Dan Minette wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Deborah Harrell
>> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 5:22 PM
>> To: Killer Bs Discussion
>> Subject: Re: Cost of conservation
>>
>>>
>>> 2) Loopholes are always found. The popularity of
>>> the Suburban turning into
>>> the SUV craze is an example of this. It was exempt
>>> from the mileage
>>> requirements for cars because it was a truck...as
>>> are SUVs. Closing all
>>> such loopholes would require very complicated
>>> legislation, which would also
>>> apply in unforeseen ways....often working against
>>> conservation.
>> Would you give an example of that last statement? I
>> personally favor taxing the snot out of luxury SUVs as
>> there are much more efficient ways of getting
>> groceries. Allowing company fleets tax breaks for
>> having luxury SUVS is plain stupid. Now if you have a
>> business which requires you to drive over
>> unpaved/unimproved roads, like well-drilling or
>> construction (not uncommon in the West), it is
>> necessary to use *real* utility vehicles.
>
> Well, I cannot anticipate just how people will find loopholes...well no-one
> can. If they could, then legislation could be rewritten. Instead, let me
> point out how loopholes have worked in the past and put together a general
> feel for how they might in the future.
>
> In '92, we were looking at replacing our mini-van. The heart of what we
> needed was a vehicle we could use for long (3500 miles on the road) trips
> back to see family on vacation. Mini-vans were running 24k, while larger
> converted vans were running about 18k. There are a number of reasons for
> the price difference, but part of it was mileage regulations. The mini-van
> got about 20 mpg, while the van got about 12. We chose the van as the more
> economical choice, even with the mileage thrown in. It served us better
> also, but my mind was definitely on the cost. This was at least partially
> due to the fact that mini-vans counted for EPA mpg ratings, and vans didn't.
>
> You want to tax the snot out of luxury SUVs. How do you define one in such
> a way that you don't either hit working trucks that need to be the size they
> are or provide a loopholes for the next generation of SUVs? The tax will
> prove a per-vehicle incentive for work-arounds that it equal to the value of
> the tax. The market for light trucks (which is the category that includes
> SUVs...and of which about half were SUVs) was about 9 million vehicles in
> '05. SUV usage has dropped some, so let's say 4 million/year. If you slap
> a 10k tax on SUVs (which may be more than what you are thinking of, but is
> what I think of as "taxing the snot out of" that would mean a potential 40
> billion/year value for a workaround. OK, that's not quite fair, because
> demand would drop a lot, so let's say the cost/demand curve values the
> workaround at only $10 billion/year. That's still enough to get many
> people's attention....and to ensure that a lot of creativity will be used to
> find/create loopholes.
>
> The alternative is to tax every light truck....which would hit a lot of
> folks who aren't wasteful....and force many companies out of business. The
> gas tax is much less complicated than that....and it would be hard to find a
> loophole in such a simple tax.
How many pickup trucks run on diesel?
How many SUVs run on diesel?
Is diesel better or worse than gasoline?
Should we be encouraging switching to diesel? Why or why not?
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
