Time to give SUV drivers a break? 5

[jmw]

In an article in Novembers "What Car?"; "how green is your car?" (

http://www.whatcar.com/news-special-report.aspx?NA=222582)

According to CNW's table of 96 cars sold in the UK, the Honda Civic Hybrid finished 73rd and the Toyota Prius 74th, .......the Range Rover Sport finished higher in the list. Top of the table was the Jeep Wrangler ........

This is based on a "dust to dust" analysis which measure the "carbon footprint" for the car and takes into account not only the fuel use and CO2 emissions but the energy costs of production and end of life costs.

Of course, the report mentions the different manufactruing technologies involved so we should anticipate improvements as the hybrid car technologies improve (super capacitors? see thread769-165886) but will it improve enough?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> What it would not do is encourage the efficient use of those vehicles such as car pooling, shorter commutes, and the use of public transportation. When you pay a fee it is a sunk cost and there is no reason not to drive the tires off of it.
How about if this year's registration fee is based on a formula which includes vehicle type, age of vehicle, and miles driven in the past year?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[ajack1]

In the UK cars are taxed on there emissions footprint and with company cars there are tax breaks for more eco friendly cars, on top of that we pay around $10 for a gallon of petrol and even more for diesel but there are still lots of SUV’s seen taking little Johnny to school, and generally speaking the roads over here are less suited to larger vehicles.

How much do you tax a car or fuel before it becomes a REAL deterrent? As has been said this will affect the price of many other commodities.

Lets use the Maybach as an example as it had the highest rating in the survey. If some has $300,000+ to spend on a car how much tax would make them think I will go for something a bit smaller?

I do think something needs to be done but I have no idea what or how.

 

[bvanhiel]

How about if this year's registration fee is based on a formula which includes vehicle type, age of vehicle, and miles driven in the past year?

That would work if you had a way to get people to honestly report their mileage. I think it would be easier to tax gas.

How much do you tax a car or fuel before it becomes a REAL deterrent?

I can't seem to find any references to statistics on the web, but I think the US has many more SUV's per capita than Europe. During my last trip over there I was suprised to see so many small cars. I view that as evidence (however anecdotal) that taxing fuel does work.

-b

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> I think it would be easier to tax gas.
Yes, it probably would be easier, but it doesn't solve the problem, and in fact, it creates other problems. A gas tax goes too far in the opposite direction by placing burden on those who are not wasteful and of course, it's painfully regressive.

I think you have to be real careful with a consumption tax on a commodity such as fuel, where you have necessary usage and optional usage.

We need to figure out how to tax the optional usage, without penalizing the necessary usage?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[KENAT]

Rationing?

The first X gallons per unit time is at rate Y. Any gallons over that are at a rate of Z where Z > Y.

Would you allow 'roll over' from one time period to the next? Do you allow trading, someone who doesn't use all theirs can sell it to someone else?

How would this be kept track of?

I heard something about someone in the UK proposing this kind of thing but for all carbon emissions and linke to national ID cards or something.

Big Brother/666 anyone?

 

[oldfieldguy]

I thought I read a while back that Oregon was going to try taxing cars on mileage driven. They were concerned that the advent of fuel-efficient cars was cutting into the tax receipts from fuel sales.

Since the government was behind the effort to produce fuel-efficient designs in the first place, I think this is a fine example of "unintended consequences" in action.

old field guy

 

[aardvarkdw]

An easy way to determine milage would be to record it when a car is taken in for emissions testing. Or when you go to renew your license tabs you need to have the milage recorded. For cars over the age that requires emission testing, require annual milage recording when the tabs are renewd. The police already pull people over for having expired tabs so it isn't a far stretch to say that if the tabs are expired, they probably haven't paid for the milage tax.

 

[bvanhiel]

I think you have to be real careful with a consumption tax on a commodity such as fuel, where you have necessary usage and optional usage.

I think you want to tax all uses equally if you are really trying to conserve the resource. That will encourage many "necessary" users to find an alternative. If transportation charges go up I might think twice about ordering 10 things from Amazon on 10 different days. it also solves the problem of trying to ejudicate whose use is "necessary" and whose is not.

-b

 

[SomptingGuy]

How do you tax gas when most of it is tax already? When tax becomes 95% of the price of fuel, "the law of unintended consequences" will kick in and allow oil companies to double their prices without being caught.

 

[bvanhiel]

If they could do that then there would be more oil companies, more competition, and prices would come back down.

Here in GA the taxes are about 30% of the cost.

-b

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> I think you want to tax all uses equally if you are really trying to conserve the resource.

I don't think conservation should be the prime objective. It should be an effect, not an objective. The prime objective should be to eliminate waste and unnecessary usage.

Those who already make every effect to use their resources efficiently and effectively are not the ones who need to carrying any additional tax and cost burdens. I don't think it's a good idea to tax those who use the resource in need, after all, that's what the resource is for. There is no value, in fact, it's harmful to conserving the resource from them.

Rather, let's find a way to tax those who use the resource out of desire. That's the type of usage that should be targeted for consumption fees and taxes.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[bvanhiel]

Those who need it will be willing to pay more. If they can't afford to pay more then they don't need it enough. That's how capitalism distributes resources.

Taxing fuel and letting capitalism do the work is in my opinion the least intrusive way to reduce the use and dependance upon oil. People and organizations will be able to make their own decisions about how necessary any given use is to them.

-b

 

[jmw]

Think it through!
The UK's Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott (known as Two Jags" since for some reason his ministerial post allows him two Jaguar limos), decided that the way to reduce car ownership was to prevent local government requiring property developers allocating space for more than one car per property. Since most properties have two income earners each with a a job and a car, this hasn't exactly worked the way he thought it would.
It was wonderful news for property developers since they could use the space saved to put more occupancy into the same land footprint. It is a disaster for towns and villages since everyone then parks their extra cars on the streets.

So now we will have a tax based on mileage... great, the happy couple now swap cars between each other to optimise their tax bill. A bit of judicious swapping around between high and low mileage owners will soon sort that out.

Of course there will be losers, usually the ones who can least afford the bills.

Keep thinking...
OH, and maybe a few more carrots and a few less sticks?



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[EddyC]

I was thinking for about a couple of years now that perhaps there could be some kind of way to put a large flat screen on the back of an SUV that could broadcast the road in front of them. That way drivers of smaller cars behind them could get some relief from their blocked view. This could also work with trucks.

 

[GregLocock]

A large 4wd in Oz costs about $2.50 per km to buy and run. Of that perhaps 10% is the cost of gas.

I think it scarcely surprising that the cost of gas has a somewhat dilute effect on sales of cars.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[bvanhiel]

Greg,

So if I buy an Expedition down-under (that sounds like the name of a drink), and drive it 200,000km (a decent lifespan) it'll cost me $500,000AUS? I think I'd buy a house right next to work. It'd pay for itself in transportation costs alone in 10 years.

I just looked up a similar stat for the US. The average car (not SUV) cost per mile for 2004 was $.70USD/mi. $2.50AUS/km=$3.04USD/mi.

-b

 

[GregLocock]

Not my figures. However, my brain appears to have exploded, the survey I thought I was quoting from is here:

http://rac.com.au/files/Vehicle_running_costs_-_Large_SUV_06_07.pdf

Total cost per km, $1.18, of which fuel is 14 c (300 km a week)

so fuel is less than 13% of the cost of running a Landcruiser.





Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[moltenmetal]

A significant "gas guzzler" tax on new energy-inefficient vehicles would help, but only if it were truly significant. Backing that up with a recurring licensing/registration tax would also be helpful, but doing that on a region-specific basis would just push people to renew their licenses out of town. But to work, a carbon tax needs to go on all fossil fuel uses, not just transportation. Stuff that costs more energy/CO2/emissions to make, transport, dispose etc. SHOULD cost more to buy. Do this, and consumption patterns WILL change because costs WILL increase. Imports would need to be tarrifed/taxed to make sure that they compete on the same playing field even if they choose not to tax their energy inputs.

I disagree that a fuel tax is "regressive". It isn't "progressive" either- it's a "flat" tax, in that it charges people on the basis of their use rather than their ability to pay. But if you build your income tax system correctly and progressively, flat taxes on consumption aren't regressive. They merely promote conservation and punish waste.

In regard to the cost of fuel and its feedback into purchasing decisions: that's an easy one. Increase taxes gradually until you see the desired effect. Will tax eliminate Escalade- and Hummer-driving morons from our streets? No. Choices will remain free to those who can afford the full and fair cost of those choices, and there's no law against being an idiot. For all we know, they live in superinsulated or earth-sheltered passive annual heat storage houses and can afford the extra fuel because they spend nothing on heating and cooling. Or maybe they're just fabulously wealthy and don't give a rat's @ss about the 'plebes. Won't matter- they'll be in the minority.

As to the carrots (incentives, subsidies etc.), they are paid for by the stick (tax), and they can be enormously progressive- or flat, your choice. A transit subsidy, by its nature, is progressive in that more poor people than rich people use public transit because they have no choice. Road subsidy could be argued to be regressive, since only those who can afford to buy, license, insure, maintain and fuel vehicles get to benefit directly from road investment. And they suffer indirectly as a result of the emissions etc.

UcfSE: this board is a forum for debate. I post frequently and argue passionately because I feel passionately about these issues and feel it's an important debate amongst my peers. I respect the points of view of many here whose opinions are diametrically opposed to my own, provided they can defend them when challenged. And it's an on-line forum, man- nobody is waiting in the background with their hand raised, waiting for the moderator to give them a turn to speak. If you have something to contribute to the debate besides taking issue with the opinions of others, then by all means contribute!

 

[bvanhiel]

moltenmetal:

I agree that taxing energy based on carbon emissions (which relates to the use of fossil fuels) is not a bad idea if you are trying to reduce emissions and consumption.

I disagree with increasing licensing and registration taxes. Operating the vehicle should be the chief expense, not owning it. If you want to buy an Escalade to drive on Sundays your still using less fuel than the guy in the Insight driving a 60 mile daily commute. The energy cost of producing the vehicle is already paid by the manufacturer and passed on to the consumer. No need to penalize twice.

I think you need to look up the definition of a regressive tax. A fuel tax (or any sales tax) is a textbook example.

-b