Real estate taxes "are" indeed determined in part by "certain features" of house in my state.
Apples and oranges. The feature is only taxed if the feature has economic value.
There is not a linear relationship between the economic value of cars and horsepower ratings. Some cars can have lower horsepower, yet still have higher economic value because of other features, which is why a 3-series BMW can have less horsepower than a V-8 Mustang, yet still cost more money.
You're obviously just looking for an excuse to punish people who buy performance cars, because that ties into your fixation with slowing everyone down. Drivers literally vote with their feet, but you apparently don't see much need for the democratic process if it contradicts your vision for the rest of us.
you: There is something called the law of diminishing returns and it applies to HP in a car.
me: thank you for the intelligent answer. The bigger bank account is certainly a consideration. Yes we all must determine where to spend or invest our resources for future needs. Maybe you don't buy the most powerful car you can afford now, since you save to buy a more capable vehicles in 5 years. I can accept that.
And yes I understand diminishing returns. I'm an engineer and design things to specifications and determine what safety margins and layers of backups/safety are incorporated. These engineering judgments are certainly based on probabilities of events happening and available resources.
Now having said that, if you ask me what is Better or Best in any given design, I will answer - the design with the highest capabilities. If we were talking about a bridge, Better would be a structure that can withstand a 9.0 earthquake rather than an 8.0, all else being the same except for the cost. If we were talking about car brakes, we would say the design that stops the car in 110' is better than the design on the same car that stops it 140' - EVEN IF 140' WAS ADEQUATE FOR NORMAL DRIVING. In this similar case I rather be in a car that can stop in 110'.
The brake system that stops the car in 140' may cost $500, while the brake system that stops in 110' may cost $2,000. Yes that fits the law of diminishing returns; BUT it does NOT invalidate that the 110' braking system is better.
"The brake system that stops the car in 140' may cost $500, while the brake system that stops in 110' may cost $2,000. Yes that fits the law of diminishing returns; BUT it does NOT invalidate that the 110' braking system is better."
Of course a brake system that stops a car in 110 feet vs 140 is better. Just like a brake system that stops the same car, same speed in 90 feet is even better. We all understand diminishing returns, and snakeweasel is right on some accounts. More hp is better is less hp. A higher end audio system is better than a lower end. Fancy high end leather on the seats is better than vinyl or ette. But of course a car that has all of the those options may cost $1.2 million dollars and may not be that much safer than a car the doesn't go as fast, stops longer and has inferior interior materials. But you decide.
you: The issue is how many more accidents would be had if all teenage kids were driving high performance cars?
me: A product, which is an inanimate object is not to blame for its use or misuse. Don't make me think you're one of those people who dismiss Personal Responsibility. If a 16 year isn't responsible they shouldn't be driving. And if the kid isn't responsible the parents should be, that either the kid doesn't drive or that they don't get behind the wheel of a 400hp caddy.
If we don't want to make the same mistakes over and over again as a society, we should learn from History. Prohibition was passed because a minority abused alcohol, and therefore it had to be totally banned, despite that the majority wanted alcohol and didn't abuse it. Those sorts of solutions where the majority are punished because of the actions of a few, are counterproductive.
That just shows the drivers in New Jersey are bad drivers.
I wouldn't debate him about his alleged data, it's based upon a falsehood that was already corrected for him on the other thread. He may keep repeating his misstatements, but that doesn't make them accurate.
I remember seeing Dr. Zhivago for the first time... In Panghyo, South Korea.
I really couldn't get over the fact the so many of my Korean co-workers readily agreed with that sentiment.
It destroyed my faith in defending South Korea against the communist North. For if the South already believed in the principals that the North espoused... then what the heck were we doing there in the first place.
Let them all live in that 'glorious worker's paradise' that the communism they want brings to them.
you: I generally buy smaller high performance cars or cars that can be modified to suit my needs.
No car I have ever bought has exceeded $18,000 but I asure you it shows it tailights to cars costing upwards of $50-60K.
me: I was about to make this point, to those who would tax a vehicle based on the hp it sold with; when you're fine example came along. I'm sure someone here will then suggest we tax SEMA members, so they're sales drop and they go out of business.
These type of Geeky/Eggheaded arguments just make me sick
I have to disagree with you here. Eggheaded arguments are usually based upon factual data to support them; here, I've just seen emotional arguments that people "feel" that horsepower is bad. (Not sure where this puts me -- I guess my 200-hp car is twice is immoral as is a 100 hp car, but half as immoral as a 400-hp car?)
So far, I haven't seen here or elsewhere how horsepower has been shown to be inherently dangerous, therefore I don't see a factual basis to punish people for having it. While I see plenty of evidence that very young drivers tend to be reckless, I haven't see any evidence at all that the average buyer of a high-power vehicle is more dangerous than is anyone else.
you: I remember seeing Dr. Zhivago for the first time... In Panghyo, South Korea.
me: because of your name, I would've guessed Japan. I wish I picked that name!
Since we mentioned taxes here as a way to curb purchases of high hp, I would just like you to ponder the question of: "Can you ever really own something, if you have to pay an annual amount for that property; or it'll be taken away from you eventually for non-payment?"
I'm amazed that I agree with almost this entire post, after the last few weeks of agreeing with little you posted. Wow.
You have agreed with me in that you can objectively measure the performance of objects, and declare one better than the other. The only comment in your list, that I have, is that "leather or vinyl" is subjective, just like picking a favorite color is subjective.
"That just shows the drivers in New Jersey are bad drivers"
Actually New Jersey's normalized rates are fairly low. California's normalized rates are fairly high. Even with the spike in fatalities after the speed limit was raised, NJ still appears to be a safer place to drive, than say California, whose drivers are far worse than New Jersey drivers.
Actually, Lave did that in his study of the increase from 55 to 65 mph, and numerous studies on speed variance show that drivers driving at speeds somewhat above the mean have fewer accidents than those driving more slowly.
And there have been numerous studies that show that increasing speed increases risk, as much as a 5% increase with each 1MPH increase in speed. But since those studies don't support your falsehood you summery dismiss them. Also I might remind you that you presented no study that showed the increasing the speed limit decreases speed variance (remember saying it and showing it are two different things).
You can repeat the same monotonous falsehoods another fifty times, but at the end of the day, they are still falsehoods.
Yes I see that you do repeat the same old falsehoods.
At least now you've given us a chance to see what the tyrants would do if they had the opportunity to impose their ways on us.
#1 how did I do that?
#2 what did that show you?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I still haven't seen anyone explain how Lower Power is an advantage over Higher Power.
An no one here has explained why 400 HP is advantageous to say 250 HP in the average car. Sure they try to justify owning a high HP car with rather silly claims but they haven't shown me why I need all the HP that can be shoved under the hood. OK if you want it fine by me but don't insult my intelligence by using those claims to justify it.
so are you saying that having less power in a road-rage incident would be better? Explain how? To put this mathematically: (options of a low power vehicle) + (options available to a more powerful vehicle) = total options. I would think you would want "total options" to be as high as possible.
I am just saying flooring it to get out of there may not work simply because then you just might be making matter worse if the guy decides to chase you. Secondly that may not be an option due to traffic or other obstacles. Sure you may need all your options but using power may not be an option or the proper option.
Last time I was in such a situation I played the guys game let him get in front of me and when he was I just simply turned. Never saw the guy again and no power was needed.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Now having said that, if you ask me what is Better or Best in any given design, I will answer - the design with the highest capabilities.
Ok I will answer as an accountant and an economist (since I have degrees in both). Take the bridge for instance, given a choice between one that may withstand an 8.0 or a 9.0 earthquake. I live in an area that rarely sees earthquakes and hasn't seen anything over 6 or so in a few million years. That means between the two I would choose the cheapest since they both exceed what is needed. the bridge that is built to withstand an 8.0 earthquake will perform as well as the one that can withstand an 9.0 when we get our little 3.5 earthquakes.
The thing is getting the biggest is not always getting the best. Why spend the extra funds to get performance you will never need. This is why people in Alaska don't have air conditioning.
Following your logic I should get an aircraft carrier for a fishing boat since it has more capability and who knows, I might want to land a plane on my fishing boat some day. Yeah I know that it is an silly extreme but it explains my point, why pay for extra that will never be used.
The is a point where adding additional HP is useless since it will never be used in everyday driving.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You're right. The insurance should charge a premium for high horsepower and vehicles that are modded beyond stock capabilities.
In many cases insurance companies will charge you more if there is a higher HP engine in the car. Try getting a quote for a Mustang with a V-6 then one for a GT and you might see the GT being more.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
We're talking auto taxes here based on hp. A discussion on what is a "fair" income tax is for some other website; or else a Host will shut this down.
Now back to your Bugatti. The purchaser is going to pay to pay either a large sales tax or a large registration tax, or both in almost any state. Does anyone know of a state that doesn't have any tax based on a car's value? They are also going to pay a gas guzzler tax, which is a function of the engine.
The problem I have with your opinion of adding another tax to the purchaser because either 1) he can afford it - which has a hint of jealous towards those are who are successful or lucky; or 2) is a good idea because you don't like it; are both 2 lousy reasons for a tax.
I'm not a proponent of trying to stop people from doing things I don't like; unless it involves murder, assault, rape, and robbery. I wouldn't get into these games that because I don't like people who can afford to ski in Vail, have pribate planes and boats, ... should be punished with a tax because I don't like it. Control your own life, and let others control theirs - the world will be much more peaceful the closer we can get to that.
I've just seen emotional arguments that people "feel" that horsepower is bad.
Who has said that horsepower is bad? Who has said that more horsepower is immoral. The emotional arguments here are those justifying high horse power cars so that just in case they need to the can get to the hospital faster. Or those that said more HP is better in any accident. So on and so forth.
Oh also this post you wrote that I am responding to seems to be emotionally based.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
you: Since you have to pay annual property taxes and it can be taken away from you for non payment do you really own a home? The answer is yes.
me: So if you don't pay the taxes for a few years on your house, and the sheriff comes to the door, with an eviction notice, and your house is auctioned off, your furniture is hauled away, and someone else moves in to "your" house, and they give that person the deed, you still own it? If you still say "yes", and you have some money, I have some business propositions for you.
We're talking auto taxes here based on hp. A discussion on what is a "fair" income tax is for some other website;
I never mentioned another website and my statement on fair income taxes was addressed to your remarks that taxing based on HP is unfair. Basically saying that the argument has no merit.
The problem I have with your opinion of adding another tax to the purchaser because either 1) he can afford it - which has a hint of jealous towards those are who are successful or lucky; or 2) is a good idea because you don't like it; are both 2 lousy reasons for a tax.
First off I wasn't the one who proposed taxation based on HP, nor am I arguing for or against it. Secondly taxing someone "because they can afford it" is the basis of many of the taxes in this country. Finally you forgot a third reason, to encourage the use of more fuel efficient lesser HP engines. In these days of questionable energy that would be a very good reason for the tax.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
So if you don't pay the taxes for a few years .... do you still own it? If you still say "yes", and you have some money, I have some business propositions for you.
Ah thats how the game is played, ask a question then when someone answers it you change the question and go on as if the answer given was to the changed question.
If you want to go back to your original question we can discuss it, if your going to play games just go away.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
This is not just directed at you. Everyone forget about the other topic. Call a truce, whatever.
1) Vehicles are being sold with more power with each redesign, being driven by peoples' demand for more power. 2) Some states are raising the speed limits. 3) More and more people are driving. 4) Many people exceed the speed limits. 5) Cars are being made that are safer.
Now we could argue forever who's got the best reports; since all these sorts of things are changing (and there are probably other variables) change, frankly the only number of consequence in judging how safe the roads are is "Fatalities/Injuries per million miles driven". That is the big picture.
Since that is going down, we have not done anything VERY bad, so far by increasing speed limits or hp/torque.
We are NOT going to do this again. This is not the "Should Speed Limits Be Repealed?" discussion.
Further postings getting back into the same endless arguement about whose sources are right and all the rest that got the other topic shut down will simply be removed.
1) Vehicles are being sold with more power with each redesign, being driven by peoples' demand for more power.
Is there much demand for more power? Yes there are cars getting more and more power but what is the HP of the average car? There are some models out there that sell more 4 bangers than V-6's. So is the average person really wanting more or is it just a smaller segment of the population?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You: So you're one of these people who believe that if afew hundred or thousand people abuse a product, that the millions and millions of people who don't abuse the use of a product can't have it? We can't buy Toulene because people make it into Meth? No fertilizer because you can make a bomb? We can't have alcohol because some people get drunk?
me: No. If you can afford to pay for a 600-800 HP car, and the gas it will guzzle, and the insurance it will cost, and have proven you will use it __RESPONSIBLY__ (advanced driving class or at minimum absolutely NO points or violations on your license), you should be able to buy one. Use the car improperly, and you should be anywhere from penalized to having the car taken away.
There are playgrounds for these kinds of cars...they're called race tracks and drag strips. There, there are no speed limits - just other cars to play dodgeball with.
As for regular highways, every year I watch drivers of these higher powered cars take more chances and do greater risks. Safer cars can only do so much - they cannot protect us from fools behind wheels.
I still haven't seen anyone explain how Lower Power is an advantage over Higher Power. All I've seen is comments that Higher Power may not be used much.
Re unusable HP such as on Z-- Corvette or Bugatti. These certainly have a lot of HP. Advocates of lots of redundant power should put in Costco building sized furnace in the next house they build/have built just to have the extra power blowers and btus.
If you can afford to pay for a 600-800 HP car, and the gas it will guzzle, and the insurance it will cost, and have proven you will use it __RESPONSIBLY__ (advanced driving class or at minimum absolutely NO points or violations on your license), you should be able to buy one. Use the car improperly, and you should be anywhere from penalized to having the car taken away.
Above sounds good. Don't forget to add exponential rate HP tax for 600 HP. Haven't done equations yet, but based on Bugatti $100,000/year HP tax rate, maybe 600 HP could be $40,000 tax for priviledge to use US public roads.
Since we mentioned taxes here as a way to curb purchases of high hp, I would just like you to ponder the question of: "Can you ever really own something, if you have to pay an annual amount for that property; or it'll be taken away from you eventually for non-payment?"
Its done all the time with the houses/condos/townhomes we own. If you don't pay your real estate tax bill, court action will be initiated and eventually your house is taken away if you don't pay the bill.
Tax on HP and weight of private vehicles would be an equitable way to fund road building/maintenance. Persons that might import Bugattis to US would probably not want to drive on public roads anyway. They would not have to apply for license and pay tax. Cars would be locked up and would be taken to shows in enclosed semi trailers. Those who wanted to show off their Bugatti on the roads would have to pay $100,000 tax to get license tag.
Following your logic I should get an aircraft carrier for a fishing boat since it has more capability and who knows, I might want to land a plane on my fishing boat some day. Yeah I know that it is an silly extreme but it explains my point, why pay for extra that will never be used.
---
You should buy an aircraft carrier! If the fishing boat and carrier both cost the same, you should pick the carrier. Even if is was a few thousand dollars more, you get more value out of the carrier than you would the fishing boat.
More bang for the buck, if you'll pardon the pun.
(if nothing else, the resale value should be higher on the carrier than the fishing boat... as there are a lot of countries out there that would gladly pay a premium for one)
Tax on HP and weight of private vehicles would be an equitable way to fund road building/maintenance.
Still no explanation has been provided as to what is so "equitable" about this horsepower tax, versus a tax on the color of the paint, the size of the tires or the number of presets on the stereo. Your claim that it is equivalent to an ad valorem tax was clearly not valid, as was shown above, because we know that cars are valued based upon numerous components, horsepower being just one of many of these.
In a free society, we usually like to know why we are being taxed, and we like to see a justification for the rates selected, particularly when they are very high. "I said so" usually doesn't cut it, so you might want to move away from the "I told you it was equitable" line of reasoning and elaborate on why any freethinking American could ever even consider such an outlandish, extreme idea.
If you really want to encourage reduced fuel consumption, I would think that you would want taxes that would actually discourage people from using fuel. That's what the Europeans and Japanese do, which probably explains why people living in those regions can drive 1.4 liter cars without having to apologize for them. (Better yet, they also manage to drive these cars at speeds you'd like to prevent; perhaps you have a plan to tax that, too?)
you: Still no explanation has been provided as to what is so "equitable" about this horsepower tax,
me: Yes, I would think that the first thing to do would be to make a case as to WHY, we would want to tax people based on hp. It's like skipping the trial and going right to the sentencing!
I would still like to hear why lower hp/torque is better than higher hp/torque in a vehicle, if the individual has the money to purchase and run the vehicle. To me, it is no different than asking me if I'd like to be able to bench-press 300Lb or 400Lb; I'd always choose 400Lb. And I'd prefer to run 100yd. in 10 sec. rather than 11 sec. And I'd rather have an IQ of 160, than an IQ of 140. I may not need the capability difference often, but it's useful to have at times.
"me: Yes, I would think that the first thing to do would be to make a case as to WHY,"
I agree, the question is WHY? For example, Why is there a gas guzzler "tax"? Why does California assess the weight of your vehicle and other states assess value? When one leases some states charge tax on the cap cost, others charge tax on the depreciated portion?
Unfortunately the government does not need to make a case it can and will pass any tax any time any where. It is the governments' job to separate you from your money in any way it can.
The government does not need to show a why in assessing horsepower, it already has shown it can assess a tax on gas mileage.
You should buy an aircraft carrier! If the fishing boat and carrier both cost the same, you should pick the carrier.
Ah but they don't cost the same. Nor does car 'A' with 400 HP cost the same as car 'A' with 220 HP. Nor is the cost to operate or maintain is the same.
More bang for the buck, if you'll pardon the pun.
Pun is forgiven, now are you really getting more bang for the buck if your not using that bang. Case in point we went out in the Caddy last night. Keeping up with traffic and even getting past it a lot I don't think I ever broke 2500 RPMs. So the question is am I really getting more bang for the buck or is the extra money paid a waste?
if nothing else, the resale value should be higher
Does the higher original price, more use and maintenice cost get paid back in a higher resale?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
If you really want to encourage reduced fuel consumption, I would think that you would want taxes that would actually discourage people from using fuel. That's what the Europeans and Japanese do, which probably explains why people living in those regions can drive 1.4 liter cars without having to apologize for them.
But, a tax on HP will encourage people to be more frugal in selection of their vehicles. It is much more equitable to tax HP and vehicle weight than a fuel tax such as in Europe. The Europe type of fuel tax unfairly hits those of less means. Drivers in Europe should be regularly dumping boxes of tea somewhere - but not on the roadways.
If an HP and weight tax were implemented in our country, poor people, single moms, etc., could choose sensible sized vehicles with smaller engines and would pay a relatively small HP/Weight tax. Most sensible people of moderate means will choose mid-size cars, crossovers, small suvs powered by very adequate 4-cylinder engines. Those who could afford a Corvette Z0-, Mercedes AMG--, BMW M-, Chrysler 300C hemi, etc., would still be able to buy them and they could also afford to pay the tax.
And foremost of course is the question of "why" even have the HP/Weight tax. It is well known (but maybe some here on Edmunds will dispute this?) that the US road infrastructure is not up-to-date. There are not enough lanes of roadway to handle volumes of traffic (at sane posted speed limits) in numerous places around the country. In my own county, there are some small towns and cities that are growing very fast that have insufficient road systems within and surrounding areas. Our county government cannot get sufficient funds, either locally or from DC, to properly update the road system.
What better way to tax users of public roads than by HP and weight of vehicle. Precedent for taxing by "how much stuff, things one has" has already been well established by example of home real estate taxes.
Taxing HP/Weight of vehicles addresses the topic of this board and should lead to more sensibly sized and powered vehicles in our nation. Another very important by-product of this action would be the cutting back on dependence of foreign oil in the US.
Tax on HP/Weight is a win/win situation for all involved. Illogical HP one-upsmanship by vehicle manufacturers will be diminished, people will get more sensible sized/powered vehicles and funding will be available to improve the US road infrastructure.
Why does California assess the weight of your vehicle and other states assess value?
What does weight have to do with horsepower?
In any case, California has an ad valorem registration fee, with two classes, a standard rate for personal cars and a higher one for commercial vehicles. At the end of the day, it's based upon the value of the car.
you: Nor does car 'A' with 400 HP cost the same as car 'A' with 220 HP.
me: not true. You can get a GTO with 400hp for the price of BMW's lower priced V-6 cars. But before we get into any more specifics, lets go over the premises of this part of the discussion.
1) it is obvious that we all can't afford Bugatti's or Saleens' exotics.
2) we are stating that for each person's financial situation it is better to buy a vehicle with more power. How much of your wealth you put towards a car or vehicle is up to the individual. We understand you can't spend 100% of your wealth on a vehicle, and not eat, or purchase other items which provide you security and power.
This would mean that IF you could afford an aircraft carrier and the cost to run it, it would be a better decision than to leave your money in the bank, and venture forth on a fishing boat. One good reason - I've never heard of an aircraft carrier sinking in a storm.
3) we are also discussing that if a 2005 model had 200hp and was adequate to drive, and it gets more power for 2006, that that is a good thing for the purchaser.
you: Does the higher original price, more use and maintenice cost get paid back in a higher resale?
me: Well I was watching some of the Barrett auto auction last night from Scottsdale, and it was pretty typical that people were paying $400,000 - $600,000 for Hemi Cuda's, Chevelle's, and Mustangs. The largest engine versions probably added an extra $100K.
you: Does the higher original price, more use and maintenice cost get paid back in a higher resale?
me: Let's just talk a 6-cyl Camry vs. a 4-cyl Camry for example. What is the difference in maintenance costs? $20 for the 100K mile tuneup? An extra quart of oil every 3 months? In general, since I have no data on specific engines, if a 6-cyl and 4-cyl car are driven similarly, a 6-cyl engine is not going to be revved as high as the 4-cyl. The 6-cyl should have a longer life, as revs cause wear. Race engines are good for no more than 1K miles, because revving increases wear.
you: The government does not need to show a why in assessing horsepower, it already has shown it can assess a tax on gas mileage.
me: Agree. But the question wasn't about the government, and its power and reasoning. The question was intended to probe why anyone here in this forum was discussing how to assess a tax on hp, when they have made no case or logical reasoning to suggest a tax is needed. I was suggesting:
1) make a logical case why higher powered cars are inferior. Not that one doesn't like them, thinks they have adequate power now, or can't afford a Bugatti. Obviously many of us do see value in more powerful cars, and believe we are not hurting anyone when we drive them.
2) Then if you can do that, then discuss what the regulations would be. Try and use some logic here, and not jealousy - that "we're going to stick it to the guy who has lots of money". Why not try "fitting the punishment (tax) to the crime - whatever your case is as to why more power is bad or inferior.
My comment is 2) was getting done before 1) was even established!
You are correct, in my post I had switched the registration fee method for the two states. It works out better in the east coast state, because high value light vehicles are cheap to register.
me: Well I was watching some of the Barrett auto auction last night from Scottsdale, and it was pretty typical that people were paying $400,000 - $600,000 for Hemi Cuda's, Chevelle's, and Mustangs. The largest engine versions probably added an extra $100K.
you: Does the higher original price, more use and maintenice cost get paid back in a higher resale?
Hemi Cuda, Chevelle, etc., auction prices have absolutely nothing to do with vehicles people purchase for everyday transportation needs.
Big engines, heavy vehicles have proven to be losers in the marketplace (new and resale) when fuel prices climb. Example was last September-October.
Many people's transportation needs can very adequately be met by sensibly designed/balanced vehicles, such as 4-cylinder Accords and Camrys in the sedan segment.
Also, many huge HP vehicles actually don't even handle as good as lower HP better balanced vehicles. Edmunds road tests show many compact sedans can beat monster HP Pontiac GTO in slalom. Edmunds test of Civic SI with 197 HP stated that Civic almost kept up with Corvette which has much larger engine and HP. So, what is point of all that HP in a Corvette if a Civic just about as good in handling. Just like a slim person who trains in calisthenics and running can outperform a man that is only good at benchpressing 400 pounds and doing cleans and jerks.
Also, would guess that Civic has far superior crash test results than does a Corvette.
But, a tax on HP will encourage people to be more frugal in selection of their vehicles.
So, you're willing to lie to the taxpayer because you don't want to admit that you what you really care about is your fear of higher speeds? Because if you really cared about fuel economy, you would take into account the car's actual fuel usage, not its horsepower rating. Anything else is just BS.
Since most accidents are not associated with speed, and that no relationship has been demonstrated between horsepower and safety, there's no win-win here. At least we can be safe in the knowledge that the likelihood of such a law making it through the US government is nil to none. (And in any case, vehicle registration in the US is a state, not a federal matter, so there's no way for the feds to impose such a tax without creating a new entity to monitor and collect it, helping to ensure that it will never happen.)
Yes, I would think that the first thing to do would be to make a case as to WHY, we would want to tax people based on hp. It's like skipping the trial and going right to the sentencing!
Exactly right. Seems as if the defendants got convicted and sentenced by a panel of judges who never bothered looking at the evidence.
For example, I look at the CHP fatality stats for 1999-2003, and I see that improper turning is the greatest cause of California fatal accidents after DUI, and is the fastest growing category of accident causation. How is reducing horsepower supposed to help with that?
Because if you really cared about fuel economy, you would take into account the car's actual fuel usage, not its horsepower rating.
Staying with the Board topic, the increasing HP available on some new vehicles has no practical application on US public roads. Not only is excess HP wasteful of energy, vehicles that have it actually don't handle better than more conservative HP vehicles.
Example is Honda Civic SI which has 197 HP, which is on the high side. According to Edmunds Road Tests, this Civic will outhandle a Viper SRT10 with 510 HP and a Chrysler 300C SRT8 with 425 HP in slalom. Civic does slalom at 67.8 MPH, Viper does 67.6 MPH (essentially a tie) and Chrysler does 65.2 MPH. Honda with meager 197 HP "almost" matches Corvette Z06, with 505 HP, which does slalom at 68.3 MPH.
In real world driving, such as avoiding something on pavement on roadway, Civic will outperform Viper and Chrysler. All of the "excess" HP is totally useless.
Now, if one said he gets his kicks by going to drag strip with 500 HP and is happy to beat a 197 HP Civic, that is fine by me. Different folks, different strokes.
One can probably easily prove positive correlation between HP of engines and fuel economy. The higher the HP, the worse the gas mileage, such as EPA ratings.
Very true, if you were actually reading what I wrote I was comparing the SAME car with a more HP engine. Not a Pontiac and a BMW, please don't twist what I say around. Check it out an price any car that has a choice of engines, in every case when you get a higher HP engine you pay more. Case in point is the Cadillac CTS, you can get three engines a 2.8L V-6 with 210 HP that starts at 29,270 or the 3.6L V-6 with 255 HP for 31,970 (2,700 for 45HP more) or you can go with 400HP for a little over 50K (realistically since the V series has more standard items which are options of the other CTS's its maybe 10-12K more for 145 more HP) You pay more to get more HP.
But before we get into any more specifics, lets go over the premises of this part of the discussion.
I just did trying to avoid your misdirection of the topic, I am not talking about exotic cars, I am talking about comparing the same make and model with different engines.
we are also discussing that if a 2005 model had 200hp and was adequate to drive, and it gets more power for 2006, that that is a good thing for the purchaser.
Maybe, maybe not, if they don't need that extra HP and will never use it and are paying more for it thats not exactly the best thing for the purchaser. That is unless you like paying for things you will never use.
One good reason - I've never heard of an aircraft carrier sinking in a storm.
And I never heard of anyone calling a fishing boat a "bomb magnet".
Let's just talk a 6-cyl Camry vs. a 4-cyl Camry for example. What is the difference in maintenance costs? $20 for the 100K mile tuneup? An extra quart of oil every 3 months?
So you admit that not only is there an additional purchase price but it costs more to maintain. Plus lets not forget the added cost of just the extra gas they burn.
In general, since I have no data on specific engines, if a 6-cyl and 4-cyl car are driven similarly, a 6-cyl engine is not going to be revved as high as the 4-cyl. The 6-cyl should have a longer life, as revs cause wear.
That may or may not be true, I don't have the stats on how long each engine will last, but even a small 4 banger will get 150k miles or more these days. I doubt that it really makes that much of a difference. Also it has more to do with the gearing than engine size. Depending on how the gear ratios are set up a 4 banger may have as low, or lower, RPM at a specific speed than a V-6.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I see that improper turning is the greatest cause of California fatal accidents after DUI, and is the fastest growing category of accident causation. How is reducing horsepower supposed to help with that?
Improper turning and DUI are not topics of this board.
Comments
Apples and oranges. The feature is only taxed if the feature has economic value.
There is not a linear relationship between the economic value of cars and horsepower ratings. Some cars can have lower horsepower, yet still have higher economic value because of other features, which is why a 3-series BMW can have less horsepower than a V-8 Mustang, yet still cost more money.
You're obviously just looking for an excuse to punish people who buy performance cars, because that ties into your fixation with slowing everyone down. Drivers literally vote with their feet, but you apparently don't see much need for the democratic process if it contradicts your vision for the rest of us.
me: thank you for the intelligent answer. The bigger bank account is certainly a consideration. Yes we all must determine where to spend or invest our resources for future needs. Maybe you don't buy the most powerful car you can afford now, since you save to buy a more capable vehicles in 5 years. I can accept that.
And yes I understand diminishing returns. I'm an engineer and design things to specifications and determine what safety margins and layers of backups/safety are incorporated. These engineering judgments are certainly based on probabilities of events happening and available resources.
Now having said that, if you ask me what is Better or Best in any given design, I will answer - the design with the highest capabilities. If we were talking about a bridge, Better would be a structure that can withstand a 9.0 earthquake rather than an 8.0, all else being the same except for the cost. If we were talking about car brakes, we would say the design that stops the car in 110' is better than the design on the same car that stops it 140' - EVEN IF 140' WAS ADEQUATE FOR NORMAL DRIVING. In this similar case I rather be in a car that can stop in 110'.
The brake system that stops the car in 140' may cost $500, while the brake system that stops in 110' may cost $2,000. Yes that fits the law of diminishing returns; BUT it does NOT invalidate that the 110' braking system is better.
I couldn't agree more with you. Why pentalize the people that buy high performance cars with more taxes?
I don't speed in general and cruise around 70mph as going any slower gets you ran over when the traffic is light in Southern California.
I generally buy smaller high performance cars or cars that can be modified to suit my needs.
No car I have ever bought has exceeded $18,000 but I asure you it shows it tailights to cars costing upwards of $50-60K.
I do my racing/speeding where it belongs on the track.
In the meantime, I get to use a brust of acceleration every now and then, but I don't endanger anybody in doing so.
These type of Geeky/Eggheaded arguments just make me sick...
Of course a brake system that stops a car in 110 feet vs 140 is better. Just like a brake system that stops the same car, same speed in 90 feet is even better. We all understand diminishing returns, and snakeweasel is right on some accounts. More hp is better is less hp. A higher end audio system is better than a lower end. Fancy high end leather on the seats is better than vinyl or ette. But of course a car that has all of the those options may cost $1.2 million dollars and may not be that much safer than a car the doesn't go as fast, stops longer and has inferior interior materials. But you decide.
Actually the stock car won't show any taillights. But most people do not mod their vehicles.
"I couldn't agree more with you. Why pentalize the people that buy high performance cars with more taxes?"
You're right. The insurance should charge a premium for high horsepower and vehicles that are modded beyond stock capabilities.
Redo the study with only good drivers and you'll find the accident rate drops dramatically.
So the real issue to that we need to ban bad drivers from driving, not restricting all drivers for the actions of a few.
me: A product, which is an inanimate object is not to blame for its use or misuse. Don't make me think you're one of those people who dismiss Personal Responsibility. If a 16 year isn't responsible they shouldn't be driving. And if the kid isn't responsible the parents should be, that either the kid doesn't drive or that they don't get behind the wheel of a 400hp caddy.
If we don't want to make the same mistakes over and over again as a society, we should learn from History. Prohibition was passed because a minority abused alcohol, and therefore it had to be totally banned, despite that the majority wanted alcohol and didn't abuse it. Those sorts of solutions where the majority are punished because of the actions of a few, are counterproductive.
I wouldn't debate him about his alleged data, it's based upon a falsehood that was already corrected for him on the other thread. He may keep repeating his misstatements, but that doesn't make them accurate.
I remember seeing Dr. Zhivago for the first time... In Panghyo, South Korea.
I really couldn't get over the fact the so many of my Korean co-workers readily agreed with that sentiment.
It destroyed my faith in defending South Korea against the communist North. For if the South already believed in the principals that the North espoused... then what the heck were we doing there in the first place.
Let them all live in that 'glorious worker's paradise' that the communism they want brings to them.
No car I have ever bought has exceeded $18,000 but I asure you it shows it tailights to cars costing upwards of $50-60K.
me: I was about to make this point, to those who would tax a vehicle based on the hp it sold with; when you're fine example came along.
I'm sure someone here will then suggest we tax SEMA members, so they're sales drop and they go out of business.
I have to disagree with you here. Eggheaded arguments are usually based upon factual data to support them; here, I've just seen emotional arguments that people "feel" that horsepower is bad. (Not sure where this puts me -- I guess my 200-hp car is twice is immoral as is a 100 hp car, but half as immoral as a 400-hp car?)
So far, I haven't seen here or elsewhere how horsepower has been shown to be inherently dangerous, therefore I don't see a factual basis to punish people for having it. While I see plenty of evidence that very young drivers tend to be reckless, I haven't see any evidence at all that the average buyer of a high-power vehicle is more dangerous than is anyone else.
me: because of your name, I would've guessed Japan.
Since we mentioned taxes here as a way to curb purchases of high hp, I would just like you to ponder the question of: "Can you ever really own something, if you have to pay an annual amount for that property; or it'll be taken away from you eventually for non-payment?"
You have agreed with me in that you can objectively measure the performance of objects, and declare one better than the other. The only comment in your list, that I have, is that "leather or vinyl" is subjective, just like picking a favorite color is subjective.
Actually New Jersey's normalized rates are fairly low. California's normalized rates are fairly high. Even with the spike in fatalities after the speed limit was raised, NJ still appears to be a safer place to drive, than say California, whose drivers are far worse than New Jersey drivers.
And there have been numerous studies that show that increasing speed increases risk, as much as a 5% increase with each 1MPH increase in speed. But since those studies don't support your falsehood you summery dismiss them. Also I might remind you that you presented no study that showed the increasing the speed limit decreases speed variance (remember saying it and showing it are two different things).
You can repeat the same monotonous falsehoods another fifty times, but at the end of the day, they are still falsehoods.
Yes I see that you do repeat the same old falsehoods.
At least now you've given us a chance to see what the tyrants would do if they had the opportunity to impose their ways on us.
#1 how did I do that?
#2 what did that show you?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
An no one here has explained why 400 HP is advantageous to say 250 HP in the average car. Sure they try to justify owning a high HP car with rather silly claims but they haven't shown me why I need all the HP that can be shoved under the hood. OK if you want it fine by me but don't insult my intelligence by using those claims to justify it.
so are you saying that having less power in a road-rage incident would be better? Explain how? To put this mathematically: (options of a low power vehicle) + (options available to a more powerful vehicle) = total options. I would think you would want "total options" to be as high as possible.
I am just saying flooring it to get out of there may not work simply because then you just might be making matter worse if the guy decides to chase you. Secondly that may not be an option due to traffic or other obstacles. Sure you may need all your options but using power may not be an option or the proper option.
Last time I was in such a situation I played the guys game let him get in front of me and when he was I just simply turned. Never saw the guy again and no power was needed.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Ok I will answer as an accountant and an economist (since I have degrees in both). Take the bridge for instance, given a choice between one that may withstand an 8.0 or a 9.0 earthquake. I live in an area that rarely sees earthquakes and hasn't seen anything over 6 or so in a few million years. That means between the two I would choose the cheapest since they both exceed what is needed. the bridge that is built to withstand an 8.0 earthquake will perform as well as the one that can withstand an 9.0 when we get our little 3.5 earthquakes.
The thing is getting the biggest is not always getting the best. Why spend the extra funds to get performance you will never need. This is why people in Alaska don't have air conditioning.
Following your logic I should get an aircraft carrier for a fishing boat since it has more capability and who knows, I might want to land a plane on my fishing boat some day. Yeah I know that it is an silly extreme but it explains my point, why pay for extra that will never be used.
The is a point where adding additional HP is useless since it will never be used in everyday driving.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
In many cases insurance companies will charge you more if there is a higher HP engine in the car. Try getting a quote for a Mustang with a V-6 then one for a GT and you might see the GT being more.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Now back to your Bugatti. The purchaser is going to pay to pay either a large sales tax or a large registration tax, or both in almost any state. Does anyone know of a state that doesn't have any tax based on a car's value? They are also going to pay a gas guzzler tax, which is a function of the engine.
The problem I have with your opinion of adding another tax to the purchaser because either 1) he can afford it - which has a hint of jealous towards those are who are successful or lucky; or 2) is a good idea because you don't like it; are both 2 lousy reasons for a tax.
I'm not a proponent of trying to stop people from doing things I don't like; unless it involves murder, assault, rape, and robbery. I wouldn't get into these games that because I don't like people who can afford to ski in Vail, have pribate planes and boats, ... should be punished with a tax because I don't like it. Control your own life, and let others control theirs - the world will be much more peaceful the closer we can get to that.
Who has said that horsepower is bad? Who has said that more horsepower is immoral. The emotional arguments here are those justifying high horse power cars so that just in case they need to the can get to the hospital faster. Or those that said more HP is better in any accident. So on and so forth.
Oh also this post you wrote that I am responding to seems to be emotionally based.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
me: So if you don't pay the taxes for a few years on your house, and the sheriff comes to the door, with an eviction notice, and your house is auctioned off, your furniture is hauled away, and someone else moves in to "your" house, and they give that person the deed, you still own it? If you still say "yes", and you have some money, I have some business propositions for you.
I never mentioned another website and my statement on fair income taxes was addressed to your remarks that taxing based on HP is unfair. Basically saying that the argument has no merit.
The problem I have with your opinion of adding another tax to the purchaser because either 1) he can afford it - which has a hint of jealous towards those are who are successful or lucky; or 2) is a good idea because you don't like it; are both 2 lousy reasons for a tax.
First off I wasn't the one who proposed taxation based on HP, nor am I arguing for or against it. Secondly taxing someone "because they can afford it" is the basis of many of the taxes in this country. Finally you forgot a third reason, to encourage the use of more fuel efficient lesser HP engines. In these days of questionable energy that would be a very good reason for the tax.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Ah thats how the game is played, ask a question then when someone answers it you change the question and go on as if the answer given was to the changed question.
If you want to go back to your original question we can discuss it, if your going to play games just go away.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
1) Vehicles are being sold with more power with each redesign, being driven by peoples' demand for more power.
2) Some states are raising the speed limits.
3) More and more people are driving.
4) Many people exceed the speed limits.
5) Cars are being made that are safer.
Now we could argue forever who's got the best reports; since all these sorts of things are changing (and there are probably other variables) change, frankly the only number of consequence in judging how safe the roads are is "Fatalities/Injuries per million miles driven". That is the big picture.
Since that is going down, we have not done anything VERY bad, so far by increasing speed limits or hp/torque.
Further postings getting back into the same endless arguement about whose sources are right and all the rest that got the other topic shut down will simply be removed.
This is beyond OLD now.
Is there much demand for more power? Yes there are cars getting more and more power but what is the HP of the average car? There are some models out there that sell more 4 bangers than V-6's. So is the average person really wanting more or is it just a smaller segment of the population?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
me: No.
If you can afford to pay for a 600-800 HP car, and the gas it will guzzle, and the insurance it will cost, and have proven you will use it __RESPONSIBLY__ (advanced driving class or at minimum absolutely NO points or violations on your license), you should be able to buy one.
Use the car improperly, and you should be anywhere from penalized to having the car taken away.
There are playgrounds for these kinds of cars...they're called race tracks and drag strips. There, there are no speed limits - just other cars to play dodgeball with.
As for regular highways, every year I watch drivers of these higher powered cars take more chances and do greater risks. Safer cars can only do so much - they cannot protect us from fools behind wheels.
Re unusable HP such as on Z-- Corvette or Bugatti. These certainly have a lot of HP. Advocates of lots of redundant power should put in Costco building sized furnace in the next house they build/have built just to have the extra power blowers and btus.
Use the car improperly, and you should be anywhere from penalized to having the car taken away.
Above sounds good. Don't forget to add exponential rate HP tax for 600 HP. Haven't done equations yet, but based on Bugatti $100,000/year HP tax rate, maybe 600 HP could be $40,000 tax for priviledge to use US public roads.
Its done all the time with the houses/condos/townhomes we own. If you don't pay your real estate tax bill, court action will be initiated and eventually your house is taken away if you don't pay the bill.
Tax on HP and weight of private vehicles would be an equitable way to fund road building/maintenance. Persons that might import Bugattis to US would probably not want to drive on public roads anyway. They would not have to apply for license and pay tax. Cars would be locked up and would be taken to shows in enclosed semi trailers. Those who wanted to show off their Bugatti on the roads would have to pay $100,000 tax to get license tag.
No more income tax, no more social security tax, no more taxes.
Yeeha!
:P
---
You should buy an aircraft carrier! If the fishing boat and carrier both cost the same, you should pick the carrier. Even if is was a few thousand dollars more, you get more value out of the carrier than you would the fishing boat.
More bang for the buck, if you'll pardon the pun.
(if nothing else, the resale value should be higher on the carrier than the fishing boat... as there are a lot of countries out there that would gladly pay a premium for one)
Still no explanation has been provided as to what is so "equitable" about this horsepower tax, versus a tax on the color of the paint, the size of the tires or the number of presets on the stereo. Your claim that it is equivalent to an ad valorem tax was clearly not valid, as was shown above, because we know that cars are valued based upon numerous components, horsepower being just one of many of these.
In a free society, we usually like to know why we are being taxed, and we like to see a justification for the rates selected, particularly when they are very high. "I said so" usually doesn't cut it, so you might want to move away from the "I told you it was equitable" line of reasoning and elaborate on why any freethinking American could ever even consider such an outlandish, extreme idea.
If you really want to encourage reduced fuel consumption, I would think that you would want taxes that would actually discourage people from using fuel. That's what the Europeans and Japanese do, which probably explains why people living in those regions can drive 1.4 liter cars without having to apologize for them. (Better yet, they also manage to drive these cars at speeds you'd like to prevent; perhaps you have a plan to tax that, too?)
me: Yes, I would think that the first thing to do would be to make a case as to WHY, we would want to tax people based on hp. It's like skipping the trial and going right to the sentencing!
I would still like to hear why lower hp/torque is better than higher hp/torque in a vehicle, if the individual has the money to purchase and run the vehicle. To me, it is no different than asking me if I'd like to be able to bench-press 300Lb or 400Lb; I'd always choose 400Lb. And I'd prefer to run 100yd. in 10 sec. rather than 11 sec. And I'd rather have an IQ of 160, than an IQ of 140. I may not need the capability difference often, but it's useful to have at times.
I agree, the question is WHY? For example, Why is there a gas guzzler "tax"? Why does California assess the weight of your vehicle and other states assess value? When one leases some states charge tax on the cap cost, others charge tax on the depreciated portion?
Unfortunately the government does not need to make a case it can and will pass any tax any time any where. It is the governments' job to separate you from your money in any way it can.
The government does not need to show a why in assessing horsepower, it already has shown it can assess a tax on gas mileage.
Ah but they don't cost the same. Nor does car 'A' with 400 HP cost the same as car 'A' with 220 HP. Nor is the cost to operate or maintain is the same.
More bang for the buck, if you'll pardon the pun.
Pun is forgiven, now are you really getting more bang for the buck if your not using that bang. Case in point we went out in the Caddy last night. Keeping up with traffic and even getting past it a lot I don't think I ever broke 2500 RPMs. So the question is am I really getting more bang for the buck or is the extra money paid a waste?
if nothing else, the resale value should be higher
Does the higher original price, more use and maintenice cost get paid back in a higher resale?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
But, a tax on HP will encourage people to be more frugal in selection of their vehicles. It is much more equitable to tax HP and vehicle weight than a fuel tax such as in Europe. The Europe type of fuel tax unfairly hits those of less means. Drivers in Europe should be regularly dumping boxes of tea somewhere - but not on the roadways.
If an HP and weight tax were implemented in our country, poor people, single moms, etc., could choose sensible sized vehicles with smaller engines and would pay a relatively small HP/Weight tax. Most sensible people of moderate means will choose mid-size cars, crossovers, small suvs powered by very adequate 4-cylinder engines. Those who could afford a Corvette Z0-, Mercedes AMG--, BMW M-, Chrysler 300C hemi, etc., would still be able to buy them and they could also afford to pay the tax.
And foremost of course is the question of "why" even have the HP/Weight tax. It is well known (but maybe some here on Edmunds will dispute this?) that the US road infrastructure is not up-to-date. There are not enough lanes of roadway to handle volumes of traffic (at sane posted speed limits) in numerous places around the country. In my own county, there are some small towns and cities that are growing very fast that have insufficient road systems within and surrounding areas. Our county government cannot get sufficient funds, either locally or from DC, to properly update the road system.
What better way to tax users of public roads than by HP and weight of vehicle. Precedent for taxing by "how much stuff, things one has" has already been well established by example of home real estate taxes.
Taxing HP/Weight of vehicles addresses the topic of this board and should lead to more sensibly sized and powered vehicles in our nation. Another very important by-product of this action would be the cutting back on dependence of foreign oil in the US.
Tax on HP/Weight is a win/win situation for all involved. Illogical HP one-upsmanship by vehicle manufacturers will be diminished, people will get more sensible sized/powered vehicles and funding will be available to improve the US road infrastructure.
What does weight have to do with horsepower?
In any case, California has an ad valorem registration fee, with two classes, a standard rate for personal cars and a higher one for commercial vehicles. At the end of the day, it's based upon the value of the car.
me: not true. You can get a GTO with 400hp for the price of BMW's lower priced V-6 cars.
But before we get into any more specifics, lets go over the premises of this part of the discussion.
1) it is obvious that we all can't afford Bugatti's or Saleens' exotics.
2) we are stating that for each person's financial situation it is better to buy a vehicle with more power. How much of your wealth you put towards a car or vehicle is up to the individual. We understand you can't spend 100% of your wealth on a vehicle, and not eat, or purchase other items which provide you security and power.
This would mean that IF you could afford an aircraft carrier and the cost to run it, it would be a better decision than to leave your money in the bank, and venture forth on a fishing boat. One good reason - I've never heard of an aircraft carrier sinking in a storm.
3) we are also discussing that if a 2005 model had 200hp and was adequate to drive, and it gets more power for 2006, that that is a good thing for the purchaser.
you: Does the higher original price, more use and maintenice cost get paid back in a higher resale?
me: Well I was watching some of the Barrett auto auction last night from Scottsdale, and it was pretty typical that people were paying $400,000 - $600,000 for Hemi Cuda's, Chevelle's, and Mustangs. The largest engine versions probably added an extra $100K.
you: Does the higher original price, more use and maintenice cost get paid back in a higher resale?
me: Let's just talk a 6-cyl Camry vs. a 4-cyl Camry for example. What is the difference in maintenance costs? $20 for the 100K mile tuneup? An extra quart of oil every 3 months? In general, since I have no data on specific engines, if a 6-cyl and 4-cyl car are driven similarly, a 6-cyl engine is not going to be revved as high as the 4-cyl. The 6-cyl should have a longer life, as revs cause wear. Race engines are good for no more than 1K miles, because revving increases wear.
me: Agree. But the question wasn't about the government, and its power and reasoning. The question was intended to probe why anyone here in this forum was discussing how to assess a tax on hp, when they have made no case or logical reasoning to suggest a tax is needed. I was suggesting:
1) make a logical case why higher powered cars are inferior. Not that one doesn't like them, thinks they have adequate power now, or can't afford a Bugatti. Obviously many of us do see value in more powerful cars, and believe we are not hurting anyone when we drive them.
2) Then if you can do that, then discuss what the regulations would be. Try and use some logic here, and not jealousy - that "we're going to stick it to the guy who has lots of money". Why not try "fitting the punishment (tax) to the crime - whatever your case is as to why more power is bad or inferior.
My comment is 2) was getting done before 1) was even established!
you: Does the higher original price, more use and maintenice cost get paid back in a higher resale?
Hemi Cuda, Chevelle, etc., auction prices have absolutely nothing to do with vehicles people purchase for everyday transportation needs.
Big engines, heavy vehicles have proven to be losers in the marketplace (new and resale) when fuel prices climb. Example was last September-October.
Many people's transportation needs can very adequately be met by sensibly designed/balanced vehicles, such as 4-cylinder Accords and Camrys in the sedan segment.
Also, many huge HP vehicles actually don't even handle as good as lower HP better balanced vehicles. Edmunds road tests show many compact sedans can beat monster HP Pontiac GTO in slalom. Edmunds test of Civic SI with 197 HP stated that Civic almost kept up with Corvette which has much larger engine and HP. So, what is point of all that HP in a Corvette if a Civic just about as good in handling. Just like a slim person who trains in calisthenics and running can outperform a man that is only good at benchpressing 400 pounds and doing cleans and jerks.
Also, would guess that Civic has far superior crash test results than does a Corvette.
So, you're willing to lie to the taxpayer because you don't want to admit that you what you really care about is your fear of higher speeds? Because if you really cared about fuel economy, you would take into account the car's actual fuel usage, not its horsepower rating. Anything else is just BS.
Since most accidents are not associated with speed, and that no relationship has been demonstrated between horsepower and safety, there's no win-win here. At least we can be safe in the knowledge that the likelihood of such a law making it through the US government is nil to none. (And in any case, vehicle registration in the US is a state, not a federal matter, so there's no way for the feds to impose such a tax without creating a new entity to monitor and collect it, helping to ensure that it will never happen.)
Exactly right. Seems as if the defendants got convicted and sentenced by a panel of judges who never bothered looking at the evidence.
For example, I look at the CHP fatality stats for 1999-2003, and I see that improper turning is the greatest cause of California fatal accidents after DUI, and is the fastest growing category of accident causation. How is reducing horsepower supposed to help with that?
Staying with the Board topic, the increasing HP available on some new vehicles has no practical application on US public roads. Not only is excess HP wasteful of energy, vehicles that have it actually don't handle better than more conservative HP vehicles.
Example is Honda Civic SI which has 197 HP, which is on the high side. According to Edmunds Road Tests, this Civic will outhandle a Viper SRT10 with 510 HP and a Chrysler 300C SRT8 with 425 HP in slalom. Civic does slalom at 67.8 MPH, Viper does 67.6 MPH (essentially a tie) and Chrysler does 65.2 MPH. Honda with meager 197 HP "almost" matches Corvette Z06, with 505 HP, which does slalom at 68.3 MPH.
In real world driving, such as avoiding something on pavement on roadway, Civic will outperform Viper and Chrysler. All of the "excess" HP is totally useless.
Now, if one said he gets his kicks by going to drag strip with 500 HP and is happy to beat a 197 HP Civic, that is fine by me. Different folks, different strokes.
One can probably easily prove positive correlation between HP of engines and fuel economy. The higher the HP, the worse the gas mileage, such as EPA ratings.
Very true, if you were actually reading what I wrote I was comparing the SAME car with a more HP engine. Not a Pontiac and a BMW, please don't twist what I say around. Check it out an price any car that has a choice of engines, in every case when you get a higher HP engine you pay more. Case in point is the Cadillac CTS, you can get three engines a 2.8L V-6 with 210 HP that starts at 29,270 or the 3.6L V-6 with 255 HP for 31,970 (2,700 for 45HP more) or you can go with 400HP for a little over 50K (realistically since the V series has more standard items which are options of the other CTS's its maybe 10-12K more for 145 more HP) You pay more to get more HP.
But before we get into any more specifics, lets go over the premises of this part of the discussion.
I just did trying to avoid your misdirection of the topic, I am not talking about exotic cars, I am talking about comparing the same make and model with different engines.
we are also discussing that if a 2005 model had 200hp and was adequate to drive, and it gets more power for 2006, that that is a good thing for the purchaser.
Maybe, maybe not, if they don't need that extra HP and will never use it and are paying more for it thats not exactly the best thing for the purchaser. That is unless you like paying for things you will never use.
One good reason - I've never heard of an aircraft carrier sinking in a storm.
And I never heard of anyone calling a fishing boat a "bomb magnet".
Let's just talk a 6-cyl Camry vs. a 4-cyl Camry for example. What is the difference in maintenance costs? $20 for the 100K mile tuneup? An extra quart of oil every 3 months?
So you admit that not only is there an additional purchase price but it costs more to maintain. Plus lets not forget the added cost of just the extra gas they burn.
In general, since I have no data on specific engines, if a 6-cyl and 4-cyl car are driven similarly, a 6-cyl engine is not going to be revved as high as the 4-cyl. The 6-cyl should have a longer life, as revs cause wear.
That may or may not be true, I don't have the stats on how long each engine will last, but even a small 4 banger will get 150k miles or more these days. I doubt that it really makes that much of a difference. Also it has more to do with the gearing than engine size. Depending on how the gear ratios are set up a 4 banger may have as low, or lower, RPM at a specific speed than a V-6.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Improper turning and DUI are not topics of this board.
Well using more fuel is the first thing to comes to mind. Higher maintenance costs also have to be considered.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D