Israel’s parliament passed a Hummer of an auto tax that essentially charges excise taxes on a sliding scale depending on how efficient your auto is.
While I would never dare suggest to John Kerry that he propose such a daring yet common sense piece of legislation, this has been proposed in the Commonwealth by (then Rep) Senator Marzilli.
So if Israel can say this-
“the State of Israel is doing its utmost to be a leading country in the field of alternative energy, which is the energy of the future.”
but the legislature & Gov Patrick say-
It is indeed essential for Massachusetts to lead the way in renewable energy — it needs to be a vital part of our clean energy future.
then why can’t we pass this?
Please share widely!
Because the people who do real work need like tools and stuff and perhaps a truck to carry the blueboard or yuppie granite countertops so you guys in your new Prius can assess a tradesman’s father out of his house of twenty years with new legalese policies.
just like they do now. They’d just have to charge those yuppies more. It would actually encourage them to use their huge truck for billable work, rather than joyriding up mountains, and also create an opportunity for winning more jobs or reaping higher profits when they decide to get a smaller truck that costs less.
Ever try plowing snow or hauling a fews tons of sand with anything short of 8 cylinders? Chevy released an ’05 Silverado in 2005, and it sucked, so, rather than sit around a coffee shop angst-ing about crap that doesn’t matter or boasting about the shiny teal Prius with leather you drove to the office to save 1/4 gallon of gas per month, the tradesmen do just what trademen do: they buy the best tool for the job. Need an F350 to haul light equipment? Done.
<
p>
<
p>That’s one of the most elitist, mindless, baseless comment I’ve ever seen on this site. I’ve contracted houses, and cut, clear and haul about 50 cord of wood yearly and own an 8 cyclinder Dodge deasel. There’s yet no hybrid on the market with similar towing capacity for the money. And, I have “[joyriden] up mountains” in said vehicle exactly none. So before you go judging how a tradesman ought to buy tools, try a trade yourself.
<
p>2. It’s true that many people — including tradesmen — own multiple vehicles including one pickup, and that they could choose to drive their more fuel efficient vehicle when they don’t need their powerful tool, and that the choice to do so happens more often as the price difference of operating those vehicles gets wider.
<
p>3. It’s true that as the cost of materials and operations of a business goes up that both (a) prices will go up, requiring the customer to pay more, but also that (b) prices won’t go up by the whole cost of the increase, thereby cutting in to the profit margin of the business. This is standard economics for all supply and demand curves that have slopes strictly between 0 and infinity, including tradesmen. If the price of gas or the price of low mpg vehicles increase, there’ll be a loss of both producer and consumer surplus, justified (?!) by the decrease in total detrimental externalities.
<
p>4. Tradesmen rely on natural resources just as much [if not more!] than many of us for our employment. Preserving those resources by discouraging non-tradesmen from using up extra fuel driving around large vehicles just might benefit the tradesmen in the long run by helping to reduce fuel demand [and hence price] without a direct tax on fuel itself. What happens to gas demand if vehicles that guzzle gas become more scarce? Prices ought to come down. By enough for the tradesmen to offset the additional excise tax? Dunno.
With respect to #1 and #2, you, not I used the word “powerful”. I said “best” tool for the job. Nice strawman though. Fact is, there’s yet no hybrid on the market proven to be efficient ($$) for heavy hauling or towing.
<
p>#3. So? Costs go up, prices go up. You do go on. (and on, and on….)
<
p>#4. “Tradesmen rely on natural resources just as much [if not more!] than many of us for our employment.” There’s a bold claim! i.e. Someone sitting in a Boston office, commuting from say north shore or worse, New Hampshire, relies less on natural resources than someone who works locally (and yes, most work locally) as say, a plumber, carpenter, arborist, snow plow driver…. Care to substantiate that? Colour me sceptical.
<
p>
<
p>2. I didn’t claim there was a hybrid for heavy hauling. There are, however, different mpg vehicles with 8 cylinders, x horsepower, etc. This isn’t about hybrids — it’s about mpg. Therefore, there are different vehicles capable of heavy hauling/towing as well as “medium” hauling/towing, some of which are more efficient than others. [speaking of strawmen]
<
p>3. I was half-agreeing with you, pointing out that tradesmen will not be able to raise their prices by 100% of their increased cost. You know, reality based and all that
<
p>4. Their commute is not the resources for their job — unless their employer is kicking in for their gas. Where the employee lives relative to his or her work site is irrelevant to the claim. White collar workers: electricity and paper. The former could be renewable, the latter is by definition. Not perfectly sustainable in either case, but that’s a sharp contrast to relying on oil [vehicles], raw materials [anything from granite to copper to aluminum], electricity, and raw material energy requirements [metallurgy, mining, timber, etc]. As for “most work locally” — I’d say that depends on your definition of locally. Most of the tradesmen on my wife’s site in downtown Boston tend to live in North or South Shore — few live in any neighborhood Boston, Cambridge, Quincy, Brookline, or Somerville. If nothing else, the insurance on their trucks is cheaper. đŸ™‚
If you can find a truck with the necessary hauling-torque production that gets over 19 mpg on the open road, or around 15 locally, tradesmen will buy it. It’s not about power; it’s about the tool for the job. Hauling wood or sand or snowplowing or light equipment hauling requires hauling-torque.
<
p>But, now, in hybrid or otherwise, there’s no vehicle that exist with good mpg and decent hauling capability. Those of us who choose to haul weigh must buy 8 cylinders.
<
p>So, to impose a gas guzzler tax on a vehicle with the thought that the tradesmen will simply (eventually) pass on the higher cost ignores the fact that the vehicle is often the guy’s only vehicle. So, for the personal use, he has to eat the higher gas cost, and with a guzzler tax, he’d eat the higher tax cost. For those guys, a gas guzzling tax is a tax on them, not their customers.
I thought I was sticking up for the tradesman. I am a simple prole and wanted to pile shit upon a Satan inspired meme to taxing people simply to enhance the profit margins of assholes. Is that clear enough now?
…have you ever had to hire a plumber? I have, and out of curiosity I’ve looked inside of some of their vans. They have tools for this, that and the other, and parts for whatnot. Why? So that they can fix your plumbing without having to run hither and yon after diagnosing the problem to get the necessary tools and parts (perhaps several trips, by the way), which would not only increase their “billable hours” but also waste fuel.
<
p>As an aside, I doubt very seriously that a plumber and his family would want to go gallavanting around the White Mountains in the plumber’s van. The ones that I’ve seen certainly aren’t very elegant.
Point taken and agreed – I don’t want to see state cops tooting around in mini coopers. I don’t want my contractor pulling up with a 14′ length of LVL hanging front and back over his smart car. I don’t think this legislation requires that.
<
p>Whether it is taken care of by allowing businesses to purchase vehicles at a standard rate, a lower sliding scale, or as someone already suggested, by passing the cost on to the consumer, so be it. (Though I prefer the former options myself.) Your argument strikes me as a negotiationg point, not a nail in the coffin.
<
p>I’m not talking about Staties, but why not local cops in urban areas? The Minis accelerate quickly, are more maneuverable, can fit in tighter spaces, and stop more quickly.
<
p>I’m not arguing for an entire fleet of ’em, but why not use them as patrol cars in high traffic areas?
Think of the fuel savings that will occur when the fleet of high powered vehicles that we see idling with the AC on at every construction site on the highways is converted to something more economical ….
They’re inexpensive and save on fuel. And they’re actually Mercedes.
<
p>Take a look at the video of the car on the NYTimes home page this morning.
that it wouldn’t/shouldn’t apply to tradespeople such as plumbers, electricians, etc., who drive large trucks and vans; that it would only apply to the average people who don’t do any of the above-mentioned trades for a living, which is pretty much the majority of the United States population.
one way to deal with this is with a commercial plate dichotomy. I don’t know if MA does this, but some states have vehicles “tagged” commercial. This results in different insurance rates, tax rates, access to highways, and could in this case tradesmen exemptions. And real estate agent exemptions. And limos. And newspaper delivery vehicles. And salesmen…
<
p>The thing is — the atmosphere doesn’t care if the extra CO_2 is coming from the truck of a carpenter or a dragster. So, why should the fees be different? The carpenter will pass on some of the cost to the customer, the guy cruisin’ won’t. The market will push back, and it will work.
<
p>BTW — ever seen tradesmen’s vehicles in Europe? I’m not talking about snowplows or tow trucks, but vehicles that lug equipment and materials for guys like plumbers, carpenters, and electricians? Higher mpg by far, due to lighter, more aerodynamic configurations with less acceleration. With a different cost structure, even tradesmen will make different decisions.
…at least some commercial vehicles. Limo services have “Livery” plates, and I’ll presume that tradesmens’ plates are also categorized.
<
p>I haven’t paid attention to the plates for commercial vehicles in Germany, but I would be surprised if they aren’t also categorized.
<
p>You may be too young to remember this, but in the dark ages there used to be weigh stations where commercial vehicles would be weighed–particularly on entering a state–and taxed by the state according to the weight.
<
p>BTW, CO_2 isn’t the only issue regarding weight: another issue is the damage to the roadways done by the vehicular weight. Here in Wellesley, we have a Bread&Circus (now WholeFoods), that has a daily delivery on Washington Street by a huge tractor-trailor behemoth. It can’t be good for the town’s street.
the weight difference between small autos and large SUVs is largely irrelevant, since damage is believed to be nonlinear — in fact, between 3rd and 4th power. So, the difference between 2000^3 and 6000^3 is trivial when compared to 40,000^3 [legal limit: 80,000 pounds].
<
p>For neighborhood roads however, it certainly does make a difference — the average SUV damages the road more than 6 times as much as the average auto [5000 lbs vs. 3000 lbs]. A large SUV vs. a small car? 27 times as much [6k vs. 2k].
…I was referring to delivery trucks that are actually tractor-trailers. There are a number of them cruising town streets and they do damage streets much more than do passenger autos, SUVs and even the small vans used by tradesmen.
in some places, damage to the roads not withstanding, where trucks aren’t allowed on streets from 11 p. m. to 6 a. m., when most people are home sleeping. Many main thoroughfares in Somerville, for example, have that ruling in place. This, I believe, is due to the unusual amount of noise generated by trucks.
Maybe a gas guzzler tax wouldn’t be half bad. It’s possible that the SUV manufacturers might start producing SUV’s that aren’t such big gas guzzlers. There are some SUV Hybrids on the market right now. The Toyota Highlander is one, and I think there are some others–don’t know the names of them offhand.
Not that I’m interested in buying an SUV under any circumstances, but at least they wouldn’t be quite as bad as they are now, mpg gaswise, that is.
Are you telling me all the spotless SUVs and pick-up trucks that snarl traffic on the Southeast Expressway are owned by tradesmen? Do tradesmen drive around mud puddles to preserve the shiny exterior of their extended cab 4X4 penis extender? Do you think Ahnuld does construction work with his Hummer?
<
p>We have plenty, plenty of big vehicles that contribute nothing except fodder to small egos and pollution to our skies.
<
p>I’m telling you that a ham-handed gas guzzler tax will tax tradesmen and SUV cowboys alike, and it hardly seems fair to tax a tradesman who has no reasonable alternative choice of vehicle.
Whether the estate tax, the AMT, or anything else, has people that it hits who aren’t the intended target. Every government program has unintended victims. For instance, the multi-billion dollar program to make the current president feel like a big shot and give his friends lots of money has over 4,000 of them.
<
p>That is why we put in deductions or restrictions on those taxes (the estate tax doesn’t affect family farms, notwithstanding Republican lies). I think there are ways to help out people who need their trucks without giving these pitiful suburbanites a free pass.
not all tradesmen are using the most fuel efficient vehicle suitable for their job — not even close. Loads of guys could switch from pickups to 2WD cargo vans. A bunch could switch to automobiles or mass transit [not indies, but union guys]. Not every tradesman needs a 8 cyl, and there are plenty of guys with F250s and F350s who could cut back.
<
p>It’s true, there are lots of tradesmen who are using the most fuel efficient vehicle suitable for the job. It’s also true that there are lots who aren’t.
<
p>Ok then, what I’m about to type is a lie?
<
p>The estate tax does affect family farms. There is no exclusion of a ‘family farm’ or any large land holding whatsoever from the definition of gross taxable estate, nor a restriction that exempts it from taxation.
<
p>There is a payment plan that the IRS will allow (section 6166) but a decedent estate, dying while in possession of a farm will pay estate tax, at a rate capping out at 55%.
<
p>This is a more balanced commentary of the effect of the estate tax on farms.
<
p>To save clickage, the recap of the link is this:
<
p>i) die with a farm worth over $1 million bucks, then dead farmer pays tax;
ii) good news is that the tax is paid over time;
iii) bad news is that it’s paid over time with interest at market rate;
iv) good news is that $1 million threshold rises over the next couple of years;
v) bad news is that in 2010 we’re back to the old values of $1 million bucks;
vi) really bad news is that if you have to pay estate tax, then you’re dead.
Ah yes, the good ol’ “death tax 3-card monte” routine:
<
p>
<
p>The two are not the same. While I support family farming, I do not support what this law is intended to help out — billionaires and corporate agriculture. Gary, I’m not trying to find ways to boost Monsanto’s $300 million profit margin. I was talking about family farms — where a hardworking family makes a living, not a corporate food factory growing genetically modified foodstuffs harvested by illegal immigrants. There are exceptions for the hardworking folks in the Midwest, and none for the MBAs buying thousand-dollar shower curtains. And that’s the way I like it.
<
p>Where’s the exception? A farmer, in the Midwest, who dies owning an estate (farm, land, assets) has a value in excess of $1,500,000 in 2008 will owe estate tax. That value will drop after 2010.
I’m all for people with over a million dollars in assets paying their share. Maybe that’s where we differ.
<
p>Take a guy, a family owning, say, 200 farming acres in the midwest. If he’s lucky he has a few bucks in the bank, a house. He’s probably a millionaire.
<
p>His estate is taxable.
That 200 acres probably been in the family for generations.
They don’t deserve it.
Stick it to ’em, I say.
That’s just not correct. Could it be written in such a way that tradesmen get hit with an extra tax? Sure, but it would never pass as written that way. It can and should be written in such a manner that true business vehicles see some sort of exemption or reduced fees.
<
p>As an aside, ’tis true that in Europe and the rest of the world tradespeople use vehicles that carry everything AND get better mpg. That is, in part, not the case here because some of those vehicles are not available in the US. That, however, is due in large part to the auto makers refusal to sell them here.
In the last budget, a similar change was introduced. If it follows the same progression as the smoking ban, it will happen in other EU countries in the coming couple of years.
The statement
is not entirely true, because it depends on how often the vehicles are driven.
<
p>If vehicle A [guzzler] drives 20,000 miles a year but vehicle B drives 50,000 miles a year, we have:
<
p>A15: 1333.3 gallons
A18: 1111.1 gallons
savings: 222.2 gallons
<
p>B50: 1000 gallons
B100: 500 gallons
savings: 500 gallons
<
p>What’s happening here? The initial statement assumes that all vehicles are driven the same number of miles. The fact is that local work vehicles may not be driven very much at all, just between a local job site and a local supplies depot. However, high mpg vehicles may be driven more miles [say, a taxi].
<
p>Individuals do this too. Many families drive the higher mpg vehicle when all other factors are negligible [don’t need the cargo space for groceries or kids].
<
p>That’s not to say that improvements on the lower end aren’t important — I’d argue that they are more important — pickign up a few mpgs for vehicles in the 10s and 20s mpg is critcal, far more important than getting that same few mpg in a 38 mpg vehicle. But, it’s important to improve fuel economy at all levels because people and businesses often have a choice about which vehicle in the fleet to use.
I think most people could assume that the original statement infered to vehicles that would be placed into service to perform the same commute as the old vehicle did.
Why would one replace it and then drive 3 times as far?
I found the 15/18 statement to be an interesting use of data … I had never thought of it that way, perhaps because the CW doesnt want me to think in those terms.
Your comment confirms my suspicions.
<
p>That’s exactly the problem. There are plenty of times when a family or company owns vehicles of different mpg, and they can choose which to use for any given job. It’s not a pure substitute. But then, I wrote that in my post above.
<
p>My comment suggests that pursuing 15/18 instead of 50/100 is foolish — there’s a large suite of vehicle choices and uses, and very few people who require a vehicle getting something like 15 mpg could possibly trade it for a vehicle getting 50.
<
p>Furthermore, most homes have a suite of vehicles — 2 or 3 — to choose from. Since different tasks allow different choices of vehicle, a home that has a low mpg and a high mpg vehicle benefits from increasing the fuel economy of each vehicle in different ways — family trip to grandmas 100 miles down the road? Grab the high mpg vehicle if you can fit… ratcheting up the 15 mpg vehicle to 18 mpg won’t save an ounce of gas in this situation.
<
p>So long as companies and homes have fleets of heterogeneous vehicles, it makes sense to try to improve the fuel economy at every efficiency level. So long as the distribution of vehicles and the mileage driven for each is heterogeneous, it makes sense to try to improve the fuel economy at every efficiency level. So long as consumers have choice in the economy, it makes sense to improve the fuel economy at every efficiency level.
Pursuing 15/18 can be done NOW with the stroke of a pen.
Pursuing 50/100 might never be able to be done.
<
p>I’m all for science and job security but in the meantime why dont we do what can be done? Why digress?
100 mpg exists now.
<
p>Exists in a convenient, “cheap”, large, safe form? Nawp. But it does exist. Heck, electric only vehicles exist, and plug them into a windmill or solar cell and you’ve got more than 100 miles per gallon-equivalent.
<
p>And don’t get me wrong — I agree that strokes of pens ought to be rising the lower limits more quickly than they’ve been doing through CAFE, gas guzzler tax [which hits cars but not trucks, so Lamborghinis pay but F350s don’t], and fuel tax while simultaneously rewarding mass transit like HOV, rail, subway, bus, bike rails, etc.
<
p>My initial comment was apolitical: 15/18 doesn’t necessarily result in more savings than 50/100, since the two vehicles are rarely 1-for-1 substitutes at the time of purchase.
Pursuing 15/18 can be done NOW with the stroke of a pen.
<
p>But, if we did this, none of us would be able to have those granite counter tops we all want. The streets would be unplowed, and strewn with cord wood that fell off the roof of Gary’s Mini.
does this debate focus of vehicular traffic and SUVs.
<
p>Shut off the terawatts of power wasted on 300 channels of HDTV. 300 million US vs 6 billion world. Who do you think is ultimately going to “win”.
are very hard to let go! Sox too!
register an all terrain vehicle as a motorcycle for my short commute to work, but not, it is a “safety” issue.
Say it again Sam, it’s not about the enviornment it’s about a tax.