Archives

Autos alliance takes out ad decrying California's latest proposal. (http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070606/AUTO01/706060383/1148)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Hummer_H22.jpgDavid Shepardson - Detroit News - June 6, 2007

California "fee-bates" could cost a Hummer owner an extra $2,500 ... or give a Prius owner a tax rebate of $2,500.

WASHINGTON -- A trade group representing Detroit automakers and Japan's Toyota Motor Corp. is mounting a full-court press to kill a bill that would tax gas-guzzler vehicles in California.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., DaimlerChrysler AG and Toyota, among others, is running a full-page ad in the Sacramento Bee newspaper urging legislators to reject the bill.

Dubbed the "Clean Air Discount Act," the bill is sponsored by Ira Ruskin, D-Redwood City, and faces a vote Friday in the state assembly. It would require drivers who purchase new vehicles that emit high levels of greenhouse gases to pay a fee of up to $2,500. The money would be used to pay rebates of up to $2,500 to buyers of more fuel-efficient models.

The ad is the latest skirmish in battles between Detroit and California over fuel economy mandates. It features pictures of a family of four getting out of a minivan, a farmer with a bale of hay and a hard hat-wearing worker carrying lumber. The headline is: "Thought the car tax was dead? Think again. It's back."

Charles Territo, a spokesman for the automobile alliance, said the group wants to kill the proposal and may run additional print or radio ads later.

"We fundamentally think that these car taxes are unfair to large families, small businesses, working people, farmers, contractors and anyone else who needs a larger vehicle," Territo said, noting the fee would hike the cost of many popular vehicles … http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070606/AUTO01/706060383/1148

It has to be a combination of things to reduce oil consumption. If automakers would stop fighting the facts and just utilize the current technology to increase FE while quietly developing new FE stuff, there wouldn't be all this waste of legal energy and attempts to mislead the public on these issues.

Let us just keep plugging on what we can do.

Isn't that a little harsh for people who actually NEED a large truck or SUV?

Isn't that a little harsh for people who actually NEED a large truck or SUV?

The article mentions there are provisions for low income people that need a larger vehicle for work.

However, the number of people that actually *need* a larger vehicle likely represents about 2-3% of those that buy larger vehicles. This legislation is aimed at getting the other 97-98% of people into smaller, smarter, more appropriate vehicles.

This shouldn't be a new law in California.

It should be a new law nation-wide.

What was the point of the old gas-guzzler law? We need a new gas guzzler law that creates monetary incentives for people to buy fuel efficient cars while providing strong dis-incentives for people who want to buy gas hogs.

As usual, California leads the way.

Harry

As much as I like the idea of rewarding people for buying FE vehicles, I don't like the idea of punishing those who do not. They already pay added cost for fuel, bigger tires etc. I just don't think it's right to tack on another arbitrary amount. It just builds more resentment towards the enviromentally conscious. Which of course brings up the question, where would the reward money come from?

Maybe in a few years there'll be extra money that's not being spent on a war.... OK, that's probably a pipe dream (and off topic) but I can hope.

I hear you, pumaman, but the sad reality is that folks only see up-front costs (not costs that are built up bit by bit over the life of a vehicle), and in today's U.S. society the only thing that gets people to pay even the slightest bit of attention or to put the slightest thought into anything is hitting them in their wallet.

It would be great for gas-hog drivers to subsidize people buying fuel-efficient cars. BailOut is right, the typical Amerian car shopper pays no attention to fuel economy when deciding what car to buy.

Harry

According to Art Spinella (here), this freebate program should work great :rolleyes:. He postulates that most all of the families that have large cars have small cars as secondary vehicles, thus the household FE is uniform. We all know that Art is on a PR mission of with a different goal, but I love throwing his research back at those that like to use it against Prius owners.

As much as it pains me to admit, there is some merit to the family fleet argument (at least in my family). We have two cars, an Odyssey for serious people pushing, and a Prius for urban people pushing.

So my wife would have paid 2500 tax on the Odyssey and I would have gotten a 2500 credit on the Prius. A net wash as far as I'm concerned. Agreed poor people who can only afford one car and need it to be a work truck are in a bind but:

1) Think there are loopholes for the poor

2) There may be loopholes for used cars... The poor are certainly not going to buy a new CrewMax and complain that they can only afford one car. Well they may, but the argument begins to loose water.

11011011

I think the poor for the most part are buying used cars. I only bought a new car because I am planning on getting 10+ years out of it.

My view is that raising our national FE and FE awareness needs to be addressed from every possible angle. Different segments of our population will respond to different approaches.

I don't know whether Californians will support a FeeBate but if they will I'd be glad to see it.

What I believe would do the most for our natonal FE and FE awareness is legislation requiring a prominent and continuously updated FE display on all vehicles. I suspect that many drivers would learn quickly where their fuel is going, and what THEY did to make it go away.

I have one FE car and one gas hog. There is no option for me (5 young kids) on my gas hog. I welcome a FE mini van but as of now people with a large family have no options.

i guess we are sort of in the "fleet" category. i drive my HCH, hubby drives my old 93 civic, and would probably get hypermiler status with that.....however, we live on a farm and need to buy grain, or move hay and once or twice a year i have to pull a horse trailer. i admit it, we DO have a chevy 4x4. however, it was set up with a short box, no extra cab, and a towing package that would make our FE while towing as economical as possible. i couldn't make the pipes fart if i wanted to. actually, when i drive it, i feel guilty. :o

The fee proposal would probably be a step in the right direction, but I would prefer a tax on gas guzzling to a tax on gas guzzlers. It would give everyone the incentive to conserve both before and after their vehicle purchase.
See http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-manifesto.html for some persuasive arguments for gas tax increases.

As far as large families go, why SHOULDN'T they pay more? I get sick of my tax money being earmarked for huge families with inconsiderate breeding habits. I have no pity for them. If they gripe about $100 fillups, then they should have thought about that before having 5-6 kids.

As far as large families go, why SHOULDN'T they pay more? I get sick of my tax money being earmarked for huge families with inconsiderate breeding habits. I have no pity for them. If they gripe about $100 fillups, then they should have thought about that before having 5-6 kids.

At the risk of tying my line to a sinking ship, I kinda' agree. I have two kids and the amount of financial planning I did before we had any was insane. I'm kinda' a number nut, so it's my nature, but the point is, we really looked at whether we could afford the types of things we wanted to provide for our kids before we went off and tried to have any.

I know my siblings did the same thing. We've all had as many children as we could afford. To a very real degree, the cost of education 20 years down the road is making me have very serious thoughts about whether or not to try for a third child.

It may sound cold and callus to think of children as a financial responsibility, but I consider it part of parenting. I don't have to hunt for the food to provide for my family, but I do need to have a job, to make money, to pay for food to provide for my family. It's part of parenting.

That said, there are some class dynamics in this country that are kinda skewed (spelled with 'cr' where 'k' is). My taxation policy is very simple and even handed to all classes and all family sizes. FairTax.org has the details and I won't bore you with them in this thread.

11011011

The article mentions there are provisions for low income people that need a larger vehicle for work.

However, the number of people that actually *need* a larger vehicle likely represents about 2-3% of those that buy larger vehicles. This legislation is aimed at getting the other 97-98% of people into smaller, smarter, more appropriate vehicles.

I'd love to see the evidence on the 2-3% figure.

I'm only guessing but the other 97-98% of those people probably disagree with you

I'd love to see the evidence on the 2-3% figure.

I did not claim that as a statistic. I said "likely".

I'm only guessing but 99% of those people probably disagree with you
Right you are, hence the need for this legislation.

Even though I'm a parent myself, I don't see why reproduction needs any further subsidies. We are certainly in no danger of failing to sustain our population. If you want to drive an oversized vehicle, you can pay for the privilege. As far as I'm concerned, that should include feebates on the purchase price, higher gas taxes, and graduated registration fees. Besides, there's no reason a family with 4 kids needs a Suburban when a minivan will do the job just as well if not better. Other people's ego trips are another thing I'm not interested in subsidizing.

Sometimes the big-SUV defenders like to point out that a big family in an oversize SUV gets better per-passenger MPG than a smaller car with fewer people in it. OK fine, then let's continue down that line of reasoning: Even with a "feebate" attached, an oversized vehicle for a large family costs less to buy per person than a smaller vehicle purchased by a smaller family. So there.

Hi WriConsult:
Sometimes the big-SUV defenders like to point out that a big family in an oversize SUV gets better per-passenger MPG than a smaller car with fewer people in it. OK fine, then let's continue down that line of reasoning: Even with a "feebate" attached, an oversized vehicle for a large family costs less to buy per person than a smaller vehicle purchased by a smaller family. So there.___That was brilliant!

___How many times does a 7-passenger SUV have 7 passengers in it? I rarely if ever see more then 1 in them on my commute back and forth to work so obviously those SUV’s that do actually have 7 + in them are not driving around the Chicago area? I doubt they are driving around LA, NY, Boston, Miami, New Orleans, Dallas or Phoenix either? Maybe there is a mythical town located just south of Indianapolis, IN. where these mythical 7 passengers live and always ride together in a Chevrolet Suburban to work, the store, the movies and then to a local beach for a bit of fun in the sun? Gas there must still be $1.299 too ;)

___Good Luck

___Wayne

FeeBate... GOD!!!!! Lets just be idiots and tax the crap out of everything.... You don't like it lets just tax it. Thats what the country needs more tax. I cant believe you tax supporting cornholders.

Maybe there is a mythical town located just south of Indianapolis, IN. where these mythical 7 passengers live and always ride together in a Chevrolet Suburban to work, the store, the movies and then to a local beach for a bit of fun in the sun? Gas there must still be $1.299 too ;)Ah ha ha! If only. :D I'm pretty sure it is illegal to have more than 1 passenger in your full size SUV here in Indianapolis. And if you do have that 1 passenger, they have to stay in the Suburban with engine running and AC on full cryogenic while the driver goes into the (most likely air conditioned) store.

I think gas is around $3.30 a gallon for the cheap stuff, but it's been 500 miles since I bought gas. :p I filled up before the pre-Memorial Day jump in the price.

Psyshack - Using a large SUV as a 1 person commuter is a luxury. It is a luxury that has a negative impact on the environment, health and safety, and the price of gas due to increased demand. A luxury tax makes perfect sense. There are provisions to protect that very small segment of the population that needs large vehicles for work or family. Unfair taxes suck (like the compulsory 20+ percent of my income that goes to the Pentagon). I have no problem with fair taxes such as this one.

I'm not for excess taxes but maybe we should think about it like properity taxes. The bigger your house the more you have to pay. kevin

The SUV owners atleast in Oklahoma aleady pay more in tax and tag fees. Then figure how much more they pay in fuel tax. I think they darn well pay enough. I will fight this tooth and nail if it comes to my state or part of the country. Im not a SUV supporter. But this endless control of socity thru tax and stuff is insane. This kind of stuff is out of control in many country in the world is about to start a huge fight in the USA. If I wanted to be taxed like a idiot sot I would move to Canada or the UK. And then to offer credits to folks that buy hybrids is a very sore spot with me. Like the poor are going to by them. I built a effcent house once. Solar, 3 phase, insulation. It went on and on and on. I didnt take a tax credit on any of it. I could afford at the time to do the right thing and I did it. Didnt need or want anybody else's money for my actions.

Im sorry,, i just get smoking mad when folks think we need to do stupid stuff like this to advance there agenda.

I hope Im dead before this country turns into USA/UK

psy

I understand that you feel very strongly on this issue, Jeff, but at the end of the day this would be a voluntary tax. No one would have to pay it. The only people that would be affected are those that insist on buying a land yacht without proper justification.

As for the credits I applaud you on your view and action, but the simple fact is that most folks will be more attracted to smaller vehicles if a carrot is dangled in front of them. At the end of the day, as long as it gets people into smaller cars, it can only be a good thing.

As for the poor, I don't see that this tax would affect them at all. Poor folks don't buy new vehicles, which is where this tax would be placed. On the rare occasion one of these folks buys a new car it is generally in the sub-$16k range, naturally placing SUVs and other over-sized vehicles outside their reach, with or without an additional tax.

Lets see how often is my van on the road with less than 5 people in it... NEVER. We drive my small car 99% of the time. I fill my van less than once a month because of how little we drive it.

and as for your taxes go to my large family, that has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard period.

Have less kids that is just stupid too. What if lets say you have triplets...

Some people are not too bright.

I understand that you feel very strongly on this issue, Jeff, but at the end of the day this would be a voluntary tax. No one would have to pay it. The only people that would be affected are those that insist on buying a land yacht without proper justification.

As for the credits I applaud you on your view and action, but the simple fact is that most folks will be more attracted to smaller vehicles if a carrot is dangled in front of them. At the end of the day, as long as it gets people into smaller cars, it can only be a good thing.

As for the poor, I don't see that this tax would affect them at all. Poor folks don't buy new vehicles, which is where this tax would be placed. On the rare occasion one of these folks buys a new car it is generally in the sub-$16k range, naturally placing SUVs and other over-sized vehicles outside their reach, with or without an additional tax.

Who are you to impose anything on anybody with a word like justifacation. I choose smallish cars for my driving. Doesn't mean Im right or my neighbor is wrong for driving his Tundra.

Next it will be we are going to tax somebody cause there wife is fat and smokes cause she is going to hurt the medical system. This kind of stuff makes me want to go by a SUV and target hybrids. And people wonder why the truck and SUV drivers get up in arms at folks. You push them into a class system. And there will be hell to pay. And thats what will happen if this goes forward. I for one am ashamed of folks wanting to do crap like this.

I guess some folks just cant leave other folks alone and have to push there agaenda on everybody they meet...

I could not have put it better myself

and as for your taxes go to my large family, that has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard period.

Have less kids that is just stupid too. What if lets say you have triplets...I have to disagree entirely. Raising a family is a huge financial responsibility, but it seems to be considered by many to be a god-given right. In Indiana, public schools are funded with property taxes, so anyone who owns property, children or not, funds the schools. There are numerous government programs set up to help poor families, so it does hold true that taxes collected from people without children do go to support people with children. I don't generally have a problem with this concept, but it is abused. People should be discouraged from having more children than they can afford. I, personally, grew up dirt poor, and I would not bring a child into the world in that situation.

The freebate "tax" is totally voluntary, as are higher registration fees, gas costs, additional gas taxes... The freebate "tax" only applies to those who cannot justify their purchase of a large vehicle. The general populace has proven themselves to be unable to make intelligent vehicle choices, so what's wrong with pushing them in the right direction with a financial carrot or stick?

Who are you to impose anything on anybody with a word like justifacation. I choose smallish cars for my driving. Doesn't mean Im right or my neighbor is wrong for driving his Tundra.

Next it will be we are going to tax somebody cause there wife is fat and smokes cause she is going to hurt the medical system.We already do this (at least for smokers) and for good reason. Smokers put a heavy burden on the healthcare system. As a healthy person, I pay a "hidden tax" in the form of higher healthcare costs. This is why cigarette taxes are as high as they are (and should probably be higher). This kind of stuff makes me want to go by a SUV and target hybrids. And people wonder why the truck and SUV drivers get up in arms at folks. You push them into a class system. And there will be hell to pay. And thats what will happen if this goes forward. I for one am ashamed of folks wanting to do crap like this. Wow. So much I could say about that, but probably shouldn't.

I guess some folks just cant leave other folks alone and have to push there agaenda on everybody they meet...Are you against airbags and seatbelts? Think you should have the "right" to drink and drive? Should we do away with speed limits? These things are legislated for the benefit of all. That's how our society works.

In your theory your life was a waste, I would disagree. What about all the single people who don't bother to work that my tax dollars support?

I wish that people would buy the best MPG car that they needed, but they don't. Even the "tree hugging hippies" don't. I hate to say it but I do think that higher gas prices are helping push the people. This country (USA) is not about forcing you to think the way that someone thinks you should go.

There are people that think the direct opposite as you do, do you want them to be able to force you to do what they want?

The bottom line is where do you draw the line? You have to pick it. A person could make the argument that you don't NEED more than 2 shirts to live. I bet you think that person is crazy, and they think you are crazy for waisting so much. You think you are right they think they are right. Do you get to tell them how to live or do they get to tell you how to live. Think about it.

Not to add to the fire (getting kinda hot in here), but, I've gotta jump in for a redirect here.

I have to disagree entirely. Raising a family is a huge financial responsibility, but it seems to be considered by many to be a god-given right.I think everyone has a right to have kids, but they then have a responsibility to provide for their kids. And lots of times this means sacrificing something they want so the kids get what they need.

Real life example. We really enjoy the school our kids go to but it costs an arm and a leg. We put off a move we had planned (we wanted) because we would then no longer afford to keep our kids in their school (they needed). Upon talking about this with a friend they had mentioned they they had just pulled their kid from a similar school because they just couldn't afford it. The following week they bought $10,000 worth of home electronics.

Not all examples are that black and white, but that one really stood out in my mind.

Point is I think kids are one of the greatest gifts God could give us, but by taking that gift you d4mn well better take the responsibility!

11011011

I agree, the choices I make are for my kids. The job I works gets me home earlier and a day a week from home. What we do is for the kids. The van I drive is for my kids. The hours I spend on school is for my kids. The endless science experiments I do is for my kids.

Kids are the greatest gift God will ever give you. You need to step up when you have them.

The Big Three say they can't make any money selling small cars.

Wouldn't this help? People who prefer SUV's can help others buy small cars, which helps the Big Three and the planet.

I like it.

Harry

The Big Three say they can't make any money selling small cars.

Wouldn't this help? People who prefer SUV's can help others buy small cars, which helps the Big Three and the planet.

I like it.

Harry

I think the fact that Toyota is doing so good shows the bull in what the Big Three say!

One more and I'm done. ;)
In your theory your life was a waste, I would disagree. What about all the single people who don't bother to work that my tax dollars support?I didn't say I felt my life was a waste... How are you supporting people who don't bother to work? There aren't too many assistance programs for able-bodied people who simply don't want to work.

I wish that people would buy the best MPG car that they needed, but they don't. Even the "tree hugging hippies" don't. I hate to say it but I do think that higher gas prices are helping push the people. This country (USA) is not about forcing you to think the way that someone thinks you should go.I mostly agree. But obviously "we" sometimes do "force" things on people (like seatbelts, speed limits, etc.) when it is for the greater good. The complete absence of this is anarchy.

There are people that think the direct opposite as you do, do you want them to be able to force you to do what they want?Do I want that, no. But if it is for the greater good, then we need it.

A person could make the argument that you don't NEED more than 2 shirts to live. I bet you think that person is crazy, and they think you are crazy for waisting so much. You think you are right they think they are right. Do you get to tell them how to live or do they get to tell you how to live. Think about it.Clearly I am thinking about it. In this case, the person who chooses to own two shirts is not having a negative effect on the rest of us. Those who needlessly choose large vehicles do have a negative impact on the rest of us, so for the benefit of all, this behavior should be limited in some way. There are countless ways in which we limit some behavior by making the behavior more expensive. If you can't live with this, your options are very limited. Buy a private island and declare yourself autonomous.

""""Clearly I am thinking about it. In this case, the person who chooses to own two shirts is not having a negative effect on the rest of us. Those who needlessly choose large vehicles do have a negative impact on the rest of us, so for the benefit of all, this behavior should be limited in some way. There are countless ways in which we limit some behavior by making the behavior more expensive. If you can't live with this, your options are very limited. Buy a private island and declare yourself autonomous.""""

My option is to fight tooth and nail and if it has to get violent. Then so be it. This country was born of a war. I have no problem with sending the folks that want to turn this country in to the UK. Where they need to go.

psy

Personally, as a civil libertarian, I don't support seatbelt or helmet laws because even though their behavior has a negative effect on society, those who fail to wear them do not directly endanger anyone else -- and in my view the benefits of such laws do not outweigh the cost in terms telling someone directly what to do. But I support feebates, because with them you can get the outcome you want without direct telling anyone else what to do. Maybe it's because of my training in economics, but I do support the government using incentives, positive and negative, to influence behavior in the aggregate. Feebates do not in any way tell anyone they can't buy a huge vehicle. You're still pefectly free to do so under this proposal, and many still will. But they provide an incentive to buy no more vehicle (or no more gas-guzzling vehicle) than you need.

Another automotive analogy: studded tires are legal here in Oregon, and every legislative session there's an attempt to ban them because of the damage they do to roads -- quickly followed by a hue and cry from lightly populated Eastern Oregon, the snowy side of the state, where many people truly need them. Every two years the tail wags the dog this way over and over again, and in the end nothing ever happens. Well, the amount of damage to the roads done by a set of studded tires over its lifetime is typically about $80-100. So if the goal is to reduce the damage to the roads, why not just charge a $25 tax per tire? Then the people who really need them can still have them, and any damage they do will more or less be compensated to boot. Most people who buy studs today would (like me) be just fine with the newer studless snow tires. Typically those tires cost a bit more than studders, but this modest tax would tilt the balance back the other way and encourage (I'm guessing) 80%+ of the people currently buying studded tires to get something else.

It's funny -- the anti government types spend millions to fund think tanks who rail against government regulation. The more libertarian oriented tanks will frequently propose a managed-market scheme (user fees, targeted taxes, trading credits, etc.) as a counter solution. Yet when someone comes out and just directly proposes something like this, the same anti government types scream "social engineering!" (as if that's always a bad thing). Utter hypocrisy.

and as for your taxes go to my large family, that has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard period.Really? My guess is you're taking exemptions and deductions for those kids on your tax return, so there's one subsidy (substantially increased by the current administration) from the rest of us. If you're poor, you're also getting a dependent child tax credit from your fellow Americans, which in some cases can combine with the Earned Income Tax Credit to give you a negative tax liability for the whole year. And presumably you have a larger house than you would if you had a smaller family, so if you own I'm sure you're smart enough to deduct without limits the interest on that too. If your kids are in the public school system, your neighbors are paying for that too, whether they have kids of their own or not. And if your kids go to college when they're older, I'm sure you'll take advantage of the available deductions and outright credits there too. You might even send them to a subsidized public university that we all pay for.

So yeah, your big family is subsidized relative to others. I'm not even arguing against that, just pointing it out. What I am saying is that we shouldn't abandon the feebate idea just because it will actually cause some larger families to make different decisions.

Hi All:

___I think I am going to have to close this one up for a while as it is getting a bit too hot for CleanMPG. Sorry in advance for those that had more to say. I have some things to add myself but I think I will leave those inside my skull for the time being as well …

___Good Luck

___Wayne