SUVs should be heavily taxed

[Anonymous]

Every morning I have to shift my little car (with two kids fitting just fine inside) into driveway entrances or move at 2 miles and hour on Macomb and Woodley, just to make sure the gigantic gas guzzling SUVs that pass by don't take off my side mirror.

You don't need an SUV for 2 kids. If you have 3 kids and lacrosse equipment, fine: you can pay a heavy heavy heavy tax on your large car, and because you have such great need for this enormous tank, you will probably find it still makes sense for you. Good, pay away and you can have it.

Just like smoke affects others in restaurants, your gigantic car affects others on the road. You spew out more pollution, other drivers can't see more than your backside in front of them (if there were an accident 3 cars in front of me, I would never know with your gigantic view blocking monster truck in front of me), you take up more than your spot in the parking lot, and you make it difficult for everyone else to drive down small streets. You should pay more for taking up more of the road, regardless of whether you need it.

Cigarettes are now $8 a pack. I say there should be a $10,000 tax on owning an SUV.

[Anonymous]

I say there should be a $10,000 annual green tax for every child born to a family. You should have to pay more, much much more than $10K actually, for all the resources those kids will consume.

This tax should be paid even by smug people who drive a Honda Fit, if they bear children.

[Anonymous]

I agree absolutely. The weight of the car also creates more wear & tear and damage on the roads and bridges. The extra pollution that SUVs spew creates higher environmental and social costs. It MUST be taxed by size and weight.

[Anonymous]

With he number of kids (6) I drive in my HYBRID SUV-I am putting out less emissions than you and when I did not have a hybrid, I am sure I still have lower emissions that the four other cars that would have been on the road if I didn't carpool. Maybe you don't understand the carpool concept because you don't have nay friends who would ask you to join them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I say there should be a $10,000 annual green tax for every child born to a family. You should have to pay more, much much more than $10K actually, for all the resources those kids will consume.

This tax should be paid even by smug people who drive a Honda Fit, if they bear children.

Within the stream of taxable items, it actually makes sense to tax cars, since they consume a portion of the public space (roads) and have negative externalities (carbon emissions). As for children being taxed, I might agree with that as well if we lived in a country in which population growth was threatening the overexploitation of resources (but the US is actually facing a demographic challenge of not having sufficient population growth to support its aging population). In any case, the child tax might make sense too. But the SUV tax certainly makes sense as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With he number of kids (6) I drive in my HYBRID SUV-I am putting out less emissions than you and when I did not have a hybrid, I am sure I still have lower emissions that the four other cars that would have been on the road if I didn't carpool. Maybe you don't understand the carpool concept because you don't have nay friends who would ask you to join them?

As I said, for you it might make sense. But I'm sure you'll agree that with the $10,000 tax, it would still make sense, and it would encourage parents with 2 children to think twice about getting an SUV.

I understand there are people who need SUVs. In Europe, you will occasionally see them, because there will be a circumstance where someone needs one. But they are rare.
I can't drive down my own road. We have to take turns driving down my road because the SUVs that pass by cannot fit on the road with another car coming in the opposite direction.
Would you agree it would start to suck big time if everyone decided to drive an 18 wheeler? Would you begin to think, "Hey, we should do something so people with 2 children stop driving 18 wheelers!"?

It's policy. It's supposed to change incentives. People who really need SUVs will continue to get them, but it will discourage 90% of the SUV owners from getting them in the future. And that is good for the roads and good for the environment. And I'm sure you want your 6 little ones to have a nice environment to look forward to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With he number of kids (6) I drive in my HYBRID SUV-I am putting out less emissions than you and when I did not have a hybrid, I am sure I still have lower emissions that the four other cars that would have been on the road if I didn't carpool. Maybe you don't understand the carpool concept because you don't have nay friends who would ask you to join them?

As I said, for you it might make sense. But I'm sure you'll agree that with the $10,000 tax, it would still make sense, and it would encourage parents with 2 children to think twice about getting an SUV.

I understand there are people who need SUVs. In Europe, you will occasionally see them, because there will be a circumstance where someone needs one. But they are rare.
I can't drive down my own road. We have to take turns driving down my road because the SUVs that pass by cannot fit on the road with another car coming in the opposite direction.
Would you agree it would start to suck big time if everyone decided to drive an 18 wheeler? Would you begin to think, "Hey, we should do something so people with 2 children stop driving 18 wheelers!"?

It's policy. It's supposed to change incentives. People who really need SUVs will continue to get them, but it will discourage 90% of the SUV owners from getting them in the future. And that is good for the roads and good for the environment. And I'm sure you want your 6 little ones to have a nice environment to look forward to.

I would only agree to the tax IF it went directly to fund ways to get us off our dependency of oil and not programs like work centers for day labor, welfare programs, etc

[Anonymous]

At the very least there should be a commuter or use tax on those who drive SUVs in(to) the city. Cities are not designed for SUVs. But, in places like Montana with wide open roads and heavy snowfall? Sure.

I agree that SUVs make sense for some people, but not everyone needs one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree absolutely. The weight of the car also creates more wear & tear and damage on the roads and bridges. The extra pollution that SUVs spew creates higher environmental and social costs. It MUST be taxed by size and weight.

I agree. It's not unreasonable to use size/weight/emissions as a tax base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I would only agree to the tax IF it went directly to fund ways to get us off our dependency of oil and not programs like work centers for day labor, welfare programs, etc

You're arguing that you don't like other aspects of fiscal policy (ie government expenditure). We're not Congressman looking to make a deal. This is on one issue: does it make sense to heavily tax SUVs? How can that be affected in your mind by where the resources are spent?

I think it's great to reduce our oil dependency. I also think we need to get SUVs off the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With he number of kids (6) I drive in my HYBRID SUV-I am putting out less emissions than you and when I did not have a hybrid, I am sure I still have lower emissions that the four other cars that would have been on the road if I didn't carpool. Maybe you don't understand the carpool concept because you don't have nay friends who would ask you to join them?

This is a nice thought, unfortunately I have rarely seen more than the driver in SUVs.

[Anonymous]

Let me get this straight. Because you dislike SUVs and don't own one and have to schlep your kids in a small car TAX the SUV. This is because you don't believe in freedom of choice to drive what you want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let me get this straight. Because you dislike SUVs and don't own one and have to schlep your kids in a small car TAX the SUV. This is because you don't believe in freedom of choice to drive what you want?

Not at all. I have had an SUV and a hybrid in my time. If I can afford an SUV, I'll buy one again, for camping and snow and carrying large loads, for example.

I wouldn't argue for an astronomical tax on SUVs. But what about taxing based on size, weight and emissions seems unfair or unreasonable to you? You are taxing this vehicle based on its consumption of tax dollars - an SUV is going to put more wear and tear on the roads, for example. An SUV is going to generate more pollution which, I seem to recall, affects the region's eligibility for federal tax dollars for roads. So just like being taxed on the size of your home, the size of your income, the size of your land, you are taxed on the size of your car. What's the problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me get this straight. Because you dislike SUVs and don't own one and have to schlep your kids in a small car TAX the SUV. This is because you don't believe in freedom of choice to drive what you want?

Not at all. I have had an SUV and a hybrid in my time. If I can afford an SUV, I'll buy one again, for camping and snow and carrying large loads, for example.

I wouldn't argue for an astronomical tax on SUVs. But what about taxing based on size, weight and emissions seems unfair or unreasonable to you? You are taxing this vehicle based on its consumption of tax dollars - an SUV is going to put more wear and tear on the roads, for example. An SUV is going to generate more pollution which, I seem to recall, affects the region's eligibility for federal tax dollars for roads. So just like being taxed on the size of your home, the size of your income, the size of your land, you are taxed on the size of your car. What's the problem?

Sure, but the logical extension of that is to tax all car owners, as opposed to people who bike, walk or take metro. Also, people who carpool in their SUV or van should get a tax break for the amount of cars they are taking off the road. In my opinion, it's never ending, but if you can come up with a system that takes all of that into account, I'd be all for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me get this straight. Because you dislike SUVs and don't own one and have to schlep your kids in a small car TAX the SUV. This is because you don't believe in freedom of choice to drive what you want?

Not at all. I have had an SUV and a hybrid in my time. If I can afford an SUV, I'll buy one again, for camping and snow and carrying large loads, for example.

I wouldn't argue for an astronomical tax on SUVs. But what about taxing based on size, weight and emissions seems unfair or unreasonable to you? You are taxing this vehicle based on its consumption of tax dollars - an SUV is going to put more wear and tear on the roads, for example. An SUV is going to generate more pollution which, I seem to recall, affects the region's eligibility for federal tax dollars for roads. So just like being taxed on the size of your home, the size of your income, the size of your land, you are taxed on the size of your car. What's the problem?

We already pay taxes based on the car when we buy them. Why do you want an extra tax on the SUV? It is because you want to implement a certain type of social policy and force a change in people by hitting them in their pockets. If you admit this is what you really want then maybe we can have some reasonable discourse here. Also hybrids are a joke, the amt of hazardous materials it takes to build them and their so called return makes them just as "dirty".