25 replies to this topic

[arbman]

And the worst idea I have heard here on this thread is that we should tax SUV's. That is blatant discrimination against those who need or desire a SUV. As someone pointed out SUV owners are already paying higher cost due to lower mpg.

You are against anything to do with taxes as if people are all educated and rational. I would use the overconsumption tax to give the money to those who are consuming less gas to reward them, why? They have to pay higher at the pump partially because of the gas guzzlers, you can easily exclude the business purpose usage with a tax credit later. We have three high schools nearby, almost all of the kids drive an SUV or truck, yes it must be a rich neighborhood probably and I do not know whether it is the average look of a high school parking lot for US, but neverthless, I never knew that 16-19yr age group needed to haul so much, just use your common sense...

[n83]

And the worst idea I have heard here on this thread is that we should tax SUV's. That is blatant discrimination against those who need or desire a SUV. As someone pointed out SUV owners are already paying higher cost due to lower mpg.

You are against anything to do with taxes as if people are all educated and rational. I would use the overconsumption tax to give the money to those who are consuming less gas to reward them, why? They have to pay higher at the pump partially because of the gas guzzlers, you can easily exclude the business purpose usage with a tax credit later. We have three high schools nearby, almost all of the kids drive an SUV or truck, yes it must be a rich neighborhood probably and I do not know whether it is the average look of a high school parking lot for US, but neverthless, I never knew that 16-19yr age group needed to haul so much, just use your common sense...

i agree commonsense..5000 lb to haul a 200 lb person (or is it 300 these days and 150 for some kids-lol)..so inefficient

and the same idiots who complain on the domestic manufacturers building too many SUVs go out and get GX470s, MDXs, 4-runners whatever

[zman]

And the worst idea I have heard here on this thread is that we should tax SUV's. That is blatant discrimination against those who need or desire a SUV. As someone pointed out SUV owners are already paying higher cost due to lower mpg.

You are against anything to do with taxes as if people are all educated and rational. I would use the overconsumption tax to give the money to those who are consuming less gas to reward them, why? They have to pay higher at the pump partially because of the gas guzzlers, you can easily exclude the business purpose usage with a tax credit later. We have three high schools nearby, almost all of the kids drive an SUV or truck, yes it must be a rich neighborhood probably and I do not know whether it is the average look of a high school parking lot for US, but neverthless, I never knew that 16-19yr age group needed to haul so much, just use your common sense...

i agree commonsense..5000 lb to haul a 200 lb person (or is it 300 these days and 150 for some kids-lol)..so inefficient

and the same idiots who complain on the domestic manufacturers building too many SUVs go out and get GX470s, MDXs, 4-runners whatever

very good arguments here....I would suggest you look at the funds who are playing in this market now...I think they are to blame for this...heard a good story about this on the radio awhile back...just a thought

[Sentient Being]

Knee Jerk solutions to global warming such as "Tax everyone" will not solve the problems. Esp not when we refuse to allow the real sollutions to be used, such as nuclear power. And while we in America contemplate turning all our food production into fuel production and taxing our economy to death, other nations are passing us in the prodcution of pollution and making us less and less important to the global solution if all we can do is beat ourselves up and tax ourselves. You can be assured that pushing the US back to the stone age will NOT encourage other nations to do the same. Europe has already acknowleded that Kyoto has failed, a large number of nations over there have indicated they will not and will never meet the targets. Others have said they MIGHT meet the targets if they had a lot more money and a lot more time, and only a few think they will meet the targets. Plugging your car in is terrible. You are burning oil and coal and transmitting that energy down transmission lines and wasting much of it....to protect the environment. You are doing more damage than good to the environment. Now, if all our electricity was produced by nuclear power, then plugging it in would make sense. You would be trading a fuel source that produces greenhouse gases for one that doesn't. Why do we always turn to solutions that don't resolve the problem but make us feel better? Higher Taxes, plugging our cars into dirty power, etc?

[Trend-Shifter]

The root problem is they allowed all the big oil companies to merge. example...It should NOT be Exxon-Mobil, it should be Exxon versus Mobil.

[TechSkeptic]

Plugging your car in is terrible. You are burning oil and coal and transmitting that energy down transmission lines and wasting much of it....to protect the environment. You are doing more damage than good to the environment. Now, if all our electricity was produced by nuclear power, then plugging it in would make sense. You would be trading a fuel source that produces greenhouse gases for one that doesn't.

Why do we always turn to solutions that don't resolve the problem but make us feel better? Higher Taxes, plugging our cars into dirty power, etc?

SB, I agree completely, the switch to plug-in cars must be accompanied by a shift to nuclear power. However, both shifts take time, and they must happen in parallel in order to get to where we need to go. We can't wait for the nuclear power plants to built to commercialize plug-in hybrid technology. Also, as I understand it, burning oil and nat. gas is more efficient on a large scale in an electric power plant compared with in a small-scale like an automobile, so even now it can increase efficiency and reduce cost for the consumer. I doubt if there is enough lost in transmission to offset the increased efficiency. Finally, charging cars at night helps utilities save cost because it is not during peak demand time, so (with the right incentives) it ought to free some cash they can invest in nuclear power plants.

I do agree though, that coal is incredibly dirty, and should be the *first* energy source targeted for phase-out. And corn-based ethanol should be shut down immediately, it's a terrible waste of food resources.