Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
The Growing Divergence Between Horsepower and Speed Limits
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
As a matter of fact, taxing agencies currently send conflicting messages, i.e., the VW TDI. who pays more tax per mile driven:: a gasser VW 24/32 vs TDI 42/49? Disingenuously they all but ban the VW getting 42/49. Actually they charge higher taxation, all the while encouraging folks to get the vehicles using less fuel. (getting better mpg) #2 diesel uses less upstream resources to process. It is a natural result of the longer and more expensive refining of unleaded regular, meaning you CAN NOT process unleaded regular without getting a % of higher carbon products.
Does the UBC say how many sleep in a room? does it only require aan outhouse? Does it say cooking is done over a fire outside?
I took my first house which while it wasn't big we didn't live a lifestyle that was to cramped, it was a little less than 1800 square feet, or 450 per person. Eliminate the living room and dining room (which was never used) we might be at 375 per person/ Eliminate the family room and extra bedroom and your at maybe 300 square feet per person. And thats only bedrooms bathrooms and kitchen.
120 Square feet per person would be putting 6 people in this:
http://www.americanwholesalehomes.com/show_home.php?id=4
Good luck with that.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
If a car stays in the parking lot, whether 100 or 1000 HP, it doesnt' have any environemental impact. The biggest issue we have related to horsepower is the expected fuel consumption. That a tax should strike or not some car owners because they are supposedly "rich" has little ecological value and is very unfair imho.
Using fewer gas is the duty of everybody and not only the ones buying cars with bigger engines.
If you agree that the gas guzzler tax should be often repeated, then why not repeat it as often as when one is filling up (i.e higher gas tax)?
There is no reason the 80% of people who drive standard cars (say 150 HP and less) and who still represent the majority of the gas consumption don't pay for it the same rate.
The polluter should be the one paying for it proportionally. One pollute 100, then should pay upon the basis of 100. I trust he/she is clever enough to adapt his/her behaviour to lower the gas bill in the end.
I have seen many demagogical policies where politicians intended for a minority to pay for the excess of the majority. This is short sighted and unhealthy as nothing needs any more global effort as resource saving.
-------
While all very good and true... all the good education and road etiquette won't help you if the driver behind you ends up rear-ending your car (while talking on a cell-phone) because you expected the far-right lane to be the 'slow lane'.
It's like a war; you may not want to fight it... but if your enemy does, then you'll be fighting, too. Whether you like it or not.
me: you're right you can't make an element; at least without a nuclear reaction. But you can make/produce different molecules from the elements - that is what chemistry is about. To make H2 which is a molecule, individual H atoms must be removed from molecules. You can do this with an electric current in water, which is plentiful. You pt enough energy into the water, the H's separate from the O, and then the 2 separate H atoms of the millions being produced, bond, to form a lot of H2. And this is a law of nature - it will take more energy to break the H-O bonds then you will get when you burn the H2. Entropy - I believe that is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Your welcome; no charge for the lesson.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
We also have the agriculturally origins of "pull off the road" if one is blocking more than 5 cars law. It of course is routinely ignored.
Why?
You presume that there is some inherent logic to such a presumption. Two problems remain:
(a) without defining the terms reasonably such as "big" and "high", we have no clue what you could possibly mean. What is "big" to you may be "adequate" or "small" to somebody else
(b) You have yet to show anybody on this thread exactly what is so objectionable about horsepower.
Horsepower is a measure of output, not consumption, so perhaps you object to the existence of output? Honestly, you've rambled on about how "equitable" your worldview supposedly is, yet when asked to justify it, you merely restate your belief that it is "equitable", whatever that is supposed to mean.
In other words, all you offer is a variant of "It's cuz I said so." No reason to listen someone who thinks that my dad's logic applies here.
me: Agree. In MA you have the same issue of traffic at 70mph during busy hours immediately around rush-hours. One road I specifically know of is Rt 3 in the Lowell/Chelmsford area where on-ramps are hairpins. Another bad area for on-ramps and heavy fast traffic, especially trucks, is Rt.84 in CT.
me: It's really scary to me that you'd argue you have to continually pay the government for the right to have something. It's bad enough we have annual tax on houses/properties, now you'd suggest we should expand that? So if someone doesn't pay the tax, the government will take that item from you. That doesn't sounds much different (just slightly less blatant and immediate) than Communist philosophy to me.
When I drive my 740 (286HP), i tend to drive it like with an egg between my foot and the accelerator pedal. The good low-end torque and the smoothness ov the V8+Auto box makes effortless cruising a pleasure.
When I went to China , I temporarily switched to a 1.1L 58HP manual micro car that I happened to drive much more aggressively as I was often flooring the gas pedal. Driving this car was both a frustration and my aggressive driving was "compensating" the lack of power.
I remember doing the same thing with my bikes, always driving at 100 % on a small 50CC scooter, but going very relaxed on my 1200 Suzuki.
I suspect some small car drivers tend to make such compensation, although they may not realise it for various reasons.
The real luxury imho is to be able to only use a small fraction of a powerful engine instead of a bigger part of a less powerful one.
Power is a bit like money : the more you critically need it , the less you have it available.
so it seems paradoxical, but sometimes having more HP is useful because it allows you not to use most of it.
(sarcasm on)
The government needs to tax life itself!
As long as we all live, we need to pay a life tax. And then, when you die, your estate pays a death tax, too!
(sarcasm off)
What's sad is that my original post was meant to illustrate that most of the posters in favor of new taxes on consumption would fight tooth and nail against it if the taxes were applied to them.
But it seems that the target audience found it a ringing endorsement of their ideals, instead.
:confuse:
But there is a strong correlation between the two. More output more consumption.
In other words, all you offer is a variant of "It's cuz I said so." No reason to listen someone who thinks that my dad's logic applies here.
Then this thread should be closed because everyone one both sides has a argument that boils down to "It's cuz I said so." Nobody yet has presented a convincing argument for the need of high HP cars.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
me: People who have the money for bigger houses already have paid more in Income and property taxes than the average person. How many times do you want to tax the person for the same thing? Until they have no money left? I didn't think the purpose of our society was to take away everything a person earns to make everyone equal financially. is that fair government and good policy to you.? Should people who don't want to work, and people who work 80 hours/week, be living the same lifestyle?
There are those in this country living in just that much space. I for one have had a room that size for the last 25 years while at work in Alaska. I'm not complaining, the company paid for it and all my meals.
You are trying to get around the subject. It was charging someone that uses excess energy, by taxing them at a higher rate. I am just trying to establish what is excessive to you. It would seem that 255 HP in a V6 is not excessive. How much for a V8 before it is excessive? Is the 275 HP in the Evo 4 banger excessive?
We have more than enough taxes now. The politicians have proven beyond any reasonable doubt they are unable to handle the amounts we now fork over.
This is only a strawman argument of your own making.
Sorry that I scared you. I pay yearly taxes for the right to have a lot of extra features in/on my house. If I were to remove these features, I would notify tax assessor and my yearly tax would be lowered.
Do you think it is proper to pay state secretary of state DMV for yearly license plate fee?
What do you think should be yearly license plate fees for:
1. Chevy Aveo
2. Chrysler 300C SRT8
3. Bugatti
4. Chevy Suburban (weight example)
I would totally agree with the first statement Actually the do handle it well!! They never got a tax they couldn't WASTE better than before!! Then if they want to waste what they don't yet have.... there are always tax free bonds!!
me: Human needs are water, food, air, and a temperate environment. I don't know why you think someone is going to prove any car is "needed". We're discussing what is "better" of our luxuriant vehicles, which most people in the world do not own (thus proof they are unneeded to sustain life and civilization).
I just wish I could notify my tax assessor to just remove my TAXES!! The truth is it goes up whether you improve or not!!!
1. Chevy Aveo
2. Chrysler 300C SRT8
3. Bugatti
4. Chevy Suburban (weight example)
---
Answer:
$0
You bought it, it's yours. We don't tax on a yearly basis... clothing, jewelry, pet dogs, etc.
Nor do we need a license to own them. The same should be for cars.
The state already acknowledges the ability to drive via the driver's license... which grants the holder the right to operate a motor vehicle.
So what does licensing vehicles do? Grant us the right to operate that motor vehicle? That is already inherent in the possession of a driver's license.
Double taxation is a bad thing.
So, 58 HP is too low. But, what would have been better for the conditions you encountered? 100 HP, 200 HP, 300 HP, 400 HP, 500 HP, 1000 HP? How much HP was needed?
I think an easy definition of "need" in case you need to need that is the 16 hp on a 250# motorcycle and just do the power to weight calculation.
I see your point. Then, a yearly user fee/tax for license plates could be some type of combo formula that would take into account overall HP and ratio of pounds/HP.
But, I never brought up motorcycles. You and someone else did.
And has been shown throughout this thread, there is no linear relationship between output and consumption, and consumption is a function of many elements. If you care about consumption, then focus on that, rather some design elements which contribute to it.
Nobody yet has presented a convincing argument for the need of high HP cars.
Forgetting for a moment that nobody on the thread has yet to define what "high" means, the fact is that no one is particularly obligated to offer a reason for such cars to exist.
The fact is that they do exist and some people want them, full stop. If some object to them, then it is up to those who object to them to show why they shouldn't, or to explain what is particularly wrong with them.
Otherwise, the status quo position is that such cars exist and some of us use them -- there is no need to defend them unless output itself is a problem.
So, once again, is there a problem with output? If there is, then offer some reasons why.
me: A fee is $ paid for a service; a fee is different than a tax.
you: What do you think should be yearly license plate fees for:
me: Since the paperwork and the license plate shouldn't cost anything different regardless of the car, the fee should be the same, to be equitable.
Many states place excise (or registration) taxes on vehicles based on their value. I think those should be eliminated. We should have 1 tax in this country; a flat tax where you pay X-cents for every dollar you earn. A tax return should be no more than 10 lines on 1 page.
I was just following your lead for need!
I do not know if your state has the min of power required, but the CA state vehicle code does. It is in the form of addressing motorcycles.
The demos lost the election to a repub (ARNOLD whats his grewber) on almost precisely the issues you address ..."Then, a yearly user fee/tax for license plates could be some type of combo formula that would take into account overall HP and ratio of pounds/HP."... They said enough already, send me the rebate. I really heard of no democratic party folks mounting a drive to give back the rebates to the DMV or state government to be more precise!! ??
I'd say if they wanted to increase their chances of losing the big house again, parade this issue to an already energy strapped voter roll (state)!
I also like (to stay on topic) NO smog checks and the attendant exorbitant fees and wasted paperwork for diesels.
Some great ideas there. So, with your system, a laborer earning minimal wages, say $20,000 year, pays same rate as a CEO earning $5,000,000 per year. That is very progressive.
What do you think should be yearly license plate fees for:
kernick said:
Since the paperwork and the license plate shouldn't cost anything different regardless of the car, the fee should be the same, to be equitable.
Charging a yearly license plate fee by HP amount is no different than what real estate tax assessors are already doing. My state did determine yearly license plate fee by HP in past. So, there is precedent. Unfortunately, it was changed. Another precedent is taxing of real estate. As an example:
There could be two 3000 ft houses with essentially the same floor plan and next to each other in a community in my state. Modest house has vinyl siding, 2 full washrooms, 2-car garage, no deck, no screened porch, no fireplaces. Upgraded house has brick exterior, 4-car garage, 4 full washrooms, large deck, screened porch, 3 fireplaces.
The Upgraded house, even though has same living space square feet as Modest house, will pay a lot more in real estate taxes because of extra stuff. The worksheet of tax assessor will add increments for the extra stuff. The extra stuff being: 2 extra washrooms having 2 more sinks, 2 more toilets, 2 more bathtubs, 2 extra spaces for cars in garage, brick exterior, large deck, screened porch, 3 fireplaces.
In a similar example with cars, a Chrysler 300 with 425 HP would pay a higher license plate yearly tax than a Chrysler with 200+ HP.
Our state did have a bracketed license plate fees based on hp/weight years ago. My small 4-cyl Honda cost about ½ of my large Suburban. They eliminated the brackets. They brought all vehicle fees up to amount of Suburban. That was unfair in that many folks with smaller vehicles are in lower income brackets. Suburbans and similar heavy weights, as well as high HP vehicles, should pay more. Heavier weight and higher HP vehicles present more dangers to those in lighter vehicles and modest HP cars and therefore should pay more for license to operate. This is acknowledged in NHTSA data showing heavier vehicles fare better in crashes with smaller vehicles and in higher insurance rate premiums for higher risk performance cars.
You have more stuff in your real estate, you pay more taxes. You earn more, you pay more taxes and at higher rate. You have more HP, you pay more taxes. It’s the American way.
1) more powerful versions of ALL cars. More power being added to the Base and up-level versions of each model.
2) that the flow of traffic is ggenerally going higher on our roads, regardless of the out-dated speed limits.
Why? Because many times our government needs to see that the majority of people want a law changed. Actions speak louder than words. But I have never known a local politician who takes a public stance supporting higher speed limits which the majority obviously do. So wouldn't know who to vote for.
So I'm encouraged that people through their actions of buying more powerful vehicles and drivng faster will push this issue to the point that the police and government acknowledge that the laws are unenforceable to the masses, and not what we want.
I think the general view of progressive being spewed about is take from the other rich guy and give to the poor. When the top tax rate was 90% it left little incentive to make things happen. It is not the guy flipping burgers that is creating jobs and building this country up.
Don't get me wrong, CEOs that make insane amounts of money when a company is losing money are bad for our society. They should take his 1000 HP Bugatti and raffle it off to support an orphanage.
Would be interesting to see what would happen if folks in one or more states got the Speed Limit issue on referendum. I can guess what would happen in my state based on the responsible citizens I see at the polls on election days through the years and lack of interest of many citizens to vote. Would think that CA would be most likely state to be first with referendum.
me: and if we threw a virgin in the volcano last yyear, it must be a goood idea to do it again this year?
you: You earn more, you pay more taxes and at higher rate. You have more HP, you pay more taxes. It’s the American way.
me: Maybe you should research what the ideals of Jefferson and such were when they wrote the Constitution 220 years ago. It wasn't to create a new type of serfdom, where the serfs (public) pay the barons (government) a hefty annual tax.
Here's a question for you. If you have to pay an annual amount on something to some entity, how is that different than leasing it. True ownership by definition is when payments are complete. If you believe you own your house/land or anything else you have to pay an annual tax on, then you should pickup a copy of 1984, and think about how government can manipulate and mislead you. Certainly the government wants you to BELIEVE you own something, rather than lease from them.
You don't own anything that can legally be taken from you, for no reason other than a tax.
They vote with their feet everyday. The limits would be democratic were it not for a few excitable types who won't listen to them.
Why? Offer a compelling reason why such a tax wouldn't be any more arbitrary than a Pink Car Tax, a Leather Steering Wheel Tax or a Stereo With 18-Presets Tax. If you can't offer a reason, then we'll chock it up to you being argumentative for the sake of it, or completely arbitrary, and be done with it.
No I am not, take for instance the house, the bigger the house the more energy it uses. Not exactly true, the house I live in now (built in 2002) is bigger yet more energy efficient than the house I grew up in (built in the early 1950's). Plus my daughters slightly newer home has higher energy bill than ours even though its a little smaller. Point is the size of the house doesn't determine energy use.
It would seem that 255 HP in a V6 is not excessive. How much for a V8 before it is excessive?
question is what are the driving needs? Case in point I have the V-8 CTS-V and never drive it in such a way as the V-6 can't keep up or do. So with this car, in this case the extra HP is excessive.
We have more than enough taxes now.
I agree we are way to high on the Laffer curve.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
All I can say is that since your only comment on what I said was "its a strawman" comment points that I have hit on something.
Now tell me what is one convincing argument that someone has given why we need 500 HP cars? Was it because having the extra HP is safer if you find your self in a dangerous situation? No it couldn't be that I believe someone addressed the folly of that argument? Could it be that people could drive faster to a hospital? No that has been addressed too.
So tell me one convincing argument for the need of a 500+ HP Vette, Or a 400 HP Caddy? or a 1,000 HP Bugatti? Come on why do we really need MB's AMG's or BMW's M cars or Caddys V series? tell us we are waiting.
The fact is no one has provided a convincing argument (outside their own minds) for these massive HP cars that are coming out.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
we need these cars for all types of reasons, one of the reasons is, WHY THE HECK NOT... we should be able to build and buy anything we want. another reason, what if we have to run from the cops well then we got a fast car to do it in.
And its been shown on this thread that the higher the output of the engine the more fuel it consumes. It is a simple fact please don't dance around it.
The fact is that they do exist and some people want them,
And as I have said repeatedly that is fine if they want them get them, but there is no real need.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
What service are you getting for your license plate fee? that little 25 cent sticker that goes on your plate? of then we have a 25 cent fee and a $74.75 tax.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Thank you, it took 1,119 post for someone to come out and say "I want a high HP car for no reason other than I want it". Again I say thank you.
Thats the only real reason to get a 450 HP engine in a car if that same make and model comes with a 275 HP engine.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Are you reading the same thread as I am? An indirect relationship is clear; a direct one is not.
Numerous examples have been offered by other posters as to how some cars combine lowered fuel economy with lower horsepower, and not one person has demonstrated a linear relationship. So again, if you want to address fuel consumption, horsepower is an indirect way of going about it.
And as I have said repeatedly that is fine if they want them get them, but there is no real need.
Not sure why you keep telling me this, when I never once claimed there was a need. "Need" has no bearing whatsoever on my position.
My point is that with a more powerful car, I would not need to push the engine to get the same output and my driving would feel relax. Sorry, I can't give a figure. We all know that whether 50 or 1000 HP, the average speed on public roads won't be greatly different. I am more talking about the comfort to use 20% of a big engine than 60% of a small one.
In this case, more HP provide for more comfort even though those HP are not directly used.
I value more powerful cars personally for the added feeling of comfort. Typically I would prefer the higher engine in a same model : V6 instead of 4 Cyl Accord,
V8 instead of V6 in a 300C.
That some people don't value this and find base/lower power models sufficient is fair enough.
This is a matter of personal preference anyway.
I know just proves one simple point, people are idiots.
Yeah you keep drinking that bottled water at $1 per bottle and I will just use my filtered tap water (same or better quality) refilling the same bottle for just pennies. Look at all that money I save each year not paying extra for no extra utility.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D