Don't Pump Gas On May 15th!

[Smiling JOe]

6th Gen, that is not my thought at all. I don't believe in taxing penalties for gov't control of anything, including cigarettes.

Also, I don't have a problem with anyone's choice to buy and drive a large vehicle. A couple of points on my thoughts:

* The gov't gives a much larger incentive for vehicles weighing over 6,000 lbs, than they do for the energy efficient vehicles, more than 300% difference on the low end, with much greater incentive if your purchase is a truck or a SUV with a separated bed, like the Avalanche and Escalade, rather than a SUV without the separated cargo area. The tax incentive is so great, that it is cheaper for many people to buy the large vehicles than one with a much cheaper price tag which doesn't weigh over 6,000.

* I own a larger vehicle, wieghing over 6,000 lbs, and the primary reason for the purchase was for the larger size. A secondary reason for the purchase was that the difference in gas mileage between it and a smaller vehicle was almost nominal. Thirdly, see the above paragraph on tax incentive making it cheaper than the smaller vehicle.

* While I like the size of this larger vehicle, it comes standard with only one engine having way more horsepower than I, and most others, will ever need or use. I could tow a huge boat, or construction trailer, but I don't, nor do many other of the people who need it for the size. There are some people who will need the horsepower, but in my opinion, it would be like making only four wheel drive vehicles when the majority of drivers never leave the asphalt. I am for a choice of size and engine type. I could be getting great gas mileage in that vehicle if they offered it with an engine of lesser horsepower. Back in the seventies and even the eighties, the auto manufactorers were giving options of engine size in vehicles. You might get 8 mpg with a big block like a 454 ci engine in your truck vs 15 mpg with a 305 ci engine. The choice was there for the consumer.

In summary, I think you have misunderstood my thoughts on the subject, but thanks for letting me clarify my points.

 

[6thGen]

6th Gen, that is not my thought at all. I don't believe in taxing penalties for gov't control of anything, including cigarettes.

Also, I don't have a problem with anyone's choice to buy and drive a large vehicle. A couple of points on my thoughts:

* The gov't gives a much larger incentive for vehicles weighing over 6,000 lbs, than they do for the energy efficient vehicles, more than 300% difference on the low end, with much greater incentive if your purchase is a truck or a SUV with a separated bed, like the Avalanche and Escalade, rather than a SUV without the separated cargo area. The tax incentive is so great, that it is cheaper for many people to buy the large vehicles than one with a much cheaper price tag which doesn't weigh over 6,000.

* I own a larger vehicle, wieghing over 6,000 lbs, and the primary reason for the purchase was for the larger size. A secondary reason for the purchase was that the difference in gas mileage between it and a smaller vehicle was almost nominal. Thirdly, see the above paragraph on tax incentive making it cheaper than the smaller vehicle.

* While I like the size of this larger vehicle, it comes standard with only one engine having way more horsepower than I, and most others, will ever need or use. I could tow a huge boat, or construction trailer, but I don't, nor do many other of the people who need it for the size. There are some people who will need the horsepower, but in my opinion, it would be like making only four wheel drive vehicles when the majority of drivers never leave the asphalt. I am for a choice of size and engine type. I could be getting great gas mileage in that vehicle if they offered it with an engine of lesser horsepower. Back in the seventies and even the eighties, the auto manufactorers were giving options of engine size in vehicles. You might get 8 mpg with a big block like a 454 ci engine in your truck vs 15 mpg with a 305 ci engine. The choice was there for the consumer.

In summary, I think you have misunderstood my thoughts on the subject, but thanks for letting me clarify my points.

Thanks for clearing that up. You seem to be in favor of higher gas prices, so I was assuming taxes were how you hoped to accomplish that. As you probably know, I'm against all Detroit subsidies. If they want to compete, dismantle their unions. I could go either way on cigarettes. In a perfect world, I'm for the legalization of all drugs, but I realize the political feasibility and external consequences of such.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Thanks for clearing that up. You seem to be in favor of higher gas prices, so I was assuming taxes were how you hoped to accomplish that. As you probably know, I'm against all Detroit subsidies. If they want to compete, dismantle their unions. I could go either way on cigarettes. In a perfect world, I'm for the legalization of all drugs, but I realize the political feasibility and external consequences of such.

I could see how you might think that I am for higher gas prices, but that is far from the truth. I think that higher gas prices are the only thing that will make lazy Americans (that would be most of us) to get mad and force, through the vehicle types we purchase, the auto makers to give us choice of engine efficiency, through engine type, fuel source, etc.

For most all subject, I am for freedom of choice. Sure, I could argue for either side of the coin on most subjects, but I think the Gov't needs to stay out of business and personal rights and priviledges. The free and open market will control itself, when (if) given the opportunity.

 

[6thGen]

I think the Gov't needs to stay out of business and personal rights and priviledges. The free and open market will control itself, when (if) given the opportunity.

Hear, hear.

 

[John R]

Not to keep beating a dead horse, but blame the trucking industry for getting the rails regulated. The US used to have the most advanced rail system in the world, until the government stepped in.

As I thought, it appears that the rails themselves are to blame. From your offered source:

...The cartoonists of the day delighted in pointing out that railroads had tremendous political instinct. As indeed they did. They used the consumer's complaints to get the government to establish a commission that would protect the railroad's interest...

...In the 1920's and 30's when trucks emerged as serious competitors for long distance hauling, the railroads induced the Commission to extend control over trucking. Truckers, in their turn, learned how to use the Commission to protect themselves from competition....


the railroad system of goods delivery has never been perfect, it is pyhsically unable to be an end point delivery provider. common carriers have always filled that need, and of course figured more money was to be made carrying the freight from point a to point b without the help of rails. blame the rails for their own demise.

 

[John R]

with regards to the argument of huge suv's vs. smaller cars with regards to fuel consumption/efficiency, it's easy. i've discussed this with another member of this board, and the result is to tax gas at a rate of $2.00+/gal with the tax going towards real research of effiecient engines and fuel sources. you'd see a change quickfast. you'd see a lot of huge vehicles for sale and eventually being used as planters. then, the big three would have the immediate incentive to stop the continued spewing of mammoth vehicles out to the consumer and get with the program.

 

[6thGen]

with regards to the argument of huge suv's vs. smaller cars with regards to fuel consumption/efficiency, it's easy. i've discussed this with another member of this board, and the result is to tax gas at a rate of $2.00+/gal with the tax going towards real research of effiecient engines and fuel sources. you'd see a change quickfast. you'd see a lot of huge vehicles for sale and eventually being used as planters. then, the big three would have the immediate incentive to stop the continued spewing of mammoth vehicles out to the consumer and get with the program.

You know that would greatly increase the price of, well, everything?

As for the article, the railroads were behind it initially, no doubt, but the trucking industry made it much worse. It's been a while, so I'll do some homework on it and get back to you.

 

[TNJed]

You know that would greatly increase the price of, well, everything?

And that may not be a bad thing! Maybe more of us would buy less "crap" and instead save that money and quit living on credit. But, it would probably only end up hurting those who are living hand to mouth as it is.

 

[6thGen]

And that may not be a bad thing! Maybe more of us would buy less "crap" and instead save that money and quit living on credit. But, it would probably only end up hurting those who are living hand to mouth as it is.

Didn't work for real estate in south Walton County.

 

[scooterbug44]

I have no problem w/ the current gas prices, though I do feel sorry for those who are having to pay more because they have to commute from affordable housing locations to their jobs. You use more, you pay more!

Consumers NOT buying vehicles w/ low gas mileage is how you solve the problem. It's been a while since I was in an economics class, but I'm pretty sure it's still all about supply and demand, not bogus internet gas boycotts, or massive taxes.

I can appreciate the practicality and necessity of SUV's, but they are typically oversized and overpowered for what they are actually used for. My father drives an SUV - he uses it to tow boats, move his kids & their junk around the country, drive up mountains, and haul trees he cut down. I do not need a vehicle that does any of these things, which is why I don't own one and I filled my tank friday for less than $30!