Would you support this bill on SUVs

[IChing]

Support this bill

SUV Loopholes Cost Billions

People who use tax loopholes when purchasing SUVs will reduce federal tax revenue by $2.6 billion next year, according to a report from Congressman Ed Markey. The Massachusetts Democrat wants to close the loophole with a bill titled H.R. 5579, the No Special Subsidies for Gas Guzzlers Act.

In his report "Tipping the Scales," Markey points out that SUVs are classified as trucks and therefore don't have to pay the gas guzzler tax that is assessed to vehicles that get less than 22.5 miles per gallon.


"The purchase of the 20.5 mpg Audi incurs a $1300 gas guzzler tax; the purchase of the less efficient 15.8 mpg Jeep is gas-guzzler-tax free. Similarly, a 21.7 mpg Chrysler 300C, a large sedan, pays a gas guzzler tax of $1000, but the 13.9 mpg GMC Yukon Sierra, a very large SUV, pays no tax."

Another loophole allows business owners to writeoff most of the cost of acquiring the heaviest SUVs instead of a car or station wagon.

Markey estimates that if left in place the loophole will reduce tax revenues by nearly $11 billion by 2011.

edited for link to the bill
http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2073&Itemid=141

[IChing]

1. Link to Bill was added sorry for the omission

[IChing]

2. Kick for support for Markey

[Rosemary2205]

3. SUV is the best choice on the market for me.

I need the 4X4 and high clearance for alot of unpaved road driving, the cargo/people capacity, the towing power. I nag at car makers weekly to do something about the awful mileage in SUV's. I'm not far from having to replace my current SUV with something new and I desperately want better mileage.

As for the wear and tear on the roads with my heavyweight vehicle. While a good portion of my driving is "offroad", I have no problem with vehicle taxes being based on the weight of the vehicle. And IMHO special tax incentives for SUV's is just needless. We already have tax deductions for business equipment that covers "company cars". We don't need a SPECIAL one for SUV's.

[Lost-in-FL]

4. I said yes cause

not only SUV's consume more gas and have more emissions, parking spaces need to be bigger and roads are engineered considering SUV's. Also, safest is an issue since most cars aren't prepared for an impact with SUV and medical costs might be bigger for those on regular vehicles. SUV's need to be Taxed or engineered better. How can people just buy the station wagons like before?

[LWolf]

5. Yes, but.

Should there be a difference between urban suv drivers and rural drivers who navigate where fuel-efficient little cars often won't go?

To be honest, most rural drivers drive trucks. When they live rurally, they often have a bigger need to haul/tow stuff. Still, if they have kids, an SUV as a second family vehicle is attractive; it will tow and carry all the kids.

When will bigger, heavier work vehicles come in hybrid or electric or hydrogen versions?

[IChing]

6. Your question of when is what needs to fuel this debate

The question of a 9 mile commute in an urban setting vs a rural setting is valid in deciding fairness,
however to make Americans change their attitudes towards a reasonable balance between their "needs and wants"
the tax incentives given to gas guzzlers is apparent right now and if a larger vehicle got better milage
then the exception from the tax would occur, thus making the purchase of a environmentally more responsible choice
more conducive for the automakers to make and sell such vehicles. In Europe larger vehicles are taxed accordingly in license fees.

[IChing]

7. kick n/t