It's not just our fuel that's taxed - our cars (in the UK at least) are now taxed on CO2 emissions (for vehicles manufactured after Dec 2000, if memory serves).
My 2001 Ford Focus 1.6 - a car perfectly capable of transporting four adults, although five is a struggle - easily does 70 mph (the motorway speed limit in the UK) and typically does over 400 miles between refuellings (45-48 litres). Outputting 165g of CO2 per kilometre, that puts it in the lowest road tax ('road fund licence') band - £120 per year.
Last I looked, 95 octane unleaded petrol was 78.9 pence per litre, which equates to $4.75 per US gallon.
The disgraceful part is that cars we were producing and using in this country 10 or 20 years ago are typically more fuel efficient than a new US car.
Hi, Robert --
Don't drive cars that aren't fuel-efficient because then we have to deal with Saudi Arabia and they thumb their noses at everything we stand for? You're kidding, right?
China is well-known for its human rights abuses, and their administration most definitely thumb their noses at everything we stand for, but I'll bet if I start looking around your house, I'll find lots of items that say "made in China" on the bottom. You can't avoid those parts of the world that don't agree with you, because you'd be standing in a corner all by yourself.
The far more practical route is to develop new fuel solutions that are independent of oil, which is a finite resource anyway. Of course, that won't happen while Bush is President, which means we need to work hard to replace him next year (rather than sleeping until others agree with us). Doesn't that make you a "sleeper," too?
If you believe strongly enough about SUVs to write about them on your blog, you're working hard to replace Bush and you're not *really* sleeping, right? 
Jenny
SUVs are *Bush's* fault? Give me a break, Jenny. It's called consumer choice, deal with it. If you want to reduce the amount of fuel being burned, then buy a hybrid car, or use public transport or whatever. That's your right. And it's certainly your right to try to convince others to do the same. It's *not*, however, your right to impose your choices on others. So the notion that our consumption of oil is all Bush's fault is a little silly.
And let's not forget that it's Congress that has failed to act on an energy bill, and has refused to allow exploration of our own oil reserves in ANWR and elsewhere. And before you go off about how "pristine" ANWR is, what you should know is that the area that is being proposed for drilling is tiny, and is one of the least hospitable places on earth, not the glamour shots of mountains, trees, and wildlife you see on TV and in print articles on the subject. We have the means to significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and we are choosing not to not because of what we drive, but because of environmental politics. Prudhoe Bay proved that species protection and oil exploration are not contrary goals. But even if they were, there's something to be said for protecting humans first, IMO.
So before we start suggesting (a la Arianna "vote for me" Huffington) that people who drive SUVs are implicitly supporting terrorism, let's not forget that the same argument applies to those who oppose exploration of US oil resources. I think both arguments are wrong, but if you buy into one, I don't see how you avoid the other.
When it does start raining and getting chilly Robert, are you going to show 'solidarity' by not using heat? Have you considered the impact on prices of all goods were gas to rise to $5 a gallon? Ponder that next time you see the trucks rolling down the interstate - rail moves a lot of goods, but it can't get the point to point deal that trucks do. Raising prices that fast would bring an instant economic crash - and it wouldn't be people like you and me who suffered the consequences. You clearly have not thought this through.
And obtw - as to SUVs - go look at the number of vehicles in the US, and the number of miles driven. Go look at how many SUVs there are. Now calculate how much gas would be saved if they all went to small cars, and then toggle that up into the amount of oil not used on a daily basis. See if it makes any real difference in the grand scheme of things.
True, it is your right to own an SUV or any other tank for that matter. However, we all pay the consequence for our dependence on strategic resources from the Middle East.
While of course the entire US obsession with SUV's is not Bush's fault, Bush (or any other president) could do things to encourage the use of more fuel efficient cars. How about taking some of the tax cuts and provide really generous subsidies for companies making really efficient vehicles using alternate fuel sources? Again, no one will be forcing anyone to give up their SUV's, but I do think it is in our national self interest that vehicles that are more efficient and use alternate fuels are encouraged.
On the other hand, among the tax changes in the last couple of years, there IS a change under Bush's watch that encouraged folks like doctors and lawyers to get the largest SUV's (Hummers in general are the only ones that meet the weight criteria) and the vehicles are then eligible for special tax treatment as "Construction" vehicles (or something similar). That is just wrong.
> On the other hand, among the tax changes in the last couple of years, there IS a change under Bush's watch
No, there isn't/wasn't.
The definition of biz equipment hasn't changed in years.
There has been some minor tinkering in the rate at which biz equip is depreciated, but the rate (and changes) applies to all biz equipment, not just vehicles.
Don't believe me - fire up turbotax for the relevant years and read the regs.
It's probably worth noting that if the average fuel efficiency of new cars doubled _tomorrow_ , this didn't increase the cost of new cars, and this didn't kill the resale value of old cars, it'd still take years for there to be a significant impact on gasoline consumption because older cars aren't going anywhere.
>>No, there isn't/wasn't.
Beg to differ...
http://environment.about.com/cs/
...SUVloophole.htm
http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&
sd...SUVtaxbreak.htm
Interestingly, it appears NO ONE will actually take credit for adding the language, but it is there...
As far as improvemnts to new cars taking a while to bubble down the pipe and replace older cars, that is certainly true, but the same was said about eliminating lead in gasoline, and while it did take a while, many of today's youg drivers don't even remember when the choice was between leaded and lead free.
The longest journy starts with a single step...
> Beg to differ...
Beg all you want - your cite proves you wrong. I wrote that your claim about an SUV-specific change in the tax code was wrong and the cite supports my assertion. There's nothing SUV-specific about the tax code change in question.
The change is in the amount of spending on otherwise depreciable biz equipment that a company can expense. A company can take advantage of that change regardless of what they buy, whether it's an SUV or a set of chairs.
Note also that the definition of business vehicle was not changed either.
That is a distinction without a difference. There was an existing glitch in the tax code, whereby folks were purchasing 6000 lb + SUV's and avoiding the luxury tax, since the tax code defines these as "Light Trucks". This has been sweetened up to allow more of a tax break (paid for by all of us) and while they were in there, they did not change the definitions to tighten up the language. Shame on them. "The President has stated that his tax cut aims to make it easier for small businesses like farms and construction companies to invest in industrial vehicles like tractors and trucks." (Jeff Plungis, "SUV Tax Break May Reach 75K" The Detroit News, January 20, 2003) This may be the stated goal, but folks were aware of the actual effect, and it was unchanged when the extra bonus was written in.
In your free time, visit the sites about http://www.casinoplaces.net/ casino http://www.weightloss-4me.net/ weight loss http://www.poker-4u.net/ poker http://www.weight-loss-4me.net/ weight loss http://www.diet-pills-375-mg.net/ diet pills http://www.casino2004.net/ casino http://www.online-consultation24x7.com/ diet pills http://www.weightloss2004.net/ weight loss http://www.weight-loss-pills-4u.net/ weight loss http://www.dietpillsl90.net/ diet pills http://www.bestdeals-winner.net/ poker http://www.casino-4u.net/ casino http://www.discounts24x7.net/ weight loss http://www.online-advice-24x7.com/ weight loss http://www.diet-pills-24x7.net/ diet pills http://www.dietpills-4me.net/ diet pills http://www.bestonline-site.com/ weight loss http://www.dietpillssite.net/ diet pills http://www.poker-winner.net/ poker http://www.weight-loss-24x7.net/ weight loss ...
Please check the sites about http://www.online-advice-24x7.com/ weight loss http://www.dietpillsl90.net/ diet pills http://www.bestdeals-winner.net/ poker http://www.playandwin777.net/ poker http://www.weight-loss-pills-4u.net/ weight loss http://www.playandwinit121.net/ casino http://www.getstarted24x7.net/ diet pills http://www.poker-4u.net/ poker http://www.discounts24x7.net/ weight loss http://www.diet-pills-4me.net/ diet pills http://www.casino747.net/ casino http://www.poker-winner.net/ poker http://www.weightloss2004.net/ weight loss http://www.diet-pills-24x7.net/ diet pills http://www.casino2004.net/ casino http://www.weightloss-4me.net/ weight loss http://www.online-consultation24x7.com/ diet pills http://www.diet-pills-375-mg.net/ diet pills http://www.online-scores24x7.com/ poker http://www.casino-wins.net/ casino http://www.dietpills-4me.net/ diet pills http://www.casinoplaces.net/ casino http://www.bestonline-medication.net/ diet pills http://www.casino-121.net/ casino http://www.dietpillssite.net/ diet pills ... Thanks!!!
You can also check some relevant pages dedicated to http://www.playandwin777.net/ poker http://www.poker-4u.net/ poker http://www.bestonline-site.com/ weight loss http://www.pokerkingdom.net/ poker http://www.online-scores24x7.com/ poker http://www.poker-121.com/ poker http://www.casinoplaces.net/ casino http://www.bestonline-medication.net/ diet pills http://www.casino747.net/ casino http://www.poker-winner.net/ poker http://www.worldwide-sites.net/ casino http://www.bestdeals-winner.net/ poker http://www.playandwinit121.net/ casino http://www.online-consultation24x7.com/ diet pills http://www.casino-4u.net/ casino http://www.diet-pills-4me.net/ diet pills http://www.dietpills-4me.net/ diet pills http://www.worldwide-diet-pillsl.net/ diet pills http://www.weightloss-4me.net/ weight loss http://www.weight-loss-pills-4u.net/ weight loss http://www.bestgames-winner.net/ casino http://www.weightloss2004.net/ weight loss http://www.worldwide-weight-loss.net/ weight loss http://www.diet-pills-375-mg.net/ diet pills ...
You can also check some relevant pages about...
50cent-lyrics
Telefonsex Fetisch - Telefonsex Anal - Telefonsex mit Bild
tt
Commenting by HaloScan
