Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

1275276278280281486

Comments

  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    So then you don't think that just because a person buys a car with better MPG that they're going to start driving more, so then there will be less gas consumed.

    Since I have more $$ to spend on other things now that I've bought my small car, how am I going to tow the boat that I'm supposed to buy ;) So maybe I'll have to buy a vacation home with the money from the hypothetical rebate I got from buying a Fit!
  • You don't need a boat...you just need to suck up to someone who owns a boat. :P
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,424
    Or a motorhome, or a beach/lake house, or ....
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    "And give me a good reason that I should be okay to be subjected to taxes based on something I don’t experience." Because you made the free choice of buying the vehicle with poorer MPG. The rebate to gas guzzler tax would have to be based on some standard, not on individual driving habits. We're going to assume that the Yaris owner isn't going to put a brick on their gas pedal every night just to burn gas because he got a rebate.

    "Give me a reason why a car that is EPA rated 26 mpg but gets 23 mpg be given a break over a car that gets 26 mpg and is rated 23 mpg" Because right now it's the best test out there. Some cars may do better or worse then the EPA estimates, so the chance of a person getting a car that does better is just as likely as the chance a person getting a car that does worse than the EPA standards. You have to have a line somewhere, and there will always be a few complainers right in the gray areas.

    "Doesn’t it make sense to see the difference at the pump than to come up with differences based on window sticker? " That's like saying, "Don't show me the calories on the boxes of anything I eat...I'd rather wait until I see it in my bigger stomach!" I'd say it makes more sense to see on the sticker BEFORE you see it on the pump. Why are you afraid of extra information on the window sticker? Will it make you feel a little more guilty or something?

    And I'm all for encouraging public transportation for those that have the option. But that doesn't change my views on encouraging folks to buy more efficient vehicles.
  • So then you don't think that just because a person buys a car with better MPG that they're going to start driving more, so then there will be less gas consumed.

    Or maybe they will with all that new found discretionary income they have from getting 40 mpg instead of 34 mpg. They can use that lower purchase price for road trips, as long as they pack light.

    So maybe I'll have to buy a vacation home with the money from the hypothetical rebate I got from buying a Fit!

    Ah yes, and then you can use the money you save to drive there and back. :blush:
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    This is probably the same opposition when the first income tax was proposed!
  • This is probably the same opposition when the first income tax was proposed!

    No, they are fundamentally different. Income tax is used to generate capital to provide services on the federal, state, and local level. You are talking about a penalty to give people a spanking for purchasing a vehicle you deem unworthy.

    Luxury tax was another poor idea executed badly (punitive tax), ruining the domestic boating industry (and ruining the economy of several east coast towns), hurting sales of high end vehicles, etc.

    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    You have an interesting take on choices. In your opinion, I would be smarter to pick a car whose window sticker showed 26 mpg but got 23 mpg than getting a car that showed 23 mpg but got 26 mpg. Choices aside, it clearly shows a complete disregard for conservation. You prefer chance, I prefer reality.

    It is fine if you draw a line using numbers from a standard. To me it is simply an arbitrary number as it doesn’t reflect the reality. If it were the reality, I couldn’t take a car and get different mileage from it. Even better, I could take a car and engineer it to get different mileage from it but using that standard that is your argument’s lifeline.

    That's like saying, "Don't show me the calories on the boxes of anything I eat...I'd rather wait until I see it in my bigger stomach!"

    Good example, as it actually helps make my point. Your stomach will grow not based on what is written on the carton, but based on how much you consume. The former is a static measure that you are relying on. The latter is the reality.

    In case you’ve missed it, I’m not opposing the idea of conservation. In fact, quite the opposite, and we’re on the same page. However, where we differ is your reliance on chance based on an arbitrary number taken from a standard that can be fiddled with. I am sticking with the reality.

    It is never a good idea to force people to make choices that few things they must. This is not how smaller cars have regained some respect. Can’t you see that?

    PS. On the boat thing. Don't you think they are among the worst offenders when it comes to oil consumption?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    So I'd go from 0$/week to probably $4 since I'd only fill up once/month. I am that mythological creature that only drives her car once/week to go to the store

    I'd buy a year or two old vehicle in your case then. It's not as if the miles you put on it will add up fast.

    Look into a 2-year old car, you can buy more car for the $. At the Honda dealership near my house, they have a Malibu Maxx LT (a midsize V6 car, 23,000 miles, 2006 model) for $12,990 (would probably take $12k). That is a LOT of car for the dough. For as little as you drive, the extra gas you'd use (20/28 vs 27/33) is very negligible for a small amount of driving. Also, buying that $13k midsize buys a heavier, (likely safe), more sturdy automobile to haul the babies in. :)

    Just a thought from someone on the outside looking in. :)
  • Yeah I was going to add that into the post and then my hard drive crashed. :mad: :cry: :sick:
  • Looks like those stats on SUV sales were misleading. Either they were including crossovers as SUVs or....well, I don't know...the large SUV market seems to be declining in the longterm.

    Here's another take from Forbes:

    "A lot of people, from automotive analysts to manufacturers to marketers, are pretty excited about the growth prospects of this new breed of SUV called the “crossover.”

    Sales of these vehicles are climbing while traditional SUV sales are declining. One reason often cited in these times of lofty gas prices is crossovers’ better fuel economy. But there are other factors at play.

    “This year, the traditional SUV market will fall below 2 million units sold in the U.S. for the first time since 1995,” says George Pipas, U.S. sales analysis manager at Ford, the company that perhaps reaped the most rewards from the 1990s SUV craze with its then best-selling Ford Explorer and Lincoln Navigator. “At the same time, the crossover utility market this year will be 2.7 to 2.8 million,” a fivefold increase since 2000."
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,563
    Oh I remember '79 gas stations were closed on Sundays and many had limits on how much you could buy. The only place you could buy gas on Sunday was on the tollway and IIRC they limited you to 5 gallons.

    There are three types of people in this world. Those who are good at math and those who are not.

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,563
    I seem to remember that there was an economist that during the debate about the income tax stated that if enacted income taxes could be as high as 10 percent. He was laughed at and it ruined his career.

    To bad he was more than right.

    There are three types of people in this world. Those who are good at math and those who are not.

  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,563
    PS. On the boat thing. Don't you think they are among the worst offenders when it comes to oil consumption?

    Sail boats, row boats and canoes use might little fuel

    There are three types of people in this world. Those who are good at math and those who are not.

  • I'm not sure what's wrong with taxing gas up to $5 a gallon like in Europe, and use the money for public transport improvments. Rich Americans can more than afford it.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,563
    Ok so 5% of the population can afford it, what about the average joe who actually has to make ends meet?

    There are three types of people in this world. Those who are good at math and those who are not.

  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    My idea already exists, but currently isn't applied to SUVs or minvans. It's currently based on EPA estimates, so it's not like I'm pulling this idea out of the air.
    "The IRS is responsible for administering the gas guzzler program and collecting the taxes from car manufacturers or importers. The amount of tax is posted on the window stickers of new cars - the lower the fuel economy, the higher the tax." http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/index.htm

    "You are talking about a penalty to give people a spanking for purchasing a vehicle you deem unworthy. " No, I'm talking about having the gas guzzler tax put on all vehicles lower than a specific MPG and a rebate on those getting good MPG. And I don't consider vehicles with poor MPG as "unworthy," but if the goal is to reduce gas usage/emissions, one way (and yes there are other ways) is to focus attention on those vehicle getting poor MPG.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    "You prefer chance, I prefer reality. "
    There's a difference between statistical probablility and chance...go look in a dictionary. And I don't think it's wise to base anything on a sample size of one.

    " To me it is simply an arbitrary number as it doesn’t reflect the reality. If it were the reality, I couldn’t take a car and get different mileage from it." Again, go buy a book on statistics and look up "distribution."

    I don't know much about boats to comment on them.

    Sorry if this post comes across as rude, but when looking at millions of drivers and millions of cars, there has to be some way of studying and testing them. You can't go out and poll every driver. No test is perfect, but the use of statistics and probability is a well respected science used in countless ways.
  • The bus. The train.
  • Sorry, General Motors bought the Los Angeles Inter-City rail system and dumped it in the ocean (you can look it up).

    Let's face it, people always do what is in their best economic interest....well, except in elections LOL!....okay, USUALLY the operate in their best economic interest.

    So I'm a big fan of incentive over taxation, as it encourages a move toward reward rather than a shrinking from punishment.

    No reason you can't reward the purchaser of energy-efficient products without penalizing the person who doesn't want them. You can give the Prius owner a tax break without punishing the Lincoln Town Car owner. Remember, the idea of incentive is to support new tech not just gas mileage.

    People can be encouraged into subcompacts with a little pat on the butt from Uncle Sam.

    If there was say a refrigerator that used $100 less electricity a year, and came with a small tax break to offset its higher cost vis a vis an older less efficient design, who wouldn't do that?

    It would cost the government a lot less than pork-barrel schemes about ethanol, which is a joke.
Sign In or Register to comment.