Giant increase in annual registration fees for giant vehicles in DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public policy interest in encouraging adoption of electric vehicles and a move away from gas-powered vehicles. Classic use of the power of the purse to drive behavior.

Then call it what it is and dispense with the bull about safety or wear and tear on the roads.

Can't it be both? A little column A a little column B. It's all good and totally legit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than yet another law designed to line DC’s coffers. We all know DC isn’t going to spend this newfound $40m on fixing the roads, even if Cheh “hopes” it’s used for that. This law will have the same effect on improving the roads and safety as the speed cameras have had on safety — which is to say, nothing at all. All it will do is bring in revenue.

Meanwhile, crime is increasing and city services are mediocre on a good day. But what we really need to do is tax people based on the size of their vehicles!

Blah blah blah. Seems like we have the racist who hates DC back! We all know what your agenda is.

What in the world?? That was my first post on this thread. How am I a racist with an agenda for pointing out that this new law is misplaced and is nothing more than a revenue source for the city? Perhaps you responded to the wrong post.

DP. Discouraging too-big-for-the-roads and bad-for-the-roads trucks isn't misplaced, IMO.

PP. It is when it arbitrarily targets only certain kinds of vehicles, fails to address the actual problems and doesn't even bother to require the funds to go toward improving the roads that are allegedly being damaged by these vehicles. Do you know which vehicles are being targeted in this law? It's not only "too-big-for-the-road" vehicles. Many standard size SUVs are slightly above the weight limit according to this law (which begs the question of how the council came up with the particular weight limit in the first place). Families with more than 2 kids or who carpool can't necessarily fit in a sedan or a small SUV that's under the arbitrary weight limit (those often doesn't seat more than a sedan). Some people need larger vehicles for work (contractors, for example). Not to mention that this law does absolutely nothing about all of these large, dangerous vehicles coming into the District from MD and VA on a daily basis. Aren't those vehicles just as "dangerous?" I would love to know how many of the vehicles targeted by this law are actually registered in DC versus those that drive into DC from the surrounding areas on any given day. Also, I saw nothing about residents who already own these "large" vehicles being grandfathered in.

If the council was truly concerned about safety on the roads, perhaps MPD could actually enforce any of the numerous traffic laws already on the books. And if additional money was needed to improve the bad roads, perhaps some money could be allocated to those projects. Didn't DC have a huge budget surplus?

It's a money grab. And a pretty blatant one at that. All the council has to do is claim some specious benefit to road safety and road improvement people eat it up even if it doesn't pass the basic smell test.

It’s not perfect but it’s a step in the right direction of making people who create negative externalities have to pay for doing so. For once.

But what is the perceived "negative externality" here? And how is a typical DC resident driving a standard SUV, for example, "creating" these perceived negative externalities? Honestly asking.

SUVs use more gas, take up more space, and are much more dangerous to pedestrians and smaller cars.

PP here. But if I drive a standard SUV, I pay for the increased gas (and corresponding gas tax) I would consume right? What legitimate reason would DC have for levying an additional fee? And if I don't actually drive my SUV very much, I may not actually use more gas than someone who drives a car more frequently.

And what's the problem with "taking up more space?" Where? How? The roads were designed to accommodate standard SUVs so they aren't taking up more space than is otherwise allowed.

A standard SUV isn't any more dangerous to a pedestrian or smaller car than a mini-van is. And there are already laws on the books to address safety regardless of the type of car being driven or where the car is tagged if safety is actually a concern. For one, MPD could enforce the traffic laws to increase safety for everyone but they don't. An SUV isn't inherently dangerous - it's only dangerous if its operated in a negligent manner. Note also that EVs are given a subsidy so it seems that safety is not really the issue here.

And in addition to all of the above, it bears repeating that the law does nothing to address these issues when it comes to MD or VA drivers. Don't their SUVs use more gas, take up more space and present a danger to all on the road, too? We won't charge them a fee for driving their dangerous, polluting vehicles into the District but we'll charge District residents a fee for owning such vehicles. I'd wager most of these dangerous, polluting vehicles on the road on any given day have MD or VA tags anyway.

because the gas tax *does not pay for* all the additional costs SUVs impose.

And what costs are those?

Read the thread. SUVs are much more deadly, take up space, use more gas, emit more polution. I watch school pickup every day, and the height & length of SUVs, coupled with selfish driving, make the whole thing 10x worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than yet another law designed to line DC’s coffers. We all know DC isn’t going to spend this newfound $40m on fixing the roads, even if Cheh “hopes” it’s used for that. This law will have the same effect on improving the roads and safety as the speed cameras have had on safety — which is to say, nothing at all. All it will do is bring in revenue.

Meanwhile, crime is increasing and city services are mediocre on a good day. But what we really need to do is tax people based on the size of their vehicles!

Blah blah blah. Seems like we have the racist who hates DC back! We all know what your agenda is.

What in the world?? That was my first post on this thread. How am I a racist with an agenda for pointing out that this new law is misplaced and is nothing more than a revenue source for the city? Perhaps you responded to the wrong post.

DP. Discouraging too-big-for-the-roads and bad-for-the-roads trucks isn't misplaced, IMO.

PP. It is when it arbitrarily targets only certain kinds of vehicles, fails to address the actual problems and doesn't even bother to require the funds to go toward improving the roads that are allegedly being damaged by these vehicles. Do you know which vehicles are being targeted in this law? It's not only "too-big-for-the-road" vehicles. Many standard size SUVs are slightly above the weight limit according to this law (which begs the question of how the council came up with the particular weight limit in the first place). Families with more than 2 kids or who carpool can't necessarily fit in a sedan or a small SUV that's under the arbitrary weight limit (those often doesn't seat more than a sedan). Some people need larger vehicles for work (contractors, for example). Not to mention that this law does absolutely nothing about all of these large, dangerous vehicles coming into the District from MD and VA on a daily basis. Aren't those vehicles just as "dangerous?" I would love to know how many of the vehicles targeted by this law are actually registered in DC versus those that drive into DC from the surrounding areas on any given day. Also, I saw nothing about residents who already own these "large" vehicles being grandfathered in.

If the council was truly concerned about safety on the roads, perhaps MPD could actually enforce any of the numerous traffic laws already on the books. And if additional money was needed to improve the bad roads, perhaps some money could be allocated to those projects. Didn't DC have a huge budget surplus?

It's a money grab. And a pretty blatant one at that. All the council has to do is claim some specious benefit to road safety and road improvement people eat it up even if it doesn't pass the basic smell test.

It’s not perfect but it’s a step in the right direction of making people who create negative externalities have to pay for doing so. For once.

But what is the perceived "negative externality" here? And how is a typical DC resident driving a standard SUV, for example, "creating" these perceived negative externalities? Honestly asking.

SUVs use more gas, take up more space, and are much more dangerous to pedestrians and smaller cars.

PP here. But if I drive a standard SUV, I pay for the increased gas (and corresponding gas tax) I would consume right? What legitimate reason would DC have for levying an additional fee? And if I don't actually drive my SUV very much, I may not actually use more gas than someone who drives a car more frequently.

And what's the problem with "taking up more space?" Where? How? The roads were designed to accommodate standard SUVs so they aren't taking up more space than is otherwise allowed.

A standard SUV isn't any more dangerous to a pedestrian or smaller car than a mini-van is. And there are already laws on the books to address safety regardless of the type of car being driven or where the car is tagged if safety is actually a concern. For one, MPD could enforce the traffic laws to increase safety for everyone but they don't. An SUV isn't inherently dangerous - it's only dangerous if its operated in a negligent manner. Note also that EVs are given a subsidy so it seems that safety is not really the issue here.

And in addition to all of the above, it bears repeating that the law does nothing to address these issues when it comes to MD or VA drivers. Don't their SUVs use more gas, take up more space and present a danger to all on the road, too? We won't charge them a fee for driving their dangerous, polluting vehicles into the District but we'll charge District residents a fee for owning such vehicles. I'd wager most of these dangerous, polluting vehicles on the road on any given day have MD or VA tags anyway.

What? Not in DC. Where are you posting from?

Are you suggesting that the roads in DC aren’t normal sized? Where are you driving in DC where the lane is abnormally small such that it cannot accommodate a standard size vehicle? I’ve lived here for decades and haven’t encountered any such roads.

SUVs have much worse visibility - roads aren’t designed for them.

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/suvs-other-large-vehicles-often-hit-pedestrians-while-turning

[Anonymous]

What? Not in DC. Where are you posting from?

Are you suggesting that the roads in DC aren’t normal sized? Where are you driving in DC where the lane is abnormally small such that it cannot accommodate a standard size vehicle? I’ve lived here for decades and haven’t encountered any such roads.

NP--yes, roads in DC are not normal sized. I live and work in Capitol Hill neighobrhood and the side streets are quite narrow. When a car is coming one direction, if it is wider than normal, you need to pull over close to the parked cars and stop and let them go by. OR they do the same when they see me. I don't mind this much as it requires drivers to drive extremely slowly. The streets were laid out before cars were invented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than yet another law designed to line DC’s coffers. We all know DC isn’t going to spend this newfound $40m on fixing the roads, even if Cheh “hopes” it’s used for that. This law will have the same effect on improving the roads and safety as the speed cameras have had on safety — which is to say, nothing at all. All it will do is bring in revenue.

Meanwhile, crime is increasing and city services are mediocre on a good day. But what we really need to do is tax people based on the size of their vehicles!

Blah blah blah. Seems like we have the racist who hates DC back! We all know what your agenda is.

What in the world?? That was my first post on this thread. How am I a racist with an agenda for pointing out that this new law is misplaced and is nothing more than a revenue source for the city? Perhaps you responded to the wrong post.

DP. Discouraging too-big-for-the-roads and bad-for-the-roads trucks isn't misplaced, IMO.

PP. It is when it arbitrarily targets only certain kinds of vehicles, fails to address the actual problems and doesn't even bother to require the funds to go toward improving the roads that are allegedly being damaged by these vehicles. Do you know which vehicles are being targeted in this law? It's not only "too-big-for-the-road" vehicles. Many standard size SUVs are slightly above the weight limit according to this law (which begs the question of how the council came up with the particular weight limit in the first place). Families with more than 2 kids or who carpool can't necessarily fit in a sedan or a small SUV that's under the arbitrary weight limit (those often doesn't seat more than a sedan). Some people need larger vehicles for work (contractors, for example). Not to mention that this law does absolutely nothing about all of these large, dangerous vehicles coming into the District from MD and VA on a daily basis. Aren't those vehicles just as "dangerous?" I would love to know how many of the vehicles targeted by this law are actually registered in DC versus those that drive into DC from the surrounding areas on any given day. Also, I saw nothing about residents who already own these "large" vehicles being grandfathered in.

If the council was truly concerned about safety on the roads, perhaps MPD could actually enforce any of the numerous traffic laws already on the books. And if additional money was needed to improve the bad roads, perhaps some money could be allocated to those projects. Didn't DC have a huge budget surplus?

It's a money grab. And a pretty blatant one at that. All the council has to do is claim some specious benefit to road safety and road improvement people eat it up even if it doesn't pass the basic smell test.

It’s not perfect but it’s a step in the right direction of making people who create negative externalities have to pay for doing so. For once.

But what is the perceived "negative externality" here? And how is a typical DC resident driving a standard SUV, for example, "creating" these perceived negative externalities? Honestly asking.

SUVs use more gas, take up more space, and are much more dangerous to pedestrians and smaller cars.

PP here. But if I drive a standard SUV, I pay for the increased gas (and corresponding gas tax) I would consume right? What legitimate reason would DC have for levying an additional fee? And if I don't actually drive my SUV very much, I may not actually use more gas than someone who drives a car more frequently.

And what's the problem with "taking up more space?" Where? How? The roads were designed to accommodate standard SUVs so they aren't taking up more space than is otherwise allowed.

A standard SUV isn't any more dangerous to a pedestrian or smaller car than a mini-van is. And there are already laws on the books to address safety regardless of the type of car being driven or where the car is tagged if safety is actually a concern. For one, MPD could enforce the traffic laws to increase safety for everyone but they don't. An SUV isn't inherently dangerous - it's only dangerous if its operated in a negligent manner. Note also that EVs are given a subsidy so it seems that safety is not really the issue here.

And in addition to all of the above, it bears repeating that the law does nothing to address these issues when it comes to MD or VA drivers. Don't their SUVs use more gas, take up more space and present a danger to all on the road, too? We won't charge them a fee for driving their dangerous, polluting vehicles into the District but we'll charge District residents a fee for owning such vehicles. I'd wager most of these dangerous, polluting vehicles on the road on any given day have MD or VA tags anyway.

These are all very good points.

I would also add that in most other jurisdictions, EV owners pay a supplemental licensing fee to cover their contribution to road repairs due to their lack of payment of gas tax. I would think also that if cyclists want all of their new and dedicated infrastructure maintained that there would be a specific user fee or tax regime that would be set up to apply.

What DC is currently doing with this vehicle licensing scheme seems like a great ploy for generating headlines and attention, but pretty poorly thought through public policy.

OMG! DC politicans would LOVE LOVE LOVE to tax VA and MD commuters! But isn't that something that Congress forbids DC from doing? Part of the whole DC not being a state and not having the authority to do that. A great argument for DC Statehood-- sounds like something that you would get behind?

[Anonymous]

Wouldn't all of the arguments about SUVs apply equally to minivans? They're larger than normal cars, reduced visibility which means more danger to pedestrians, etc. Yet mini vans aren't subject to the increased registration fee because they fall just under the weight limit.

So, if it's really about safety and improved roads, then mini vans would be included and subsidies for oversized electric vehicles wouldn't be permitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't all of the arguments about SUVs apply equally to minivans? They're larger than normal cars, reduced visibility which means more danger to pedestrians, etc. Yet mini vans aren't subject to the increased registration fee because they fall just under the weight limit.

So, if it's really about safety and improved roads, then mini vans would be included and subsidies for oversized electric vehicles wouldn't be permitted.

That’s not true. Several minivans are over 3,500 lbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What? Not in DC. Where are you posting from?

Are you suggesting that the roads in DC aren’t normal sized? Where are you driving in DC where the lane is abnormally small such that it cannot accommodate a standard size vehicle? I’ve lived here for decades and haven’t encountered any such roads.

NP--yes, roads in DC are not normal sized. I live and work in Capitol Hill neighobrhood and the side streets are quite narrow. When a car is coming one direction, if it is wider than normal, you need to pull over close to the parked cars and stop and let them go by. OR they do the same when they see me. I don't mind this much as it requires drivers to drive extremely slowly. The streets were laid out before cars were invented.
Roads in DC are not “normal sized”. That’s just not credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What? Not in DC. Where are you posting from?

Are you suggesting that the roads in DC aren’t normal sized? Where are you driving in DC where the lane is abnormally small such that it cannot accommodate a standard size vehicle? I’ve lived here for decades and haven’t encountered any such roads.

NP--yes, roads in DC are not normal sized. I live and work in Capitol Hill neighobrhood and the side streets are quite narrow. When a car is coming one direction, if it is wider than normal, you need to pull over close to the parked cars and stop and let them go by. OR they do the same when they see me. I don't mind this much as it requires drivers to drive extremely slowly. The streets were laid out before cars were invented.

Is it that the roads are actually too small or that parking is allowed on one or both sides of the street thereby reducing the size of the drive lane? There wouldn't be a problem if parking wasn't allowed on those side streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than yet another law designed to line DC’s coffers. We all know DC isn’t going to spend this newfound $40m on fixing the roads, even if Cheh “hopes” it’s used for that. This law will have the same effect on improving the roads and safety as the speed cameras have had on safety — which is to say, nothing at all. All it will do is bring in revenue.

Meanwhile, crime is increasing and city services are mediocre on a good day. But what we really need to do is tax people based on the size of their vehicles!

Blah blah blah. Seems like we have the racist who hates DC back! We all know what your agenda is.

What in the world?? That was my first post on this thread. How am I a racist with an agenda for pointing out that this new law is misplaced and is nothing more than a revenue source for the city? Perhaps you responded to the wrong post.

DP. Discouraging too-big-for-the-roads and bad-for-the-roads trucks isn't misplaced, IMO.

PP. It is when it arbitrarily targets only certain kinds of vehicles, fails to address the actual problems and doesn't even bother to require the funds to go toward improving the roads that are allegedly being damaged by these vehicles. Do you know which vehicles are being targeted in this law? It's not only "too-big-for-the-road" vehicles. Many standard size SUVs are slightly above the weight limit according to this law (which begs the question of how the council came up with the particular weight limit in the first place). Families with more than 2 kids or who carpool can't necessarily fit in a sedan or a small SUV that's under the arbitrary weight limit (those often doesn't seat more than a sedan). Some people need larger vehicles for work (contractors, for example). Not to mention that this law does absolutely nothing about all of these large, dangerous vehicles coming into the District from MD and VA on a daily basis. Aren't those vehicles just as "dangerous?" I would love to know how many of the vehicles targeted by this law are actually registered in DC versus those that drive into DC from the surrounding areas on any given day. Also, I saw nothing about residents who already own these "large" vehicles being grandfathered in.

If the council was truly concerned about safety on the roads, perhaps MPD could actually enforce any of the numerous traffic laws already on the books. And if additional money was needed to improve the bad roads, perhaps some money could be allocated to those projects. Didn't DC have a huge budget surplus?

It's a money grab. And a pretty blatant one at that. All the council has to do is claim some specious benefit to road safety and road improvement people eat it up even if it doesn't pass the basic smell test.

It’s not perfect but it’s a step in the right direction of making people who create negative externalities have to pay for doing so. For once.

But what is the perceived "negative externality" here? And how is a typical DC resident driving a standard SUV, for example, "creating" these perceived negative externalities? Honestly asking.

SUVs use more gas, take up more space, and are much more dangerous to pedestrians and smaller cars.

PP here. But if I drive a standard SUV, I pay for the increased gas (and corresponding gas tax) I would consume right? What legitimate reason would DC have for levying an additional fee? And if I don't actually drive my SUV very much, I may not actually use more gas than someone who drives a car more frequently.

And what's the problem with "taking up more space?" Where? How? The roads were designed to accommodate standard SUVs so they aren't taking up more space than is otherwise allowed.

A standard SUV isn't any more dangerous to a pedestrian or smaller car than a mini-van is. And there are already laws on the books to address safety regardless of the type of car being driven or where the car is tagged if safety is actually a concern. For one, MPD could enforce the traffic laws to increase safety for everyone but they don't. An SUV isn't inherently dangerous - it's only dangerous if its operated in a negligent manner. Note also that EVs are given a subsidy so it seems that safety is not really the issue here.

And in addition to all of the above, it bears repeating that the law does nothing to address these issues when it comes to MD or VA drivers. Don't their SUVs use more gas, take up more space and present a danger to all on the road, too? We won't charge them a fee for driving their dangerous, polluting vehicles into the District but we'll charge District residents a fee for owning such vehicles. I'd wager most of these dangerous, polluting vehicles on the road on any given day have MD or VA tags anyway.

The extra price of the gas isn't proportional to the extra costs that you place on every other road user

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't all of the arguments about SUVs apply equally to minivans? They're larger than normal cars, reduced visibility which means more danger to pedestrians, etc. Yet mini vans aren't subject to the increased registration fee because they fall just under the weight limit.

So, if it's really about safety and improved roads, then mini vans would be included and subsidies for oversized electric vehicles wouldn't be permitted.

It looks like the fee is just for vehicles over 6,000 lbs; it is not specifically excluding minivans. If your minivan is more than 6,000 lbs you would have to pay the higher fee.

I agree that the electric vehicle carve-out is lame but maybe it wouldn't have passed without it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This won't affect the rich and wealthy as DC would like to so righteously pompous proclaim. This will only affect small businesses, large families and those who use their large cars for Uber/Lyft purposes. Thus, affecting the poor. DC is so self-righteously stupid, that's it's hard to watch from suburban sidelines.

Oh please. Lets not.pretend the working poor can afford those tricked out Denalis and Escalades.

The Ford F-250, which is cited in the article and certainly no one’s definition of “tricked out” retails at a base model for $41,485.

The fact that you lie to cover up what you are doing speaks to the fact that you know it’s wrong. Otherwise you wouldn’t be lying about it.

Other vehicles over 6,000 pounds include the Ford Explorer and the Honda Odyssey.

Every thing that liberals like Cheh and her supporters like you do hates middle class families. The fact that you lie about is the icing on the cake.

As if $41,485 is within budget for the working poor. Get out of your bubble.

Also, if you can shell out $42k for a big new truck, what's another few hundred dollars in fees? Just for gas you will be paying thousands and thousands more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What? Not in DC. Where are you posting from?

Are you suggesting that the roads in DC aren’t normal sized? Where are you driving in DC where the lane is abnormally small such that it cannot accommodate a standard size vehicle? I’ve lived here for decades and haven’t encountered any such roads.

NP--yes, roads in DC are not normal sized. I live and work in Capitol Hill neighobrhood and the side streets are quite narrow. When a car is coming one direction, if it is wider than normal, you need to pull over close to the parked cars and stop and let them go by. OR they do the same when they see me. I don't mind this much as it requires drivers to drive extremely slowly. The streets were laid out before cars were invented.

Is it that the roads are actually too small or that parking is allowed on one or both sides of the street thereby reducing the size of the drive lane? There wouldn't be a problem if parking wasn't allowed on those side streets.

Off topic, but I recently saw Murder at 1600, came out around the same time as Absolute Power. At one point, Diane Lane escapes from the White House by jumping out a bathroom window and landing in a small alley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This won't affect the rich and wealthy as DC would like to so righteously pompous proclaim. This will only affect small businesses, large families and those who use their large cars for Uber/Lyft purposes. Thus, affecting the poor. DC is so self-righteously stupid, that's it's hard to watch from suburban sidelines.

Oh please. Lets not.pretend the working poor can afford those tricked out Denalis and Escalades.

The Ford F-250, which is cited in the article and certainly no one’s definition of “tricked out” retails at a base model for $41,485.

The fact that you lie to cover up what you are doing speaks to the fact that you know it’s wrong. Otherwise you wouldn’t be lying about it.

Other vehicles over 6,000 pounds include the Ford Explorer and the Honda Odyssey.

Every thing that liberals like Cheh and her supporters like you do hates middle class families. The fact that you lie about is the icing on the cake.

As if $41,485 is within budget for the working poor. Get out of your bubble.

Also, if you can shell out $42k for a big new truck, what's another few hundred dollars in fees? Just for gas you will be paying thousands and thousands more.

Why are you so specific that it has to be affordable to “working poor”. Certainly a family at the median income can afford it, which is the point that the policy targets and punishes blue collar workers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This won't affect the rich and wealthy as DC would like to so righteously pompous proclaim. This will only affect small businesses, large families and those who use their large cars for Uber/Lyft purposes. Thus, affecting the poor. DC is so self-righteously stupid, that's it's hard to watch from suburban sidelines.

Oh please. Lets not.pretend the working poor can afford those tricked out Denalis and Escalades.

The Ford F-250, which is cited in the article and certainly no one’s definition of “tricked out” retails at a base model for $41,485.

The fact that you lie to cover up what you are doing speaks to the fact that you know it’s wrong. Otherwise you wouldn’t be lying about it.

Other vehicles over 6,000 pounds include the Ford Explorer and the Honda Odyssey.

Every thing that liberals like Cheh and her supporters like you do hates middle class families. The fact that you lie about is the icing on the cake.

As if $41,485 is within budget for the working poor. Get out of your bubble.

Also, if you can shell out $42k for a big new truck, what's another few hundred dollars in fees? Just for gas you will be paying thousands and thousands more.

Most people lease nowadays. The F series truck is the one of the most popular vehicles in the entire country and averages around 800,000 sold every year. They're also just release an electric version that is sold out and is one of the heaviest vehicles on the road.