By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Daewoo Lanos S 2dr Hb (1.6L 4cyl 5M)--TCO $27.8K, cost per mile $0.37
Hyundai Accent L 2dr Hb (1.5L 4cyl 5M)--TCO $27.0K, cpm $0.36
Toyota ECHO 2dr Cpe (1.5L 4cyl 5M)--TCO $28.6K, cpm $0.38
Honda Civic DX 2dr Cpe (1.7L 4cyl 5M)--TCO $29.3K, cpm $0.39
I also looked at the most basic configuration for a 2002 golf tdi:
TCO:$30,666, cpm $0.41
If you choose the cheapest 2002 TDI, you might have to drive more than 30K miles per year to break even with a Hyundai Accent. I didn't do the math, it's just an estimate.
I chose a 2001 Echo because it met with my requirements of rock solid reliability, cheapness, and high mpgs. Plus, and most importantly, I found one.
Stripper GL Golf TDIs are very rare in my area. I think I'd probably be much happier with a Golf but I couldn't find one and it would probably have been at least $5K more up front.
Driving a Corvette in 6th must pretty similar to driving a 9,000rpm engine at 3,000rpm. You can have speed or mileage, but not at the same time.
The newest subcompact cars (Fit, Yaris, '06 Accent) don't quite make this mark, and so they sacrifice a bit of fuel economy to keep the performance up, and fall slightly below the 35 combined mpg threshold as a result. It's hard to think of too many cars (or trucks) with a ratio worse than 1:20. Perhaps there is an SUV or two struggling out there with a small engine that gets below 1:20.
Cars like the Corvette are just so OBSCENELY over this ratio, it's funny. The Vette gets about what, 1 hp for every 8 pounds of car? And yet I can applaud GM for not making the Corvette a pig - the weight is still around 3200 pounds, right? For a car that can do the speeds it can, I could see wanting a good ton and a half of metal around you. The Corvette represents VAST overkill for all but track use, but excess is what we like to spend our dollars on, and so GM is never wanting for Vette customers.
Now, I know the speed hounds will have a thing or two to say about the 1:20 thing, so have at it! :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Real estate taxes are seriously flawed. I wouldn't use them as an example to justify the fairness of a similar tax. If the goal is to eliminate large vehicles then, absolutely, you should tax/fine the owners of large vehicles. If the goal is to reduce fuel consumption then you should tax/fine the consumers of fuel.
"Minimalist's car" 1992 Honda Civic, only 88,000 miles. 5-speed, no a/c, no radio, roll-up windows, $2800.
With smiley faces on the ad.
Of course in central VA, if you want your own sauna on wheels in the brutally hot summertime, this is your car!
me: People who can afford a gas-guzzler as you refer to, probably have already paid more (income) taxes than others already. When it comes to goods and services I believe everyone should be charged the SAME amount. People should pay the same rate for water, electric, road-tolls, the hammer at Home Depot ... regardless of whether they make $1,000,000 or $40,000, or whether they drive a Viper or a '90 Ford Festiva. That is what we typically call fair in this society.
you: The bigger your house (in same community), the more you pay.
me: What a poor tax system you use as a basis for an auto tax. It is a tax system that would reward people to build huts, and not improve them. Make your property better and you're penalized - brilliant!
Look I don't have a lot of money; I'm comfortable. But I certainly don't feel jealousy towards the wealthy such that FAIR is that they should pay my share. If a person is successful congratulations; I have no desire to see others then take what that person's earned by instituting some laws, to appease those that are jealous, and want a share. i.e. Legalized theivery.
me: What a poor tax system you use as a basis for an auto tax. It is a tax system that would reward people to build huts, and not improve them. Make your property better and you're penalized - brilliant!
Real estate taxes are similar in a way to our progressive IRS tax system. Your rate of pay of taxes is determined on how much you make and on the size/value of your house. Think that it is very fair that a homeowner with low income in a 1000 ft ranch on a small lot pays perhaps one-quarter the amount that a high income owner in a 4000 ft 2-story mcmansion on a large lot (same town) pays.
Similar taxing on vehicles would be fair. Large/heavy gas guzzling suvs should pay substantially more than compact or sub-compact autos that get high gas mileage. And, this tax should be a yearly license/tag fee rather than just higher fed/local taxes at the pump. High taxes at pump unfairly hit low income and poorer people.
Perhaps yearly vehicle tax should be so high on large/heavy inefficient vehicles to cause pain (monetary) and be incentive to people to buy vehicles with great gas economy. This will help lower our dependence on imported oil. As added incentive, cars with very high efficiency (45+ mpg highway?) would get a pass and pay only one dollar yearly license fee. A 5000 lb suv getting 17 mpg highway might pay $500-1000/year license.
Personally I think the most equitable way to do it is simply raise the gas tax. That way you pay for what you actually use, regardless of your vehicle's weight, fuel economy, etc. But then, this does hurt the poor. However, don't most taxes?
In the end, there's really no 100% right way to do it. Somebody always gets screwed.
Personally I think the most equitable way to do it is simply raise the gas tax. That way you pay for what you actually use, regardless of your vehicle's weight, fuel economy, etc. But then, this does hurt the poor. However, don't most taxes?
In the end, there's really no 100% right way to do it. Somebody always gets screwed.
I think, that a yearly tax on the true rating of consumption on each vehicle and paid directly to the state just like most states have state taxes. That way will at least encourage people to buy more efficent vehicles and as that result less consumption as a whole.
I'd guess about the best power-to-weight ratio I've had is about 17 pounds per hp. My Intrepid has 200 hp, and weighs about 3400-3500 lb, giving it about 17 lb/hp. My '67 Catalina has about the same ratio I'm guessing. It weighs about 4200 lb I'd guess, and when you account for the gross-to-net hp transition, I'd guess it has about 250 hp. It had a 290 hp 400-2bbl originally, but has a 4-bbl on it now which I think put it up to around 325 hp. To get net hp I just took 3/4 of that figure.
But don't 'the poor' also use the infrastructure and the services just like everyone else. Why shouldn't each person pay their fair share to support the society. Exceptions would be invalids and elderly needy. No reason to have able-bodied people living on welfare.
A tax on the lack of economy of your vehicle sounds good to me.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
me: I understand what you're saying about the tax being higher with the higher value; but they're really more dissimilar than similar. An income tax taxes NEW money ONCE. A property tax on houses or cars taxes "Money that already has been taxed (post income tax)" year after year ad infinitum.
I am against taxes on property. Why? Because I look at any tax on property as negating ownership. You do not own anything that the government can take from you (for failing to pay taxes). The governement, the banks, and such will all say people own property, but it is not absolute if the government can take it away from you for failing to pay.
Ask most retired people, who have made money and have a nice house, but now have less income what they think of property taxes.
If it is scientifically proven that larger vehicles beat up the roads X-% more, such that the lower mpg of the larger vehicles paying more gas tax does not compensate, then yes larger vehicles should be taxed more.
The governement already has a system - CAFE if they want to increase the efficiency of the auto fleet. They do not need to resort to other systems and taxes. Let each individual decide what they want to drive, and what they are willing to pay for gas by choosing a vehicle in the spectrum available. If you drive a low mpg vehicle whether due to weight, AWD, or engine displacement then you pay more tax by using more gas.
From my POV the real issue is weight and aerodynamics, keep the one down and improve the other and you get good mileage no matter how much HP you have. I doubt the many Prius I see doing over 85mph are getting good mileage. Speed kills mileage in everything.
And still managed better than 30 mpg over 15 gallons or so! With the A/C running most of the time. To me, that is the definition of the sweet spot in power-to-weight.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Well, actually, they use it less, since they spend more (less travel, less shipping, etc.). But even if they used it the same, a tax that is "flat" (like gas tax and sales taxes) represents a bigger % of their disposable income and so hurts them more.
The question of what is fair is far more complicated and involves more than that factor alone, of course.
No reason to have able-bodied people living on welfare.
I think that statement goes far beyond the scope of this topic, let alone gas tax fairness.
A tax on the lack of economy of your vehicle sounds good to me.
Sure. This gets to what the point of the gas tax is. It has 2 clear purposes that mix together somewhat awkwardly:
1) raise revenue for transportation infrastructure
2) encourage efficiency
Plus, taxing the gas itself at the pump encourages savings in other ways, and might force people to buy more fuel-efficient mowers and tractors. Or just cut their grass a bit less often!
It'll also make prices go up, as landscaping crews will have to pass on their increased costs, as would every business that relies on gasoline/diesel.
But then, that's how taxes work...that money has to come from somewhere. And they'll find a way to get it out of us in the end, no matter how convoluted.
As for the gas tax though, doesn't that mainly go to maintaining interstates and US highways? I know my property tax, to an extent, helps pay for the county roads, as part of my taxes are based on how much of a front footage I have. IMO that's a bit unfair though, as I have 270 feet of frontage, yet my next door neighbor, on a flag lot, only has 15 feet. And somebody that could be renting an apartment the next town over could be cutting through my street 6 times per day and not paying a cent towards it.
But hey, no tax is totally fair. Some people always get hit harder than others.
The "difference" cited there is pretty much illusion. All money is taxed over and over again because "money" is never taxed, transactions are taxed. You get paid $100 and get taxed $20, leaving $80. Then you spend $20 of the $80 and pay sales tax on that, etc.
The governement, the banks, and such will all say people own property, but it is not absolute if the government can take it away from you for failing to pay.
I really have no idea what this is supposed to mean. "Ownership" and "penalty for not paying taxes" are not incompatible.
If it is scientifically proven that larger vehicles beat up the roads X-% more...
It's not more complicated than a psi calculation as far as "more" is concerned. How much more is not as simple, of course.
The governement already has a system - CAFE if they want to increase the efficiency of the auto fleet.
With this, I agree. It's way out of date, of course, and should be increased to meet the target that is part of a coherent energy policy. If only we had one.
Let each individual decide what they want to drive, and what they are willing to pay for gas by choosing a vehicle in the spectrum available.
Well, of course, this is incompatible with CAFE. CAFE only works by penalizing vehicle manufacturers for going over their limit. And they can only manipulate that occurence by manipulating their advertising (for example, stop touting SUVs as what everyone wants and needs and advertisemore efficient cars). And of course, this assumes that car manufacturers can make a profit within that model. Which leads us to the question of this topic
If you drive a low mpg vehicle whether due to weight, AWD, or engine displacement then you pay more tax by using more gas.
You pay more tax per mile, yes.
Well, it depends on what "use" means. If it means gas, then yes. If it means roads, then no.
I'd imagine that in the overall scheme of things, full sized cars, pickups, and SUVs actually do very little damage compared to a lightweight subcompact. For instance, my 4200 pound pickup truck might weigh double what an Echo weighs. But that still pales in comparison to the tandem-axle dumptruck that delivered 14 cubic yards of gravel at a time for me when I was having my garage built. FWIW, a cubic yard of that stuff is about 3,000 pounds. So that's 42,000 pounds PLUS the dumptruck! And I'd guess one of those old Macks must weigh what? About 8 tons? So suddenly, when you're dealing with a road surface that has to handle 58,000 pounds. All of a sudden, whether you're dealing with 2000 pounds or 4000 pounds, or even 6000, as some of these bigger SUVs are pushing, it's inconsequential.
It starts to be something akin to a chihuahua owner complaining because the neighbor's great dane just took a dump in his yard, but while he's out on the porch crying about it, he misses the sudden newsflash about the F5 tornado bearing down on his town.
While large trucks will certainly wear the road more, the question at hand was whether a vehicle that weighs 6000 lbs "used" the road more than one that weighed 3000 lbs. This relates directly to "fair" taxation based on use of a resource (roads) that need to be maintained due to wear over time. And there is little doubt that the heavier vehicle wears the road more than a lighter vehicle.
If passenger vehicles are subsidizing large trucks, that's another issue entirely, though possibly worthy of consideration.
2006 Civic: 3.5:1 (40mpg highway, right?)
Accord 4cyl: 6.9:1 city, 4.9:1 highway
Accord V6: 12.2:1 city, 8.4:1 highway
Corvette: 22:1 city, 14.3:1 highway
Bugatti Veyron is at 125:1 city, 66.7:1 highway
That's with EPA figures; real world numbers would be lower. Unfortunately I didn't learn much from any of this.
And there's little doubt that heavier vehicles pay more in gas taxes per mile driven, i.e. higher fee for the use of that mile of road. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
you: I really have no idea what this is supposed to mean. "Ownership" and "penalty for not paying taxes" are not incompatible.
me: well I'll sell you my watch for $100 - you'll own it, but I will have to collect a $5 tax from you each year. If you don't pay the $5/year tax to me I'll take back possesion of the watch. That is the same deal with property that is taxed. We all own our property, aboout as much as you own that watch in my above example.
When you have to pay a tax on property to keep possession of the property, you are RENTING (or leasing). If you tuly own something there are no additional payments of any sort.
Correct. Wear and tear on a road has little to do with the road rating.
"And there is little doubt that the heavier vehicle wears the road more than a lighter vehicle."
Correct but misleading. One can't make an assumption that there is a direct relationship between vehicle load and wear/tear. For example: a 6000lb vehicle DOESN'T necessarily cause 2x the wear of a 3000lb vehicle. And a 30,000lb vehicle doesn't necessarily cause 5x the wear of a 6000lb vehicle.
In reality, a 6000lb SUV may only cause 1.2x the wear of a 3000lb sedan. But a 30,000lb concrete truck may cause 20x the wear of a 6000lb SUV. That's because the closer you come to the maximum load rating of a road, the faster the wear rate.
Another thing to consider is that it isn't JUST the weight of the vehicle that determines wear: it's the frequency with which a road is exposed to those loads. It could very well be that a 3000lb vehicle driven twice as much as a 6000lb vehicle causes much more wear and tear.
BTW - large trucks typically are subject to VERY high annual registration fees as an effort to offset their higher degree of wear on roads.
I disagree and believe I can prove that a Prius on LRR tires inflated to 40+ PSI is putting more pressure on the highway than a PU truck with much larger tires inflated to 32 PSI. For one thing the weight in the PU is spread over a much larger surface than the Prius with skinny little tires.
I do believe we have fought this battle a while back. Not sure who felt they won.
On topic I don't see us cutting oil usage at all. This last raise in prices has not cut traffic one iota. Maybe we have to "kick it up a notch".
Oh, the ad has stars on it too, and the car is a 4-door. Same price though.
Well, the point was twofold. First, the question was raised as to why heavier vehicles should be taxed more and this is one reason and second, just because heavier vehicles pay more by using more gas doesn't mean it's road use is proportional to the extra fee. For example, if the gas use is 50% more but the road wear is 60% more, then there is still a disparity.
What conclusion to reach from this is debateable, but I hope that answers your question.
Yes. In both cases, I own something and in addition, by agreeing to the "deal", I owe something else. Of course, I could move somewhere else if I don't like the property tax "deal" and...well, I would not a buy the watch with that deal
When you have to pay a tax on property to keep possession of the property, you are RENTING (or leasing).
Well, we shouldn't really pursue what is really a matter of semantics, since it is not on topic, but words have meanings and that is inconsistent with the definition of those words in English.
No matter what you can think of that you may "own", it can always be lost, through theft, criminal behavior on your own part, whatever. This does not mean that "ownership" does not exist as a concept. Absolute ownership, as I believe you are presenting it, does not exist in this universe.
But we digress
you: Correct but misleading. One can't make an assumption that there is a direct relationship between vehicle load and wear/tear.
I made no such assumption. In fact I stated that the amount of wear was in question. Much less implied that the relationship was linear.
It could very well be that a 3000lb vehicle driven twice as much as a 6000lb vehicle causes much more wear and tear.
Whatever the weight/wear ratio, the total wear would have be per mile.
Not necessary. I agree, per sq inch. But the total wear is a factor of psi times total sq inches of contact patch.
On topic I don't see us cutting oil usage at all. This last raise in prices has not cut traffic one iota. Maybe we have to "kick it up a notch".
This is a very interesting point. I would be extremely interested in recent short term gas consumption. It would tell us a lot about gas price elasticity. Much more than sales shifts amongst vehicle types. Anyone know?
OK. People say they buy hybrids to help save the environment, save oil, etc. etc. For me, I look at the big picture. Consider this fact : How many tens or even hundreds of millions of OLDER cars, more polluting / gas guzzler cars (Domestics AND International including Japanese / Koreans) are now already on the roads ?
And that does not include tens of millions more of other older cars in OTHER countries which are far from embracing hybrids, due to their economy and inability to provide hybrid tax incentives. Are there any physical borders between US air space and Africa, Russia, Europe, Asia ? So it's not as simple as some hybrid fanatics think it is.
How many hybrids are currently on the roads ? How many are sold per month, compared to abt 17 million per year cars of all models sold in the USA ? Is the ratio significant ?
And if the number of hybrids sold per year still pales compared to existing cars and other non hybrids sold, do U really think the hybrids will make any appreciable effect on the environment ?
I don't think Toyota and Honda are really sincere in saving the environment by trumpeting hybrids. If yes, they should have discontinued their big gas guzzler model lines too. But of course they want to make money, more money. And there is nothing wrong with that. Its normal corporate behaviour.
Its wishful thinking to think that so long as hybrids comprised only a few percentage points of all the US car population, the effect on the environment will be meaningful at all. It's not that simple. Hybrids will have to make up say 20% or more to have any meaningful effect. And I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Why ? If gas prices skyrocket to say $6, do U think people will ALL embrace hybrids ? No ! Inflation and cost of living will increase so much that more people will go for "entry level" cars instead that are priced $12000 or lower, instead of the cheapest $20000 hybrids. Or more people might even go for cheaper used cars.
In an era of $6 gas, do U think people will buy hybrid, or take the $5000 or more savings in initial price differential in hard cash ? In an era of $6 gas perhaps some people may even have difficulty buying ANY car at all.
Now, in my opinion, the fastest way to make an effect is to get more and more Americans to switch to cars like the Versa, Yaris, Fit, Aveo, etc. Why ? Since they are a lot cheaper than even the cheapest hybrids, obviously the volumes are going to be big, big enough to have a faster effect on the environment.
Say if for every 10 previous gas guzzler owners, only 1 or 2 changed to a hybrid, compare that if 6 or 7 change to a compact. Which scenario will be more meaningful ?
Anyway, hybrids like the Prius achieve a combined gas ratio of abt 40+ mpg. A compact can also achieve 35+ mpg. Here's the Maths :
Assuming per day I cover say 45 miles. If I take a compact like the Versa whose gas consumption is say 35 mpg on a combined city / highway cycle, then everyday I will use 45/35 = 1.286 gallons. Assume gas prices at $3, then My cost per year will be 1.286 x 3 x 365 = $1408.
Now if I buy a hybrid like the Prius, and assume Prius fuel consumtion is say 42 mpg, I will consume 45/42 = 1.071 gallons. Thus cost per year will be 1.071 x 3 x 365 = $1173
Thus the gas money I save per year if I use the Prius is $1408 - $1173 = only $235 per year !
Even if one uses Prius mpg at say 50, the result is still similar.
Now, compare the Prius price with the price of a compact and I feel that compacts make the most sense financially, AND environmentally.
Doing the same Maths, even if gas prices rose to $5, the difference in gas money a year between the Prius and a compact is still at $392 per year. And if I buy a compact, the $5000 or more initial money I save can buy me FREE gas for the next 3-4 years !
Furthermore, compacts are independent in a sense that the government does not have to dole out tax incentives for buyers. And reliability / servicing / sparepart costs is more certain than a hybrid 10 years down the road.
There have been rumours about 100 mpg hybrids on the drawing board. One's first impression will be WOW ! I will save tons of money (and oil) ! Or is it ? Maths tells the story once again :
The current Prius at 42 mpg cost $1173 gas money a year using previous assumtions. How abt a 100 mpg Prius ? Lets see.
Everyday will consume 45/100 = 0.45 gallons. Cost per year = 0.45 x 3 x 365 = $492.75
So the money saved on the super 100 mpg hybrid compared to existing ones is only $1173-493 = $680 per year (and how much oil is that saved ?)! I bet some people who did not do the Maths, on seeing the 100 mpg figure starts to think they can save like $3000 a year kind of gas money ? And that imports of oil from the Middle East can stop ?
And how much do U think a 100 mpg hybrid will cost ? $20000 ? And how much more, how much longer must tax incentives go on ?
On the other hand, a guy who now uses a typical 20 mpg car can save really lots of money by switching to a compact. Here's the Maths again :
20 mpg old car uses 45/20 = 2.25 gallons per day. So every year he spends 2.25 x 3 x 365 = $2464 on gas. If he switches to a compact, he saves $2464 - 1408 = $1056 per year on gas ! And since compacts only cost $12000+, he does not have to add too much money if he trades in his older car, compared to if he wants a hybrid at $20000 !
In other words, the financial (and volume of oil saved) impact by switching from a 20 mpg car to a 35 mpg car is GREATER than switching from a 42 mpg hybrid to a 100 mpg hybrid. $1056 vs $680 ! Surprised ? I am, the first time I did this Maths ! Unless my Maths is wrong. Pls check my calculations.
Last, how abt the difference between a 35 mpg compact and a 100 mpg hybrid ? The gas money saved per year at $3 gas is $1408 - $493 = $915 per year. I bet many people who did not do the Maths will imagine the difference in gas money between a 35 mpg car and a super hybrid at 100 mpg will be like what, $5000 ? or more a year savings ? And I am not convinced these upcoming new 100 mpg hybrids will still be priced at $20000.
I guess in this case the law of diminishing returns apply. It is easy to save money and save the world's oil from 20 to 35 mpg, but much more difficult from 42 mpg to 100 mpg. The effect gets smaller and smaller. And even though technology and science progresses, I don't see the day when we can have what 300 mpg cars. There will be a ceiling one day, which may cost too much and not practical to try to breakthrough.
Compacts, not hybrids I think gives the most BANG for our BUCKS ! Financially as well as for the environment.
Without all the hype that hybrids have received, there'd be no pressure on companies to develop other alternative fuels. I can't prove it, but I think GM is working so hard on E85 because of hybrids, so that they can say "look, we're working on the future too!"
Changes in technology never happen suddenly. The first jet planes had a ton of drawbacks, so some people gave up on them and kept working on piston engines. Guess who got the last laugh.
A lot of hybrid buyers just want to say "please keep trying; we support your experiments."
Because whoever offers better engines, better fuel efficiency, better products etc will gain more sales ! Any CEO of a small company I am sure also knows this.
Furthermore, even we non-CEOs of automakers can guess that all automakers are trying to find the Holy Grail of the automotive world - such as solar powered cars, hydrogen, fuel cell, things like that.
With or without hybrids, I am quite sure that any automaker is going in that direction. I am sure they realize that whoever gets there first will be like the Pharmaceutical company who discovers the cure for cancer first. It will be their ultimate victory, and all society also benefits.
Actually I am not against hybrids per se. Nor am I against their further research. I am sure ALL automakers today have a hybrid research department in their research labs, in addition to other research on hydrogen, fuel cell etc.
The only think I am worried about is that with so much money, time, resources, manpower already devoted to hybrids, what if hybrids never mature ? Because U are also aware, hybrids are not the Holy Grail that we all want, that is, a renewable power source like wind, solar energy etc.
Why do I think there might be a chance that hybrids may not become mainstream in the end ? Here are my reasons :
1. If all car buyers are as rich as Leonardo Di Caprio, then all problems solved. We will all buy hybrids and live happily ever after (well, not quite actually as hybrids also still consume gas, albeit less)
But the reality is many car buyers have individual budgets and buying power. Now with gas at $3, there are already reports that more hybrids are suffering from sales slowdown, as more people realize that the break-even period is too long. And I also think that tax incentives for hybrids cannot go on indefinitely.
It may be a chicken and egg problem. For hybrids to come down in cost and thus shorten the break even point to attract even more buyers and become mainstream cars, the volume have to be very very large.
But for volume to be that large, the cost have to be very close to their non-hybrid counterparts in the first place. Which is going to happen first ?
2. While many people think that hybrids may finally become the bulk of cars sold when gas climbs to say $6 and above, I think there is another possibility that the opposite could happen.
Why ? Imagine gas climbing to $6. Inflation will increase, and as many people know, income rises for most people seldom beats inflation. And at $6 gas, many businesses could be hurt too. Maintaining a stable income could already be lucky if not retrenched.
With such inflation and slower income growth, more families will find that more of their income will be spent for daily necessities. There might be even less disposible income available to buy hybrids, which still cost much more than entry level cars, even with incentives still in place.
Thus in such a scenario, maybe even more people will turn to either $10000 entry level cars, or buy a used car at $5000-$10000 levels. Or if the worse case scenario occur when gas shoots up to $10 due to say a Middle East War breaking out(God forbid !), more people may not even be able to buy a decent car, like in the 1970s during the oil shock, when the economy worldwide suffered.
Thus I can't help but think that the obstacles facing hybrid maturity is formidable indeed. At $3 gas, they are still not mainstream cars. At $6, with reasons as above, their sales might even decline more, not increase, together with many other cars. If oil drops back to $2 again, people might go back to big SUVs and trucks again ! Of course oil will never reach $2. Its going higher and higher as time goes by. We will be lucky if that happens.
So perhaps our main hope lies in a breakthrough in renewable energy sources for car application. I can't help but wonder, maybe its more worthwhile for the money spent on hybrid research to be channeled to these renewable energy research, to hopefully accelerate the time needed to make it work.
In addition, I am thinking, there is also a big chance that if a person buys a hybrid, he may even do more driving, as he realize that his car burns less fuel. Thus overall the hybrid driver consume the same amount of gas a month as he increases his driving.
Sometimes I can't help but think that the fastest and most effective way to reduce overall oil consumption is a market driven energy price increase. Its going to be painful for everybody, but it will definitely drastically reduce oil consumption, be it hybrid users, SUV drivers, compacts etc.
Deep down inside I feel that to slow down energy consumption and give the scientists / engineers more time to find the Holy Grail, a steep price increase of gas is the most effective answer. But being the selfish consumer that I am, I also dread it, cause its going to be painful !
Thus there is really no easy way out of this energy starvation looming over our horizon. Hybrids do help, but considering the obstacles facing them, I am afraid they might not have a final huge effect afterall.
Another good way out is to build an even more vast network of public transport with more buses and mass rapid transit with electric trains that ferry hundreds of passengers per carriage. But how many people want to give up their cars ?
I recently read that gasoline consumption was down 0.6% from the same period a year ago. The historical trend had been for consumption to increase between 1.5-2.0% on a year to year basis. I suspect once we get more accustomed to $3/gallon gasoline the consumption will once again start increasing.
There is no way to come up with a perfectly fair and accurate system of determining road usage. Basing it on mileage with maybe a small coefficient for vehicle weight is probably as good as it can get. Pegging it to gasoline consumption clearly doesn't reflect usage. However it could be argued that this is a good method for the government to provide an ongoing tax break to drivers of fuel efficient vehicles. The problem is that if more and more drivers start opting for fuel efficient vehicles this will lead to shrinking revenue per usage. So eventually the current gas tax scheme will have to be overhauled.
They use the hospitals, subsidized or run by local taxes, equally if not more. Check an emergency room's visitors and see if they're in need or just ill and didn't want to go to their own doctor or wanted to come to the 'free' doctor.
The concept that percent of income is the base doesn't work; HBJ tried that are we're still stuck with the concept. A gallon of milk doesn't get adjusted in price based on the income of the purchaser. A car has the same value whether bought by someone of low income or high income. Not a convincing argument.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
First, welcome to the Forum.
I don't think you can buy any new hybrid for $20k. To achieve that 100 MPG realistically at least half your driving will be on batteries. Batteries DO NOT get cheaper just because you make more of them. There are some elements that just cost a lot of money in a battery. That being said I would be surprised if we ever see the 100 MPG Midsized sedan that is being talked about in the UK. First off, Toyota is trying to generate interest in the EU for their hybrids. No one wants them when they can get equal mileage from a diesel that is much simpler and more car for the money.
The Prius is lagging far behind in sales this year in the USA. It may be the Camry Hybrid has stolen much of it's market. I would rather have the TCH.
I still think today in the USA the Jetta TDI is the most bang for the buck. If you get it for a reasonable price. With VW pulling them off the market for MY 2007 they will be in big demand on the used car market.
As for your little cars. I can appreciate your enthusiasm for the little beasts. I don't see myself in one even with $10 gas. Maybe a Mini-Cooper, though they don't get great mileage. A VW Beetle TDI is probably the smallest car I would consider buying. The Safety of the little cars is just not good. They use cheap materials to get that price down to $12k. If I drive on the freeway at 70-75 MPH I want to at least be in an average sized vehicle. With all the semi trucks you can never be the biggest.
PS
We have a dandy electric trolley system in San Diego. It gets little use and costs us MILLIONS of tax dollars to subsidize. Maybe more will ride when gas gets to $5 per gallon. $3.30 per gallon has not cut traffic here. It is cool if you have all day to go somewhere.
True, and schools as well. But not roads, military, bridges, etc. The military alone is mostly to protect wealth. In any case, this is a digression. In terms of transportation infrastructure, it's pretty clear-cut.
The concept that percent of income is the base doesn't work
I guess you'd have to define the measure of "work". It "works" in terms of getting a certain amount of revenue. It "works" in terms of being progressive and getting (in theory) a larger % from the wealthy than the less wealthy. Of course, it doesn't "work" in other some terms.
A gallon of milk doesn't get adjusted in price based on the income of the purchaser.
Prices and taxes are 2 completely different things. One is market based (mostly) and the other is not.
Not a convincing argument.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same "argument".
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
me: The real road-tax scofflaws are the bicyclists. If everyone road a bike we would have no roads.
me: Of course, but the differentiator of ownership, from your examples, is the subject of Legality. When we speak of ownership, we speak of what is Legally recognized. You "own" something when it is Legally 100% yours. When it is legal to take away property because you do not pay an annual tax, then you're really not an owner. If you're not taxed on the contents of your house you DO own that property.
Since the local governments do have the legal authority to take your property, you don't own the house and land. "Owning" a house or the land underneath it in this country has become nothing more than an open-ended lease. Stop the lease (property tax) payments and the Repo-man cometh.
The bicyclists and the Amish.
So if we privatized road construction and maintenance, allowing these companies to set a system of tolls, then it would no longer be unfair to the poor? That's fine with me. Actually its being done in some areas. And there are liberals arguiing that it is unfair that only the more affluent can drive on these better, less congested roads. Well, its market based.
me: I believe in most places it is the local government below the state that assesses the property tax. Now they are not forced into assessing that tax. The laws could be changed such that the property tax is eliminated and the lost revenue would be collected via an income tax.
Here in NH we have no income tax or sales tax on the state or local levels. The main part of the state's revenue besides business taxes and taxes on meals, comes from property tax. There have been several attempts at enacting an income tax to lower the property tax. But the problem I see with that is that we'd then have 2 taxes which would of course increase faster than our paychecks. If we went to an income tax and no property tax, I could support that.
One of the most insidious issues in this country is how you pay so many different taxes, none of which is really huge, but put together it is a huge amount. I therefore vote against any candidate who wants to increase the different types of taxes, rather than reduce the number of taxes. I believe if people understood how much is taken in total from them, there would be a revolution.
I'm against any increase in auto (or other)taxes even in the name of reducing our oil consumption.
Second, it is against the law to not pay your taxes, so if you break the law, you may lose your freedom, your house, your car, your money, etc. This concept is not incompatible with ownership.
When it is legal to take away property because you do not pay an annual tax, then you're really not an owner.
This is an arbitrary redefinition of the word "own". I could as easily say that if one cannot stop a hurricane from destroying your house, then you do not "own" it.
You wouldn't be for shrinking government, would you? :-P
All taxes have always had the element of income redistribution. Unless your taxes go directly to fund something that benefits only yourself, it must be this way.
What I don't understand is that if I were to build an off-the-grid house in the middle of the desert I would still be assessed a property tax, albeit minimal, even though there would be zero infrastructure supporting me.
I didn't know that the military, the roads to hospitals, stores, etc. were zero.
Basically, the US is a club with fees and benefits. It's not that complicated.
Between property taxes and emminent domain you really can't "own" a home in this country.
Amazing, then, how many actually do.
Actually, in the context that we were discussing, that wouldn't change anything. Assuming similar annual miles driven, the taxes paid by the less wealthy would still be a much higher % of their income.
Actually its being done in some areas.
LOL. Yeah, it's a great idea, we need tolls every mile or 2 on all our roads. That shoudl eat up a healthy chunk of gas
And there are liberals arguiing that it is unfair that only the more affluent can drive on these better, less congested roads. Well, its market based.
Those liberals, can't they take a joke?