Senate trying to repeal SUV Tax Deduction

[Midnight Son]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=530&e=4&u=/ap/20031011/ap_on_go_co/suv_deductions


The Senate Finance Committee quietly voted this month to cut the amount small businesses can deduct for buying an SUV from $100,000 to $25,000. The bill is now headed for the full Senate, where some lawmakers have called for a complete repeal of the deduction.
The deduction applies only to vehicles that are 6,000 pounds or more.


Eron Shosteck, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said Friday that instead of making the deduction smaller, Congress should expand it to all types of vehicles. As it is, he said, the deduction is unfair.

"The net effect is it ends up discriminating against small business people who would use a sedan to conduct their business rather than something larger," he said.


But Taxpayers for Common Sense, an independent watchdog group that opposes wasteful government spending, says closing the loophole would generate $1.3 billion in revenue over 10 years.

"While this Hummer of a tax break needs to be run over and killed, shrinking of it is a good first step," said Keith Ashdown, the group's vice president of policy.

I think this definitely needs to be repealed. This was not designed to help small businesses but rather the big automakers. As a business owner you can already write off transportation costs. SUV's continue to suck up gasoline at a tremendous rate, cause massive pollution due to loopholes in the law and give soccer moms a false sense of security. Because they are Detroit's cash cows, it keeps the automakers from making a bigger effort developing alternative fuels, better hybrids and so on. It's the usual short term thinking.

(Edited for comments.)

[bmulligan]

How is this going to increase revenue exactly? If you decrease the incentive, people will not buy the SUV's. Then you won't even get any additional tax anyway.
Don't get me wrong, I didn't know this was a legitimate deduction in the forst place, it's sounds like coruption to me. You deduct (depreciate) the cost of a purchased vehicle for a business anyway. Is this an additional tax credit, or a deduction limit in addition to the depreciation? The article doesn't say.

How in the world do they get away with describing deduction reductions as revenue increases? Do they think everyone in this country is stupid? Oh, sorry, I guess they do...........

[Midnight Son]

The assumption is that business will continue to buy the SUVs without getting the additional writeoff. As usual, it's guesswork where the govt and money is concerned.

[JeffL]

This SUV attack frenzy by liberals has me scratching my head. It's stupid and hypocrytical for people like RFK Jr. and Huffington to go on these rampages against SUVs.

That said, this deduction was originally intended to help farmers who needed to buy large farm equipment, and the weight was used as the way to identify what qualified. Thus large non-farm equipment vehicles fell into this category.

While I doubt that this would have gathered attention had the word "SUV" not fallen in there (and picking on these is ignorant, IMO) I'd be in favor of re-classifying the vehicles to allow farmers to get the deductions for their equipment.

[quatoria]

I'm not trying to start another argument here, Jeff, but how is it stupid and hypocritical? I've seen a lot of statistics on the issue, and SUV's seem to be a big problem. They've caused a dramatic rise in highway fatalities, destroyed clean-air initiatives, and, of course, have ridiculously poor fuel economy. The fuel economy especially seems like a significant issue, given that we're in a state of near-war with the region of the world that produces almost all of our supply.

Given all that, why is it so ridiculous to rail against these silly vehicles?

[JeffL]

I'm not trying to start another argument here, Jeff, but how is it stupid and hypocritical? I've seen a lot of statistics on the issue, and SUV's seem to be a big problem. They've caused a dramatic rise in highway fatalities, destroyed clean-air initiatives, and, of course, have ridiculously poor fuel economy. The fuel economy especially seems like a significant issue, given that we're in a state of near-war with the region of the world that produces almost all of our supply.

Given all that, why is it so ridiculous to rail against these silly vehicles?

What is hypocrytical is people riding to radio and TV interviews in Limos, and flying to their next appearance in a private jet, and these same people railing against SUVs. All the data I've seen on them causing a rise in highway fatalities have been discredited - the data has been biased or misinterpreted. I've got a pretty new minivan that, with the whole family in the car, gets about the same gas mileage as a good SUV - should it be banned? There are big pick-up trucks that get about the same mileage, but no one is picking on them. The percentage of fuel we consume that is accounted for by SUVs is SO tiny that it seems disingeneous to me to raise that whole war/SUV flag.

But again, to directly address your question, many of the people leading this charge live in HUGE homes that use scads of fuel oil, fly in private jets, ride in limos, etc. For those people to tell all of us that we are bad people for driving an SUV is the height of hypocracy, IMO.

[Midnight Son]

Take a look at this interesting article about the SUV owner psychology:

http://www.idontcareaboutair.com/facts/owners.shtml


Sport utility buyers tend to be more restless, more sybaritic, less social people who are "self-oriented," to use the automakers' words, and who have strong conscious or subconscious fears of crime. Minivan buyers tend to be more self-confident and more "other-oriented" — more involved with family, friends and communities.

While the psychological research is closely guarded by the automakers, executives are willing to discuss some details. For example, minivan buyers tend to be more comfortable than sport utility buyers with being married; sport utility buyers are more commonly concerned with still feeling sexy, and they like the idea that they could use their vehicles to start dating again, said David P. Bostwick, DaimlerChrysler's director of market research.


Explains a lot. And yes, there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

[Mark Asher]

It's just a bit offensive to see people take advantage of this obvious oversight and get a big tax break for buying a car they'll never use for transporting materials but just to drive back and forth to work.

If you want to encourage the consumption of new autos, expand the break to include all cars, including imports. Why limit it to SUVs? Let me get that same nice tax break for buying a cheap little Hyundai. I can't afford a $40,000 SUV, but I might go out and get a $15,000 car if they give me a nice tax break.

I also see nothing wrong with discouraging the use of gas-guzzlers like SUVs. We should be encouraging more fuel-efficient cars. Giving a nice big juicy tax break to gas-guzzlers like SUVs is just dumb.

[Lizard_King]

Explains a lot. And yes, there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

It says a lot more about the Anti SUV camp. Resorting to ad hominems exclusively is a hallmark of people who are full of shit, and that's what that "research" is.

[quatoria]

But again, to directly address your question, many of the people leading this charge live in HUGE homes that use scads of fuel oil, fly in private jets, ride in limos, etc. For those people to tell all of us that we are bad people for driving an SUV is the height of hypocracy, IMO.

You make a good point. I assume it's alright if Ed Begely Jr. tells SUV owners that they're bad people, then?

[Midnight Son]

"Current miles per gallon standards [CAFE Standards] require 20.7 mpg for SUVs and other light trucks, and 27.5 mpg for cars. Closing the "light truck loophole", or raising the miles per gallon standards for SUVs and light trucks to the same level as cars, would save American consumers $27 billion at the gas pump and save over one million barrels of oil a day", Daniel Becker, Director of Sierra Club's Global Warming and Energy Team

This is clearly unfair to SUV owners! I mean, equal mileage? They're better than that!

Doing away with the tax break and closing the mileage loophole should be no brainers - and the people opposing it have no brain. Ok that was mean. I meant to say that they are self-centered. (Even saving Billions of dollars in gasoline alone is.... unfair to SUV owners!)

[Midnight Son]

Explains a lot. And yes, there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

It says a lot more about the Anti SUV camp. Resorting to ad hominems exclusively is a hallmark of people who are full of shit, and that's what that "research" is.

You don't like the results so you call them full of shit? You just made their point, kemosabe.

[quatoria]

Explains a lot. And yes, there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

It says a lot more about the Anti SUV camp. Resorting to ad hominems exclusively is a hallmark of people who are full of shit, and that's what that "research" is.

I'm no fan of SUV's, but I agree with King on this point - that "psychological breakdown" of SUV/Minivan owners smells like bullshit.

[JeffL]

But again, to directly address your question, many of the people leading this charge live in HUGE homes that use scads of fuel oil, fly in private jets, ride in limos, etc. For those people to tell all of us that we are bad people for driving an SUV is the height of hypocracy, IMO.

You make a good point. I assume it's alright if Ed Begely Jr. tells SUV owners that they're bad people, then?

LOL! Yeah, Ed Begely Jr. appears to walk the talk, if he truly does use bicycles to get around. But I don't think telling SUV owners they are bad people is legit - if you want to promote fuel effecient vehicles, cool, but if you want to point fingers, then do it for larger trucks, some vans, limos, private jets (which use a LOT more fuel in total than all of the SUVs put together and then some), etc.

And like I said before - I DO think that a tax break for businesses to buy SUVs is dumb and not the original intent of that law - it should be re-written. I wonder how many businesses buy SUVs? Heck, I work for a very large global company and we wouldn't dream of spending the dough on fuel inefficient big SUVs - we have company vans and company cars, but we sure don't even think of buying SUVs.

[JeffL]

Explains a lot. And yes, there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

It says a lot more about the Anti SUV camp. Resorting to ad hominems exclusively is a hallmark of people who are full of shit, and that's what that "research" is.

You don't like the results so you call them full of shit? You just made their point, kemosabe.

You really want to use a site entitled "idontcareaboutair" and "unpublished" research results and "anonymous" sources as your foundation of fact?

[Midnight Son]

1) Gentlemen, if you will read the article that I posted above you will find out that the study was done by the AUTOMAKERS themselves
The companies were trying very hard to find out who their customers are and what they wanted in a vehicle. Utter bullshit, huh?

2) SUV owners get so easily offended when someone attacks their chariot of choice even when you explain that they could save lots of $$$ by closing the CAFE loophole. (That loophole was not a mistake, by the way, it was lobbying.)

Jeff, again, if you read the article you will also find out it came from the NY Times News Service.

[Jason McCullough]

All the data I've seen on them causing a rise in highway fatalities have been discredited.....

They don't change the fatality rate of any one in the SUV, but people in cars who get hit by SUVs have like 5x the chance of dying.

This tax write-off needs to be closed back down to just the large farm vehicles; I'm unable to come up with a reason the government should subsidize the purchase of 5,000 pound Porsche SUVs.

I think we need to rearrange the transportation tax system to tax carbon emissions, instead of this silly fleet mileage hack. It's rather absurd; carmakers have entire lines of cars that they take huge losses on, but they sell them strictly to bring down the fleet mileage when averaged with their cash cow SUVs. It's a really distorted market; why not just tax based on carbon emissions per mile? That's what we're trying to do here, right?

Amusing note: I've been eyeballing a Nissan 350Z, which is quite the sexy sports car. It gets 22 miles a gallon, which sounds bad. At least, until you note the Cadillac Escalade gets 12.

[Mark Asher]

I wonder how many businesses buy SUVs? Heck, I work for a very large global company and we wouldn't dream of spending the dough on fuel inefficient big SUVs - we have company vans and company cars, but we sure don't even think of buying SUVs.

If a Fortune 500 company wants to buy SUVs and use them instead of cargo vans for transporting this or that, I don't have a problem with the normal tax breaks being extended for that purpose. If the same company buys SUVs and gives them to the execs to drive around, they shouldn't be getting that tax break.

I think it's more of the people who own small businesses or have some kind of sideline income and incorporate. I think they're the ones who are abusing the tax loophole -- lawyers and doctors who just drive the things back and forth to work, etc.

[Lizard_King]

You don't like the results so you call them full of shit? You just made their point, kemosabe.

You of all people should know what an ad hominem attack is. I'll give you an example: The Democratic Party's platforms in previous elections have been based around soft issues like medicare and the like. Therefore, we can infer that anyone who votes Democratic is either a woman or would like to be one.
Now, I didn't address their points. I didn't make a case for the other side. No, all I did was call them effeminate and sneer about it. Such sneering is all part of the game WHEN IT ACCOMPANIES REASONED ARGUMENTS. Otherwise, it is the hallmark of those who have nothing substantive to offer.

Do you see the parallels between that and your link? No, I didn't think so. Well, at least I tried.

[Peter Frazier]

I'm shallow enough to admit that I think that SUV owners are dickheads. Unless you own a large property with dirt roads, there is absolutelly no need for the purchase of one.
People might justify their purchase with a variety of Mickey Mouse excuses but it usually comes down to less profound and noble motives. The same could be said about most sport cars- the difference being that their impact on the other road users is less significant.
I find that my opinion of Volvo drivers has now morphed to include SUV drivers.
And I don't give a fuck about which party the driver votes for.

[Lizard_King]

I'm shallow enough to admit that I think that SUV owners are dickheads. Unless you own a large property with dirt roads, there is absolutelly no need for the purchase of one.
People might justify their purchase with a variety of Mickey Mouse excuses but it usually comes down to less profound and noble motives. The same could be said about most sport cars- the difference being that their impact on the other road users is less significant.
I find that my opinion of Volvo drivers has now morphed to include SUV drivers.
And I don't give a fuck about which party the driver votes for.
That's great. I'm sure they think highly of your scooter. That is what you drive, right? No one "needs" more than that.

[JeffL]

They don't change the fatality rate of any one in the SUV, but people in cars who get hit by SUVs have like 5x the chance of dying.

This tax write-off needs to be closed back down to just the large farm vehicles; I'm unable to come up with a reason the government should subsidize the purchase of 5,000 pound Porsche SUVs.

I think we need to rearrange the transportation tax system to tax carbon emissions, instead of this silly fleet mileage hack. It's rather absurd; carmakers have entire lines of cars that they take huge losses on, but they sell them strictly to bring down the fleet mileage when averaged with their cash cow SUVs. It's a really distorted market; why not just tax based on carbon emissions per mile? That's what we're trying to do here, right?

Amusing note: I've been eyeballing a Nissan 350Z, which is quite the sexy sports car. It gets 22 miles a gallon, which sounds bad. At least, until you note the Cadillac Escalade gets 12.


People who get hit by large pick-up trucks also have a much higher incidence of being killed.

We do agree - I think everyone here has agreed - that there shouldn't be any special tax break for buying a large, heavy vehicle unless perhaps it's farm equipment.

My Corolla gets 40 MPH. My parent's Toyota SUV gets 23. I don't think you should be allowed to buy that sports car.

[JeffL]

I'm shallow enough to admit that I think that SUV owners are dickheads. Unless you own a large property with dirt roads, there is absolutelly no need for the purchase of one.
People might justify their purchase with a variety of Mickey Mouse excuses but it usually comes down to less profound and noble motives. The same could be said about most sport cars- the difference being that their impact on the other road users is less significant.
I find that my opinion of Volvo drivers has now morphed to include SUV drivers.
And I don't give a fuck about which party the driver votes for.

I don't think we need to be in a situation in this country where a group of people can decide what other people "need" to drive, or wear, of the kind of house they live in, etc.

[Kalle]

I find that my opinion of Volvo drivers has now morphed to include SUV drivers.

Really, Volvo drivers? Do they somehow stand out especially in Australia?

[bmulligan]

Now I have a little better understanding of this issue. This is not a tax 'rebate' or a tax 'credit' so McCullough , you don't have to get worked up about everyone 'paying' for business to use SUVs. What it is is a limit on the amount you can use as a deduction on your tax return.

You are only allowed a certain amount of deduction in any given tax year for capital expenditures on real property, and vehicles, machinery, etc. Anything above this value must be depreciated, either straight line or amortized over a period of years. What this law allows is the immediate deduction of the value of the vehicle purchase in the same year as the purchase. It's believed that it would be a short term 'assistance' for farmers and businesses to deduct the full cost against their income to give them a tax advantage.

The thinking was to give incentive to purchase vehicles, therby creating demand in the manufacturing and auto industries as well as alleviating tax burdens on farmers and other businesses. Now they want to take away this insentive, or decrease it. Either way these items get depreciatedover time or deducted at once, it really doesn't matter. But it does slow the incentive for businesses to make major purchases.[/quote]

[Midnight Son]

Here I go out of my way to be semi-serious for once and of course LK doesn't get it. No surprise there. Frankly I don't give a fuck what any of ya'll drive, I just don't want to subsidize somebody elses LUXURY items with my tax money. If you want a real tax break for a good purpose, get yourself a Honda Insight or Toyota Prius.

[Jason McCullough]

Mulligan, When the law was first written they patently didn't intend to give businesses a new huge-ass deduction for company-owned "passenger" cars. It was clearly written for "work" vehicles, but then a few SUVs got so big people could claim those under the law.


People who get hit by large pick-up trucks also have a much higher incidence of being killed.

I don't people shouldn't be forbidden from buying the kind of vehicles they want; they should just have to pay the actual price of the vehicle - including the price of the carbon it emits, maybe price of the military it takes to defend the oil source that powers it, and definitely the price it imposes on other drivers through increased risk of death.

http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/001485.html


Insurance-company data, Bradsher writes, show that SUVs and light pickups have much higher loss rates than regular cars. That SUV owners generally do not pay higher insurance premiums is a perverse consequence of 1970s-era laws that discouraged insurers from linking auto premiums to vehicle weights. Those laws were enacted when the well-off had glistening new small cars and the poor had old land yachts; in the era of the SUV, they represent a subsidy from the poor to the well-off. Buyers of luxury SUVs may also get tax breaks denied to buyers of regular cars. As the Detroit News recently reported, the Internal Revenue Service has been allowing affluent business owners who buy SUVs and classify them as business "trucks"--even if they are actually burlwood-trimmed Cadillacs for personal use--to knock as much as $25,000 off their taxes through a special depreciation. The special tax break only applies if the SUV weighs more than 6,000 pounds, which represents still another reward for waste.

[Peter Frazier]

I don't think we need to be in a situation in this country where a group of people can decide what other people "need" to drive, or wear, of the kind of house they live in, etc.

I'm not talking about other people deciding what others 'need'. I'm talking about people practicing appropriate judgement of their needs when making a purchase. If they have a need to have other people think of them as virile, manly outdoors types why should I stand back and applaud their decision? If they want to show off their wealth, buy a fucking Jag.
I just feel that SUVs break a part of our social contract. ie I'll try not to do anything in my life that will fuck up yours unnecessarily. These large, road-hogging vehicles limit your visibility when following them and when beside them at an intersection. I'll forgive trucks and commercial vehicles for limiting my situational awareness because they are there for a practical reason. SUVs bought for the sheer sake of vanity aren't.
I also think that people who buy them for the sake of safety are doing it at the expense of smaller vehicles. It's great to think that you can maximise your chances of survival by minimizing the other guys. People in lightweight vehicles drive more defensively than people in heavy vehicles.... Which gives me a segue to answer Kalle:
Volvo drivers in Australia have long been derided. Volvos are marketed as being built like tanks and thus being the safest car on the market. What happens then is either one of two things- crap drivers buy the car because they know they're going to have an accident sometime, and normal drivers buy the car but feel less paranoid and thus more inclined to take risks because they're in a tank. Either way, people watch out for Volvos on the road because you don't know what the hell the driver is going to do.
And to Lizard_King- do you live in Vietnam? Because that's one of the few places remaining where it's okay to load your family onto a scooter. I prefer my sedan. Ingrate.

A warning- it's a nice Sunday afternoon here and I'll be settling in with some friends and some bourbon. I'll not be responsible for any ludicrous, offensive or just plain stupid replies to this topic for the next 24 hours. Well, I will be responsible for them but because I used my own goddam money to buy it (not the guvmints!), I'll expect LK and BM to defend my rights to the death. Any comments that my actions and purchases are somehow deleterious to this forum will be considered a pinko liberal conspiracy :wink: . Cheers guys.

[Brad Grenz]

Take a look at this interesting article about the SUV owner psychology:

http://www.idontcareaboutair.com/facts/owners.shtml


Sport utility buyers tend to be more restless, more sybaritic, less social people who are "self-oriented," to use the automakers' words, and who have strong conscious or subconscious fears of crime. Minivan buyers tend to be more self-confident and more "other-oriented" — more involved with family, friends and communities.

While the psychological research is closely guarded by the automakers, executives are willing to discuss some details. For example, minivan buyers tend to be more comfortable than sport utility buyers with being married; sport utility buyers are more commonly concerned with still feeling sexy, and they like the idea that they could use their vehicles to start dating again, said David P. Bostwick, DaimlerChrysler's director of market research.


Explains a lot. And yes, there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

You do realise that all this research is suggesting is that minivans are almost exclusively family cars. Single guys don't buy minivans, which is a big huge 'duh for everyone but you. Conveniently the article references information not publically available and omits any numbers whatsoever. Still, the findings mirror what I would expects, as while most SUV buyers may be married, there's certainly a significant number of younger, single, male buyers which you won't find for minivans, but will skew these kinds of psychological findings.

[bmulligan]

Mulligan, When the law was first written they patently didn't intend to give businesses a new huge-ass deduction for company-owned "passenger" cars. It was clearly written for "work" vehicles, but then a few SUVs got so big people could claim those under the law.


Jason, a deduction is not the same as a subsidy. If I take in 100,000 in my business, I deduct the costs associated with my business on my tax return every year. Labor, materials, finance debt, etc., including things bought for the business minus income=gross income Let's say I buy a pickup truck for my business. This law allows me to deduct the full 35,000 from my income in one year, not spread out over 5 years if I do a straight line depreciation on the expenditure. The law was written to give incentive for large capital expenditures by business, period. It's not giving anyone any money for buying SUVs. They have bought the vehicle out-of-pocket. They don't get any reduced price, or 'rebate' from the government for doing so, only an increase in the deduction they can claim against their income for 1 year instead of 5 or 7 years.

And as for people paying for the carbon emissions...........should we charge you for all the CO2 you've been producing over your lifetime that emmits from that gaping hole in the middle of your face? How exactly do we put a price on carbon? Who determines it, and by what criteria? Experts? Economists? Congress? Why don't we just tax the air we breathe and use the money to keep it clean. Or better yet, charge us everytime we go to the bathroom to save the whales?

[Jason McCullough]

If a tax deduction for buying 6,000 pound vehicles isn't a subsidy for buying 6,000 pound vehicles, apparently the tax deduction on mortgage interest isn't a subsidy for buying homes.

Depreciating 100% has to be worth more than depreciating 50% this year and 50% this year (to pick an example); interest rates aren't negative.

Good summary:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P48468.asp

[Peter Frazier]

And as for people paying for the carbon emissions...........should we charge you for all the CO2 you've been producing over your lifetime that emmits from that gaping hole in the middle of your face? How exactly do we put a price on carbon? Who determines it, and by what criteria? Experts? Economists? Congress? Why don't we just tax the air we breathe and use the money to keep it clean. Or better yet, charge us everytime we go to the bathroom to save the whales?

How about we charge people for using it beyond what is necessary?
Some things needn't be legislated in nitty gritty detail. How about, if you have a habit of conspicuos consumption, you pick up the tab for it? For someone who is all into personal accountability versus government intervention, you seem to be backing a group of people who are taking a free ride off other people for silly reasons.
Using a bizarre tangent, if I had a masturbation machine which emited copious amounts of CO2, would you willingly go into bat for me if other people claimed that I wasn't doing the right thing by using it?
I'm all for people earning enough money to buy whatever they want, right up until it takes away from from my quality of life. Unlike most economics, this selfish act does work on a zero-sum system. Their driving an SUV takes away from my driving capabilities, let alone CO2 emissions.
As someone who lived in a rural community on black soil which turned into a quagmire when wet (speaking of which- what happened to MachFive?), I appreciate that some people need them. Most people in the city however, get them for more frivolous reasons. How far should we support frivolous purchases which affect other people?

[Midnight Son]

Hear hear, Mr Frazier. Personal responsibility just doesn't sit well with some people.

[Lizard_King]

I'm not talking about other people deciding what others 'need'. I'm talking about people practicing appropriate judgement of their needs when making a purchase. If they have a need to have other people think of them as virile, manly outdoors types why should I stand back and applaud their decision? If they want to show off their wealth, buy a fucking Jag.
Bullshit. You are talking about telling other people what they need or want. You are saying it is more appropriate for you to tell someone where there money should go in what is ultimately a matter of taste. Without a *direct* victim for an act, you're going to need a hell of a lot more than your ideological "feelings" to make that a legitimate space for government intervention.

I just feel that SUVs break a part of our social contract. ie I'll try not to do anything in my life that will fuck up yours unnecessarily. These large, road-hogging vehicles limit your visibility when following them and when beside them at an intersection. I'll forgive trucks and commercial vehicles for limiting my situational awareness because they are there for a practical reason. SUVs bought for the sheer sake of vanity aren't.
That's a wonderful legal standard. Forget the constitution; forget common law; from now on, we will base our law on what Peter Frazier decides to forgive. Please clarify your point of view and feelings on every other issue, that we may write those up as well for the New People's Republic of Peter.

I also think that people who buy them for the sake of safety are doing it at the expense of smaller vehicles. It's great to think that you can maximise your chances of survival by minimizing the other guys. People in lightweight vehicles drive more defensively than people in heavy vehicles.... Which gives me a segue to answer Kalle:
Volvo drivers in Australia have long been derided. Volvos are marketed as being built like tanks and thus being the safest car on the market. What happens then is either one of two things- crap drivers buy the car because they know they're going to have an accident sometime, and normal drivers buy the car but feel less paranoid and thus more inclined to take risks because they're in a tank. Either way, people watch out for Volvos on the road because you don't know what the hell the driver is going to do.
Show me some accident statistics to back that up. I'm not saying you shouldn't be free to be as paranoid of drivers you stereotype as you please; I'm just saying that before legal action can be taken you need a whole lot more than that. While it is not really a matter of contention that SUV's vs volkswagen beetles are always going to be a sad outcome, it is that in the aggregate SUV's are exceptionally harmful by nature, anymore than sports cars or motorcycles or any other such "frivolous and dangerous" means of transport.


And to Lizard_King- do you live in Vietnam? Because that's one of the few places remaining where it's okay to load your family onto a scooter. I prefer my sedan. Ingrate.
Is that like some kind of racial thing I should know? What do you mean by "ok"? Also, what does me being "ungrateful" have to do with anything?


A warning- it's a nice Sunday afternoon here and I'll be settling in with some friends and some bourbon. I'll not be responsible for any ludicrous, offensive or just plain stupid replies to this topic for the next 24 hours. Well, I will be responsible for them but be cause I used my own goddam money to buy it (not the guvmints!), I'll expect LK and BM to defend my rights to the death. Any comments that my actions and purchases are somehow deleterious to this forum will be considered a pinko liberal conspiracy :wink: . Cheers guys.
I've tried to take your arguments seriously. Obviously, your category for "ludicrous, offensive or just plain stupid" is broad enough to include anything that disagrees with you. If that is the case, you should save us the trouble of arguing and just recite your catechisms internally.

How about we charge people for using it beyond what is necessary?
Some things needn't be legislated in nitty gritty detail. How about, if you have a habit of conspicuos consumption, you pick up the tab for it? For someone who is all into personal accountability versus government intervention, you seem to be backing a group of people who are taking a free ride off other people for silly reasons.
"Beyond what is necessary" is too broad a standard. I am all for positive incentives for people to buy smaller cars; I am only rarely going to favour actively punishing people on what is more importantly an issue of human rights. I think if fuel economy was really what you were after, you'd also be trying to run every V8 jaguar off the street. What you have is a self avowed ideological opposition to SUV owners and their psychologies. We might as well be secularists and Christian fundamentalists in an argument ( you can assign the whose who in that analogy inside your own head for your convenience).

[Midnight Son]

So, LK, just what do you drive?

[Lizard_King]

So, LK, just what do you drive?
I don't have a car. THE ULTIMATE ENVIRONMENTALIST. I use a bicycle, or (gasp) public transportation. Feel better now?
Also, in Costa Rica I see no possible argument with anyone owning an SUV. If you saw the mountains and shitty roads that are par for the course, I suspect even you playa-hatas would agree.

Look, I'm not saying that many people who buy SUV's don't need them. I'm not saying I like the idea of Soccer Mom's and smarmy yuppies driving around in tanks. I'm just saying I like the self-righteous crap about who needs what even less, as a moral argument or a pretense of a legalistic argument. I don't see why that is controversial.

[Midnight Son]

Good for you, man. Now, you got to realize that it's not always self-righteous crap. Some of us really try our best to live by our ideals. I'm not perfect or pretend to be but I object to my tax money supporting other folks luxuries.

If you pay US taxes, don't you agree? And why not close the CAFE mileage loopholes? SUV owners would save lots of money on gas and their vehicles would pollute as little as cars. Why should owners of monster vehicles be any better than owners of subcompacts? Am I being totally unreasonable here?

[Lizard_King]

Good for you, man. Now, you got to realize that it's not always self-righteous crap. Some of us really try our best to live by our ideals. I'm not perfect or pretend to be but I object to my tax money supporting other folks luxuries.

If you pay US taxes, don't you agree? And why not close the CAFE mileage loopholes? SUV owners would save lots of money on gas and their vehicles would pollute as little as cars. Why should owners of monster vehicles be any better than owners of subcompacts? Am I being totally unreasonable here?
Man, I didn't even say I disagreed with closing those loopholes. Close em all. Provide all the fuel economy positive incentives you like in turn. What pissed me off was the opposite extreme of that presented by Frazier and that research you cited as reasonable, which is the demonization of SUV owners. Even if it were true, it is no substitute for a reasoned argument.

[Midnight Son]

Ok, on this subject we agree. There was no demonization implied in the automakers research although it was used that way by the enviro lobby.

[bmulligan]

How about we charge people for using it beyond what is necessary?


Just exactly how do we determine how much carbon emmission is necessary? We can't, there is no standard. There is no way to determine the effects, the costs, the detriment or the actual output over time based on use. The only equitable way to tax the 'misuse' of these social contract breaking mackines is to tax the fuel with some arbitrary standard.

And Jason, you obviously don't file a schedule C with your taxes every year or have any concept of what business deductions are. If I make 1,000,000 in gross sales but my costs were 500,000, should I have to pay tax on 1,000,000, or just my gross profit of 500,000? If the former were true, then not many people would opt to be businessmen.

[Midnight Son]

Mulligan, why is everything so difficult for you to grasp? I am arguing for levelling the playing field between cars and light trucks. Hold them to the same standard and continue to reduce all emissions. You, of course, don't need clean air, right?

[JeffL]

Mulligan, why is everything so difficult for you to grasp? I am arguing for levelling the playing field between cars and light trucks. Hold them to the same standard and continue to reduce all emissions. You, of course, don't need clean air, right?

OK. Well, guess what - none of us truly NEED personal cars. There are many countries where most people use bicycles and public transportation. So should I be telling everyone that they are louts and full of themselves because they choose to buy a car for personal use? And surely no one needs TWO cars - what ingrates! I'm choking already on the pollution from these self-centered idiots. And very few people really NEED to fly - you can all take a Greyhound and save the fuel. Also, no one needs to have their house at 70 during the winter - turn off the heat and wear lots of blankets and just get used to the cold. Also do you know how much oil is used as the base of the materials used to make the computers you're reading this on? And the CDs your software comes on? You self centered SOBs. You certainly don't need a computer.

I also love it when people start using mass generalizations to back up their attacks on something like a vehicle. Yeah, the only people who drive SUVs are self-centered, macho people who want to show off. Like my 70 year old retired parents (my dad was Air Force, hardly wealthy, and hardly wealthy living off miltary retirement.)

[Midnight Son]

Typical over the top whining. No, Lackey, YOU are exempt since you are obviously special just like all the other SUV drivers.

[JeffL]

Typical over the top whining. No, Lackey, YOU are exempt since you are obviously special just like all the other SUV drivers.

That's a great response. Thanks.

Over the top why? Because I drew the line somewhere different from where you get to draw the line?

[Midnight Son]

I am arguing for levelling the playing field between cars and light trucks. Hold them to the same standard and continue to reduce all emissions.

Try again. Read slowly. You drew no lines, you merely advocate a total lack of responsibility.

[Jason McCullough]

How about we charge people for using it beyond what is necessary?


Just exactly how do we determine how much carbon emmission is necessary? We can't, there is no standard. There is no way to determine the effects, the costs, the detriment or the actual output over time based on use. The only equitable way to tax the 'misuse' of these social contract breaking mackines is to tax the fuel with some arbitrary standard.

And Jason, you obviously don't file a schedule C with your taxes every year or have any concept of what business deductions are. If I make 1,000,000 in gross sales but my costs were 500,000, should I have to pay tax on 1,000,000, or just my gross profit of 500,000? If the former were true, then not many people would opt to be businessmen.

So you're saying taking the entire deduction the first year *doesn't* save you any money? It doesn't cost the government anything?

[Peter Frazier]

Wow, LizardKing, vent some spleen for me please.
If you read my post, you'll see that there is no ideology beyond me disliking SUVs for two main reasons:
1. They lower my ease of driving and feelings of safety on the road.
2. I feel that most purchases of SUVs are made for inappropriate reasons and the subsidy of said purchases compounds the problem.

I didn't actually say I wanted to be World Dictator For Life, the point of my post was that people should be expected to make appropriate purchases and that if they don't, they should expect criticism. Or is my right to criticise lesser than their right to buy and drive a tank at my expense?

As a defender of everyone's rights at the expense of common sense, why don't you team up with this guy?
http://wcco.com/crime/local_story_230171201.html

And Jeff, you're a good son for sticking up for your Dad. Why did he get the SUV though?

[Lizard_King]

Wow, LizardKing, vent some spleen for me please.
If you read my post, you'll see that there is no ideology beyond me disliking SUVs for two main reasons:
1. They lower my ease of driving and feelings of safety on the road.
2. I feel that most purchases of SUVs are made for inappropriate reasons and the subsidy of said purchases compounds the problem.

I didn't actually say I wanted to be World Dictator For Life, the point of my post was that people should be expected to make appropriate purchases and that if they don't, they should expect criticism. Or is my right to criticise lesser than their right to buy and drive a tank at my expense?
That's not what I was saying (about your right to criticize). I just tend to get impatient when an argument with all sorts of legal and material implications veers off into emotional rationalizing independent of substantive arguments.


As a defender of everyone's rights at the expense of common sense, why don't you team up with this guy?
http://wcco.com/crime/local_story_230171201.htmlGuy makes a lot of sense. Gun free zones can just as easily be considered Unarmed Target-rich Zones. Is this sort of passive aggressive "criticism by association" supposed to shame me?
I love it when you appeal to common sense, when what you really mean are your feelings. It's adorable, and its precisely the sort of thinking that leads every side of the political spectrum astray.

[Sean Tudor]

Ah great the old "let's beat up on SUV/4WD owners" topic again.

I am not going to argue statistics (http://www.wyndhambusiness.com/opinion/4wd.htm) apart from the fact the amount of large 4WD's on the road is minuscule compared to your typical sedan (at least in Australia).

As an owner of a 2 tonne 2003 Jeep Cherokee Limited (Liberty in the US) here are the reasons I purchased it :

1. I have reached the stage in my life where I can afford to enjoy myself a bit more and that is why I bought my Jeep. It's black with tinted windows and looks great. I am a car enthusiast and not just an "A to B" driver. My wife and I do a fair bit of touring and the Jeep is perfect for it.

2. For a 2 tonne vehicle it gives me an average of 14.5L/100km in city driving. Not too bad compared to other vehicles. Plus it has a strong powerful 3.7L V6 engine. It's nice to know I can plant my foot and take off when I need to.

3. Both my wife and I like the higher ride height. It's nice to be able to see over other sedans and plan ahead for those little "incidents" on the road.

4. I previously owned a 1996 Jeep Cherokee and loved it.

5. Sydney roads are becoming increasingly chaotic and dangerous and I had decided I no longer want to be turned into minced meat in the event of someone crashing in to me. I have a better chance of surviving a major accident in my 4WD than a sedan. Call me selfish or whatever but at least I am honest about it.


That's basically it in a nutshell. I am a considerate road user and always let people cut in front of me if they want to merge etc. and I don't speed.

I think anyone should be allowed to drive whatever they want. As long as they are a considerate road user then what is the problem. I have had more problems with impatient "A to B" sedan drivers than I have had with any 4WD/SUV driver.

[Midnight Son]

Sean, we are talking about the USA where SUV's are freakin' everywhere in great numbers.

[Sean Tudor]

Sean, we are talking about the USA where SUV's are freakin' everywhere in great numbers.

Are SUV's now outselling sedans in the US ?

[bmulligan]

Yes, because Americans are logically idiots and want to choke you to death on carbon emissions, and starve your african relatives, and kill your muslim ones, and steal their oil.


So you're saying taking the entire deduction the first year *doesn't* save you any money? It doesn't cost the government anything?

Yes, it does save you money all at once, instead of 5-7 years down the road. That's the point Jason - immediate tax relief and incentive to purchase instead of spreading it over a period of years through depreciation.

Jesus freaking christ, I get the feeling I'm peeking into a fishbowl of college wetheads who've barely dipped their heads above the surface to get a whiff of real world air. Does anybody here actually run a business, work in the real world, file a 1040ES quarterly, a Schedule A,C,SE, or are you all studying for midterms and armchair quarterbacking the jungle from your dormroom television viewhole?

[bmulligan]

I forgot about the other naive statement of subsidy you mentioned McCullough:


If a tax deduction for buying 6,000 pound vehicles isn't a subsidy for buying 6,000 pound vehicles, apparently the tax deduction on mortgage interest isn't a subsidy for buying homes.


No, it not a subsidy to be able to deduct the interest from your home loan. Guess who pays federal income tax on the interest? The Lender. It's called interest and dividend income which must be declared over $400 in any fiscal or calendar year. You deduct 10,000 in interest paid, the bank pays tax on the 10,000 they make off you. Get it?

[Jason McCullough]

No, it not a subsidy to be able to deduct the interest from your home loan. Guess who pays federal income tax on the interest? The Lender. It's called interest and dividend income which must be declared over $400 in any fiscal or calendar year. You deduct 10,000 in interest paid, the bank pays tax on the 10,000 they make off you. Get it?

That's why you can deduct the interest on car loans, right? Right?

[Mark Asher]

Sean, we are talking about the USA where SUV's are freakin' everywhere in great numbers.

Are SUV's now outselling sedans in the US ?

There are a lot of them on the roads. They seem to be the car of choice these days.

If you don't need 4-wheel drive, I don't really see the appeal. Get a mini-van and save lots of money if you need a big car.

[Peter Frazier]

3. Both my wife and I like the higher ride height. It's nice to be able to see over other sedans and plan ahead for those little "incidents" on the road.

5. Sydney roads are becoming increasingly chaotic and dangerous and I had decided I no longer want to be turned into minced meat in the event of someone crashing in to me. I have a better chance of surviving a major accident in my 4WD than a sedan. Call me selfish or whatever but at least I am honest about it.

I think anyone should be allowed to drive whatever they want. As long as they are a considerate road user then what is the problem.

Which points to the issue that I have with 4WD/SUVs. Your 'higher ride height' is something that blocks my field of view and degrades my driving conditions. It's a zero-sum thing where your gain is my loss. So yes, I guess I could call you selfish.



That's not what I was saying (about your right to criticize). I just tend to get impatient when an argument with all sorts of legal and material implications veers off into emotional rationalizing independent of substantive arguments.
and
I love it when you appeal to common sense, when what you really mean are your feelings. It's adorable, and its precisely the sort of thinking that leads every side of the political spectrum astray.
What are you, a friggin Vulcan?
It's pretty hard to discuss something with someone when all they say is 'you're getting emotional' when I pretty well lay my argument down to two simple points. Delete the word 'feel' from my post and then answer the points, buddy.

[Lizard_King]

Without "feel" you have no point. I know, let's start basing law on your anecdotal experiences, that's fucking great. Removing "I feel" from your statements means we are left with unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks. That's it, pure and simple.

[Peter Frazier]

No, you drive behind an SUV and tell me what your visibility is like compared to driving behind a sedan. It's nothing to do with feelings. SUVs are much larger and much higher off the ground. Visibility allows you to anticipate accidents earlier. Having your visibilty reduced forces you to drive in a more defensive manner.
Get it?
No.Fucking.Feelings.Here.

By the way, you do realize that your precious statistics that you use in your Vulcan-like reasoning are based on respondents answering according to their 'anecdotal experiences' as you put it? Does that mean all statistics are shit?
Can you just let go of this notion that I've claimed that SUV ownership should be legislated? Read the posts again and try to figure out how you've managed to totally avoid answering my issues whilst at the same time ranting about my conspiracy to be the One World Government Leader. (Which, if it happens, will have a very special place for you :twisted: ).

[bmulligan]

That's why you can deduct the interest on car loans, right? Right?

Right. You can deduct interest if it's part of the cost of doing business. Individual car loan interest isn't deductable.

Do you have a fundamental problem with business being able to deduct expenses from their income or something?

[Lizard_King]

No, you drive behind an SUV and tell me what your visibility is like compared to driving behind a sedan. It's nothing to do with feelings. SUVs are much larger and much higher off the ground. Visibility allows you to anticipate accidents earlier. Having your visibilty reduced forces you to drive in a more defensive manner.
Get it?
No.Fucking.Feelings.Here.
Right. You feeling more defensive as a driver because of SUV's is not just you feeling something, it is a defined cause-and-effect thing for EVERY driver. Sure.
Me, I don't recall any such problems on my part. Short of an 18 wheeler, nothing much bothers me when I drive, other than motorcycle drivers. You're saying "So what?" as you read that...notice the similarities?


By the way, you do realize that your precious statistics that you use in your Vulcan-like reasoning are based on respondents answering according to their 'anecdotal experiences' as you put it? Does that mean all statistics are shit?
Wow. That's brilliant. You don't see a difference between statistics taking the opinions of a sample population and holding them to a set standard and your personal views? Really? No one is saying statistics can't be abused, but they are surely better than your personal feelings if you are trying to build a case against SUV's that will hold water somewhere other than your living room.


Can you just let go of this notion that I've claimed that SUV ownership should be legislated? Read the posts again and try to figure out how you've managed to totally avoid answering my issues whilst at the same time ranting about my conspiracy to be the One World Government Leader. (Which, if it happens, will have a very special place for you :twisted: ).
What "issues"? Name to me one concrete, material issue you've raised. Other than things that you feel and things that make you uncomfortable, you've got nothing that is worth arguing about. Not because your views aren't important, but because they are just your feelings. I'm sorry you have those emotional issues when an SUV driver passes you on the highway. There, we've "dealt" with your issues.

[JeffL]

No, you drive behind an SUV and tell me what your visibility is like compared to driving behind a sedan. It's nothing to do with feelings. SUVs are much larger and much higher off the ground. Visibility allows you to anticipate accidents earlier. Having your visibilty reduced forces you to drive in a more defensive manner.

Then I assume that you also feel minivan purchasers are selfish, since they are at least as high as SUVs?

I hate parking next to large pickup trucks, because it is impossible to back out safely since I can't see around them. It has never occurred to me to be pissed at the owners of the truck.

[Jason McCullough]

That's why you can deduct the interest on car loans, right? Right?

Right. You can deduct interest if it's part of the cost of doing business. Individual car loan interest isn't deductable.

Do you have a fundamental problem with business being able to deduct expenses from their income or something?

Are you intentionally being obtuse? I said the homeowner's deduction was an example of a subsidy. You countered that it wasn't, because the government already taxes the interest collected by the mortgage lender. I countered with the example of car loan interest - how come I can deduct home loan interest, but not car loan interest?

[Peter Frazier]

Then I assume that you also feel minivan purchasers are selfish, since they are at least as high as SUVs?
I hate parking next to large pickup trucks, because it is impossible to back out safely since I can't see around them. It has never occurred to me to be pissed at the owners of the truck.
Well now you can be- go for it! :wink:
As I said, I can rationalize any pissed feelings at minivans because people tend to buy them for practical reasons- ie they have more passenger spaces. In the same way that trucks should be treated cautiously but I don't get annoyed with the driver, since it's his business and it has a purpose.

BTW Lizard, I'm glad that only 18 wheelers change your driving habits as you bravely pedal along your commute. I think you're talking out of your arse.

[bmulligan]

Are you intentionally being obtuse? I said the homeowner's deduction was an example of a subsidy. You countered that it wasn't, because the government already taxes the interest collected by the mortgage lender. I countered with the example of car loan interest - how come I can deduct home loan interest, but not car loan interest?
Ask a stupid question, Jason.......
You can deduct that interest if it is a business expense. And I won't argue with you on the point because I believe you should be able to do the same for a personal car loan also. For that matter, we should be able to deduct our general expenses on food, shelter, transportation, and clothing on our personal tax returns as costs of keeping our 'business' alive afloat, and sustained. In effect, we are all individually a small business making money for the government treasury.

[Midnight Son]

Ok, to get back on track for the 5th time. Why should we subsidize the most polluting, least mileage getting, huge monstrosity luxury vehicles on the road? Why, because the auto industry is huge, spends massive dollars on lobbying and has conditioned Soccer Mom's and NASCAR dads that they need an SUV. :roll:

[Peter Frazier]

No no no Midnight- that's an ad hominem attack. We must be rational and scientific about this.

Lizard, do this simple scientific experiment for me:
You'll need one 30cm X 30cm piece of card, one 50cm X 50 cm piece of card, a sack of tennis balls and a volunteer.
1.Hold the smaller piece of card out at arms length facing the volunteer who is holding the sack of tennis balls.
2. Have the volunteer lob tennis balls at your legs. Avoid the balls and measure the reaction time that you have.
3. Hold the larger piece of card towards the volunteer and repeat the process. Measure whether your reaction time has increased or decreased.
4. Contemplate whether diminished visibility and reaction times would be considered an adverse effect on people's driving.
5. Discard the card and shut your eyes. Have the volunteer throw the tennis balls at you as hard as they can because you fucking deserve it. Ignore any feelings of outrage because feelings are not worthy of such higher order creatures as yourself.

[Sean Tudor]

Which points to the issue that I have with 4WD/SUVs. Your 'higher ride height' is something that blocks my field of view and degrades my driving conditions. It's a zero-sum thing where your gain is my loss. So yes, I guess I could call you selfish.

Which of course is no different to minivan's, sedans with black tinted windows, utes fully loaded with building materials in the back, semi-trailers, etc etc etc.

Look around you - the vast majority of people in Australia drive sedans and utes. Where I live (Blacktown) the majority of drivers are working class people driving some sort of ute or truck. Believe me 4WD's are the least of my worries in my area.

But once again 4WD's are of course "soft targets" that the Australian media - especially that bastion of poor reporting A Current Affair - has decided to latch on to.

Maybe people should focus more on drivers who own 10 year old shit box cars who don't get them regularly serviced that are spewing out clouds of polution from their poorly maintained engines.

But no of course that doesn't rate a mention since we can't have people driving 4WD's. No ratings in that since the majority of people in this country are a bunch of sheep that are lead around by the nose and believe anything they are told.

[Jason McCullough]

Are you intentionally being obtuse? I said the homeowner's deduction was an example of a subsidy. You countered that it wasn't, because the government already taxes the interest collected by the mortgage lender. I countered with the example of car loan interest - how come I can deduct home loan interest, but not car loan interest?
Ask a stupid question, Jason.......
You can deduct that interest if it is a business expense. And I won't argue with you on the point because I believe you should be able to do the same for a personal car loan also. For that matter, we should be able to deduct our general expenses on food, shelter, transportation, and clothing on our personal tax returns as costs of keeping our 'business' alive afloat, and sustained. In effect, we are all individually a small business making money for the government treasury.

1) The government giving someone a tax deduction if they do action X is effectively a subsidy - regardless of whether that's what the lawmakers actually intended - to action X. Applies to having kids, buying a house, what have you.
2) The government clearly intended, and stated it was their purpose, to to subsidize private homeownership when they created the mortgage interest tax deduction. This is further pointed out by the fact that you can't get a tax deduction on a car loan.

3) The government lets you deduct everything that's a business expense. However, *in this specific case of buying a vehicle over 6,000 pounds*, they let you deduct the cost all in the first year, instead of having to spread it out. Since this saves the business money and costs the government money, it's a subsidy by definition.

[Peter Frazier]

Which of course is no different to minivan's, sedans with black tinted windows, utes fully loaded with building materials in the back, semi-trailers, etc etc etc.

Don't worry Sean, they piss me off too. Of course, as I've said several times before, work trucks and loaded utes are a necessary hazard, and minivans are bought to cater for passenger numbers.
I always thought that black tinting was classed as a defect. Much the same as cracked and chipped windshields, it reduces visibility. I wonder what the law is about that?




Look around you - the vast majority of people in Australia drive sedans and utes. Where I live (Blacktown) the majority of drivers are working class people driving some sort of ute or truck. Believe me 4WD's are the least of my worries in my area.

I think it strange that you think utes are a hazard. They are the same height and width as sedans and don't cause any visibilty issues with me.

[Sean Tudor]

I think it strange that you think utes are a hazard. They are the same height and width as sedans and don't cause any visibilty issues with me.

I am not pissed at utes. I am simply stating they cause just as much of a vision hazard as any other vehicle on the road.

I try not to get pissed off about anything on the roads these days. If you do you will become yet another Road Rage Driver which in a city like Sydney is easy to do.

The only thing that really annoys me on the roads these days are trucks that use residential areas as shortcuts and trucks that refuse to move over to the left hand lane.

Oh and I really get annoyed at North Shore and Eastern Suburbs yuppies who think they know what is best for the rest of Sydney. It is ironic that these people seem to generate the most noise in the 4WD debate and yet have the highest per-capita ownership of expensive 2 tonne plus 4WD's. :evil:

[bmulligan]

The government lets you deduct everything that's a business expense. However, *in this specific case of buying a vehicle over 6,000 pounds*, they let you deduct the cost all in the first year, instead of having to spread it out. Since this saves the business money and costs the government money, it's a subsidy by definition.

It's not a subsidy, by any definition. Just like reduction in percentage growth in government programs is not a spending cut, just a decline in increase. We are not paying business to buy SUV's. The hyperbole used to imply that business are being given money is the typical rhetorical tactic used to frighten the public into believing business aren't paying their 'fair share'. You might as well say we are subsidizing business to exist because we let them deduct anything against their gross income.

[Jason McCullough]

Sigh. Right, and the EITC isn't a subsidy to single-mothers.

[Dunc]

Back on track, again:

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/10/14/suv_safety/index.html

[Enidigm]

I'm shallow enough to admit that I think that SUV owners are dickheads. Unless you own a large property with dirt roads, there is absolutelly no need for the purchase of one.
People might justify their purchase with a variety of Mickey Mouse excuses but it usually comes down to less profound and noble motives. The same could be said about most sport cars- the difference being that their impact on the other road users is less significant.
I find that my opinion of Volvo drivers has now morphed to include SUV drivers.
And I don't give a fuck about which party the driver votes for.

Man i understand the dislike of the tax credit for farmers being abused by anyone with a buisness being able to get 3/4 ton pickups, but SUV owners are not dickheads. SUVs offer alot of convience and storage room while 'sport' cars are almost completely useless except as a communter vehicle. I can't wait till i have a pick-up to be able to haul everything around in.

What i don't understand is why anyone would spend 40,000+ on a Lexus. Please, depreciate by 5,000$ a year, take my money! Either give me a rice rocket that runs on an alchoholic's piss or a 'man's' truck that i can go offroad in 4wd and move rocks around with. Why wiould i ever want some comfortable commuter car, im not a retired age woman am i?

[Peter Frazier]

Look at the rest of my posts and you'll realize what my disgruntlement is about. Sedan sized station wagons and utilities are just as capable of moving similar loads without causing the extra hassles.
Just because you want to feel like a real man doesn't mean I have to shut up because it might hurt your feelings. I love it how people talk about the convenience of SUVs when virtually all the ads are based on manly, adventurous images. Yeah guys, you bought it for a sensible reason. Sure.

[Ben Sones]

Man i understand the dislike of the tax credit for farmers being abused by anyone with a buisness being able to get 3/4 ton pickups, but SUV owners are not dickheads. SUVs offer alot of convience and storage room while 'sport' cars are almost completely useless except as a communter vehicle.

Since that's what I need in a vehicle, I don't consider that useless at all. My in-laws keep trying to convince me that I need an SUV, and I keep asking them "For what?" They always trot out that same bizarrely vague answer: "To haul stuff!" Like, what stuff? My current car--a Mustang--isn't big, but it has ample space for my needs. I've had it for years, and I can't think of a single time that I needed to haul something but didn't have enough space.

So--and I'm honestly just curious--what do you need all that cargo space for? Am I just an anomaly? Do normal people need to ferry around more than 10-15 cubic feet of cargo on a regular basis (or at all)? If so, what? Pianos? Shipping crates? Large farm animals?

I have my suspicions that this "need for cargo space" is largely psychological rather than practical. I know that my in-laws use their SUV primarily for hauling a whole lot of nothing.

[Enidigm]

Man i understand the dislike of the tax credit for farmers being abused by anyone with a buisness being able to get 3/4 ton pickups, but SUV owners are not dickheads. SUVs offer alot of convience and storage room while 'sport' cars are almost completely useless except as a communter vehicle.

So--and I'm honestly just curious--what do you need all that cargo space for? Am I just an anomaly? Do normal people need to ferry around more than 10-15 cubic feet of cargo on a regular basis (or at all)? If so, what? Pianos? Shipping crates? Large farm animals?

I have my suspicions that this "need for cargo space" is largely psychological rather than practical. I know that my in-laws use their SUV primarily for hauling a whole lot of nothing.

Well it depends upon your lifestyle. Hauling bags of cement around? Potting soil and gardening supplies? Lumber and hardware? Deer feeders and corn? ATVs in the back of the bed? Water heaters, refrigerators, washers and dryers? Extra room for ice chests, luggage, ect. Its also nice to have an 'external' storage space you can spill, scrape up, throw shit on and not have too much worry. If you own any land its quite handy to paddle around in a truck instead of something without a bed to keep the as much mud outside as you can. Besides, what else are you going to throw your deer on? :)

For some owning a small 4x6 army surplus trailer is enough; for more urban people the only time they'll need a trailer is in-between moves. If your not certain you need a truck bed you probably don't. Owning a large truck is also about pulling capacity if you have a boat or a ATV trailer. Do you need to take the boat out every day? Well, no, but its nice to be able to use it twice a month in the summer without completely wrecking the suspension of your sedan (if you can pull it at all).

Now generally SUV's are such a broad category its hard to tell whats necessary and luxery imo. I loved the old '86 vintage Suburbans though so most modern SUVs seem small to me. I seen and used and been in plenty of situations where having an SUV is handy, but perhaps overkill if considering external rack storage.

[Ben Sones]

Well it depends upon your lifestyle. Hauling bags of cement around? Potting soil and gardening supplies? Lumber and hardware? Deer feeders and corn? ATVs in the back of the bed? Water heaters, refrigerators, washers and dryers? Extra room for ice chests, luggage, ect.

With the exception of water heaters, refrigerators, washers, and dryers (and ATVs, I guess), I can fit all of those things in my Mustang. I mean, I couldn't fit, like, twenty big bags of potting soil, but I don't typically buy more than one or two bags at a time. I don't run a farm or anything. As for the large appliances, I've never had the need to haul any of those, since the retailer will typically deliver them (and install them) for free. I can't imagine why I'd ever want to haul something like that myself, and even if I did, I'd just rent a U-Haul for a day.

Like I said, my in-laws say the same sorts of things, but I never see them hauling large appliances around. I think it comforts them that they could, but really, how often does anyone really need to do that (unless it's part of your profession)? Is it something the average person needs to tailor their vehicle purchase around?


If you own any land its quite handy to paddle around in a truck instead of something without a bed to keep the as much mud outside as you can. Besides, what else are you going to throw your deer on? :)

I live in the city. My back yard is about 20 feet wide by maybe 40 feet long. My front yard is perhaps a third that size. I can barely even justify owning a powered lawn mower (many people on my street just use push-mowers), let alone an SUV to "tour the property."

Not only that, but my driveway is only about 8 feet wide, with my house directly on one side and my neighbor's on the other. My in-laws won't even pull all the way in when they visit, because it freeks them out trying to back their Jeep Grand Cherokee out of there. And yet they seem to think that we need to own an SUV, for some reason. I don't really understand why.


For some owning a small 4x6 army surplus trailer is enough; for more urban people the only time they'll need a trailer is in-between moves. If your not certain you need a truck bed you probably don't. Owning a large truck is also about pulling capacity if you have a boat or a ATV trailer. Do you need to take the boat out every day? Well, no, but its nice to be able to use it twice a month in the summer without completely wrecking the suspension of your sedan (if you can pull it at all).

Those are all good reasons to own an SUV, although as I said, most of the people that I know that own them have none of those needs. I'm not saying that nobody needs an SUV, but I think the majority of SUV owners don't have any particular use for them, and it seems strange to me when people criticize my car as being useful for nothing other than commuting (which, 99.999% of the time, is all I need it for).

The funny thing is that I saw the largest concentration of large SUVs when I lived in the Chicago area, where you could walk from Gary IN to Milwaukee WS without ever leaving a strip mall parking lot, if you wanted to. Not a lot of off-roading opportunity there, and Chicago doesn't even get snow in the winter. I suspect that most of them never saw heavier duty than hauling a few kids to a soccer game. When we moved to Vermont, we were surprised at how few people owned them, despite the fact that the state is all farms. Most of the farmers owned smaller, more practical cars, or small pickups. The 4-wheel drive Subarus were popular.

[bmulligan]

Sigh. Right, and the EITC isn't a subsidy to single-mothers.

Christ, McCullough, if you don't understand the difference between the earned income tax credit and business deductions, than I don't see the point of this argument anymore. I damn sure would never hire anyone like you to do my books, taxes, or have anything to do with my business, unless it were finding bugs in the latest game software from incessant sleep deprived scrutiny and banal observation.

Obviously you believe the government has a claim on all our money and doles it back to us out of the goodness of their hearts. the unfairness in this country arises from the fact that they 'give' more money to those damn cheating rich people than those ignorant, deserving poor who are too stupid to know how to steal it back.