Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted January 21, 2003 Ok this is hilarious. If you buy a gaz guzzling dangerous SUV, you are rewarded with a tax cut, of up to 75,000, it must weigh over 6000 pounds. My gawd, what is wrong with this guy? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest HecateRose Report post Posted January 21, 2003 Um . . . OK. That's a new one on me. I'd love to see a source on that, considering it sounds absolutely ludicrious. I mean the guys got some wild ideas, but that's just nuts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest EricMM Report post Posted January 21, 2003 Yes, please, source me, NoCalMike. That sounds stupid. The only thing that I can think of that this could (logically) be, is that Bush is a huge proponent of Hybrid SUV's, Pickups, and Minivans. Thus, if he's advocating a hybrid SUV, well, I'd like to know the MPG, but it's still a better thing. Your claim is almost nonsense but I'll go look it up now, but please source us? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest So what? I liked bubble boy Report post Posted January 22, 2003 Um . . . OK. That's a new one on me. I'd love to see a source on that, considering it sounds absolutely ludicrious. I mean the guys got some wild ideas, but that's just nuts. I agree with you on this one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Dangerous A Report post Posted January 22, 2003 NoCal, you know better. We need a source for this stuff. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest So what? I liked bubble boy Report post Posted January 22, 2003 find source now.....or else Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted January 22, 2003 For the life of me, I cannot find a source at this moment. I am at work and have a limited time to find it until I get home tonight from work. I did in fact hear discussions on this by two seperate shows this morning. I think it has to do with small business owners, if they buy an SUV up to 75,000 in worth it can be written off. However, the vehicle must weigh over 6000 pounds....I am hoping either this hits more news outlets by tommorow, or I can find a source on my lunch break(right now) FUCK....that last post was supposed to be by me.....damn computer-sharing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MarvinisaLunatic Report post Posted January 22, 2003 I saw the article on Total Fark and it came from the USAToday Website. http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2003-0...1-20-suvs_x.htm Bush plan gives huge tax break to buyers of big SUVs By David Kiley, USA TODAY DETROIT — Buying big, luxurious sport-utility vehicles could cost a lot less under the Bush administration's economic stimulus proposal, even though a Bush appointee blasted SUVs last week as dangerous fuel hogs. Small businesses and the self-employed could deduct the entire cost, up to $75,000, from business income the year of the purchase. Normally it would be written off over several years, using a depreciation schedule. Deducting the entire cost in one year considerably reduces that year's taxable income, and income taxes. In some cases, it could result in paying no federal income tax. A similar deduction in the current tax code is limited to $25,000. Tripling that creates a much more alluring incentive at a time when SUVs are under fire for fuel consumption and safety concerns. Bush appointee Jeffrey Runge, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, scolded automakers at an industry conference one week ago for not making SUVs safer and more fuel efficient. He told reporters that he considers some SUVs so dangerous he wouldn't allow his family in them "if they were the last vehicles on Earth." A stung auto industry shot back with statistics showing SUVs are very safe in the most common types of crashes. White House spokesman Taylor Gross said Monday that the provision "is not designed to favor one vehicle over another, but rather to allow small businesses to buy more equipment and to create more jobs." Computers and other equipment do also get favorable treatment in the provision to help small businesses and the self-employed upgrade their hardware. But the language regarding vehicles limits the tax benefit to those with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or more. That means full-size SUVs and pickups. As a result, an accountant who'd do fine with a 30-mile-per-gallon compact sedan as a company car could be enticed into a big, 15-mpg SUV instead because of the deduction. Or a real estate agent about to buy a 20-mpg midsize SUV that doesn't qualify for the deduction might opt for a full-size SUV instead, because it does qualify. Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) estimates that the current deduction cuts tax revenue $1 billion for every 100,000 SUVs, and vows to lobby against tripling the amount. "The market for personal-use SUVs has outgrown the original intent of this tax break," says Aileen Roder of TCS. "When a loophole gives an accountant an incentive to deduct the cost of his luxury SUV, it makes the argument of how ridiculous" it is, says Jonathan Collegio of Americans for Tax Reform. During furious SUV sales last month, "We did have some people coming in saying, 'My accountant told me I better buy something,' " says Chevrolet dealer Jerry Haggerty in Glen Ellyn, Ill. Contributing: Gannett News Service I think its stupid, if anything SUVs should be taxed more, and people driving small fuel efficient cars should get the large tax breaks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest EricMM Report post Posted January 22, 2003 Yeah I just found someone posting this on another Message Board. This is insanity. I can see where he's trying to go, but this smacks of influence by the Auto industry. Now anyone with their own business or small business owners can get $75,000 from the govt. for their very own excursion! And it CAN'T be one of the smaller ones, it HAS to be a 15 MPG hulk. "Well honey, we could buy an energy efficent car and save our environment or we could get a Hummer FOR FREE!!!!!!" Spare me. And this means that as tax-payers, we will be giving money to the government, who will in turn give it to car manufacturers, at the same time causing oil usage to go up, thus helping out big oil. I have no proof, but this just SMACKS of lobbying. How does providing someone with a SUV or a Pickup "create more jobs" anyways? I could rage for hours about this, but I won't because I'd love to hear someone try to defend this first Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted January 22, 2003 Thank you MarvinsLunatic Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MarvinisaLunatic Report post Posted January 22, 2003 I think that if the deduction was given to people who buy alternative energy cars which are super expensive as well, then more people would buy them meaning that the companies would have to produce more which would lower the cost, all the while slowly reducing the # of vehicles on the road which run on gas and the emissions from fuel burning vehicles. Im not sure how this would create more jobs, which at the same time I don't understand how Bush's plan creates any more jobs. I don't see how the two ideas are that drastically different, except that one is probably influenced a lot by oil companies and one would be backed by environmental nerds who don't have the $$$ that the oil companies do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest So what? I liked bubble boy Report post Posted January 22, 2003 Sounds crazy to me, but bush is just sooo great, less tax is good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest EricMM Report post Posted January 22, 2003 I wasn't saying that giving people hybrid cars would help create jobs, but then neither does providing people with behemoths IMO. Honestly, there are are reasons to get people to use efficent vehicles. Bush knows this, and is planning $4,000 write offs for hybrids and $8,000 write offs for fuel cell cars (IIRC). So why he would turn around and give SUV's $25,000 - $75,000 write offs baffles me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted January 22, 2003 So why he would turn around and give SUV's $25,000 - $75,000 write offs baffles me. well it must be payback time for Bush....he is thanking Exxon Mobil and his other oil buddies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest starvenger Report post Posted January 22, 2003 I wasn't saying that giving people hybrid cars would help create jobs, but then neither does providing people with behemoths IMO. True. But given that imports rule the car market maybe this is his (somewhat odd) way of helping the Big 3? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Report post Posted January 22, 2003 At least it wasn't smokes. Agree that SUV's should have better fuel efficiency. Agree that owners of energy-efficient cars should get more tax breaks. Could care less about small businesses getting a break for using SUVs... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted January 22, 2003 I wasn't saying that giving people hybrid cars would help create jobs, but then neither does providing people with behemoths IMO. True. But given that imports rule the car market maybe this is his (somewhat odd) way of helping the Big 3? If the Big 3 weren't so greedy, the could dominate the market. Foreign cars appear to be the better overall product right now, plus they are getting with the times and making them more fuel efficient, something the big 3 could care less about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mad Dog Report post Posted January 22, 2003 Maybe it's to help insurance companies when hippies decide they want to set your SUV on fire. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DrTom Report post Posted January 22, 2003 This is an unequivocal mistake. SUVs are rolling deathtraps, gas guzzlers to the extreme, and they've already gotten a free ride on every regulation that applies to cars. This is because Jeep classified their SUVs as "light trucks" back in the days when they were owned by the struggling (and now defunct) American Motors. Congress let them, and then every other automaker followed suit with their own SUVs. There's a great article on SUVs over at The New Republic's website, written by Gregg Easterbrook. I can't go get a link at the moment, but a search of TNR.com should find it for you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest EricMM Report post Posted January 22, 2003 Dr. Tom that is a very long and well written article. And it made me hopping mad. I just wish people were more aware of the risks, dangers, and problems that come with driving an SUV. I can't believe people trumpet the fact that "This is america, I can drive what I like!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ram Report post Posted January 22, 2003 I came three months too late. Fiddlesticks! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted January 23, 2003 This is an unequivocal mistake. SUVs are rolling deathtraps, gas guzzlers to the extreme, and they've already gotten a free ride on every regulation that applies to cars. This is because Jeep classified their SUVs as "light trucks" back in the days when they were owned by the struggling (and now defunct) American Motors. Congress let them, and then every other automaker followed suit with their own SUVs. There's a great article on SUVs over at The New Republic's website, written by Gregg Easterbrook. I can't go get a link at the moment, but a search of TNR.com should find it for you. I don't have enough time here at work, but when I get home or maybe at lunch time, I will definately read that article. I do agree though about the attitude, "I can have it, because I can, so ha" it is a piss-poor attitude to carry on, and it reeks of people more concerned about what they can buy, rather then even think about whether they SHOULD. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest HecateRose Report post Posted January 23, 2003 I think that a tax cut for alternative energy cars would make sense, and could (and I stress could) help the economy in that you wouldn't be spending so much money on gasoline, especially if you trade in your gas guzzling SUV for one. In fact, I think that should be a bigger tax break if you dump your gas guzzler for one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest cynicalprofit Report post Posted January 23, 2003 Its crazy and involves using more oil, its real. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Eagan469 Report post Posted January 23, 2003 It's amazing how one presidency can fall to shit in one month, eh? SUV's = 5-11 miles/gallon Any other car = 20+ miles/gallon And they get tax cuts *sigh* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest starvenger Report post Posted January 23, 2003 I came three months too late. Number 245 on the list of things that you'd never hear after sex... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DrTom Report post Posted January 23, 2003 Here's the Easterbrook article at TNR I mentioned earlier. As Eric said, it's quite lengthy, but it's very informative about the dangers of SUVs, as well as all the legislative double standards they already have going for them. For those who might read ESPN, Easterbrook is the chap who writes the excellent "Tuesday Morning Quarterback" column. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest cynicalprofit Report post Posted January 23, 2003 It's amazing how one presidency can fall to shit in one month, eh? No whats really amazing is how in the face of a huge tragedy his approval rating can jump from the 30's to 83%. Its even more amazing when at the time all he did was nothing. And the fact that its still around 50ish, according to the newspaper i work fors latest figures, which are like a week old by now, when he has produced NOTHING solid that OBL had anything directly to do with it yet he is the one being blamed and he's one of the main reasons were going to war.(I mean im sure he di it, but its all circumstancil(sp) Im still waiting for them to say they have proof that he smokes and performs abortions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted January 23, 2003 Thanks, DrTom....great stuff. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne Report post Posted January 23, 2003 It's amazing how one presidency can fall to shit in one month, eh? SUV's = 5-11 miles/gallon Any other car = 20+ miles/gallon And they get tax cuts *sigh* How so? By wanting a tax break for SUV's? It isn't certain it will pass. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
