation revolution in the form of light rails systems (that work like subway systems) that connect smaller cities with their urban centers. But as Paul Krugman pointed out: it's real conundrum. You don't want to build something unless there's a demand. And there won't be a demand if it's not an option (because it's not built). The solution: $8 a gallon gasoline. |
| catlondon | Posted – 5/20/2008 12:48:05 PM | show profile I don't think can you can compare the U.S. to a European country because our land mass is just too large. Europeans are often staggered by the sheer size of our country and the fact that in some places you can drive for 10 hours and still be in the same state. San Francisco and New York are 3,000+ miles apart and you never, ever hear Americans saying they are going to give up going from New York to the West Coast to save on greenhouse gas emissions. For the United States, we need a lifestyle change that goes beyond how much we drive and encompasses how much we fly within our own country. |
| PluckyPane | Posted – 5/20/2008 12:55:24 PM | show profile i'm with you, chucho. i would love to take mass transit to work. i found that in the northeast corridor (nj/ny/boston/wdc) it's common to find anyone on the train, from stock brokers who made more than i did all year in one week to the kid working at madison square garden. but there is a stigma outside this area that only low-class people take public transit. if we as a country work on breaking that image and then actually make it available then i think it would change things. but one always has to wonder: who is going to pay for this? we'll still need to maintain roads, which we pay for now, but they don't ever seem to be fixed. one other thing: the culture has become too instant gratification. just who is going to have this patience when waiting for a train? it's going to take a complete behavior modification to accomplish this. a 3-hour commute on a train isn't as sexy as 2 hours in a hot coupe. |
| chucho | Posted – 5/20/2008 2:15:33 PM | show profile I know the country is large, but it's comprised of 50 states. We already have inter-state rail infrastructure that could be (and is) exploited for inter-state travel. (Spain's bullet train system is superb, complete with meals and bar-cars, so outs is in the stone age in comparison, which is why people don't use it.) What would be nice to see is states starting to construct light rail networks to connect smaller communities with their urban centers. There's no reason why the Dallas/Ft. Worth metro area doesn't have light rail except for the fact that we have cheap gas (even today) and everyone loves their car. |
| chucho | Posted – 5/20/2008 2:20:41 PM | show profile And o course this would help crate jobs in a New Deal sense, but I guess that's a little too "Commie" for the meat and potatoes set. Oh well, I say: Oregon, build the light rail and let Oklahoma languish. Also: these meat and potatoes states should be expected to pay for their own road maintenance. It seems a disproportionate number of "red states" are federal welfare states taking money from places like "Taxachusetts" (which pay more in federal income tax than it gets back) to pay for their lifestyle (mainly to repair their roads by getting money from richer, bluer states). I think we should start diverting this welfare money away from states like Oklahoma (which gets more in federal income tax than it pays out, and make them pay for their own car-obsessed lifestyle) and rewarding it to states willing to invest in light rail with matching federal funds, which, by the way, would go in large part to pay salaries to workers building these things. |
| catlondon | Posted – 5/20/2008 2:33:02 PM | show profile But Chucho you just did what bugs me...you completely ignore your own green gas emitting travel by plane to focus on driving between high-density urban areas. Doesn't it bother you even a little that all the environmental activists climb on planes constantly to fly to places like Bali (sight of a 2007 climate conference) to tell others not to drive so much? According to Carbon Counter, the two times a year I fly from the East Coast to the West Coast (RT) is nearly twice the carbon emissions than the 15,000 miles a year I drive. |
| catlondon | Posted – 5/20/2008 2:33:46 PM | show profile BTW, I meant "site" of a 2007 climate conference. |
| Letterbox | Posted – 5/20/2008 3:56:04 PM | show profile Ugo, the problem with the domestic companies is they gave up on small cars because the margins were too small. They made far more money on pickups and SUVs. Unfortunately, they fell asleep and failed to adapt to changing market conditions, which is nothing new for them. They recover late, do well for a while then end up being in a crisis again. It's the foreign automakers that seem to have a better sense of what US customers want. That's why Toyota has passed GM as the biggest car maker. I'd kill for some decent transportation in Los Angeles. |
| PluckyPane | Posted – 5/20/2008 6:31:55 PM | show profile letterbox: it's funny that you say that. talk to anyone who works for the big american automakers and they will tell you that it's the american people's fault for loving powerful, gas guzzling giants. they will tell you that it's our fault that they don't offer more little cars because when they tried to market smaller cars, even as late as december 07, people still bought up the suv's and turned their noses up to the little cars. i think it's a bit of both, not to mention little american cars have been ugly as sin imo over the past few years. why buy american when you can buy a foreign car that will last for a decade? |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 5/20/2008 11:14:02 PM | show profile I have a friend who worked for Ford, and she said the company made something like $12K profit for each SUV they sold and almost nothing for each small car they sold. So yes they have been pushing the SUVs, and not to say poor us, but let's admit it that their marketers are pretty good. They aren't selling a car, they are selling us a self-image. And yes, we're suckers. But seriously, Toyota has been selling the Prius for about 10 years. Woudn't you think an American company would have bought one, looked at it inside and out, and figured out how to make something similar in that time? Beyond that, the technology for hybrids has been proven for over 30 years. Here's an interesting article called "Victor Wouk and the Great Hybrid Cover-up of '74." As usual technologies conceived of and proven in the US are picked up by foreign companies... http://www.hybridcars.com/history/the-great-hybrid-car-cover-up-of-74.html |
