I said part of the problem w/r/t SUVs, and if you think the gigantic tax break for SUVs does not incentivize people to purchase them, then you are fooling yourself. Just google "SUV tax break" to read about it.
There are gigantic tax breaks on SUVS and none (or next to none, I forget what's expired and what hasn't) on hybrids.
And it's not about making things more expensive, it's about reflecting the true costs.
IIRC, the SUV tax loophole was closed a while back. Anyway, it only applied to people who owned a business and bought a vehicle over 6000 pounds. It was supposed to give a tax break to farmers buying work vehicles, but it ended up being abused by lawyers and doctors buying big Hummers. The whole thing was pretty overblown, really. I doubt there were more than 25,000 people every year abusing this loophole.
Is that the SUV tax break you're talking about?
Anyway, people who buy large vehicles pay a shit-ton more in gasoline taxes (and in the cost of the vehicle itself) than people buying small cars, so they're already paying more for their vehicle choices.
Yes, and it most certainly has not been closed- maybe slightly reduced. Try "SUV tax break 2009" or "SUV tax break 2010."
Anyway, just because they pay "more" doesn't mean they're paying anywhere near what they should be. Nor, for that matter, does anyone else, as gas taxes are ridiculously low in the US.
It's actually a pretty legit tax break. All it does is allow small businesses to deduct the cost of a vehicle more quickly than they would be allowed otherwise. All businesses get to deduct the cost of their vehicles. I'm not aware of any general tax break for people buying SUV's, though.
What "should" be the cost of gas? There's no real magic formula, frankly. Gas taxes are pretty regressive in their effect, so you end up impacting the poor more than the rich with any increases.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
You... you don't understand how family thinking works.
If having X makes my family safer and I can afford it I will. If the cost of it goes up, but my family is still safer with it, then I will cut corners in other areas to afford it. I can not go out to eat as much, I can not donate to neighborhood issues outside of my direct needs, I can shop at a cheaper grocery store, I can cut back on consumer goods. In the end, the safety of my family is the most important aspect here. Now if I'm to poor to be able to cut down on these things, well then my families safety suffers.
It's easy to see where this leads.
It's the same as with raising gas prices. If I have a contracting business and I need x amount of trucks in service to haul crap around, then I need x amount of trucks. If my cost of operating this goes up, I have to cut down in other areas. This means less money for the people that work for me, and anything else I can slash.
So all you are doing is screwing over those too poor to cut spending, and the areas where those who can cut it do it.
I do not see how this is a good solution.
(or next to none, I forget what's expired and what hasn't) on hybrids.
So add breaks to hybrids. Or work on making hybrids large enough that they become safer than SUV's, and then work on reducing the social stigma around them.
Basically you think that the only way to fix the situation is if people spontaneously change their attitudes, as disincentiving driving obnoxiously large vehicles and living in unsustainable housing developments "hurts" "family safety."
Any normal person (that doesn't need the functionality of an SUV) can easily cut spending from a $70,000 SUV to a $15,000 Hyundai with no perceptible drop in their safety or well-being.
They'd just be driving a Hyundai instead of an Escalade except that Hyundai's are for poor people and oh my god won't you think of the children?!
That's the crux of the issue. Unrealistic attitudes and a short-sighted inability to see the unsustainable lifestyle a lot of people choose to live.
Similarly, get rid of the tax incentive to purchase SUVs and part of the problem will be solved.
Not really. SUV's are popular for one main reason, safety. If you have the money to throw at them you can be more sure that your family will live through a collision. When people are faced with a choice between cutting other expenses or making their family less safe, they will always choose to cut back in other areas.
So you aren't going to really cut back on SUV's. People will just spend less in other areas to make up the difference. The people who can't afford to keep up will scream bloody murder that they can't afford the same amount of safety as the upper class. The small business owners and contractors that depend on trucks and other vehicles to get their jobs done, and are already hit pretty hard will be slammed even more.
This is really where all of this fails. "Well make it suck so much and cost so much nobody will do it" is a horrible approach. You're not offering to make anything better, you're just "we'll I don't like it so let's tax it and make it suck, fuck those people" which doesn't get you anywhere when those people are making a rational choice based on what's best for their family or business.
You ... you don't really seem to understand how incentives work.
You tax it, it becomes more expensive, less people drive them, everyone wins.
It's a simple collective action problem.
When the rational choice for the individual is bad for everyone as a whole, you fix the system.
You... you don't understand how family thinking works.
If having X makes my family safer and I can afford it I will. If the cost of it goes up, but my family is still safer with it, then I will cut corners in other areas to afford it. I can not go out to eat as much, I can not donate to neighborhood issues outside of my direct needs, I can shop at a cheaper grocery store, I can cut back on consumer goods. In the end, the safety of my family is the most important aspect here. Now if I'm to poor to be able to cut down on these things, well then my families safety suffers.
It's easy to see where this leads.
It's the same as with raising gas prices. If I have a contracting business and I need x amount of trucks in service to haul crap around, then I need x amount of trucks. If my cost of operating this goes up, I have to cut down in other areas. This means less money for the people that work for me, and anything else I can slash.
So all you are doing is screwing over those too poor to cut spending, and the areas where those who can cut it do it.
I do not see how this is a good solution.
This is just fucking stupid. "Having an SUV" is not THAT big a priority for most people, no matter how hard you try and pretend it is. You can see this from shifting car sales when gas prices shot through the roof a few summers back.
People simply don't care all that much about this. If you disincentivize it a little, they will shift because it's not that important to them.
Even your gas example is dumb. When gas went up, people drove less. They slashed luxuries and something like an SUV is a luxury to people.
It's actually a pretty legit tax break. All it does is allow small businesses to deduct the cost of a vehicle more quickly than they would be allowed otherwise. All businesses get to deduct the cost of their vehicles. I'm not aware of any general tax break for people buying SUV's, though.
What "should" be the cost of gas? There's no real magic formula, frankly. Gas taxes are pretty regressive in their effect, so you end up impacting the poor more than the rich with any increases.
Except it's a well-abused tax break, and the vehicles purchased can be used for personal use 49% of the time. At least, you have to report to the IRS that you use it for business use anyway, and keep some nominal records to that effect.
You're right though, regular people can't abuse that loophole- only those with their own business that generates enough income to purchase a large, expensive vehicle. What's the opposite of a regressive tax? A regressive tax break?
There's no "right" cost of gas. It's a continuum. Public policy determines where along the continuum you are, tax-wise. You should know that.
Because we really shouldn't care if our kids have some kind of access to broader culture as long as they can recite their times tables and not have to see poor folk at school.
I don't think showing kids a painting done with menstrual blood is really enriching. Or showing them the Mona Lisa.
Teenagers? Yes. Children? No.
It's probably a moot point anyways, the kids will probably be pissed off they have to go to museums all the time and can't ride their bikes without getting ran over by a truck or something. I know I would've been ultra pissed living in a city.
I really wanted to go to museums and galleries when I was little. But, again, we keep exchanging anecdotes and assertions. We still aren't getting anywhere.
I don't really but that suburbs are detrimental to the exposing children to the arts.
I would think a parent who is too busy to take the time to spend 20-30 extra minutes getting there and back is definately going to be too busy to spend a couple hours at the destination with their kids once they get to the museum/play/musical/whatever.
Now parents who can't find the time to expose their kids to culture? Yeah, that's unfortunate and kind of sucks but I have a hard time believing that suburbs are playing a huge part in it.
You... you don't understand how family thinking works.
If having X makes my family safer and I can afford it I will. If the cost of it goes up, but my family is still safer with it, then I will cut corners in other areas to afford it. I can not go out to eat as much, I can not donate to neighborhood issues outside of my direct needs, I can shop at a cheaper grocery store, I can cut back on consumer goods. In the end, the safety of my family is the most important aspect here. Now if I'm to poor to be able to cut down on these things, well then my families safety suffers.
It's easy to see where this leads.
It's the same as with raising gas prices. If I have a contracting business and I need x amount of trucks in service to haul crap around, then I need x amount of trucks. If my cost of operating this goes up, I have to cut down in other areas. This means less money for the people that work for me, and anything else I can slash.
So all you are doing is screwing over those too poor to cut spending, and the areas where those who can cut it do it.
I do not see how this is a good solution.
(or next to none, I forget what's expired and what hasn't) on hybrids.
So add breaks to hybrids. Or work on making hybrids large enough that they become safer than SUV's, and then work on reducing the social stigma around them.
Basically you think that the only way to fix the situation is if people spontaneously change their attitudes, as disincentiving driving obnoxiously large vehicles and living in unsustainable housing developments "hurts" "family safety."
Any normal person (that doesn't need the functionality of an SUV) can easily cut spending from a $70,000 SUV to a $15,000 Hyundai with no perceptible drop in their safety or well-being.
They'd just be driving a Hyundai instead of an Escalade except that Hyundai's are for poor people and oh my god won't you think of the children?!
That's the crux of the issue. Unrealistic attitudes and a short-sighted inability to see the unsustainable lifestyle a lot of people choose to live.
The person buying the $70,000 SUV is going to be able to handle $6 a gallon gas much more easily than the person who can only afford to buy the $15,000 Hyundai.
Ironically, what saved the SUV for now is the worldwide recession lowering oil prices. Just as soon as they go back up, driving trucks for commuting will end for most. Good riddance.
Perception is more important than facts, when it comes to understanding people. Heavier vehicles survive crashes and protect the passengers better than smaller, lighter vehicles. This is the perception a lot of families have dug into them, and it's in general right.
So if they look at a 5star safter rating hyundai, and a 5star safety rating explorer, they default to the explorer because it's bigger and therefore safer.
Marketting people are good at what they do. To help change how people think, you need to bombard them with the information you want them to hear from big sources. Magazines, newspapers, internet news, and television news are what really determine the majority of public opinion.
Just think about how popular red wine became.
The safety argument only lasts till it starts really hitting their pocket book.
But people also live with a very high standard of living. They prioritize safety over excellent food, and are willing to cut down to mediocre food. For most families, safety is very very highly prioritized.
The safety argument only lasts till it starts really hitting their pocket book.
But people also live with a very high standard of living. They prioritize safety over excellent food, and are willing to cut down to mediocre food. For most families, safety is very very highly prioritized.
The safety argument only lasts till it starts really hitting their pocket book.
But people also live with a very high standard of living. They prioritize safety over excellent food, and are willing to cut down to mediocre food. For most families, safety is very very highly prioritized.
Then why do SUV sales dive when gas prices rise?
They die in certain groups. The less money you have the more it impacts you. The better off you are the safer you become then.
Really driving up gas prices is a "let the poor eat cake" attitude. Fuck their safety, only the rich should be able to drive safe cars. The poor can just do without!
Attacking gas prices is really class warfare on the less well off. You might as well just scream "fuck the poor, and screw the middle class" at the top of your lungs.
Attacking gas prices is really class warfare on the less well off. You might as well just scream "fuck the poor, and screw the middle class" at the top of your lungs.
This is some of the most dishonest and disingenuous nonsense I've seen.
The safety argument only lasts till it starts really hitting their pocket book.
But people also live with a very high standard of living. They prioritize safety over excellent food, and are willing to cut down to mediocre food. For most families, safety is very very highly prioritized.
Then why do SUV sales dive when gas prices rise?
They die in certain groups. The less money you have the more it impacts you. The better off you are the safer you become then.
Really driving up gas prices is a "let the poor eat cake" attitude. Fuck their safety, only the rich should be able to drive safe cars. The poor can just do without!
Attacking gas prices is really class warfare on the less well off. You might as well just scream "fuck the poor, and screw the middle class" at the top of your lungs.
Now you're just ranting aimlessly. SUVs only appear safer, a fact that is backed up by research. So your assertion that wanting to raise fuel taxes is a "fuck the poor" attitude is.. wrong.
The safety argument only lasts till it starts really hitting their pocket book.
But people also live with a very high standard of living. They prioritize safety over excellent food, and are willing to cut down to mediocre food. For most families, safety is very very highly prioritized.
Then why do SUV sales dive when gas prices rise?
They die in certain groups. The less money you have the more it impacts you. The better off you are the safer you become then.
Really driving up gas prices is a "let the poor eat cake" attitude. Fuck their safety, only the rich should be able to drive safe cars. The poor can just do without!
Attacking gas prices is really class warfare on the less well off. You might as well just scream "fuck the poor, and screw the middle class" at the top of your lungs.
Now you're just ranting aimlessly. SUVs only appear safer, a fact that is backed up by research. So your assertion that wanting to raise fuel taxes is a "fuck the poor" attitude is.. wrong.
They don't appear safer, they are safer. But even tossing that aside, fuel taxes are largely regressive and impact lower income families the most.
So yes, arguing for higher taxes on fuel is screaming fuck the poor at the top of your lungs.
Attacking gas prices is really class warfare on the less well off. You might as well just scream "fuck the poor, and screw the middle class" at the top of your lungs.
Bullshit. Virtually every country with modern economy(see, less than 90% based on oil exports) + a whole fucking continent known as Europe pay a lot more for gas and it doesn't murder their "poor & middle class". Yes, the Europeans travel almost twice less than Americans because of distances and urbanization, but that absolutely can not justify the price of petrol in the States.
edit: The way the poor will get fucked is that they'd have to buy a Golf instead of a Durango.
Now you're just ranting aimlessly. SUVs only appear safer, a fact that is backed up by research. So your assertion that wanting to raise fuel taxes is a "fuck the poor" attitude is.. wrong.
They don't appear safer, they are safer. But even tossing that aside, fuel taxes are largely regressive and impact lower income families the most.
So yes, arguing for higher taxes on fuel is screaming fuck the poor at the top of your lungs.
Care to cite some research or statistics showing that they're safer?
Here's a handy-dandy analysis from 2003 that shows that SUVS and pickup trucks are significantly more dangerous to passengers and other drivers than normal cars. They're barely more safe than compacts and subcompacts to passengers. And that's only because there are some shitty subcompacts out there; the safest subcompacts are as safe as SUVS to passengers, and significantly safer to other drivers.
Also most people (that I know) just throw a fixed 20$ per week into the tank and adjust their activities around the gas prices.
I haven't met a single person that buys gas in gallons, they buy gas in dollars.
I've never budgeted on gas dollars. I fill up my car to full when it's low. I drive so little that what gas costs me- $35 a month right now for a full tank, appx. 13 gallons- barely registers as an expense.
One of the benefits of living in a dense urban area, even one that has terrible public transportation.
And why are we only assuming that it'll be a gas tax?
You could easily just add extra taxes onto SUV purchases.
Then you're just taxing a vehicle based on aesthetics. Who cares if a vehicle falls into a certain category? If you're worried about environmental issues, the problem really comes down to fuel efficiency.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
And why are we only assuming that it'll be a gas tax?
You could easily just add extra taxes onto SUV purchases.
Then you're just taxing a vehicle based on aesthetics. Who cares if a vehicle falls into a certain category? If you're worried about environmental issues, the problem really comes down to fuel efficiency.
Gross weight is independent of aesthetics.
It does have an obvious association with fuel efficiency, however.
The "You want the POOR to DIE!" argument works for all kinds of disincentives, not just gas taxes!
Raising the price, which is what taxes in effect do, on needed items for safety or basic living is regressive and hurts the poor more than the rich. This applies universally. Which is why a lot of policy ideas to "well will just tax the crap out of it, then people will change their lives and do what we want them to" boil down to "fuck poor people that don't do what I want them to" logic. You may think it's OK to screw over lower income people that don't act how you want them to, I think it's horrible and I'm against it.
No matter how you slice it the end result is that you're waging class warfare on the more vulnerable members of our society in order to get them to act, behave, fall in line, and shop, how you want.
Gross weight is independent of aesthetics.
It does have an obvious association with fuel efficiency, however.
Gross weight has an impact on safety as well. Watch what happens when a smart car goes head first with an SUV.
You seem to assume that resources are unlimited and externalities are non-existent. Guess who will be most affected when prices skyrocket because all our cheap sources of fuel have been exhausted? Who is most affected by pollution?
Your argument is to stick your fingers in your ears and yell "LAH LAH LAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU" rather than thinking through what you're saying.
As far as bigger, less efficient vehicles being safer- that argument has been debunked. The Toyota Corolla is safer than any truck or SUV both to the driver and to other drivers. You can keep thinking up worst-case scenarios like an SUV vs. a Smart Car, but that doesn't make what you're saying any more true.
You seem to assume that resources are unlimited and externalities are non-existent. Guess who will be most affected when prices skyrocket because all our cheap sources of fuel have been exhausted? Who is most affected by pollution?
See, there are ways to do this without beating up on the saps who don't agree with you and don't have money, and hey, you don't have to force your views on them either. But that takes all the fun out of it now doesn't it. You seem far more concerned on sticking it to people who don't, or can't afford to, agree with your viewpoint than actually fixing the problem.
Enforce minimal fuel standards on cars sold in the US for personal use that go into effect after a certain date. Cars that are already owned are not affected.
Make highly fuel efficient vehicles, such as motorcycles, hybrids, smart cars, tax deductable for people making say under 100k gross household income, one per house.
Doing this will hurt nobody. It will cut down on the amount of gas guzzlers out on the road and let middle/low income families get a break on moving into a more eco friendly option.
You seem to assume that resources are unlimited and externalities are non-existent. Guess who will be most affected when prices skyrocket because all our cheap sources of fuel have been exhausted? Who is most affected by pollution?
See, there are ways to do this without beating up on the saps who don't agree with you and don't have money, and hey, you don't have to force your views on them either. But that takes all the fun out of it now doesn't it.
Enforce minimal fuel standards on cars sold in the US for personal use that go into effect after a certain date. Cars that are already owned are not affected.
Make highly fuel efficient vehicles, such as motorcycles, hybrids, smart cars, tax deductable for people making say under 100k gross household income, one per house.
Doing this will hurt nobody. It will cut down on the amount of gas guzzlers out on the road and let middle/low income families get a break on moving into a more eco friendly option.
None of that addresses how to pay for our decaying infrastructure. Continuing to borrow money nationally to subsidize the American lifestyle is not a situation that can keep up forever.
This is a multi-pronged issue that you're only paying attention to part of.
None of that addresses how to pay for our decaying infrastructure. Continuing to borrow money nationally to subsidize the American lifestyle is not a situation that can keep up forever.
This can be fixed by slashing spending on bullshit items, I'm looking at the DoD in this as well so don't bring up that issue.
It can also be fixed by removing tax cuts on the rich, and raising taxes on that upper 5% of the Americans.
We really already rake in enough money on taxes and just spend in poorly, and if we do need more we have ways to generate it that don't involve sticking it to the middle class and down that just happen to disagree with you.
None of that addresses how to pay for our decaying infrastructure. Continuing to borrow money nationally to subsidize the American lifestyle is not a situation that can keep up forever.
This can be fixed by slashing spending on bullshit items, I'm looking at the DoD in this as well so don't bring up that issue.
It can also be fixed by removing tax cuts on the rich, and raising taxes on that upper 5% of the Americans.
We really already rake in enough money on taxes and just spend in poorly, and if we do need more we have ways to generate it that don't involve sticking it to the middle class and down that just happen to disagree with you.
Why don't you attack the argument, instead of the people making it?
You think that raising gas taxes are screwing the poor out of safe vehicles, yet you suggest motorcycles and smartcars as replacements? I'm not sure you're reading your own posts.
None of that addresses how to pay for our decaying infrastructure. Continuing to borrow money nationally to subsidize the American lifestyle is not a situation that can keep up forever.
This can be fixed by slashing spending on bullshit items, I'm looking at the DoD in this as well so don't bring up that issue.
It can also be fixed by removing tax cuts on the rich, and raising taxes on that upper 5% of the Americans.
We really already rake in enough money on taxes and just spend in poorly, and if we do need more we have ways to generate it that don't involve sticking it to the middle class and down that just happen to disagree with you.
Why don't you attack the argument, instead of the people making it?
You think that raising gas taxes are screwing the poor out of safe vehicles, yet you suggest motorcycles and smartcars as replacements? I'm not sure you're reading your own posts.
Raising gas taxes is screwing people out of safer vehicles. Furthermore taxes on basic goods and services hurt the middle class and poor and have virtually no impact on the upper middle class and rich. These are facts.
Raising fuel standards on cars sold hurts nobody. And will remove gas guzzlers from the road without having a gigantic impact on anybody else.
Having hybrids/motorcyles/ect as tax breaks will give people an option, if they chose to take it of their own free will rather than being bullied into it financially to chose a less safe, but more efficient method of transportation if they so chose. Setting a limit on the amount of them, and a gross family income cap prevents those who do not need it from taking advantage of it. They still have the option to buy an SUV at no penalty strictly imposed because people don't like them and want to stick it to those who drive them.
You don't really have an argument at all. All you are doing is trying to figure out ways to milk money out of people and punish those who do not agree with you. At least own up to it.
You guys would've rather me stick with spending thousands and thousands of dollars into my old junker car that gets maybe 18 miles to the gallon on a good day rather than "invest" in a new car that gets 25 (32+) highway just because it's an SUV?
Some of us don't live in the tropics. Granted you can drive a compact car in upstate NY, but, you really, really, really don't fucking want to. I've had more than my fair share of shit your pants moments because of other drivers. Why fuck me because I decided to be more economically minded about my whole situation and get something that fits the situations where I drive just because you don't like the class of vehicle or think that it's somehow more wasteful than a car that gets substantially less fuel economy. The car was going to get replaced regardless. Maybe I should've gotten a car that gets 80 miles to the gallon, but, again, I don't like to think I'm going to die every night I drive home either.
Just thought I'd snipe you guys with that anecdote and disappear.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
You guys would've rather me stick with spending thousands and thousands of dollars into my old junker car that gets maybe 18 miles to the gallon on a good day rather than "invest" in a new car that gets 25 (32+) highway just because it's an SUV?
Some of us don't live in the tropics. Granted you can drive a compact car in upstate NY, but, you really, really, really don't fucking want to. I've had more than my fair share of shit your pants moments because of other drivers. Why fuck me because I decided to be more economically minded about my whole situation and get something that fits the situations where I drive just because you don't like the class of vehicle or think that it's somehow more wasteful than a car that gets substantially less fuel economy. The car was going to get replaced regardless. Maybe I should've gotten a car that gets 80 miles to the gallon, but, again, I don't like to think I'm going to die every night I drive home either.
I'm not familiar with upstate New York. What exactly is the problem and why is driving at night associated with significantly higher risk if you're not in a SUV?
Winter, living off of the great lakes. Holy shit. You've never seen snow until you've lived in central New York. Remember when DC closed down for a week? Imaging getting storms like that as a weekly/monthly thing.
You guys would've rather me stick with spending thousands and thousands of dollars into my old junker car that gets maybe 18 miles to the gallon on a good day rather than "invest" in a new car that gets 25 (32+) highway just because it's an SUV?
Some of us don't live in the tropics. Granted you can drive a compact car in upstate NY, but, you really, really, really don't fucking want to. I've had more than my fair share of shit your pants moments because of other drivers. Why fuck me because I decided to be more economically minded about my whole situation and get something that fits the situations where I drive just because you don't like the class of vehicle or think that it's somehow more wasteful than a car that gets substantially less fuel economy. The car was going to get replaced regardless. Maybe I should've gotten a car that gets 80 miles to the gallon, but, again, I don't like to think I'm going to die every night I drive home either.
Just thought I'd snipe you guys with that anecdote and disappear.
Why does it have to be an SUV again? Invest in a new car that's cheaper and more gas efficient.
And even if you really want one, you can pay more for it due to it's shitty gas mileage and weight and all that other shit.
Winter, living off of the great lakes. Holy shit. You've never seen snow until you've lived in central New York.
Snow? Seriously?
I've lived in regions with heavier snow than NY, main roads are cleaned up non stop, unless the one day every 5 years where 10 feet of snow fall in about 24 hours. Also, snow chains.
I can see how it could be more comfortable driving a 4x4, but it shouldn't be a necessity by any means.
Edit: Yeah, in those pictures, you either use chains or you don't drive. Completely irrelevant if it's a SUV or a Ferrari.
Raising gas taxes is screwing people out of safer vehicles. Furthermore taxes on basic goods and services hurt the middle class and poor and have virtually no impact on the upper middle class and rich. These are facts.
Raising fuel standards on cars sold hurts nobody. And will remove gas guzzlers from the road without having a gigantic impact on anybody else.
Having hybrids/motorcyles/ect as tax breaks will give people an option, if they chose to take it of their own free will rather than being bullied into it financially to chose a less safe, but more efficient method of transportation if they so chose. Setting a limit on the amount of them, and a gross family income cap prevents those who do not need it from taking advantage of it. They still have the option to buy an SUV at no penalty strictly imposed because people don't like them and want to stick it to those who drive them.
You don't really have an argument at all. All you are doing is trying to figure out ways to milk money out of people and punish those who do not agree with you. At least own up to it.
I'm not going to keep arguing about something about which you are objectively, demonstrably wrong. SUVS and trucks are not safer than regular cars, for the driver or for the drivers of other vehicles.
Furthermore you're- once again- attacking me rather than the argument. I'm not in favor of what you're implying. But you can't see that for some reason.
What I'm in favor of is smart policies that favor sustainable energy sources, public transportation, and denser, more urban populations.
I'm in favor of small, incremental increases in prices now, rather than large, economy-destabilizing shocks later. It's a hard choice to make, but our dependence on oil means that's it's only a matter of time. We've had a number of crippling shocks already, and the rest of the world is not going to stop industrializing and requiring fuel and minerals.
And that's not even starting to talk about pollution and quality of life.
Winter, living off of the great lakes. Holy shit. You've never seen snow until you've lived in central New York.
Snow? Seriously?
I've lived in regions with heavier snow than NY, main roads are cleaned up non stop, unless the one day every 5 years where 10 feet of snow fall in about 24 hours. Also, snow chains.
I can see how it could be more comfortable driving a 4x4, but it shouldn't be a necessity by any means.
Edit: Yeah, in those pictures, you either use chains or you don't drive. Completely irrelevant if it's a SUV or a Ferrari.
As long as roads are occasionally cleared wouldn't a decent pair of winter tires, preferably studded, let you go everywhere you need to even in a compact?
Posts
What "should" be the cost of gas? There's no real magic formula, frankly. Gas taxes are pretty regressive in their effect, so you end up impacting the poor more than the rich with any increases.
Rigorous Scholarship
Basically you think that the only way to fix the situation is if people spontaneously change their attitudes, as disincentiving driving obnoxiously large vehicles and living in unsustainable housing developments "hurts" "family safety."
Any normal person (that doesn't need the functionality of an SUV) can easily cut spending from a $70,000 SUV to a $15,000 Hyundai with no perceptible drop in their safety or well-being.
They'd just be driving a Hyundai instead of an Escalade except that Hyundai's are for poor people and oh my god won't you think of the children?!
That's the crux of the issue. Unrealistic attitudes and a short-sighted inability to see the unsustainable lifestyle a lot of people choose to live.
This is just fucking stupid. "Having an SUV" is not THAT big a priority for most people, no matter how hard you try and pretend it is. You can see this from shifting car sales when gas prices shot through the roof a few summers back.
People simply don't care all that much about this. If you disincentivize it a little, they will shift because it's not that important to them.
Even your gas example is dumb. When gas went up, people drove less. They slashed luxuries and something like an SUV is a luxury to people.
Except it's a well-abused tax break, and the vehicles purchased can be used for personal use 49% of the time. At least, you have to report to the IRS that you use it for business use anyway, and keep some nominal records to that effect.
You're right though, regular people can't abuse that loophole- only those with their own business that generates enough income to purchase a large, expensive vehicle. What's the opposite of a regressive tax? A regressive tax break?
There's no "right" cost of gas. It's a continuum. Public policy determines where along the continuum you are, tax-wise. You should know that.
I don't really but that suburbs are detrimental to the exposing children to the arts.
I would think a parent who is too busy to take the time to spend 20-30 extra minutes getting there and back is definately going to be too busy to spend a couple hours at the destination with their kids once they get to the museum/play/musical/whatever.
Now parents who can't find the time to expose their kids to culture? Yeah, that's unfortunate and kind of sucks but I have a hard time believing that suburbs are playing a huge part in it.
The person buying the $70,000 SUV is going to be able to handle $6 a gallon gas much more easily than the person who can only afford to buy the $15,000 Hyundai.
Truck and SUV Sales Plunge as Gas Prices Rise - Washington Post.
SUVs plunge toward 'endangered' list - CNN.
Rising Gas Prices Finally Kill The Once-Mighty SUV - Wired Magazine.
Ironically, what saved the SUV for now is the worldwide recession lowering oil prices. Just as soon as they go back up, driving trucks for commuting will end for most. Good riddance.
Perception is more important than facts, when it comes to understanding people. Heavier vehicles survive crashes and protect the passengers better than smaller, lighter vehicles. This is the perception a lot of families have dug into them, and it's in general right.
So if they look at a 5star safter rating hyundai, and a 5star safety rating explorer, they default to the explorer because it's bigger and therefore safer.
Marketting people are good at what they do. To help change how people think, you need to bombard them with the information you want them to hear from big sources. Magazines, newspapers, internet news, and television news are what really determine the majority of public opinion.
Just think about how popular red wine became.
The safety argument only lasts till it starts really hitting their pocket book.
But people also live with a very high standard of living. They prioritize safety over excellent food, and are willing to cut down to mediocre food. For most families, safety is very very highly prioritized.
Then why do SUV sales dive when gas prices rise?
1) Train beats SUV.
2) Semi beats SUV.
3) Bus beats SUV.
4) Hell, any work truck like plows, garbage trucks, sandtrucks beats SUV.
Modern cars are all designed to be in accidents. All you're really going to do is hurt old cars more, and be more likely to kill a pedestrian in a SUV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_ptUrQOMPs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g
They die in certain groups. The less money you have the more it impacts you. The better off you are the safer you become then.
Really driving up gas prices is a "let the poor eat cake" attitude. Fuck their safety, only the rich should be able to drive safe cars. The poor can just do without!
Attacking gas prices is really class warfare on the less well off. You might as well just scream "fuck the poor, and screw the middle class" at the top of your lungs.
Then again, this lets us not have toll booths (for now)
This is some of the most dishonest and disingenuous nonsense I've seen.
Now you're just ranting aimlessly. SUVs only appear safer, a fact that is backed up by research. So your assertion that wanting to raise fuel taxes is a "fuck the poor" attitude is.. wrong.
They don't appear safer, they are safer. But even tossing that aside, fuel taxes are largely regressive and impact lower income families the most.
So yes, arguing for higher taxes on fuel is screaming fuck the poor at the top of your lungs.
Bullshit. Virtually every country with modern economy(see, less than 90% based on oil exports) + a whole fucking continent known as Europe pay a lot more for gas and it doesn't murder their "poor & middle class". Yes, the Europeans travel almost twice less than Americans because of distances and urbanization, but that absolutely can not justify the price of petrol in the States.
edit: The way the poor will get fucked is that they'd have to buy a Golf instead of a Durango.
I haven't met a single person that buys gas in gallons, they buy gas in dollars.
The way we allocate usage of public roads (i.e., pretty much no limits on use) is a pretty inefficient approach.
Rigorous Scholarship
Care to cite some research or statistics showing that they're safer?
Here's a handy-dandy analysis from 2003 that shows that SUVS and pickup trucks are significantly more dangerous to passengers and other drivers than normal cars. They're barely more safe than compacts and subcompacts to passengers. And that's only because there are some shitty subcompacts out there; the safest subcompacts are as safe as SUVS to passengers, and significantly safer to other drivers.
I've never budgeted on gas dollars. I fill up my car to full when it's low. I drive so little that what gas costs me- $35 a month right now for a full tank, appx. 13 gallons- barely registers as an expense.
One of the benefits of living in a dense urban area, even one that has terrible public transportation.
You could easily just add extra taxes onto SUV purchases.
The "You want the POOR to DIE!" argument works for all kinds of disincentives, not just gas taxes!
Rigorous Scholarship
Gross weight is independent of aesthetics.
It does have an obvious association with fuel efficiency, however.
Raising the price, which is what taxes in effect do, on needed items for safety or basic living is regressive and hurts the poor more than the rich. This applies universally. Which is why a lot of policy ideas to "well will just tax the crap out of it, then people will change their lives and do what we want them to" boil down to "fuck poor people that don't do what I want them to" logic. You may think it's OK to screw over lower income people that don't act how you want them to, I think it's horrible and I'm against it.
No matter how you slice it the end result is that you're waging class warfare on the more vulnerable members of our society in order to get them to act, behave, fall in line, and shop, how you want.
Gross weight has an impact on safety as well. Watch what happens when a smart car goes head first with an SUV.
Your argument is to stick your fingers in your ears and yell "LAH LAH LAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU" rather than thinking through what you're saying.
As far as bigger, less efficient vehicles being safer- that argument has been debunked. The Toyota Corolla is safer than any truck or SUV both to the driver and to other drivers. You can keep thinking up worst-case scenarios like an SUV vs. a Smart Car, but that doesn't make what you're saying any more true.
See, there are ways to do this without beating up on the saps who don't agree with you and don't have money, and hey, you don't have to force your views on them either. But that takes all the fun out of it now doesn't it. You seem far more concerned on sticking it to people who don't, or can't afford to, agree with your viewpoint than actually fixing the problem.
Enforce minimal fuel standards on cars sold in the US for personal use that go into effect after a certain date. Cars that are already owned are not affected.
Make highly fuel efficient vehicles, such as motorcycles, hybrids, smart cars, tax deductable for people making say under 100k gross household income, one per house.
Doing this will hurt nobody. It will cut down on the amount of gas guzzlers out on the road and let middle/low income families get a break on moving into a more eco friendly option.
None of that addresses how to pay for our decaying infrastructure. Continuing to borrow money nationally to subsidize the American lifestyle is not a situation that can keep up forever.
This is a multi-pronged issue that you're only paying attention to part of.
This can be fixed by slashing spending on bullshit items, I'm looking at the DoD in this as well so don't bring up that issue.
It can also be fixed by removing tax cuts on the rich, and raising taxes on that upper 5% of the Americans.
We really already rake in enough money on taxes and just spend in poorly, and if we do need more we have ways to generate it that don't involve sticking it to the middle class and down that just happen to disagree with you.
Why don't you attack the argument, instead of the people making it?
You think that raising gas taxes are screwing the poor out of safe vehicles, yet you suggest motorcycles and smartcars as replacements? I'm not sure you're reading your own posts.
Raising gas taxes is screwing people out of safer vehicles. Furthermore taxes on basic goods and services hurt the middle class and poor and have virtually no impact on the upper middle class and rich. These are facts.
Raising fuel standards on cars sold hurts nobody. And will remove gas guzzlers from the road without having a gigantic impact on anybody else.
Having hybrids/motorcyles/ect as tax breaks will give people an option, if they chose to take it of their own free will rather than being bullied into it financially to chose a less safe, but more efficient method of transportation if they so chose. Setting a limit on the amount of them, and a gross family income cap prevents those who do not need it from taking advantage of it. They still have the option to buy an SUV at no penalty strictly imposed because people don't like them and want to stick it to those who drive them.
You don't really have an argument at all. All you are doing is trying to figure out ways to milk money out of people and punish those who do not agree with you. At least own up to it.
Some of us don't live in the tropics. Granted you can drive a compact car in upstate NY, but, you really, really, really don't fucking want to. I've had more than my fair share of shit your pants moments because of other drivers. Why fuck me because I decided to be more economically minded about my whole situation and get something that fits the situations where I drive just because you don't like the class of vehicle or think that it's somehow more wasteful than a car that gets substantially less fuel economy. The car was going to get replaced regardless. Maybe I should've gotten a car that gets 80 miles to the gallon, but, again, I don't like to think I'm going to die every night I drive home either.
Just thought I'd snipe you guys with that anecdote and disappear.
I'm not familiar with upstate New York. What exactly is the problem and why is driving at night associated with significantly higher risk if you're not in a SUV?
Edit:
An example of a typical winter + roads:
http://activerain.com/blogsview/42492/central-new-york-snow-storm
Why does it have to be an SUV again? Invest in a new car that's cheaper and more gas efficient.
And even if you really want one, you can pay more for it due to it's shitty gas mileage and weight and all that other shit.
Snow? Seriously?
I've lived in regions with heavier snow than NY, main roads are cleaned up non stop, unless the one day every 5 years where 10 feet of snow fall in about 24 hours. Also, snow chains.
I can see how it could be more comfortable driving a 4x4, but it shouldn't be a necessity by any means.
Edit: Yeah, in those pictures, you either use chains or you don't drive. Completely irrelevant if it's a SUV or a Ferrari.
I'm not going to keep arguing about something about which you are objectively, demonstrably wrong. SUVS and trucks are not safer than regular cars, for the driver or for the drivers of other vehicles.
Furthermore you're- once again- attacking me rather than the argument. I'm not in favor of what you're implying. But you can't see that for some reason.
What I'm in favor of is smart policies that favor sustainable energy sources, public transportation, and denser, more urban populations.
I'm in favor of small, incremental increases in prices now, rather than large, economy-destabilizing shocks later. It's a hard choice to make, but our dependence on oil means that's it's only a matter of time. We've had a number of crippling shocks already, and the rest of the world is not going to stop industrializing and requiring fuel and minerals.
And that's not even starting to talk about pollution and quality of life.
As long as roads are occasionally cleared wouldn't a decent pair of winter tires, preferably studded, let you go everywhere you need to even in a compact?