Personally, I'm for this 100%. If ya' can afford to put gas in these guzzlers, you can afford the extra fee.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday February 16, 2005
Bill would charge big SUV owners extra $750 a year
by The Associated Press

ANNAPOLIS - Driving a super-sized sport utility vehicle on Maryland roads could cost $750 more a year, under a bill being considered by Maryland lawmakers.

Delegate Bill Bronrott, a Montgomery County Democrat who also is bringing bills this year to keep young drivers from using handheld cell phones, is pushing legislation to require owners of SUVs that weigh more than 6,000 pounds to pay an annual $750 surcharge on their registration renewal fee.

"This bill is not about pickup trucks, vans or your standard SUV," Bronrott told fellow members of the House Environmental Matters Committee at a hearing Tuesday. "It's about the largest, heaviest passenger vehicles that are the least fuel efficient and the most toxic to our air, land and water."

Maryland's bill doesn't include a tax hike but would impose the higher registration renewal fee on owners of SUVs that include the Hummer H2, Cadillac Escalade ESV, Lincoln Navigator and the GMC Yukon XL.

"They pose a highway safety hazard, and they disproportionately beat up our roads and bridges," said Bronrott, who acknowledged that the bill as written may not survive in the legislature. But, he said, the legislation "at a minimum would raise questions about the true utility of these extra-large, trophy SUVs."

Maryland owners of vehicles over 3,700 pounds currently pay a renewal fee of $180 every two years, compared to a fee of $128 for vehicles under 3,700 pounds. Fees were raised last year under Gov. Robert Ehrlich's plan to add cash to the transportation trust fund, which pays for road projects around the state. The proposed surcharge would be added to the current fees and also would go into the trust fund.

The state Motor Vehicle Administration doesn't keep records of how many residents own SUVs of more than 6,000 pounds.

Clean Energy Partnership Executive Director Gary Skulnik, speaking in favor of the bill, equated the fee hike with the state's "sin taxes" on cigarettes and liquor.

Bronrott, backed by several environmental groups at Tuesday's hearing, faced pointed questions from several conservative members of his committee.

Delegate Barry Glassman, a Harford County Republican, said the bill could hurt farmers who use Yukons and Tahoes to tow heavy farm equipment.

"If your goal is not to hurt farmers, you're heading up the wrong stream," Glassman said.

Automobile dealers oppose the legislation, saying it attempts to cut Marylanders freedom to buy large, luxury SUVs. A $750 annual fee on a $50,000 Hummer may not seem excessive, but it is enough to discourage some buyers, said Peter Kitzmiller, president of Maryland New Car & Truck Dealers Association.

"This is simply an attempt to tell people what they ought to be driving. I don't think that's the job of the General Assembly. ... This is the United States, and our customers get to decide what they want to drive," said Kitzmiller, who told the committee he drives a Cadillac Escalade because he needs three backseats to ferry the young sports teams he coaches.

He dismissed the idea that imposing the fee will cut down on air pollution.

"Obviously, Maryland is not going to stop global warming by putting a $750 fee on a thousand SUVs," Kitzmiller said.

That bill is BS. So now the government wants to legislate what people drive? It will do nothing for the enviroment and is there just to put a penalty on vehicles most people dislike.

While they're at it, put a huge surcharge on these folks living in "McMansion's" and paying $500+ a month for heating bills. That's just as wasteful isn't it?



And no, I don't drive one of these things (though I'd love to have an Escalade!).

Ah, comeon SMan, these owners would only have to sling a couple 8-balls more per month to pay the fee.

Agreed, it is total BS. Da#n politicians around here will tax anything -- including poop! You can't win -- here they wanna tax large SUV's cuz they "are the least fuel efficient and the most toxic to our air, land and water." Yet in CA they are proposing another tax because too many people are buying hybrids or high MPG cars and they are losing gas tax money. You can never satisfy the appetite of tax-and-spend liberal politicians, or their desire to tell you how to live -- often quite hypocritically. [U]

I hope anyone who votes for this bill gets unceremoniously tossed out on their butt next election. And no, none of my vehicles apply to this proposed law -- but my truck and minivan do cost me $180 for registration, which is another BS law.

Don't quit your day job, TB, you're not good at funny, either.

I'm on the fence on this issue. Yes, they DO use more gasoline, but with the popularity of AWD a good many vehicles, whether cars or trucks, use more gasoline. Whatever happened to the days when you could just get front-wheel drive? Do they put extra wear and tear on the roads, well, if you compare them to a corolla, yes, they do. But not nearly as much as the 18-wheelers, dump trucks, etc.

And yes, there are individuals who NEED that extra size. My son is 6'4" tall, his brother -in-law is 6'8" tall. My grandsons are both in the 95-percentile for height, so it's a safe assumption that they will be at least 6'4" tall. Can you imagine a family with a dad and 2 sons who are well over 6' tall and a mom who is barely under 6' tall in a corolla? Son drives a '99 Tahoe, which if I understand correctly, would not be included in this tax. He also lives in VA right now, but is looking for a house, so I must tell him to check out this tax before looking in MD.

I drive a 4-cylinder Camry; gets good mileage, sits low to the ground. Have you ever driven behind a Hummer or an Escalade? YOU CAN'T SEE WHAT'S IN FRONT OF THEM, and their headlights shine directly into your rear-view mirrors and side mirrors! Those vehicles can be a menace on the road, and just like other luxury car drivers, they think they own the road and don't care that they are blinding the folks in front of them. Just for that reason, I think the tax should be doubled to $1,500.! Maybe it would discourage a few folks from buying them, and that would be fewer times I get blinded while driving.

Another reason I don't like this is it's another class warfare tax -- as Yoss alluded to-- and unfortunately he even bought into the idea. There is always someone who thinks you're "rich" so you "can afford" to pay more taxes so they (the "poor") can have more.

Perhaps there are "poor" people who think if you own more than one vehicle, or a boat, RV, PWC, motorcycle, etc. you are too "rich" and should pay a $750 per vehicle "sin tax" for that. Is that okay?

Maybe some "poor" people or "environmentalists" think if your house or apartment is over 500 sq. feet per person you are "rich" and are wasting too much energy and should pay a $750 tax on your electricity or gas/oil. Is that okay?

And the sick thing is, many of these "environmentalists" who preach to the common people about their large cars or SUV's being wasteful, themselves ride in limos, have multiple huge homes, and take private jets to travel. Arianna Huffington, John Travolta, and some of the Disney folks come to mind. They disgust me.

I think this is being proposed more for Sheash's reasons (i.e. how damn annoying they are) instead of enviromental concerns.

Okay, come on. These huge SUV's are a status symbol more than anything. How many of these monsters do you see hauling around massive amounts of stuff? How many do you see loaded up with a bunch of people? How many do you see with a trailer connected to the hitch?

Ya' just gotta pay for your status symbol. Heck, if you didn't have to pay for it, it wouldn't be much of a status, now would it?

When I see one of these monster SUV's do I think people can afford them. No, not really. They're probably up to their eyeballs in debt. But they chose that vehicle didn't they? They knew they were expensive to own and operate, didn't they? Yet, they went for the status.

I've got an SUV, an Explorer as a matter of fact. Eleven years old this year. I drive it to Sam's Club for my monthly stockup trip. Drive it to Lowes or Home Depot when I know I'm picking up a bunch of big stuff. Help folks haul around stuff when needed. Drive to work when it snows heavily and I need the 4WD. Don't much like driving it though. Everytime I drive past a gas station the darn thing coughs; begs me to pull in for a fillup. Sits in the garage most of the time. My regular car is a 17 year old Camry, still gets great milage, still is the primary drive vehicle.

Do I think these monster SUV owners should pay more? Sure. Using up my gas, wearing out my roads, taking up more space on the highway. They got the attitude, screw you, I'm here, and I'm taking it. Don't care about nobody but myself. F*** you all. I'm big, I'm bad.

Do I think ALL monster SUV owners are like this? of course not. just the majority.

I wish all states would pass a similar measure. It's about time the gov't decided to help protect the enviroment from these gas guzzling monsters.

I'm not buying the "save the environment" argument. What's worse: me driving an Escalade/Hummer 3 miles to work daily or somebody driving their Geo Speck 60 miles a day to work? Somehow the long commute has become environmentally acceptable, but a large vehicle has not.

If you want to get serious about road wear/tear and air pollution, let's slap big fees on drivers based on annual mileage.

I've always enjoyed nice vehicles. For me, it has nothing to do with status...I just like to have a nice car/truck. Nothing sinister about it and I'm not using an expensive vehicle to fill some emotional void. I just like nice cars.

I'm with Yoss on this one. We have our F-150 Supercrew to do all the mulch hauling, landfill runs, Sam's, and loading all the soccer kiddies to practice. BTW, if that guy in the article needs 3 rows of seating, he can get much lighter with a Suzuki XL-7, or even a Trailblazer!

We also use our 10 yr old Accent for most of our driving. It's much cheaper to operate. Personally, I would love to have a Mercedes 350 SLK, and if I had the money for it, I would be happy to pay the gas guzzler tax or anything else they wanted to penalize me for. It's just part of the built in cost of ownership, like required insurance.

On a side note, in Indiana, registration fees are linked to the type and age of the vehicle. After a certain age, they hit a minimum fee. So, if you drive an expensive new car, you will pay a higher price than me with my 10 yr old tin can on wheels. That seems a much more logical way to set the fees if you ask me.

All SUVs should be banned from the road. Then maybe everyone would use them where they were meant to be used. They are the most useless and worthless vehicles on the road. A nice Subaru wagon or any sedan can serve the same purposes as any SUV.

They are no better than ANY car in the snow (which is the excuse I hear as to why one has an SUV). The last snow here I pulled my friend's Toyota 4Runner out of a ditch with my rear wheel drive (stereotypically terrible in the snow) BMW and I passed several SUVs in ditches on the way to the ski slopes.

I don't mean to start another weeklong argument, but what really is the point of owning an SUV? I never have really understood it and I doubt I ever will.

Heres the problem I see with this. It is going to wind up costing everyone that buys a new car! If Ford can no-longer sell its Escalades because people don't want to get hit with the tax and Ford starts feeling the crunch of losing revenues on their high end products guess what happens??? Thats right your little Ford Focus that used to cost $11K no will run you $16-17K. These big auto companies won't be hurt by this. They will make their money one way or another. The consumer will be the one that gets the shaft because laws and taxes like this gives them a reason to raise prices on all their other products. First the flush tax and now this! When will it end?

Oh, by the way. Once they outlaw anything that doesn't get 20 mpg and the gas stations see they aren't selling as many gallons as they used to guess what happens then??? You'll be praying for $1.95 a gallon gas

Then let's ask what's the point of having anything that somebody else finds excessive or useless? For everything that you enjoy, there's somebody who finds it silly/offensive/dangerous/harmful/wasteful. Do you want to start paying fees on that?

I see nothing wrong with imposing a luxury tax on certain items, oversized SUVs included. But if you're going to invoke gas guzzling, then tie your tax to gas mileage, not vehicle size or make/model and if it's about highway wear and tear, tie it to vehicle size and include trucks including various commerical vehicles. Heck, hit up the commerical vehicles with a much higher tax since they are typically driven many more miles in a given period of time.

I agree that the oversized SUVs are a menace. Particularly because so many of their drivers can't keep them in their assigned lane. Maybe those who wish to drive them should be forced to get a new class of truck driving license and take a driving test in thier vehicles to prove that they can safely handle the behemoths.

This is a really funny thread because a lot of people who are characterized as "moralizers" in other threads are defending people's freedom of choice while the traditional supporters of freedom of choice are raising Cain about the SUVs being immoral symbols of greed and the Apocalypse.

(OK, Yo is being consistent. But everyone else...)

As a free-market radical and a hater of cross-subsidies, I strongly support the notion that people tearing up the road and degrading the environment should pay restitution for the damages. That's why I oppose this bill. Under the current tax and regulation systems, SUV owners pay more than their fair share while little hybrids and econoboxes pay less than their fair share -- and that unfairness would only increase if this bill passes. Here's why:

ROADS The federal and state transportation trust funds are de facto financed by gasoline taxes. The more gas you burn, the more in taxes you pay. SUVs pay far more in gas taxes per vehicle mile than the median passenger vehicle, and WAY more taxes per passenger mile because SUVs typically carry multiple passengers. Meanwhile, little Hybrids and Yugos pay much less in gas taxes -- less than the damage they do to the roads. So, if you're truly concerned that some class of drivers isn't paying its fair share of the highway maintenance bill, then you should want the $750 applied to Insights and econoboxes.

AIR POLLUTION It is true that new SUVs have higher emissions than new econoboxes. But the real air polluters aren't new SUVs, they're older cars of ANY size -- econoboxes or old International Scouts. Current federal air pollution regs have dramatically lowered emissions on all vehicles vis-a-vis previous sets of regs, and the new regs that EPA is working on will push the emissions even lower. We'd get far more air pollution relief from forcing people with older cars to switch to newer cars (even SUVs) than in forcing SUV drivers to move to more "eco-friendly" vehicles. So, if you want cleaner air, you should want the $750 tax applied to older cars, not SUVs.

GASOLINE This argument makes the least sense to me. There is no cross-subsidization of gasoline purchasing -- people who buy a lot of gas pay a lot, and people who buy a little gas pay a little. So the notion that SUV drivers should be taxed to somehow bring "fairness" into gas distribution makes no sense. Taxing SUVs an extra $750 because they use a lot of gas would introduce unfairness into a market system that currently is (and ought to be) neutral.

Quite frankly, the arguments thrown around for the $750 tax are red herrings, intended to hide legislators' true intention -- impose a tax on a minority than can't fight it, and then use the resulting revenue to curry political favor. This, of course, is a standard political game in Annapolis -- and one that really torques me off.

So I've been characterized as a "moralizer"??? What freedoms and choices have I advocated stifling in the past?

Edit: I see this more as a "keep the gov. out of my pocket" issue, instead of a freedom of choice issue. The gov. already gets their cut from these beasts, as you so deftly described in your post, tfirey (as usual )

In my opinion, I see some holes in your argument Tom.

I really don't see any "fair share" argument here. Heavier vehicles cause more damage to roads. Lighter vehicles cause less damage to roads. I think everyone pays their "fair share" if you base the "fair share" on gasoline taxes. The heavier the vehicle, the more use of gasoline.



I don't see that happening. I see the same number of passengers, generally, in either a SUV or an econobox.

With all the new anti-pollution technology, I really don't see an argument for pollution. Now, maybe a semi-electric hybrid will cause less pollution than an equal sized non-hybird, I'm not sure that pollution is an issue. Okay, maybe taking into effect ozone, CO2, etc., I don't think that particulates are particularly differential. My 17 year old Camry is well under the maximum limits of pollution - if you can believe the reports from my VEIP inspection.



Gotta agree with this, but perhaps on a different level. I think it's just another way for our illustrious state to find a way to fatten its coffers.

All in all, I still think this is a good thing. Might give some pause to those thinking about purchasing a monster SUV, for no other reason other than to be the biggest, baddest person out there.

http://www.esuvee.com/flash.html

Darn it, Biggins. I was expecting some kind of funny flash animation that made fun of SUVs and instead got a public service announcement about SUV safety.

same here, I kept looking for the "joke" to roll out.

Yeah sorry. I was lazy myself and didn't even look at it because I was rushing to class (college network is too slow). I saw the commercial the other day and was hoping it would SUV bash.

Here's a Chinese SUV:
http://www.regalauctions.com/Cartalk/jokepics/ChinaSUV.jpg

that thar ain't no essuvee, that thar's a reecreeashun veehickle!

It looks to me like an outhouse on wheels!

Environmental protection is the argument the bill's author is using. It shows him to be an idiot, IMO. Most of the self-proclaimed environmental protectors IMO are hypocrites.

Biggins: I think cars with excessive horsepower and speed capability and their obnoxious coffee-can mufflers should be banned from the road, and all car (and truck and motorcycle) racing of any type should be banned. Then maybe everyone would use cars where they were meant to be used -- as a means to transport people from their home to their job, doctor, market, etc. as efficiently as possible. Hmmmm....

If you think SUV's are no bettter in the snow than "ANY car" you don't drive in the snow or slop much. Put equally skilled drivers in the vehicles and most SUV's (or even 4wd trucks) will leave most 2wd cars in the snow/mud, etc. if it gets bad. Your anti-SUV bias does not change the laws of physics.

When you say "they are the most useless and worthless vehicles on the road. A nice Subaru wagon or any sedan can serve the same purposes as any SUV" you show a shocking level of ignorance considering that you are someone who usually shows reasonable intelligence in other areas.

BTW -- What's the point of owning a big house, fast car, large diamond ring, etc. etc.

Moms -- You and your F-150 Supercrew probably do not get better gas mileage than the SUV's this bill targets. And, what will you say when they come after you by lowering the weight to 5000 pounds? After all, you can hire someone to haul the mulch -- you don't NEED that big truck.

Yoss -- The big SUV owners DO pay more already.

As well they should.

I make it a point to drive in the snow. I have skinny snow tires on my rear wheel drive car and I have never even slid, slipped, etc. once unless I wanted the car to. I guess I forgot to put in "properly equipped" for snowy weather which is a set of snow tires for ~$250.

I wish we could ban the fart can mufflers, but usually the cars with those only think that their car is fast (it's not actually fast). They pollute my ears.

How are SUVs any more useful on the road than a simple Ford Taurus sedan? Honestly, the only thing I see them for is being taller and driving in the forest, desert, or mud OFF THE ROAD.

Yoss,

So why should they pay much more in a non-proportional (unfair) way?

Biggins,

I've done my fair share of driving in snow and some mud as well -- the vast majority of it on-road. You're probably an above-average snow driver. Good. But that does not negate a basic law of physics -- make the other 2 tires on your car driven tires and you will have more traction in low-traction situations, like going up a hill where the snow is wet and hard-packed, or quite deep.

Will your Subaru sedan tow a 20 foot camper loaded with gear, or a trailer with a load of firewood, or a large boat? Maybe a few times a year you DO want to go off typical roads to some of the state forest roads or even some regular Washington county roads that are quite challenging. Will your Subaru wagon handle that?

Does every SUV driver "need" one? No. Do you "need" half the stuff you own? Do you "need" to race cars? Do I have any business asking?

Do you "need" to help that old person shovel snow? No, but you probably should.

Do you "need" to be environmentally conscience? No, but you probably should.

Sorry Snoop, I don't see where this is non-proportional, nor unfair.

I fear that Madison Ave has convinced the driving public that they MUST have a huge vehicle. I personally don't see the need, in most cases, for soccer mom to be driving the super-sized SUV. I don't see the need for Mr. Office Worker, commuting to and from work, to NEED a super-sized SUV.

We have (or at least used to have) a gas-guzzler tax. This was to discourage the purchase of crummy mpg vehicles. Hell, I cancelled my order for the Ferrari Testarosa when I found out it would fall under the gas-guzzler designation.

I was kind of on the fence when I first posted this article, but I'm becoming more convinced that it might not be a bad idea. The government has implemented all kinds of rules and regulations to discourage the indiscriminate use of our fossil fuels since the '74 embargo.

As far as the farmers needing these vehicles, then they can get a farm-vehicle designation for them.

How many people that own these monsters, actually use them off-road? And what, we get maybe 3 or 4 days a year that the 4WD would come in handy in the snow. We're in Maryland for pete's sake, not Alaska.

Snoopy:

I KNOW that SUVs/4wd are better in the snow. That is obvious and there is no comparison; however, I was just pointing out that ANY car can do just as well when properly equipped. SUVs are taller and have more ground clearance, making them much more capable when there is snowfall of blizzard proportions.

Of course a Subaru wagon or a sedan is not going to tow a camper or large boat, but maybe a RACING Subaru wagon could. A truck can do the same thing and did so until the SUV explosion of the 90s. YES, an SUV is good for towing, but how many are actually used for towing?

As for the last few questions, you are right on. Please don't forget; however, there are luxury/gas-guzzler taxes on many sports "RACE" cars. I agree that people should have the right to buy what they choose/fits their taste, but they must face the luxury/gas-guzzler taxes that come along with their taste. Personally, as I've obviously made clear, I would not own an SUV.

But if it looks like this, I'd consider owning one:
http://www.swiftvisionpro.com/images/super-slammed-SUV.gif

Yo, you're right that SUVs cause more road damage than econoboxes. But from what I understand (and I'll admit I haven't crunched the numbers; I'm going on what others have said -- which probably isn't a good idea), the ratio of SUV road damage to econobox road damage is smaller than the ratio of SUV gas taxes per mile to econobox road damage per mile. That's means the SUVs are subsidizing the econoboxes' road damage.

I stand by the claim on SUVs having more passenger miles per vehicle miles. I know I read that somewhere credible.

As for the gas guzzler tax, I again ask: If the SUV driver is paying for his gas, and the econobox driver is paying for his gas, and there's no transfer payment between them, then why the need for a guzzler tax? Everyone's paying his fair share for what he consumes. This is supposed to be America, not France, right?

Be lucky it's not France because even the "econoboxes" would be paying +$5 per gallon of gas. That surely would lead to the end of SUVs here.

True Tom. I appreciate what you're saying. But the way I understand it, the USA is still overly dependant upon foreign oil. We need to discourage over-indulgence in our dependency. The means to this end is to discourage the purchase of 8 mpg vehicles and encourage the purchase of 30+ mpg vehicles.

These monster SUV's are using MY oil and MY children's oil for their own self-indulgence.

Yes, the people that are purchasing more gas are probably in fact paying more taxes. But subsidizing the econoboxes, not too sure about that.

I'm sure you're researching some things right now on this matter. I look forward to what you find out. I may not agree with it, but I'll certainly consider it!

C'mon Yoss, I know you know more math than that!

Vehicle is < 1 to 5,999 pounds; "environmental impact" tax = $0

Vehicle is 6,000 to 9,999 (???) pounds; "environmental impact" tax = $750

= not proportional

YOU don't see the "need". With all due respect, so what? Some misguided souls do not "see the need" for you to carry a gun -- especially one of those "automatic" (sic) guns that holds all those bullets.

apples to oranges Snoop. apples to oranges.

Soccer Mom has a need to drive a monster SUV?

What need? Other than self-indulgence.

I carry a gun. yup. sure do. Over thirty years in law enforcement, there's a need. I'm a trained killer, so to speak. Actually, I'm not trained to kill, I'm trained to incapacitate. But more importantly, I'm trained to spot potentially dangerous situations. I'm trained to protect myself and others. I have a "need" to help others. Yup, there are those that think I don't have a need to carry. Perhaps ninety per cent of our state's law makers don't see the need.

Soccer Mom? The only need she has is to drive her obese ass in her obese vehicle speaking on her cell phone, racking up her obese phone bill, barely able to keep her obese vehicle in her designated lane.

I can see both sides Snoopy. And I appreciate where you're coming from. It is, perhaps, an unfair tax/fee. I know I wouldn't want to pay it. But then I don't place myself in a position to have to pay it.

I don't buy the crap that they need them to hold more people. Ford Explorer's that are the most popular SUV seat the same amount of people as a sedan, as well as Toyota 4-Runners, Honda CRV-S, Chevrolet Blazers, etc. These cars pollute, and waste gasoline. Sally soccer mom can get around fine with a Ford Taurus just as well as a Ford Explorer.

Does the "environmental impact tax" apply to Diesels?

Snoopy, we had a more economical XL-7, but when it came off lease, we looked for something that was easier to clean (a spray out bed, not upholstery) because we haul our own garbage to the land fill (saving $150 a year), get landfill mulch (saving about $120 a year), and haul firewood (saving about $40 a year). We also selected that vehicle because it will tow a camper, which I am excited about purchasing with our impending tax refund. Since we coach a soccer team, we have a bit more gear to drag around than the average soccer mom. And I sure as heck can't pack a two week (camperless) camping trip into a Hyundai! We use our truck for what it is designed, don't you agree?

I will admit that I hate driving it, though. I have a really hard time parking it, but lane control isn't an issue. For general day to day driving, I'll take my Hyundai!

Most people I see driving these behemoths are compelled to park in no man's land because (heaven forbid) they might get a ding or scratch on their carefully polished precious trophy. It's all about vanity. And vanity comes at a price, whether it's plastic surgery or a sweet ride.

Yes, this fee, like the gas guzzler tax, is meant to dissuade people from purchasing these vehicles. Maybe if everyone starts shunning the monsters, Detriot will finally start putting some effort into producing viable alternatives that are both environmentally friendly and less reliant on fossil fuel. I know....keep dreaming!

If you're interested, here's a RealPlayer file of me debating NRDC's Jon Coifman (who they initially introduce as me) on SUVs:

Newsline

What we're really talking about is a luxury tax, plain and simple. We can argue all day about whether any other excuses are valid. But when it boils down to it, I think the REAL reason it is being proposed is because the supersized SUVs being targeted are indeed examples of ridiculous excess in most cases. There's nothing wrong with luxury taxes - they're just another way of getting the rich to pay more than their share, or viewed another way, of getting them to pay for their wretched excess. Is it "fair"? NO. Can they afford it? YES.

Many people buy SUVs as status symbols, but they do have some utility. I would generally prefer a pickup truck, but there have been many times when I've had fits trying to fit lumber for home improvement projects into my Camaro that I've missed the Ford Explorer I once had or the Toyota pickup that I owned before that. But an Escalade? Hummer? Expedition? Hmmmmmm if I could afford one of them, I could certainly afford an extra $750 for the priviledge.

The world is coming to an end!

Idiot agrees with Snoopy, and....

I agree with BMIC! ahhhhhhhhggggggggg......!!!!

It IS a luxury tax, plain and simple. Those that can afford the luxury, can afford the tax.

My '98 Camry has 165,000 miles on it, and if I lay the back seats down, I can get an 8' long board in it. Depending on the width of that board, I can get up to a dozen and a half, maybe 2 dozen 8' boards into it. I can seat 5 in the car, or with the seats laid down, I can fill the back seat area and the trunk with stuff. My only complaint is that the hole between the trunk and the back seat area is only about 15" wide by 18" tall, dead center. I have hauled a bunch of stuff you wouldn't expect to see in my car. Of course, it can't be very heavy.

I once owned a '90 S-10 Blazer. Let me tell you what - my Camry is better in the snow than the Blazer ever was, even in 4WD! I got rid of the Blazer because it used too much gas, and I came to the realization that it was unreasonable to think that my job was so important that I needed to put myself in jeopardy being out there for that far of a trip. My commute to work in Frederick was 150-mile round trip then. BUT, if I could have taught the Blazer to eat like my Camry, I'd still be driving it.

Was it a luxury, yes. But I figure when my car gets between 250,000 and 300,000, I might start thinking of replacing it. And when I do, I'm going for something that sits up higher - a pickup truck or a small SUV so that I can see what I'm doing - i.e. not be blinded by every other vehicle on the road. I'm a gramma now, and have never had the boys in my vehicle - as long as it holds me, the hubby, the dog, and everything I buy when I'm at a garden or home center, I'm happy. Doesn't have to be new, either. We have an '86, a '96, and a '98, and the only one that was bought brand-new was the '86. You can get a Toyota with 100,000 miles on it at a good price and still get at least 100,000 miles from it. So for that reason, I ask is it a luxury to buy a small truck or SUV, or self-defense?

On a side note: Tell me something, guys. Back when I was playing with my hot rod Chevelle, there was a limit to how high a vehicle's bumper could be - I remember it well, I got several tickets for having my car jacked up too high. Did they do away with those limits? Why is everything sitting up so much higher than a car anymore?

Bumper height is limited to: 20 inches on passenger cars and 28 inches on multipurpose vehicles (vans/SUVs) and trucks less that 10K lbs. (MD transportation article 22-105)

Gah! Algebra!




Agreed, Yoss.

"These monster SUV's are using MY oil and MY children's oil for their own self-indulgence."

"The only need she has is to drive her obese ass in her obese vehicle..."

"These cars pollute, and waste gasoline. Sally soccer mom can get around fine with a Ford Taurus just as well as a Ford Explorer."

"It's all about vanity."

"SUVs being targeted are indeed examples of ridiculous excess in most cases"

"Those that can afford the luxury, can afford the tax."

_________________________

Y’all amaze me – the passion (hate?) that you have for owners of these vehicles seems to be blinding you to reason so that you even resort to verbally attacking the drivers like racists attacking minorities!

For all of you who care so much about the extra oil these vehicles use, tell me, what are YOU doing about something you are allegedly so passionate about except supporting this tax that will have little true effect on our oil use? Are you fighting for similar taxes on huge homes, private jets, etc; ? A ban on car racing? Lobbying your representatives for more such laws? Insulating your homes to save every bit of energy and supporting laws requiring others to do the same? Driving the vehicle with the highest possible mileage that will haul you and your family with no regard to “sportiness” or “looks”? Do you take a bus whenever possible? Recycle all cans, bottles, and plastic possible? My guess is you’re not doing much.

For all who think it is all about vanity: How many people have similar feelings of “vanity” about their little Mitsubishi’s, Hondas, etc.? Or about their guns, golf clubs, homes, jewelry, or gardens? Are they equally derided by you?

For all who think that SUV owners can “afford” it so they should just shut-up and pay it – I’ll bet you’d squeal like stuck pigs if they put a similar “luxury tax” on all your favorite “unneeded” vices that also causes a waste of oil/gas and/or negatively impacts the environment, like golf, softball/baseball/soccer, vacation travel, racing, using gas powered boats, etc. Hey, there are people out there that figure, if they can afford that, they can afford a $750 tax on it. Heck, let’s put new “luxury” taxes on everything but the bare minimums needed to survive – if you can afford a “luxury” you can afford the tax. Gee, I wonder if the politicians will spend all of this new money responsibly? Sure they will…

So..... tell us your true feelings about this, Snoop.

How about....