Gas-Guzzler Tax: Just Turn it On
02-17-08, 07:25 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gas-Guzzler Tax: Just Turn it On
http://trueconservative.typepad.com/...zzler-tax.html
Gas-Guzzler Tax: Just Turn it On
Some years ago, in one of the few instances where the NYT actually published one of my letters, I ranted about how we should institute a heavy tax on low-efficiency vehicles.
To the Editor:
Gregg Easterbrook's proposal for a 50-cent-a-gallon increase in the federal gasoline tax (''The 50-Cent-a-Gallon Solution,'' Op-Ed, May 25) is absolutely on the mark. Except that it ignores reality.
No politician would dare to propose it, and the American people wouldn't swallow it. And despite all its benefits, there is good reason for even liberals to oppose it — as Mr. Easterbrook acknowledges, it's nonprogressive.
Unlike income taxes (which Mr. Easterbrook proposes reducing to offset the gas tax), a gas tax would shift the tax burden to lower-income taxpayers who can ill afford it.
A better alternative: impose large taxes on the sale of low-efficiency vehicles.
Americans with excess piles of cash would be free to buy Humvees and Cadillac Escalades, but they'd have to pitch in, say, $5,000 to offset the costs of their selfishness, including pollution-related illnesses, global warming and, perhaps the most expensive of all, threats to our national security from energy dependence.
We could call it the National Security Tax.
What I didn't realize at the time, and only discovered the other day in my web travels, is that we already have a gas-guzzler tax. Have since 1978. A hefty one. Here it is:
GAS GUZZLER TAX
Unadjusted MPG (combined)*
Tax
at least 22.5
No tax
at least 21.5, but less than 22.5
$1000
at least 20.5, but less than 21.5
$1300
at least 19.5, but less than 20.5
$1700
at least 18.5, but less than 19.5
$2100
at least 17.5, but less than 18.5
$2600
at least 16.5, but less than 17.5
$3000
at least 15.5, but less than 16.5
$3700
at least 14.5, but less than 15.5
$4500
at least 13.5, but less than 14.5
$5400
at least 12.5, but less than 13.5
$6400
less than 12.5
$7700
The problem is—this just sounded too good to be true, right?—the Gas-Guzzler Tax doesn’t tax gas-guzzlers—trucks, vans, and SUVs. And it explicitly excludes cars over 6,000 pounds. (Is it just a coincidence that the BMW Z5's “curb weight,” according to the company, is 6,008 pounds?) And the top limit—22.5 miles per gallon, is ridiculously low.
A list of those few 2008 vehicles subject to the tax is here (PDF). About two hundred models, total. They're all high-performance cars. I count ten American cars (five Chryslers, five GMs), and one (one!) Japanese car (Nissan's M45X). The rest are exotic and semi-exotic European imports. Meaning that pretty much all the cars that Americans actually buy are excluded.
So while our representatives have been muddling around with an unwieldy, anemic, and contortionally market-distorting set of CAFE standards, the perfect market-based tool for reducing oil dependency is one tweak away from being actually useful.
Just change the rules so the Gas Guzzler Tax applies to all (non-commercial?) vehicles, and call it good. For good measure, raise the top MPG limit.
Did our representatives even consider this? I can't find any press reports suggesting they did.
Now I feel like I hardly need to detail the long list of positives associated with such a tax. (Those who oppose taxes on principle, save your stamp; I've heard it. We need to tax something to finance the government.)
* It causes vehicles to be priced more accurately, by putting a price tag on the many very real "externalities" that all Americans pay for, but that aren't included in a vehicle’s cost of goods. (Things like B1 bombers, Homeland Security Departments, lung-related deaths, corn subsidies, possible global environmental pandemonium, such like that.)
* It's much more progressive than a gas tax, because people who can afford it will be the ones who pay it.
* It harnesses the power of the market to promote many valuable economic and social goals. (National security, reduced pollution and greenhouse gases, better public health, reducing oil dependence and the resulting need for unsavory alliances, etc.)
* It leaves people the freedom to choose low-efficiency vehicles. They just have to pay the full cost.
* It’s easy to administer, because it’s paid by the manufacturer. (Who passes it on as part of the sales price.)
* Since the consumer ultimately pays it—and makes the decision whether the more-accurately-priced car is worth the money—it has all the advantages that consumption-taxers will be delighted to detail for you.
* It uses the market to send the message to automakers—make fuel-efficient cars available—that they'll actually listen to.
* It provides revenues for the government. (I know, some wackos think that’s always a bad thing. I hope they enjoy their cave dwellings.)
Gas-Guzzler Tax: Just Turn it On
Some years ago, in one of the few instances where the NYT actually published one of my letters, I ranted about how we should institute a heavy tax on low-efficiency vehicles.
To the Editor:
Gregg Easterbrook's proposal for a 50-cent-a-gallon increase in the federal gasoline tax (''The 50-Cent-a-Gallon Solution,'' Op-Ed, May 25) is absolutely on the mark. Except that it ignores reality.
No politician would dare to propose it, and the American people wouldn't swallow it. And despite all its benefits, there is good reason for even liberals to oppose it — as Mr. Easterbrook acknowledges, it's nonprogressive.
Unlike income taxes (which Mr. Easterbrook proposes reducing to offset the gas tax), a gas tax would shift the tax burden to lower-income taxpayers who can ill afford it.
A better alternative: impose large taxes on the sale of low-efficiency vehicles.
Americans with excess piles of cash would be free to buy Humvees and Cadillac Escalades, but they'd have to pitch in, say, $5,000 to offset the costs of their selfishness, including pollution-related illnesses, global warming and, perhaps the most expensive of all, threats to our national security from energy dependence.
We could call it the National Security Tax.
What I didn't realize at the time, and only discovered the other day in my web travels, is that we already have a gas-guzzler tax. Have since 1978. A hefty one. Here it is:
GAS GUZZLER TAX
Unadjusted MPG (combined)*
Tax
at least 22.5
No tax
at least 21.5, but less than 22.5
$1000
at least 20.5, but less than 21.5
$1300
at least 19.5, but less than 20.5
$1700
at least 18.5, but less than 19.5
$2100
at least 17.5, but less than 18.5
$2600
at least 16.5, but less than 17.5
$3000
at least 15.5, but less than 16.5
$3700
at least 14.5, but less than 15.5
$4500
at least 13.5, but less than 14.5
$5400
at least 12.5, but less than 13.5
$6400
less than 12.5
$7700
The problem is—this just sounded too good to be true, right?—the Gas-Guzzler Tax doesn’t tax gas-guzzlers—trucks, vans, and SUVs. And it explicitly excludes cars over 6,000 pounds. (Is it just a coincidence that the BMW Z5's “curb weight,” according to the company, is 6,008 pounds?) And the top limit—22.5 miles per gallon, is ridiculously low.
A list of those few 2008 vehicles subject to the tax is here (PDF). About two hundred models, total. They're all high-performance cars. I count ten American cars (five Chryslers, five GMs), and one (one!) Japanese car (Nissan's M45X). The rest are exotic and semi-exotic European imports. Meaning that pretty much all the cars that Americans actually buy are excluded.
So while our representatives have been muddling around with an unwieldy, anemic, and contortionally market-distorting set of CAFE standards, the perfect market-based tool for reducing oil dependency is one tweak away from being actually useful.
Just change the rules so the Gas Guzzler Tax applies to all (non-commercial?) vehicles, and call it good. For good measure, raise the top MPG limit.
Did our representatives even consider this? I can't find any press reports suggesting they did.
Now I feel like I hardly need to detail the long list of positives associated with such a tax. (Those who oppose taxes on principle, save your stamp; I've heard it. We need to tax something to finance the government.)
* It causes vehicles to be priced more accurately, by putting a price tag on the many very real "externalities" that all Americans pay for, but that aren't included in a vehicle’s cost of goods. (Things like B1 bombers, Homeland Security Departments, lung-related deaths, corn subsidies, possible global environmental pandemonium, such like that.)
* It's much more progressive than a gas tax, because people who can afford it will be the ones who pay it.
* It harnesses the power of the market to promote many valuable economic and social goals. (National security, reduced pollution and greenhouse gases, better public health, reducing oil dependence and the resulting need for unsavory alliances, etc.)
* It leaves people the freedom to choose low-efficiency vehicles. They just have to pay the full cost.
* It’s easy to administer, because it’s paid by the manufacturer. (Who passes it on as part of the sales price.)
* Since the consumer ultimately pays it—and makes the decision whether the more-accurately-priced car is worth the money—it has all the advantages that consumption-taxers will be delighted to detail for you.
* It uses the market to send the message to automakers—make fuel-efficient cars available—that they'll actually listen to.
* It provides revenues for the government. (I know, some wackos think that’s always a bad thing. I hope they enjoy their cave dwellings.)
02-17-08, 09:16 PM
#4
Here in Canada, we've just had a gas guzzling "tax" imposed on all fuel inefficient vehicle. Now we already have a gas guzzler tax (I forget the percentage. Something like 3%). But this one affects those "lower" down (i.e. not just the exotics). It affects pretty much all V8 SUVs. It's a progressive one from +$1,000 up to a maximum of +$4,000 on top of the price (and I presume GST/PST/luxury and gas guzzling taxes are on top of that).
The funny thing is that my friend's dad wanted an X5 and I told him about the tax. He told me "oh that's ok, we're getting the 6 cylinder one. It's fuel efficient. It gets like 11L/100km. (combined. City is closer to 14L/100km)" I'm like.. it still guzzles even if it's outside of the tax bracket.
1 month later: "Dang, that thing is tank! It guzzles so much gas!"
me: =.='
The funny thing is that my friend's dad wanted an X5 and I told him about the tax. He told me "oh that's ok, we're getting the 6 cylinder one. It's fuel efficient. It gets like 11L/100km. (combined. City is closer to 14L/100km)" I'm like.. it still guzzles even if it's outside of the tax bracket.
1 month later: "Dang, that thing is tank! It guzzles so much gas!"
me: =.='
02-18-08, 05:22 AM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
Every time the price of gas at the pump goes up (and, of course, it goes up and down like a yo-yo), that, in itself, is a form of gas-guzzler "tax".
Last edited by mmarshall; 02-18-08 at 06:12 AM.
Trending Topics
02-18-08, 06:13 AM
#8
Lexus Champion
i think it's a good idea. all these people with tons of extra money for huge suv's to tote themselves and only themselves around every day should pay a bit more for their excess. it won't affect me, i don't buy new huge suv's or new anything for that matter...
02-18-08, 07:01 AM
#9
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
Americans with excess piles of cash would be free to buy Humvees and Cadillac Escalades, but they'd have to pitch in, say, $5,000 to offset the costs of their selfishness, including pollution-related illnesses, global warming and, perhaps the most expensive of all, threats to our national security from energy dependence.
The problem is—this just sounded too good to be true, right?—the Gas-Guzzler Tax doesn’t tax gas-guzzlers—trucks, vans, and SUVs.
the perfect market-based tool for reducing oil dependency is one tweak away from being actually useful.
Just change the rules so the Gas Guzzler Tax applies to all (non-commercial?) vehicles, and call it good. For good measure, raise the top MPG limit.
Those who oppose taxes on principle, save your stamp; I've heard it. We need to tax something to finance the government.
* It causes vehicles to be priced more accurately, by putting a price tag on the many very real "externalities" that all Americans pay for, but that aren't included in a vehicle’s cost of goods. (Things like B1 bombers, Homeland Security Departments, lung-related deaths, corn subsidies, possible global environmental pandemonium, such like that.)
* It's much more progressive than a gas tax, because people who can afford it will be the ones who pay it.
* It harnesses the power of the market to promote many valuable economic and social goals. (National security, reduced pollution and greenhouse gases, better public health, reducing oil dependence and the resulting need for unsavory alliances, etc.)
* It leaves people the freedom to choose low-efficiency vehicles. They just have to pay the full cost.
The other thing this article ignores is that this tax would be regardless of actual usage. So if someone buys an Escalade and drives it 1000 miles a year they pay the same tax as someone who buys one to drive it 30000 miles a year. Unfair?
Besides, what this nincompoop is ignoring is that REAL MARKET BASED MECHANISMS are already in play and working... hybrid versions of SUVs are becoming more widely available - the car makers already get it. Increasing oil prices already drive consumers to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles overall. People also seem to be slowing down and taking less trips too.
So we don't need this guy's holier than thou huge tax program.
02-18-08, 07:04 AM
#10
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
Here in Canada, we've just had a gas guzzling "tax" imposed on all fuel inefficient vehicle. Now we already have a gas guzzler tax (I forget the percentage. Something like 3%). But this one affects those "lower" down (i.e. not just the exotics). It affects pretty much all V8 SUVs. It's a progressive one from +$1,000 up to a maximum of +$4,000 on top of the price (and I presume GST/PST/luxury and gas guzzling taxes are on top of that).
A $40K V8 SUV will pay:
- about 15% sales tax or $6K
- 3% old gas guzzler tax or $1.2K
- $4K new gas guzzler tax
TOTAL TAX: $11,200 or 28% of the purchase price.
Sick.
02-18-08, 08:39 AM
#11
Lexus Champion
how many people do you see commuting every day, alone, in gas guzzlers? i see people doing 80 in f250's all alone all the time; whoo hooo 12 mpg bizzle! i suppose it all depends on your locale, but here in louisville, most of these huge trucks and suv's are used as status symbols. i never see anyone hauling anything in the back of their truck. never do i see a van or suv full of people or kids. occasionally i see someone towing a trailer but then it's a farm truck or some other work related truck, so the costs are most likely write off's anyway.
do i have a v8 suv? yes, but i don't commute in it, and i use it for it's purpose; off roading. unless it snows, then i do commute, but we rarely get snow. i also use it to tow my trailer or cars that i buy to re sell. that's it.
i didn't buy it new either so this kind of tax wouldn't apply anyway.
basically, it's just silly for people to drive these monsters everyday all alone with no purpose other than to "feel safe and sit higher". if they can afford the vehicle, they can afford the tax. if not, don't buy it, since the majority of them don't need it anyway. if you need it that badly, then you'll find a way to pay the taxes.
do i have a v8 suv? yes, but i don't commute in it, and i use it for it's purpose; off roading. unless it snows, then i do commute, but we rarely get snow. i also use it to tow my trailer or cars that i buy to re sell. that's it.
i didn't buy it new either so this kind of tax wouldn't apply anyway.
basically, it's just silly for people to drive these monsters everyday all alone with no purpose other than to "feel safe and sit higher". if they can afford the vehicle, they can afford the tax. if not, don't buy it, since the majority of them don't need it anyway. if you need it that badly, then you'll find a way to pay the taxes.
02-18-08, 11:05 AM
#12
Anything about $47k is also subjected to a 3% luxury tax.
Also we have a $100 Federal Excise tax on A/C (all cars with A/C).
You guys think it's expensive in the US, take a look at what we have to pay up here. Heck, your destination charges are HALF of ours.
02-18-08, 01:14 PM
#13
Moderator: LFA, Clubhouse
Original commentary is ludicrous. If the intent of legislation is to reduce gas consumption, it should aim to do exactly that. The fact that it is a tax should not change the intent. So, why must a gas consumption penalty be progressive based on wealth? As it stands, the argument is just more rabid drivel based on some perverse hatred for the wealthy.
02-18-08, 04:54 PM
#14
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
02-18-08, 04:59 PM
#15
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
Pretty much except I don't think we can buy a V8 for $40k (I think the Hemis are at least $50k?)
Anything about $47k is also subjected to a 3% luxury tax.
Also we have a $100 Federal Excise tax on A/C (all cars with A/C)
You guys think it's expensive in the US, take a look at what we have to pay up here. Heck, your destination charges are HALF of ours.
Anything about $47k is also subjected to a 3% luxury tax.
Also we have a $100 Federal Excise tax on A/C (all cars with A/C)
You guys think it's expensive in the US, take a look at what we have to pay up here. Heck, your destination charges are HALF of ours.
Revised:
A $50K V8 SUV will pay:
- about 15% sales tax or $7.5K
- 3% old gas guzzler tax or $1.5K
- $4K new gas guzzler tax
- 3% luxury tax or $1.5K
TOTAL TAX: $14,500 or 29% of the purchase price.
Still sick.