To Tax SUVs or Not to Tax SUVs, Is That the Question?
How can you keep folks from driving big gas-guzzling SUVs?
The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, thinks he has an answer. He’s proposed that, in order to conserve fuel, clean the air of exhaust emissions and relieve downtown congestion, owners of big gas-guzzling SUVs should pay a $50 "green tax" each day they motor into his fair city.
While appearing a tad harsh price to pay, Livingstone's idea actually does SUV owners a favor. In the U.S., for example, most environmental activists want to ban automakers from building big SUVs as the answer to reducing dependence on foreign oil and the amount of solid matter in the air so we can swallow rather than chew it. Livingstone, at least, says companies can build SUVs and motorists can buy them, providing they have deep pockets.
The fear of many consumers is that some mope in a Chevy Suburban or Toyota Land Cruiser (yes, Toyota makes big gas-guzzling SUVs, just like Chevy and Ford) will burn up the fuel that should have been allotted to their gas-sipping compact — though I can't recall anyone's name on any gas pump designating who should or shouldn't get the fuel.
Should the London experiment be successful in forcing SUV owners to dump their land yachts in favor of fuel-sippers, you would have to wonder if mayors in U.S. cities would copy Livingstone and adopt a similar tax. You wouldn't expect the mayor of Detroit to do so, but Mayor Daley of Chicago is an avid bike enthusiast and New York is considering a congestion tax on every car, so you never know what might happen.
It would be one thing for a mayor to tax visitors to his city who drive big SUVs, but it would be political suicide to tax local residents — with local defined as voters. One reason Congress has never supported a major tax on gas to discourage the sale of gas-guzzlers is that both gas-guzzling and gas-sipping voters would have to pay. Re-election is far more important than energy dependency and clean air.
If U.S. mayors are looking for another source of revenue, however, they'd have to play fair. To be absolutely fair, if you tax a person for driving a big SUV that consumes lots of a precious resource — gas — why not tax those who consume other resources in greater quantities and at greater rates than others? So why not tax families who have lots of kids and not just one because they consume more than their fair share of grub that could feed others? Let them eat one meal a day, not three.
And who needs a three-, four- or five-bedroom house, wasting all those precious trees that give up their lives to become lumber, when one room and sleeping bags will do?
And for heaven's sake, who needs a three-car garage? Park in the driveway or on the street — mini gas-sipping cars don't take up all that much space.
Previous
Subscribe to our feed
Email us your tips!
One thing that might help in the US is to eliminate the SUV section 179 tax credit for vehicles over 6,000 Lbs GVWR. We're looking at getting an BMW X5, which would get us a $32,000 tax write off the first year simply because it's heavy enough to qualify when used for business.
Actually the quickest way to get people out of SUV's is to consider them "Commercial Vehicles" or Trucks.
That would ban them from parkways and upscale neighborhoods. And they'd have to take the "Truck Only" lanes on the highway with the semis.
In the NYC area, banning them from the Parkways would cut traffic in half (and net the local authorities some hefty fine revenue for a while)
I'm no Enviromentalist, and I drive a company truck every day, but nobody NEEDS a Escalade to go from the gym to the nail salon.
Sorry.
Making SUVs commercial vehicles will never happen.
I think a better approach would be a tax based on emissions, if the environment is really the motivation.
Of course that will never happen either because it penalized the poor who can not afford modern cars with fewer emissions.
The simpliest thing to do is to tax consumer based on engine size, and possibly couple that with car "class" (i.e. size of car/truck/SUV). That's what the Europeans and Asians have done, and it's been very successful. For example,
Small car + small engine size = cheap tax.
Small car + large engine size = expensive tax.
Large car/SUV/truck + small engine size = medium tax.
Large car/SUV/truck + large engine size = super expensive tax.
If you look at Europe + Asia (Japan, Korea, Hong Kong & Taiwan), this has encouraged many people to buy small, efficient vehicle, and when they neey to buy larger vehicle, they still tend to shop for small engine. Personally, I think that's a very good model.
WTF, i don't care, im not going to pay no $1500 per, month just to make those dummies more richer. If they make us pay, im not going to pay. What if you have a family of 6 what are you going to do, buy two sonata's and drag one behind the other?????. No its not gonna happen. maybe pay $2500 when you first buy it. yeah, but $50 per day is way too much.
It is really simple. CO2 is bad. How do you reduce it? Increase the price of emitting it. How? A tax.
This would hit cars (higher gas prices), but would hit SUVs even harder. It would also penalize users of electricity (3-car garages, many kids etc.)
It is much better to get the price right than to selectively tax, ban and restrict. With a tax you can still buy that Escalade - if you are willing to pay the TRUE cost of driving it.
In Europe nobody is so inclined.
CARELESS,
I can see why people with 6 family members need a bigger vehicle.
But my question is: How often does the whole family go out together? The behemoth usually just carry one or two members at the same time. That is not an excuse for having it.
Plus, you can still get a minivan, or using a term from the otherside of the world: People mover. Like the Mazda5.
Dodge Caravan still offers 2.4L I-4 in year 2007.
Amuro,
I totally agree with your example, it is one of the best solution. But I doubt that could happen in U.S. Remember the Detroit's Big 3 were whining about the raise in MPG would kill off some of their future vehicle plans? Money makes politician work.
I think they should ban all SUV's as I no longer drive one myself. Works for me!
they should require SUVs over the 6,000 GVWR to be classified as commerical, and at least make people who drive them get a commerical drivers license. forcing people to get a CDL will reduce the number of drivers. most won't bother with it, and those that do will have to pay the extra money to get it. let's be fair, if it's too big to be considered a passenger vehicle then you shouldn't get to drive it with a regular license.
Wow.
Utterly disgraceful.
People drive SUVs, and u don't believe in them, so how do u solve it? Make them pay, of course! That would be like me making you pay for being of a different religion, or me making you pay if u don't buy from the car company I BELIEVE is the best (GM).
So, not only would that hurt the sales of the Big Three, but it could also push them out of business. Thousands of jobs would be lost.
I love how u green folks (don't get me wrong, I care for the environment deeply, we have a 4 cylinder G6 and I recycle EVERYTHING that is recyclable) just go around using the big daddy govt to run, regulate, and completely control our lives.
When the govt comes up with the "perfect" solution, bad things happen.
The perfect govt solution is NO government solution.
THEY are the PROBLEM.
dave,
That's why I said it won't work in the U.S. with folks think like you.
Individualism.
I agree with the taxing. I hope it happens. It would cut pollution and also bring down the gas prices. If you don't like it that they're taxing your big SUV too much, then don't buy it. Therefore, the companies will have to eliminate the products from their lineup.
A tax already exists. It's called the gas guzzler tax. However it sets the bar far too low to snag very many vehicles. It is a sliding scale based on fuel consumption, but was never adjusted up to reflect improvements, and was set low to begin with. All that need be done is adjust the fuel economy brackets so any thing getting less than 20mpg EPA city gets hit. That and eliminate the over 6K GVW exemption.
dave,
If GM's indeed the BEST company, according to you, then building an efficient car yet making a profit shouldn't be any trouble, then why would imposing a tax kills of the "BIG3" like you said, and esp. GM? If they are the best, GM should have no problem to adapt, as they are "THE BEST"
...or should it?
Because of the fact that many Americans only think of themselves and NOT anyone else, that's why we need to have big help from gov't to set the rules. Otherwise, buying a gas guzzlers for reasons such as "commuting" will
(1) Take a lot of gas > drives up gas prices > a neighbor who drives efficient vehicle will also have to suffer from paying high gas $ thanks to you;
(2) Increase emission > your neighbor will have to breathe the same "air" that you are breathing, with the bonus add-on of the extra pollutants from your vehicle (gas guzzlers);
(3) Extra noise > large engine is also more noisy during start up > so I guess everytime you start your engine in the morning, it also serves as a good wake-up call for your neighbors.
Look, I ain't saying that you are driving a SUV, truck, etc., but these are the negative effects of driving a gas guzzler for no apparent reason. Remember, the individual right applies ONLY when you are NOT hurting, harming and creating any negative impact to the people or whatever that is surrounding you. However, we share our surrounding environment with our neighbors, and we share this planet with other people in this world!
If it's the individual right of everyone to buy a gas guzzler 'coz they "wanna" - it's pretty much identical to robbing your neighbors just because you "feel like it," or asking someone to build a garabage dump or nuclear plant right at your backyard (hey, it's someone else's land, so they have the right to do whatever they want! Remember, you've the RIGHT to do whatever you want in this country! If you don't think that the other examples arecorrect, what makes you think that buying a gas guzzler is ok then?
It strikes me that at least here in the US, a better solution is to increase the gas tax; that will get people out of bigger cars OR suvs, without creating any new taxes or fees.
It also has the advantage of encouraging more efficient cars and helping move old, less efficient ones off the road, and it's not prone to weird counterproductive incentives like CAFE is (where because cars and trucks are counted separately, it pushes people into trucks who don't need them.)
What Amuro said is right. The essential problem here is that the free market is NOT being allowed to function because of a LACK of government regulation. This is odd, yes, but actually relatively simple.
The problem here is that the negative effects of owning and driving a vehicle (congestion, pollution, noise, etc.) are not subject to the market. If I wanted to dump toxic waste on your lawn, you'd make me pay you alot for it, but if I want to wake you up with my loud engine and pollute the air in your backyard with my exhaust I don't have to pay you anything. I've taken your peace and health with no compensation. In a true free market, we'd charge the offenders to do these things, until both sides reached a begrudened equilibrium. This is called internalizing externalities, and due to the lack of taxes this is not allowed to occur.
Government can actually INCREASE the efficiency of the economic system here by stepping in. (one of those rare circumstances where it can) The debate now becomes how to best implement this. There have been many good ideas presented here in other posts. A gas tax is broad, and therefore is generally viewed as the most favorable. However, it causes more harm to the poor who drive older, less efficient vehicles, and is therefore a regressive tax, something we try to avoid in this country. A gas guzzler, or commercial vehicle tax is still pretty broad, and only affects those that can afford it anyway. However, this doesn't really generate additional revenue for the city. (but may still be a good idea for states or the federal government) Therefore the mayor of London is turning to this plan, because, in the end, he wants more money for his coffers while trying to improve the lives of the voters who elected him. The taxes generated would then be used to benefit the city, so from his point of view (all pessimism about government spending aside) this sounds like a pretty good plan for the citizens. Perhaps to be fairer, one could instead tax all vehicles by the pound, so it isn't just targeting one group of vehicle owners, but does reward using a smaller car.
Regardless of how it's done, public opinion has shifted such that new taxes on large vehicles are no longer political suicide, and therefore are coming. It's inevitable. Now it's time for us to decide on what are the fairest and most efficient ways to implement them.
I'm a fan of the environment a lot more than I am a fan of GM, but I would like to remind those who are singling out GM that they are not the only offenders.
Toyota:
4-Runner V8
Seqoua
Landcruiser
(GX)
(LX)
Ford:
Explorer V8/Mountaineer V8
Expedition
(Navigator)
(XC90 V8)
(LR3)
(Range Rover)
Nissan:
Pathfinder V8
Armada
(FX)
(QX)
Chrysler:
Durango/Aspen
Grand Cherokee
Mercedes- Benz
ML550
GL550
RL
G
AMG Variants
Volkswagen AG
Touraeg
(Cheyenne)
(Q-7)
BMW X-5
They can all loss some weight and get better mileage in my oppinion.
sulli,
You can buy most of the import SUV/Trucks in other countries...but do you know how much tax you'll have to pay before you can drive them out of the dealers lot? This topic isn't here to single out any manufacturer, but to gas guzzlers as a whole. The only reason why the BIG 3 got involved was due to "dan's" posting...
Sorry, I mean "dave's"
Amuro,
I totally agree with your points, those are all good points.
And I want to add one on.
The earth's resources belong to everyone in the world. No one is supposed to waste more than they need to use just because they have a deeper pocket. Do you guys know that the U.S.'s population to resources consumption rate is absurd, while they are acting like they are the environment protectionist?
Wow, it doesn't take much for the Tax-Facists to pop out of the wood work!
By the way raising taxes would do noting to keep the elites like Linsay Lohan, Karl Rove and Victoria Beckham from doing what ever they feel like. They have cubic TONS of money so you'll never stop them from doing whatever.
But if you ENFORCE existing laws (do you know some small bridges in residential neighborhoods are only rated for 2-5 tons? that means you can't have 2 Lincoln Navigators on it at the same time!) you might bring about a quicker change.
Nah, let's write MORE NEW LAWS AND TAXES!!!!
Like the one's that say: "Thou shal not kill" "You must be a US citizen live in the United States" and my personal favorite, "I solemly swear to protect an serve the Constitution as President of the United States."
I think the people posting ignorant comments about SUVs should do some research. Some people out there still need and use SUVs for what they are made for. They move alot of people and tow heavy stuff. They combine the power of a truck and the space of a van. Like I said some people still need that capabilty. Do you expect large families to buy 3 cars just to get around?
As that may be, the vast majority SUV's and pickups that I have seen on the road were NOT carrying a full load of 9 people and/or towing a trailer. For every buyer who truly needs the capabilities of a SUV/pickup, there are far more who don't, and purchase such vehicles for other reasons besides needs.
Here's 1 more example to strike down those comments 'bou "this isn't fair to large families if they need trucks/SUV, etc."
Scenario:
You = Family of 9 people.
Me = living alone.
You drive gas guzzlers 'coz of your need. I drive hybrid 'coz of my need.
Essentially, you are using 9 times more resources than I do, and gas is one of them. If there is a gas tax, because of people like you who use up to 9 times or more resources, I've to suffer the gas tax too, although I've been extremely "clean" to the enviornment and use less fuel. Same thing can be said for other resources.
Why is it fair to me, a family of one, to have to suffer and pay the same amount of tax, penalty, etc. just as much (in terms of the same tax rate or penalty rate) as your family of 9?
Now where's my right to protect my own money?
Why shouldn't you pay for more, when you decide to have a large family and take as much as 9 times, or more, resoruces than myself? No one told you to have a large family to begin with. If you decide to have a large family, then you have to pay and suffer for your own decision. I didn't force you to have a large family, did I?
If you want someone to cut you some slack for having the need to drive gas guzzlers 'coz of your choice of large family, then who's cutting me some slack?
Of 'coz, the tax rate is for private use vehicles; there should be an alternate tax rate for commercial use vehicles.
myx,
"I can see why people with 6 family members need a bigger vehicle.
But my question is: How often does the whole family go out together? The behemoth usually just carry one or two members at the same time. That is not an excuse for having it.
Plus, you can still get a minivan, or using a term from the otherside of the world: People mover. Like the Mazda5.
Dodge Caravan still offers 2.4L I-4 in year 2007."
This was my last message against people says that they have the need.
Plus, if they need to tow something, that means they have the monetary resources to afford something to be towed, but they just think that is their right to waste more resources.
How often does that behemoth go on vacation hauling the whole family? 50% of its lifetime? Then the other 50% of its lifetime is just burning more fuel.
one day i was waiting for someone and stood in front of the house (anxious cuz they were late but didn't have a cell phone). i saw cars drive by between about 4:30 and 6:30. i was amazed that ALL the SUV's i saw had a sole driver; a few small beat-up small cars like Corollas had 2 ppl. Minivans tend sometimes to have a kid or 2.
My point? i don't find evidence that SUV drivers need the room. if you haul lots of lumber or people on occasion, how about renting??? puts less miles and wear and tear on your own beloved car anyway.
My conclusion: i hate most SUV's and most of their selfish drivers
One thing we all must remember is to put ourself in the other persons shoes. For example the family the has 6 or 8 members, or the person that feels safe in a larger suv, and most of all the right to freedom. Yes, the air quailty is a major factor and a tax is possible and is what is needed, but just where and how much of a tax.
I think that the tax on the amount of emission that is produced by a vechile (large or small) is the way to go.