Introduced early last month and cosponsored by Olympia Snow,John Kerry and Richard Lugar is Senate Bill 1620.
Cutting to the chase this bill would impose a fee of $2500.00 (I conclude each year as the bill would be part of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)on a full size pickup. The fee is called a incentive to only drive what is considered fuel efficent vehicles.
Vehicles that are considered fuel efficient (Prius) would recieve $4000.00 credits.
Rebates would begin in 2010 fees would begin in 2013.
Is this the end of Americas love affair with the full size pickup?
Full text of bill can be read at http://energy.senate.gov/public/.
There should be a tax deduction if you own a BUSINESS and need a pickup truck. Other wise, I agree with the tax in principle. A full-size V8 car in France has an annual “road tax” of $2500 or so.
Only exemption stated so far are for emergency vehicles.
My commute to and from work is via a 43 person bus which is full to capacity nearly every workday. My personal vehicle is an old pickup truck. I use about 15 gal. of fuel every 1 to 3 months in my old truck. My wife drives a Maxima, which we use for errands and such.
Why should I bear this $2500 fee just so I can do work around my house? This is a tax on the do-it-yourselfer! That is simply un-American! Rise up and revolt! Write your senator and representatives!
Purchasing a new ultra-high mileage car would not benefit me. The pollution from burning 6 month old, stale gasoline would be bad. An electric car would not hold the charge and likely gain battery memory and be useless, and eventually fail to hold a charge. And in what will I haul materials for my DIY projects?
Renew/Recycle/Reuse!
How much energy is used/wasted in the production of a new vehicle as opposed to utilizing an existing vehicle?
How much fresh water is polluted? How much fresh air is polluted? How much toxin is produced? These processes include: metal smelting/recycling/welding; petro-chemical manufacture of paint, electrical wiring, plastic; manufacture of glass, etc. The energy consumed and polutants generated are an expense incurred by us all. And they are incurred every time a vehicle is produced on this planet.
Think about the vehicles that were traded in for “cash for clunkers.” I read that every trade-in vehicle was required, by law, to be crushed. The program sold many cars but cut the life short for many trade-ins that could have been used much longer. That was a horrible waste. It was merely a ploy to sell new vehicles, which would lead to manufacturing more new ones. Possibly good for the economy yet bad for the environment. A study of the pollution generated and energy wasted in the complete manufacturing process of vehicles, pro-rated throughout the life-span of the vehicle is needed, in order to quantify what is good and what is bad for the environment, prior to legislators jamming this down the throats of Americans again.
The legislation proposed does not take into consideration the above concerns and is not thoroughly thought-out. Thus is does not solve the problems of polutants created by vehicles or their manufacturing processes. It is only a ploy to take away from the public something they already have and make them replace it with somehthing new they need to purchase, and at a much greater expense. And with the addition of all the pollution and costs associated with replacing it.
Art
I think this bill will quietly die, unless the Democrats really are trying to commit political suicide.
The tax is meant to be on NEW pickup trucks; those that already own them should be exempted and given a “cash for clunkers” type of incentive to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, if they want to. Reducing the sale of inefficient new vehicles should be the main motivator.
Every now & then, some dumb politican wants to take old cars entirely off the road, not realizing that many seniors bought these vehicles new, maintain them well and don’t drive much. They pollute very little and contribute little CO2. The last time this happened here, there was an outrage by the senior community and the idea was quickly dropped.
Everything I’ve found indicates this is a one-time fee (or rebate for high mpg vehicles), not a recurring fee, so it would not affect existing vehicles.
This is an interesting bill. Here are the problems I have with the bill:
-
I drive a minivan–not a particularly fuel efficient vehicle. The reason I have the minivan is that I play in and manage a chamber orchestra that provides free concerts to underserved areas. I use this vehicle to carry musical instruments and transport musicians to concerts in different areas. Should I pay a premium to do charitable work?
-
When I retire in a year or so, I would like to work as a volunteer for an organization that does volunteer home maintenance. This organization does repairs on homes so that people on fixed incomes can remain in their houses. This work involves roof repair, minor electrical and plumbing work, replacing doors and windows, etc. A pick-up truck would be useful for this work.
I don’t want to license and insure multiple vehicles. I use the minivan for my personal transportationas well as my charitable music work. I would probably do the same thing with a pick-up truck–use it for my volunteer work and for my personal transportation. My reading of the law suggests the fee would be imposed on me.
I would probably be driving a hybrid or some other fuel efficient vehicle right now if it weren’t for my outside interests. While most people in the 1960’s were driving gas guzzling V-8’s with gas wasting transmissions like the Buick Dynaflow, I was driving my 6 cylinder Rambler with its manual transmission and overdrive. I need something different today. It just seems to me that this bill needs more thought as to why people choose the vehicles they drive before it is passed in its present form.
Doc is correct.
A careful reading of the bill reveals that it calls for an excise tax on the sale of NEW pickup trucks.
It would be a one-time fee, not an annual assessment.
Note that I am not endorsing this approach, but no assessment of the bill can be made accurately or intelligently if one thinks–in error–that it would be applied to vehicles already in one’s possession or that it would be applied on an annual basis.
So we are not going the way of the French with a annual fee as you agreed upon initally,good. With the drive towards European socialistic ideas can we be so sure that this bill or another wont be corrupted into somekind of annual fee and include existing vehicles? this is where I fear we are putting our feet.
This legislation is just in its forming stage,I hope these politicans don’t get any ideas to move vehicles they dont want us to drive anymore off the road.
No problem if people with a genuine need to drive a pickup are exempted. I use a lightweight trailer to haul an occasional heavy or large load; don’t need to own a pickup.
These Liberal Democrats And Republicans Will Be Thrown Out In The Next Election Cycle.
This nonsense will end and we will start to get our country back. This type of legislation is childish and not of “American” heritage. As has been pointed out a “one size fits all” approach to perceived problems by a few in Washington has ridiculous unintended consequences. Where has common sense gone? Enough is enough. I don’t drive a pick-up and don’t care for one, but it’s American to have the choice. I’ve had it up to here. I can’t wait to vote. I’m keeping a list.
CSA
That $4000 credit for a Prius is a tax credit, not a rebate, right? Meaning that if you buy one, you can write off $4000 on your total income for tax purposes. Not the same thing as getting a $4000 refund, more like a $1000 refund if you are in the 25% tax bracket.
How is the French assessing a registration fee based on environmental impact “socialistic”, but assessing a registration fee based on the value of the vehicle (like most states do) not? The latter seems much more redistributionist to me.
Pickup trucks have turned into bloated luxury liners that are very often driven by people who drive them precisely because they’re luxurious. I have no problem trying to discourage people who don’t need them from buying them.
I don’t put a lot of stock in some of these scare tactics. Anyone can introduce any legislation they want but getting it through the house and senate and signed by the Pres. is a whole 'nother story.
We had a bill like this in California a few years ago, but it didn’t go through.
From whom will you get your country back? It was the people who elected the current group. Are you going to wrest the country from the hands of the voters? It was W who signed the bills that grew the size of our federal government to the largest size ever (at the time anyway). It was W who passed the first TARP bill. The republicans are just as bad as the democrats, except they give the money to corporate fat cats.
Who else are you going to vote for, a third party candidate? That will play into the liberals’ hands even more. Let’s face it, the choice between democrats and republicans is like a choice between a turd salad and turd sandwich.
You are keeping a list? Let’s be real. You weren’t going to vote for any democrats anyway. Anyone who has read your political rants knows that.
I am not giving credit to the liberals, but go ahead an put conservatives back in power and we will have $4/gallon gas again, or worse.
This bill will never see the light of day, and if it does, the democrats will deserve to lose control of congress. I am not surprised to see John Kerry’s name attached to a bill as foolish as this. The guy really is as palatable as a turd salad.
I read about the bill in this months "Motor"magazine. The writer of the article expressed his feelings about the bill really becomming law, he states, “I am betting that the overiding sentiments regarding the economy and the environment nowadays will enable some form of this bill to be passed”.
We at least have a idea who is planning what and we have a good amount of lead time to express ourselves.
Yes I drive a full size pickup,probably about 7500 miles a year,its a FORD F-150 with the 5.2 and I probably average around 17mpg. I really don’t think this is guzzler country.
The truck fits me well and as long as I can I will drive full size pickups,thats my choice. I am a trip planner and don’t waste gas doing errands seperatly that I can do cheaper combined,besides in my group of friends there needs to be someone with a pickup,there is always something to move around.
If the writer of that article in Motor magazine stated that this bill would provide for an annual tax on existing pickup trucks, rather than a one-time excise tax on the sale of NEW trucks, then I would suggest that you ignore everything that is put out by that writer. If his/her reading comprehension is so poor that he/she could not understand the content of that bill, then I would have to question that person’s interpretation of other topics as well.
I think it’s about time that all guzzlers pay the tax, not just cars. I can support a waiver for those that must use a larger truck at work. I’m not sure how that would be implemented, though. How do you prove that you use your truck in business, and that business use requires the big truck? Some states have licenses, but others may not. And if workers (not business owners) own the truck, how could they prove they need it?