If low-income families were given a bit of help, maybe an additional one-time tax credit or something (I'm not from Europe and am largely ignorant of how things work there), I think many of them would be interested in getting a vehicle that was more environmentally friendly and less expensive to operate.

But telling a poor fellow to buy a new car or suffer a tax increase seems a little unreasonable. If someone is hurting financially, it's going to look like a rock and a hard place.

That said, I understand the reasoning behind this idea -- people listen when you talk about taxes, and someone otherwise unconcerned with the environment would be pretty quick to pay attention and switch to a better vehicle.

Anyway, I have to wonder what happens to the older and/or less fuel-efficient vehicles. Whatever it is, I'm betting it might not be good for the environment either. Or cheap. But I have no idea. Interesting things to think about.

I suppose in some places in Europe, public transportation is a workable option. That might help poorer families somewhat. In the U.S., public transit isn't possible for everyone, so it would result in a huge outcry regardless of the details.

Maybe to expand on that further shall, use the extra revenue gained from the tax to help lower income families purchase a new, more enviromentally/economically friendly vehicle?

 

Does this refer to vehicles that by design consume a lot of gas (say for example sports cars and SUVs) or vehicles that are not maintained properly and consume more gas than they should? Or both?

The reason I ask, if this refers to vehicles that consume more gas by design the I would have to wonder why any poor people would be driving a Mustang, Corvette, Jaguar or Supra, how could they afford it. SUVs, well they are expensive as well but I'm sure some poor people could acquire them. Still this would be hurting people that should not have these vehicles in the first place since technically they should not be able to afford them.

I do agree this could be more for raising revenue. From what I have seen, like most businesses, the Gov't is very smart at finding ways to offset taxes they give back to people or take more from them in some other way.

We drive an SUV. Family of 5 (will be 6 this winter). We have 1 vehicle. We don't do a lot of driving.

We're in the US, so obviously this is just hypothetical, but this new tax would hurt us even though, in total, we use a lot less fuel than a lot of other families (2 cars, lots of driving).

What would the UK have families switch to? A fuel efficient CAR is not going to have the space capacity to transport my family. A minivan gets a little better gas mileage (good enough to avoid the tax?), but we are not in a position to trade in our vehicle for something else. It would be cheaper to keep our gas-guzzler and pay the tax.

How would you suggest lower income families switch to a more fuel efficient vehicle? Where is this magical money going to come from that's going to allow them to do that? What type of vehicle should a family with more than 4 or 5 members drive (and remember, you've got car seats and strollers and backpacks and other gear that has to fit as well)?

I think that's quite an assumption. Lots of lower-middle income families drive SUVs. They're certainly not "rich" people. It is only appropriate to own a larger vehicle if you are wealthy?

Charles, i think it only applies to vehicles that by design consume a lot of gas.

Wahine, i take your point, here in the UK most normal cars fit 5 (2 in the front, 3 in the back), yet the same question could be raised with regards to families of 6 (mine for example). Well in that case i think perhaps either a tax exemption (for families over a particular amount, on one car) or some sort of alternative option, most people carriers and SUV's are gas heavy, so until that alternative is found i can only assume a tax exemption would be possible.

This may be a situation where the market corrects itself. Sooner or later, more likely sooner (of late), big gas consuming cars/SUVs/trucks will be seen as wasteful in the extreme and no longer economically viable.  I know it didn't take me long to dump my truck in exchange for a far more economical Honda Fit.  So, maybe this is a tax revenue move!

Screw those people, the government should buy them bicycles and tell them to be happy.

That's why I said "SUVs, well they are expensive as well but I'm sure some poor people could acquire them". There are good pluses (as in your case) where an SUV (which can be expensive) is worth the cost, even for a low income family. It's not about a larger vehicle being only for the wealthy but the fact that they can be expensive and gas guzzling that it's not something your average poor person should be driving. It's the reason I got rid of my Explorer and my wife's as well and got the smaller more gas economical car we currently have that I made an article about.

It is a ponzi scheme. Basically it is going to impose another tax on the rich and transfer the money to the poor. How?

The Rich dont have to pay by virtue of their choices. And an extra few bucks is not going to impact them anyway. The Middle class will opt out and get rid of those vehicles. And who will buy them? The people with no choices (they will be cheaper by virtue of the government's tax). But they cannot pay the tax, so the government will subsidize them. Now government does not "make" anything. They can break anything, but they make nothing. SO what do they do? Take the money from the rich and give it to the poor so the poor can then afford the gas guzzlers.

It is just a new way to take money from wage earners and give it to non-productive people and buy votes.

An honest (but will never be done) approach is to simply ban those type of vehicles and melt them down. It will take time, but is more honest than creating a new tax on the rich and calling it a silk purse.

I think your slightly confused here Dr Guy, we are saying tax anyone (apart from large families, as they need large cars) who has a car that uses a lot of gas.

The poor will not buy the middle classes gas-guzzlers as they too are looking to avoid paying extra tax, also no subidee will be provided for anyone looking to purchase a non-fuel economic car.

So the gas-guzzlers that are looking to be sold won't be snapped up by the poor, because they will be taxed and receive no help for buying them as the entire point is to get the cars off the road.

The issue is probably with the middle class taking more of hit than the super rich, the question then would be to quantify whom should be entitled to the subsidee for moving from a gas-guzzler to a fuel economic car.

It's a scheme to make money. if they were really serious why not make the tax $1000 or $2000, but just $100 more, most will tolerate that. It's like cigarettes in the US, the government taxes the hell out of them, but they really don't want it to go away because it is a huge cash cow. Don't worry your government knows exactly what they are doing. The real problem here is you (and other environmentally concerned people like you) believe they have your best interest at heart, so it's a win - win for them.

No, I am not confused, you are just buying the hype, not the reality. A poor person does not have choices. Since the cost of large cars has just been taxed, it will make them uneconomical to most people that have choices. So they will be dumped (at very low prices - a concept that is tantamount to seizure by the government).

Since the poor do not have choices, they will buy them. Smaller cars will be out of their reach as they sky rocket in price. Of course the poor cant pay the taxes either, so they will be granted relief. In other words, they will be given money to pay the taxes. And where is the money coming from?

Those who do pay taxes.

This is not some theory. It is reality. The people driving the gas guzzlers in the states are poor. Why? because they cannot afford the initial price for a $20k "economy" car, but can afford $1k for an old clunker.

It is more economical to buy a non-taxed car - if you have the money up front. And the poor do not. They have to take what they can get - beggars cant be choosy.

I would love to see stats on that. Maybe it's different where you live, but around here it's pretty rare to see "an old clunker".

The SUVs I see are late model, and often high-end. I also see TONS and TONS of enormous pick up trucks. Not old clunkers. Shiny, tricked out late model trucks.

A lot of these vehicles don't even start at $20k for a base model.



That's a good point. Even though an extra tax sucks, it would have to be substantial to make it to us to trade in our vehicle and purchase a different one.

We had to pay over $300 to the state of Texas for our vehicle we purchased in HI when we moved back to Texas. I think we're getting used to an extra $100 here and an extra $200 there. Ugh.