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
Boats? I live on the St. Croix River. You hardly see a large boat on the water anymore. People are boating less, selling their boats, and getting rid of their big trucks.
My bosses boat costs him now $300 a day to water ski with the kids. They used to go every weekend, but not anymore.
We tossed our Suburban for something smaller. It was getting to the point where I was embarrassed to put gas in it. I fealt like a dumbass. Instead of 15 mpg, I now get 22. Not a huge win, but a win none the less.
Fuel prices impact a lot of things.
I didn't mean to make it sound like I was beating you up about it. My point is that the only diesels you can get here right now are the medium-duty (3/4 ton) and better trucks and vans (so like a Ford F250, Chevy 2500, or a Dodge Sprinter...etc). In those vehicles, I agree there is a premium over the base gas engine, but in a lot of those cases, you need to upgrade from that engine to a larger one anyway to perform the task (you need the V10 to tow the really big stuff, or the PowerStroke Diesel).
The Jeep Liberty CRD (the only midsize SUV diesel I can think of) included a few option packages w/the diesel which makes things a bit more cloudy, kind of like the comparisons between the Civic LX/EX and the Civic Hybrid.
In the 80s the Jetta Diesel was cheaper than the gas one (maybe something about the diesel having like 60 horsepower...). The contemporary Jetta is in the same boat as the Liberty CRD where the engine is bundled. I am not sure of a factory premium for the cat-pea emissions Mercedes. The Jetta and the Benz both had ADM stickers here.
I am curious to see how Honda does with the diesel...on Autoline Detroit they were talking about America's memory of the diesel and how much it sucked back in the day.
$4/gal gas won't make me change a thing other than spend more on a fill up in the Burb and boat. At $5 it might start to make economic sense to buy a fuel efficient car to drive around in.
tpe
I agree. $4/gallon gas will represent an annoyance. $5/gallon will be a greater annoyance. $6/gallon might represent the time to make some adjustments. Of course these are personal thresholds that will vary by individual
gagrice
There are a lot of us that will not give up our MUCH Safer BOF vehicles. Or maybe it is just us War Babies that think that way. If this Sequoia was a diesel I would plan on keeping it until they bury me. Sometime in the next 3 to 5 years I hope to have a Tahoe sized SUV with a diesel that gets 30 MPG on the highway.
I certainly don't know your three personal situations but is it possible that your comments are driven by the benefit of being comfortable to well off? There is already a significant transfer of buying from BOFs to other vehilces. So who's the group not buying? Could it be that for those less well off they are the first to unload them as fuel went from $1.50 to $3.00. As you both noted $4.00 is not much of a deterrent. $5.00 might be ( bigger impact on a larger income ). $6.00 definitely would be decision time.
Gary, here's an interesting evaluation of the new Tahoe 2-Mode ( actually Yukon 2-M ) done by a member of the GreenHybrid forum with a preprodction vehicle provided by a GM engineer. Note the mileage.
Tahoe 2-M put through it's paces
Not to get off topic but when I was in the service I spent two boating seasons on a small boat station dealing with the boating public. I would never take my family out on a boat. I mean if you think people drive cars poorly wait until you see them in boats. :sick:
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
If a person can get 30 MPG combined with that new Tahoe Hybrid it should be a winner for GM. I hope they did not make more sacrifices in weight and solid materials. That is one reason I passed on the 07 Denali and bought the Sequoia. I wonder if the new generation Sequoia is as solid as the last?
The more I see of the crumple zone vehicles the less I like them. Came upon an accident yesterday with a new Camry and an old Volvo wagon. The front of the Camry was destroyed back to the windshield. The cabin seemed intact and no ambulance. So I assume no one was seriously injured. The Volvo did not look damaged at all. The rear bumper was messed up. I know all the arguments. It just does not seem the way to go. The higher cost of insurance and repair may dwarf the price of fuel over the life of our vehicles. I know the Sequoia insurance is about $450 per year less than my 05 VW Passat, for the same coverage. I was pleasantly surprised with the premium for a $50k vehicle. Fuel economy is no higher than 4th on my list of criteria for buying a vehicle.
Not much to the article, but it was okay.
I just saw the TV commercial for the Tahoe Hybrid and it looked interesting with 21 mpg vs.15 for the reg. Tahoe ....... then I looked it up on Edmunds.com and got the proverbial sticker shock.
$50,000!
That's for the 2WD model. The most expensive 2WD ICE Tahoe is $36,000. How does that $14K premium sound to our fair critics here? I thought the Malibu Hybrid's measly 2 mpg benefit was laughable, but once again, GM takes the cake.
Well, I suppose it's the thought that counts. Wait a minute. No, it's really the results that count! And here's my prediction for results:
GM will hype the heck out of the Tahoe Hybrid, produce way too few to meet even the paltry demand that it will create, then break its corporate arm patting itself on the back for such a rousing success.
Hey, it worked for Chrysler with the PT Cruiser.
Anyway, here's the math on this baby:
Figure a $3,000 tax credit from our friends in Congress. That takes the diff. down to $11,000. Then figure the regular Tahoe burns 1,000 gal. of gas per year (14 mpg / 14,000 miles) while the hybrid burns 670 gallons. At $3/gal., the annual price diff. is $1,000.
So it's easy to figure an 11-year payback for the average driver. The only hope for the TH buyer is that gas goes to $6 so the payback drops to 5.5 years -- slightly longer than the $900/month payments last.
.
My bosses boat costs him now $300 a day to water ski with the kids. They used to go every weekend, but not anymore.
I haven't seen that effect here in Illinois. All summer long the boat ramps were packed and the lakes were busy. I'm still on a waiting list to get a boat slip for next year. The campground were we are keeping our travel trailer also has a long waiting list.
Seems many with really big boats keep them as dock queens. But that has been going on for years.
Even if he filled up at $4/gal, which is possible at at marina, that is 75 gallons. Considering the avg. boat used for skiing should burn no more than 7 gallons/hr I don't know anyone that is skiing 10hrs. per day. What is he skiing behind? A 40 footer with twin big blocks? Then yeah, they'll burn lots of gas.
My boat has a 35 gallon tank and in the 5 years I've owned it I've only burned through a whole tank in a day once. That was sightseeing on Grand Lake of the Cherokees in OK. were we went about 150 miles
Our avg. outing usually results in putting about 2 running hours on the boat while being on the lake about 8 hours. So I burn maybe 10-12 gallons. The $50 in gas is still reasonable to entertain a family of 4 and friends. We probably spend more $$ on beer.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
There is a long discussion about the content and the pricing over at GMI with the general concensus that net for net in comparing similarly equipped vehicles the actual differential is about $5000-$6000. This would be prior to any IRS Tax Credits. The first year GM is only going to make about 10000 of these and they are only intended for upscale buyers who are expecting to pay $50K-ish for their SUV anyway. There are 4 trim levels in GMs trucks and SUVs. 1LT, 2LT, 3LT and LTZ. This hybrid is somewhere in the 3LT-LTZ level. A similar non-hybrid would have an MSRP of about $48000.
These might be seen as 'fully costed' units with the full amortization of the R&D costs along with the full variable costs. Again this is what Toyota did with the Prius in the beginning as it offered mostly the top trim with Navi, BT, etc. Now that the 'breakeven point has been reached on the Prius and Toyota wants to expand the volume there are far more base models available than top trims.
For the upscale GM buyer this year that want's a hybrid SUV and who wants to drive it to its best capabilities then cutting the fuel usage in half is definitely attainable.
Actual acquisition price of the vehile
Length of time of ownership
Miles driven annually or over ownership period.
Cost of fuel over the lifetime
Tax Credit if any ( AMT )
Resale value ( 3-5-7-10+ yrs? )
Real world fuel economy
I'll make some assumption which of course are subject to each individual
2-Mode $53000 - $0 disc = $53000
Non 2-M $48000 - $6000 disc = $42000
Tax Credit $2000
Real world Fuel Economy 25 mpg ( 4 gal/100 mi driven ) vs 16 mpg ( 6 gal / 100 mi driven )
Ownership: 6 yrs
Mileage: 15000 annually or 90000 over the ownership period
Avg cost of fuel over 6 yrs: 3.50, 4.00, 4.50, 5.00, 5.50, 6.00 = $4.75
Resale value: 35% of transaction price for either vehicle.
..... Cost .........2-Mode ... Non-Hyb
Acquis Price. $53000 ..... $42000
-Tax Credit....... 2000 ......... 0
-Resale Val.. $18550 ...... $14700
..NET Cost... $32450 ..... $27300
Cost of Fuel over 6 yrs of ownership ( 90000 mi )
Tot mi * rate/100 mi = 900 * 4 ...... 900 * 6
Fuel used over life = 3600 gal ..... 5400 gal
Cost per gal AVG : .. $4.75 ....... $4.75
Total Cost of fuel : $17100 ....... $25650
Vehicle cost + Fuel cost:
2-Mode : $32450 + 17100 = $49550
Non-hyb : $27300 + 25650 = $52950
If I had the choice of buying a 2-Mode vs a discounted 3LT or LTZ non-hybrid I'd opt for the 2-Mode.
The first and largest problem in our national fuel usage is making the large vehicle more fuel efficient.
Oh boy, here we go again. Gas guzzling trucks and SUVs are the root of all our dependence problems. Net usage is the issue. Which scenario results in more oil being imported? My wife who drives her Grand Prix company car 30k/yr or me who drives my Suburban about 12k miles a year, which most of it is with hauling people and or cargo.
I find it quite funny that people will bash someone because they drive an SUV no matter how little they drive, yet it's perfectly fine for someone to drive a Civic on a 50 mile round trip to work everyday so they can live in the burbs.
SUVs maybe part of the problem, but they certainly aren't the whole problem.
And how are you suffering as a result of people owning whatever they like to drive? Consumption has not gone down as a result of all the hybrids being sold. Food is more expensive partly due to higher transportation costs. Mostly due to the ignorance in trying to make alternate fuels competitive. Such as wasting perfectly good corn to make poor automobile fuel. So you can blame your suffering on Congress not the fellow with an SUV to haul his family around in safety.
Are you kidding me??? :confuse:
1) It's called supply and demand. The more we demand, the more restricted the supply, the more the price goes up. YOU may not be suffering and be able to afford $6/gallon gas, but your fellow citizens might not.
1a) This doesn't even touch the whole effect of those poor families being completely taken out of our economy and the resulting consequences. ECON 101
2) You know as well as I do where most of this money is going. It's parts of the world which hate us and want to take our rights, including the right to be greedy and do whatever we want.
3) Maybe there is enough gas for you and I, but what about our descendants. I care about my legacy, and I don't want to be the reason my great great grandchildren live in huts. You'll laugh this off, of course, because you aren't able to come to grips w/my 1st two points which will lead to this 3rd one...
Those in a more comfortable class with little consideration for the price may just buy what they want because they can. This is all well and good with a theoretically unlimited supply. But the supply of petro-fuel is not unlimited so the excessive usage by the upper class does have consequences on the lower class. It seems very 'wrong' to be writing these words with regard to American society but they're accurate.
One might even foresee a backlash by those being priced out of the fuel market against those for whom the price is of no concern? 'I can't afford to get 15 gal of gas to drive to work and you use 300 gal per weekend for enjoyment.'
There are already 'class' differences here in the US and everyone know they exist; country clubs, clothing, jewelry, etc. etc. But there is no commodity right now that I can see that can be bought by one class and thereby taken away from another class so as to diminish the lower class's standard of living. Petro-fuel is potentially such a commodity though.
I do think though that at such a time this struggle begins to arise there will be rationing imposed. It's one of the key reasons for CAFE 35 IMO; keeping peace in the streets. I do remember the first oil crunch when line jumpers were shot dead; taking a gun to the gas station was just smart; locking your vehicle in your garage was smart to keep vandals from siphoning off gas from your tank.
drom: 2) You know as well as I do where most of this money is going. It's parts of the world which hate us
That would be Canada, and I do know there is a little animosity.
drom: 3) Maybe there is enough gas for you and I, but what about our descendants.
But if there is a 200 year supply of fossil fuels left, a 20% or 50% savings in fuel today, doesn't really extend the fuel much longer. There are many thousands of years to come, so the future has to be in other energy sources than coal, natural gas, and oil. I suggest we put a lot of $ into physics research - CERN and its accelerators, and the work on fusion reactors. Maybe with a better understanding of the subatomic world and what causes the infinite force and energy f gravity, we will have a new generation of energy to produce electricity.
It was science fiction, but if you remember the movie Aliens, the colonists were running a massive fusion reactor which was adapting the atmosphere of the planet to make it liveable. Now if we had fusion power, I'd guess we could change the CO2 level to whichever we wish. With that sort of power you could pull the CO2 from the air, compress it, and reform oil.
That's sci-fi right now but based on what should be achievable, especially given the accelerating increase in technology and knowledge. I could imagine our ancestors worrying about whether whales would become extinct and their fuel - whale oil was about to run out. The future s not about conserving some fossil fuels, but really moving into the nuclear age.
Ahhh, you've fallen for the politically correct explanation hook, line and sinker.
On the face of it yes we do give most of our fuel money to our friends in Canada and Mexico. But then comes our good friend Hugo Chavez then the Saudi Royal Family ( and indirectly the Wahabi element ). But even if we didn't buy one drop from Venezuela or the Mideast this is the real situation.
25% of all the oil from every well on earth is used by the USA.
25% of the oil income to every potentate, terrorist, friend, neutral party is paid to them by the USA.
We use 25% of the oil consumed every day on this planet. If we bought every drop from our two huge friendly producers North and South then all that would do is free up the rest of the producers ( most NOT our friends ) to fill the vacuum left by Canada and Mexico. Petroleum is a fungible product so Canadian oil can be burned in Chinese autos as easily as Iranian or Venezuelan orl can. Take Canada out of the picture and that just means that Iran and Venezuela supply more.
Bottom line: We use 25% of every drop pumped from every well on earth. And we pay all the producers 25% of their revenue.
No,
I asked how YOU were suffering and you give me scenarios of those that may be affected if the price of gas goes up. Well I remember when it was hard for me to get enough money for gas when it was 29 cents per gallon. When oil dropped to $10 per barrel in 1998 we got our pay cut because work was slow in the oil field. No one worried about those of us that were affected.
Many of the people complaining about buying oil from those that hate us, also want us to get out of the region completely. Now how much sense does that make? Without a Middle East presence, oil could go up to $200 per barrel. Then where would the poor be you seem worried about?
No, most of the money is not going to countries that hate us. Some is yes. We still get more of our oil from Canada and Mexico. When oil hit $100 a barrel OPEC was still under $94 per barrel. If you want to look at the real culprits check out the commodity brokers. That is where much of the greed starts and ends.
What about your great, great, great grandchildren? If many posters here are correct the oil will be long gone before they see the light of day. Do you think the Chinese are going to cut back on using oil because the poor in the USA cannot afford to drive a car? They know poor, and are ready to move up to what we have taken for granted the last 50 years.
I imagine my carbon footprint is smaller than the average poster here on Edmund's. It is no more than 2% of the GW disciples trying to send us back to the huts you mention. The whole idea behind GW is to have the masses live in urban cubicles and ride the bus, while they continue to live in 30 room mansions and fly around the World in a Gulfstream I got news for them and you. It ain't gonna happen. I worked too hard for 45 years to risk my behind in a Yugo. Feel free to drive one if you like.
25% of the oil income to every potentate, terrorist, friend, neutral party is paid to them by the USA.
Would you feel less guilty if it was the Chinese using that oil? The sooner we suck the Middle East dry the better. That will leave them without an income to terrorize the rest of the World. We could buy from Russia. They are just getting their system up to speed. Putin can get even richer than he is.
The problem as I see it is you do not like being on the highway with all the PU trucks and BOF SUVs. They are an ever present danger to anyone in a tiny car like a Prius. That is a justifiable reason. Problem is too many people after owning a bigger vehicle do not want to be crammed into a little car. That should be easy to understand. I know on this coast there is NO shortage of big honkin vehicles to contend with. I sometime feel small in the Sequoia next to the monster trucks that are more plentiful than you can probably imagine. Come visit the San Diego Suburbs and see for yourself. I am sure they still outnumber the CamCords by a bunch.
However I do see some nasty consequences coming around to bite us in the butt if we don't get moving and get all the vehicles in our national fleet to be much more efficient than at present...
..class struggle is a possibility
..rationing to avoid a class struggle is a definite possibility
..zooming fuel prices are going to be a fact of life until we can switch to alternate fuels
..funding terrorism directly or indirectly is unfortunately part of our shortsightedness.
The higher the price of fuel goes the wealthier they get.
If it gets too bad then I'll just stay home and play poker. Prius or not.
That is comical to be skiing behind a 750hp+ boat as I'd be surprised if his boat is under 30'. And knowing what those types of boats cost well into 6 figures, $300 should be chump change. I bet that thing is a blast to ride in.
Considering that most engines have max fuel burn rates of up to 10% of hp, meaning a 750hp engine can burn 75 gallons an hour at full throttle. I bet that makes the tree huggers cringe.
Naturally in a boat like that (as I stated) my avg. burn rates don't apply and a 100 gallons of gas would be easy to burn in a day.
Time for a blast from the past:
paisan, "What will you do when gas price rises above $4 a gallon?" #3, 5 Apr 2007 10:00 am
1) From what I've read the taxes (some) on gas in the US support highway maintenance. If we as a nation consume less gas, how do you think these lost tax revenues will be recaptured?
2) Isn't the increase in gas prices in the US primarily due to the eroding value of the dollar not supply vs. demand?
1) Oregon and Texas (IIRC) is considering a per-mile fee to compensate for lower gas consumption, using GPS units in all cars. Hello, Big Brother!
2) Partly, particularly in the last year or so, but prices in, say, Euros are up, too.
Yes if each of us uses less gas then each of us will pay less in taxes for maintenance. However the problem for all of us is that we're growing and growing and growing. Soon there won't be a place for gagrice to retreat since traffic will dominate every facet of our lives. In fact over the next 15-20 yrs we as a population will use as much as is available. It might not be available though or it might be but at such a high price that it will kill the economy.
2) Only 20% of the increase is due to the fall in the value of the US$. Jan 1 last year it was 1.23 $/E this year it was 1.48 $/E. Some of the increase is due to speculative buying on the part of traders, some is due to Messers Bush/Cheney and a little is due to our own actual demand this year which is higher than last year. It will be higher next year also and the year after that and after that and ......
Sure we do. The truth is that YOU don't pay your fair share, because YOU don't drive enough miles to pay YOUR portion of the road maintenance. In fact, since you own MORE THAN ONE vehicle, you should be subject to a PROGRESSIVE tax rate, to compensate for the additional harm your multiple-vehicle lifestyle is causing our infrastructure and our environment.
Now, we all know that's B.S.
Gagrice actually deserves the thanks of tax authorities and environmentalists because the amount of money he paid and continues to pay in sales tax, registration tax, license fees, and, yes, gas taxes, goes to fund all sorts of gov't and environmentalist whimsy.
This includes, but is not limited to, HOV lanes, bike paths, mass transit schemes, walking trails, and even the day-to-day expenses of state government. That's right, here in Texas (and I'm sure in other states), the boys in Austin siphon off 25% of gas taxes and put it in the "general fund." Then, of course, they claim they just don't have enough money to build new roads ..... unless they're toll roads, of course.
That's how socialist logic works -- you stretch it, twist it, and spin it to suit your political agenda. Here's a good example:
HYBRIDS = TAX EVASION?
Greedy hybrid owners are stealing money from the U.S. Treasury by taking $2,000+ tax credits! Some states also offer similar credits for hybrid cars. This is in addition to the stealth tax cut owners receive in the form of reduced gasoline taxes on their high-mileage vehicles.
While war rages overseas, and homeless children go hungry in our streets, wealthy hybrid drivers glide by in their rolling tax shelters, oblivious to the hardships they cause for the hard working employees of state and federal taxation authorities, who must toil longer and harder to devise new methods of extracting the "fair share" from these cunning capitalists and their tax-avoidance schemes.
(socialists love to use run-on sentences)
And if that weren't bad enough, hybrid owners in some states have managed to trick unsuspecting authorities into issuing H.O.V. lane permits. So besides avoiding taxes, they avoid traffic while the rest of the motoring public idles in their daily commute like so many second-class citizens.
Recent reports indicate that various retail chains and shopping malls have created special parking spaces for hybrid vehicles, in an attempt to attract some of the money that hybrid owners are gleefully spending on themselves, instead of paying their taxes.
This travesty must end before it bankrupts our great nation!
.
I think the only thing that really annoys me about hybrids is that deal where they let them into the HOV lanes. I'm not a big fan of HOV lanes to begin with, because by and large, they just don't work. They cost countless millions of $ to build, yet so few people use them, that they really don't help much with congestion. And worse, there's one near me, on US Route 50, that's HOV 24/7. Now I could understand it during rush hour times, but why, oh WHY, does it still need to be HOV a 10:00 at night on a Saturday?!
Anyway, the whole idea of an HOV lane is to attempt to take a few cars off the road by encouraging carpooling. Allowing hybrids into that lane, regardless of how many people are on board, does nothing towards accomplishing this goal. It doesn't force people to carpool.
Plus, consider that hybrids usually get better economy in stop and go driving than long, steady highway driving. You'd actually be doing the driver a favor making him stay out of the HOV lanes! If anything, if saving fuel is the primary concern, you're better off making the biggest, heaviest, thirstiest vehicles get into those free-flowing lanes, since they tend to cut their fuel usage the most when they're travelling a constant speed. For instance, if you get a tractor trailer out of the congestion, where it might be getting 4 mpg, and into a free flowing lane, where it might get 6 mpg, just think of the fuel savings! For every thousand miles it travelled, that rig would save about 83 gallons! :P
Anyway, if the gov't wants to reward people for their purchase, how about going by just fuel economy, rather than whether it's a hybrid or not? For instance, let anything that gets an EPA highway rating of 40 mpg or better into the HOV lanes? That would reward people for focusing on economy, and not whether it's a hybrid or not. I wonder if you could take a Chevy Silverado hybrid into the HOV lanes? :surprise:
If you came up with that I love it. Too funny...
On my taxes with 3 vehicles. The LS400 that is almost 19 years old and 96k miles costs very little in license and insurance. Same goes for the 1999 Ford Ranger. The new Sequoia cost an arm and a leg in sales tax. I doubt that all three will see a total of 10k miles this year. And for us that is excessive as we have been moving since July. One 30 mile round trip per day. I would like to take some cross country trips in the Sequoia. It has such a short range compared to the old Suburban and the MB Cruiser. I hate stopping every 375 miles to look for fuel. I should have held out for a diesel SUV.
Actually, I don't think its the HEVs that are doing the damage to the roads, a 3200lb passenger car doesn't do the same damage as a 6500 lb or a 10-ton truck. Michigan has some of the highest weight limits on tractor trailers and they have many axles to support that weight. Michigan also has some of the worst roads in the country.
I think local roads are going to be a vehicle registration tax/property tax issue, and superhighways will become toll roads. I don't see a tax/mile scenario working. I do see a MUCH higher tax on petroleum based fuels.
Most of the resentment against hybrids and mainly the Prius is the HOV access. I don't like HOV lanes either. I have used the one going to LA a couple times and ended up stuck behind some dweeb that was going to save the world by driving 55 MPH. Once in you cannot get out for several miles. The rest of the traffic is going by you at 75 MPH. Allowing solo occupant cars in HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes negates the whole purpose of having them. It is just another attempt to control the populace.
For a Democracy or a Democratic Republic, the direction the tax dollars go has been removed from the people.
In CA they added tax to diesel so the semi trucks would pay a higher portion of the road maintenance. Problem is the long haul truckers fill their tanks in AZ & NV to get around the higher cost. Now the Mexicans are coming up and across the country. Diesel is much cheaper and not low sulfur in Mexico.
In many areas, local roads are already like that. Where I live, the Maryland suburbs outside DC, the county doesn't pay for new residential streets anymore. They make the developer cover that cost, who then passes it on to the home buyer. And then, once the housing development is finished, they have HOAs that are responsible for maintaining and repairing the roads.
And even on the county roads, it's us, the landowners that pay for those roads. They don't do it anymore, but our property tax bills used to itemize every little component of the taxes and one of those items was front footage to the road. So my property, with its 271 feet of frontage would get hit harder than my one neighbor with 137 feet or my other neighbor with 156 feet, and the few flag lots in our neighborhood, with only 15 feet of frontage, would get off almost scott-free. :mad: And sure, we benefit from having the road and being able to use it, but I don't get 18 times more value than my flag lot neighbors. I can understand paying more in taxes overall, if I have a more valuable property, but how much of your property is exposed to the road doesn't make it any more valuable, unless you're looking to subdivide.
I think we discussed this a few years ago. The best way to look at the subject is to compare a Civic hybrid to an ICE only hybrid. If the hybrid gets 30% better mileage it is paying 30% less tax for a heavier footprint on the road. Same for the Prius. The LRR tires actually are more weight per square inch than the average SUV. Most highways are designed to carry Semi truck loads. So neither the hybrid or the SUV are going to hurt it. Just the fact that I pay 3 times the road tax that a Prius driver pays. Not that I am complaining. Just a fact!
So true. In the 1940s & 50s the corner lot was considered the best in a neighborhood. That is until they started doing assessments by the frontage foot. I look for flag lots for that very reason. It also gets you further from the neighborhood if you have a longer driveway. Just takes more gas getting home.....
"That pinko-commie commentary would actually be funny, if it weren't so scary that people think like that! "
Aww geeze, get over it. You'd probably hear harsher stuff than that if you turned on TVLand and caught a censored, content-edited episode of "All In the Family" :P
Unrelated, here in CT they charge property taxes on vehicles based on their assessed value. I know this particular tax is not nation wide. There has been discussion of eliminating this in my state, although I guess I could see a similar tax (not called property) being levied per vehicle if we consume less gasoline. This would not however appropriately tax those that use the roads any more less, but may distribute this type of tax to those that could afford it i.e., higher assessed value equals more taxes paid in.
With the Fed expected to lower rates, I do not see how pump prices will level or decline with impending inflation to follow. As kdhspyder stated the speculators will have a field day. I believe only 5% of futures contracts end with the commodity trading hands...now that's a general statement on futures, since I do not have data on crude.
I think the correct term would be tax avoidance.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
OK I will beat that, how about a canoe, uses zero gas to operate and the additional gas used by your car to haul it around in practically nothing.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
True, but I don't want to paddle around the lake all of the time and I don't want to drive a Prius.
We live on a small lake or a large pond, depends how you look at it. We have a 4 person paddle boat that we use frequently throughout the summer. Does that qualify me for some carbon credits, so I can burn gas on the weekends for our real boat?
Hey, I love sailing, so maybe if gas gets to expensive I'll trade in the dino juice burning powerboat for a blow boat.