SUVs should be heavily taxed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm with you. This is totally rational.

It is also totally rational to tax people for the size of their families. Seriously, who puts "more strain" on the infastructure of a city? That's right! Humans. If you make more humans that use the roads, the water pipes, the city buses, the bridges and the school system, then it makes sense to charge those parents who make more humans. If you make more humans, then you're necessarily going to make more automobile or public transportation trips in your lifetime than the family that makes fewer humans.

Look, it's really the logical conclusion of this argument. Ok, it's anathema to the freedom of self-determination in the U.S. of A, yes. But it's also very much the logical extension of this line of argument.

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?

I agree that families with more than one or two kids (replacement rate) should be taxed incrementally higher, NOT have them be a deduction!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm with you. This is totally rational.

It is also totally rational to tax people for the size of their families. Seriously, who puts "more strain" on the infastructure of a city? That's right! Humans. If you make more humans that use the roads, the water pipes, the city buses, the bridges and the school system, then it makes sense to charge those parents who make more humans. If you make more humans, then you're necessarily going to make more automobile or public transportation trips in your lifetime than the family that makes fewer humans.

Look, it's really the logical conclusion of this argument. Ok, it's anathema to the freedom of self-determination in the U.S. of A, yes. But it's also very much the logical extension of this line of argument.

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?

I agree that families with more than one or two kids (replacement rate) should be taxed incrementally higher, NOT have them be a deduction!

I don't think it's politically feasible to have a kid tax. But you can tax what the kids consume.

[Anonymous]

My RAV 4 has better gas mileage than the Accord it replaced. Will Accords be taxed too, or just cars that block your view? And do we tax older less fuel efficient cars more than new more fuel efficient SUVs? On the one hand, shouldn't we get the old models off the road? On the other, should we build new more fuel efficient cars when perfectly driveable but fuel inefficient ones are on the road? Can I offset the taxes on my SUV if I can prove that I have a low-flow showerhead, great home insulation, a tankless water heater and only ever wash a full dishwasher and full laundry loads, and always use the cold setting? (But do I get taxed for using the dryer instead of line drying?) What to make of the fact that when I moved into my large and not so PC looking 1980's built home, I found that I consumed FAR FEWER kw of electricity and gas per year (as clearly established by comparing my bills) than in my 1930's built teeny tiny Cape Cod, and that once I blew a bunch of insulation into the attic and sealed the windows that went down even more? Does this mean the person who bought my old tiny Cape should be forced to knock it down and replace it with a more fuel-efficient McMansion? Or is fuel inefficient ok as long as it has character and was built say, before 1960?

[Anonymous]

I thought that minivans aren't much better on mileage than a mid-size SUV. I assume that all those advocating this approach would tax minivans as well? Not trying to be snarky. Just curious.

[Anonymous]

The feds already make car manufacturers meet an overall fleet gas mileage requirement (CAFE), which has made them become more fuel efficient in their offerings. That will continue to get even more strict.

And there is already a Gas Guzzler Tax on cars (not SUVs). You could look into lobbying for that if you'd like.

[Anonymous]

I was looking into a minivan and realized the new Honda Odyssey is just as big as my brother's Toyota 4Runner. No thank you. I prefer smaller cars, just because they are easier for me to drive. I'm not sure what's out there for when I start carpooling with my kids and their friends. I don't want a monster vehicle, but the 5 seaters aren't really feasible. Maybe I'll look into that Rav4 with a 3rd row.

[Anonymous]

You should tax FUTURE new SUV sales, so that people gradually reduce their dependence on them. There is an economic argument to taxing a car which takes up more space. I'm not sure what the problem is with that.

No one is saying you can't have an SUV. No one is saying you can't be a great person driving around an SUV. The problem is, the SUV has significant negative externalities. They are more likely to cause significant damage to smaller vehicles in an accident. They create visibility problems for other drivers by obscuring their view of traffic lights, signs, and other vehicles on the road, plus the road itself. Because they are wide,they occupy a greater percentage of road lanes, leaving less room for error and for other road users.

There is nothing unreasonable in thinking that these externalities should be taxed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My RAV 4 has better gas mileage than the Accord it replaced. Will Accords be taxed too, or just cars that block your view? And do we tax older less fuel efficient cars more than new more fuel efficient SUVs? On the one hand, shouldn't we get the old models off the road? On the other, should we build new more fuel efficient cars when perfectly driveable but fuel inefficient ones are on the road? Can I offset the taxes on my SUV if I can prove that I have a low-flow showerhead, great home insulation, a tankless water heater and only ever wash a full dishwasher and full laundry loads, and always use the cold setting? (But do I get taxed for using the dryer instead of line drying?) What to make of the fact that when I moved into my large and not so PC looking 1980's built home, I found that I consumed FAR FEWER kw of electricity and gas per year (as clearly established by comparing my bills) than in my 1930's built teeny tiny Cape Cod, and that once I blew a bunch of insulation into the attic and sealed the windows that went down even more? Does this mean the person who bought my old tiny Cape should be forced to knock it down and replace it with a more fuel-efficient McMansion? Or is fuel inefficient ok as long as it has character and was built say, before 1960?

You're made for politics.

I mean that in a snarky way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My RAV 4 has better gas mileage than the Accord it replaced. Will Accords be taxed too, or just cars that block your view? And do we tax older less fuel efficient cars more than new more fuel efficient SUVs? On the one hand, shouldn't we get the old models off the road? On the other, should we build new more fuel efficient cars when perfectly driveable but fuel inefficient ones are on the road? Can I offset the taxes on my SUV if I can prove that I have a low-flow showerhead, great home insulation, a tankless water heater and only ever wash a full dishwasher and full laundry loads, and always use the cold setting? (But do I get taxed for using the dryer instead of line drying?) What to make of the fact that when I moved into my large and not so PC looking 1980's built home, I found that I consumed FAR FEWER kw of electricity and gas per year (as clearly established by comparing my bills) than in my 1930's built teeny tiny Cape Cod, and that once I blew a bunch of insulation into the attic and sealed the windows that went down even more? Does this mean the person who bought my old tiny Cape should be forced to knock it down and replace it with a more fuel-efficient McMansion? Or is fuel inefficient ok as long as it has character and was built say, before 1960?

Taxing cars on weight and emissions could be gradually phased in. As for home related "offsets" or credits, those can be addressed with green home improvement tax credits, which already exist and could be expanded. Taxes on home consumption of fuel, electricity, oil etc. could encourage people to turn down the thermostat a bit or spring for insulation.

You guys are acting like these are novel concepts or insurmountable hurdles. I don't see that at all.

[Anonymous]

So funny and timely from ym point of view. I was driving to work downtown today from my NWDC neighborhood (its a lovely commute by the way) and was thinking to myself, "why do so many people hate SUVs?" It just seems so odd to me. I have observed that, on average, the worst drivers on the road these days tend to be the Prius drivers who are so concerned with saving gas and being efficiant that they drive really dangerously and really selfishly. I have not noticed nearly as many SUV drivers adding danger to the roadways as these Prius (and other hybrids) driver's add. Truly, SUV drivers in general do not seem to be bad drivers or exhibit dangerous behavior on the road. UI think it is partly perhaops because they do see the road ahead better from their higher perches. They can see what is coming up ahead better. Maybe we should all just drive SUVs. Also, Pick-Up trucks, vans and mini-vans are pretty much the same as SUVs from a space and road-wear standpoint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You would paralyze all policy if you thought this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So funny and timely from ym point of view. I was driving to work downtown today from my NWDC neighborhood (its a lovely commute by the way) and was thinking to myself, "why do so many people hate SUVs?" It just seems so odd to me. I have observed that, on average, the worst drivers on the road these days tend to be the Prius drivers who are so concerned with saving gas and being efficiant that they drive really dangerously and really selfishly. I have not noticed nearly as many SUV drivers adding danger to the roadways as these Prius (and other hybrids) driver's add. Truly, SUV drivers in general do not seem to be bad drivers or exhibit dangerous behavior on the road. UI think it is partly perhaops because they do see the road ahead better from their higher perches. They can see what is coming up ahead better. Maybe we should all just drive SUVs. Also, Pick-Up trucks, vans and mini-vans are pretty much the same as SUVs from a space and road-wear standpoint.

Remind me to build my gigantic seven story house next to yours. You will find, there's no problem with the views in my house. I can see perfectly well. Sorry you don't get any sun, but you stupidly built a small house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So funny and timely from ym point of view. I was driving to work downtown today from my NWDC neighborhood (its a lovely commute by the way) and was thinking to myself, "why do so many people hate SUVs?" It just seems so odd to me. I have observed that, on average, the worst drivers on the road these days tend to be the Prius drivers who are so concerned with saving gas and being efficiant that they drive really dangerously and really selfishly. I have not noticed nearly as many SUV drivers adding danger to the roadways as these Prius (and other hybrids) driver's add. Truly, SUV drivers in general do not seem to be bad drivers or exhibit dangerous behavior on the road. UI think it is partly perhaops because they do see the road ahead better from their higher perches. They can see what is coming up ahead better. Maybe we should all just drive SUVs. Also, Pick-Up trucks, vans and mini-vans are pretty much the same as SUVs from a space and road-wear standpoint.

Remind me to build my gigantic seven story house next to yours. You will find, there's no problem with the views in my house. I can see perfectly well. Sorry you don't get any sun, but you stupidly built a small house.

What a suburbanite repsonse - talking about building new houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My RAV 4 has better gas mileage than the Accord it replaced. Will Accords be taxed too, or just cars that block your view? And do we tax older less fuel efficient cars more than new more fuel efficient SUVs? On the one hand, shouldn't we get the old models off the road? On the other, should we build new more fuel efficient cars when perfectly driveable but fuel inefficient ones are on the road? Can I offset the taxes on my SUV if I can prove that I have a low-flow showerhead, great home insulation, a tankless water heater and only ever wash a full dishwasher and full laundry loads, and always use the cold setting? (But do I get taxed for using the dryer instead of line drying?) What to make of the fact that when I moved into my large and not so PC looking 1980's built home, I found that I consumed FAR FEWER kw of electricity and gas per year (as clearly established by comparing my bills) than in my 1930's built teeny tiny Cape Cod, and that once I blew a bunch of insulation into the attic and sealed the windows that went down even more? Does this mean the person who bought my old tiny Cape should be forced to knock it down and replace it with a more fuel-efficient McMansion? Or is fuel inefficient ok as long as it has character and was built say, before 1960?

Taxing cars on weight and emissions could be gradually phased in. As for home related "offsets" or credits, those can be addressed with green home improvement tax credits, which already exist and could be expanded. Taxes on home consumption of fuel, electricity, oil etc. could encourage people to turn down the thermostat a bit or spring for insulation.

You guys are acting like these are novel concepts or insurmountable hurdles. I don't see that at all.

I'm the PP and I agree. My point is merely that railing against a single thing like SUVs is stupid when what we need is a well thought out and comprehensive energy policy. Taxing SUVs is just spitting in the wind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SUVs are more than just gas guzzlers. They take up more space. There should be a tax to discourage people from buying cars that are enormous (even hybrid enormous). Our roads are not meant for what are essentially trucks.

I say either (1) have a weight/size tax on the car (and make it big), or (2) don't allow SUVs on city streets.

All these tea party people live in places like Wyoming. You can afford to say, "Leave me the hell alone!" in Wyoming. I just want to be able to drive down my damn street.

And from what I can see, the only people driving SUVs are middle aged moms, who after dropping off their kids, spend the rest of the day driving their lonely asses from one store to another in a truck sized vehicle.

I hope you realize, also, that people that live in the city that only bike or metro say the same about you in your car. You should be taxed heavily for living in a city and even owning a car. All parts of the city can be accessed by walking, bus, bike or metro. Why do you even own a car? You're contributing to the very problem you're complaining about!

People in the city are never pressed for time such that a car would get them to their destination fastest? They never buy more groceries than they can carry? And forget about carpooling with friends.