Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Grignard wrote:
Kilkrazy, 800 dollars for a tax every year just to own a car sounds ridiculous. I couldn't afford to drive if that were the case here. At least it scales to the size of the automobile, which seems fair. Does that tax vary for individuals who actually need a large private vehicle to earn a living, farmers for instance? I ask because where I live, some people who own large pickups actually haul something other than air, and they need their vehicles, it isn't a luxury. Otherwise I think we should have a registration fee that scales with the fuel economy of the vehicle here in the states.

The cost can vary quite a bit, see here, it's no wonder people have a hard timw working out what they're supposed to pay. I'm sure this has nothing at all to do with the extra revenue they generate by fining people whatsoever.

My understanding is that bfarmers etc just have to suck it up, although I suspect that tehy might be able to claim some of this back as a business expense perhaps ? Pretty much the only break they get as such is Red Diesel, and the taxman would love to hit them for more for that.

Grignard wrote:

dogma wrote:

Grignard wrote:
Kilkrazy, 800 dollars for a tax every year just to own a car sounds ridiculous. I couldn't afford to drive if that were the case here.

That's the idea. England, by virtue of a greater degree of urbanization, smaller geographic size, and better public transit is structured to keep people off the road. I expect America will move in a similar direction in the not-too-distant future as the need to keep food prices down forces a general tightening of the travel belt for the average citizen.

Why not lower the costs of registration for fuel efficient low or zero emission vehicles then? I'm not giving up my car any time soon, I like to drive and I just don't like other people enough to share my space with them. Sorry.

Cost of registration for fuel efficient cars is lower -- the £400 is for the largest kind of car such as an SUV. In addition, some cities have a congestion charge which you pay daily for driving into the city centre -- it's £8 to drive into central London. However this charge is waived for fuel efficient cars such as the Toyota Prius.

Another point is that most local councils have an annual parking charge to be allowed to park your car. Some councils have started to use this to penalise large vehicles.

The purpose behind all these taxes is ostensibly to persuade people to convert from car use back to public transport. It has been pointed out that simply increasing the tax on petrol has the same effect and works very effectively to penalise people who sit by themselves in an SUV in a traffic jam instead of taking the tube (and so on) and it's easier to collect.

Better public transport is the essential other half of any plan to get people off the roads.

You asked about farmers and other people who need big cars. Farmers as business would be able to offset their car expenditure against tax. People with big families don't get any special help to have big cars, though the £10 per week Child Benefit will certainly help them.

It's arguable to what degree people and families living in cities need cars or how much it is simply a lifestyle choice. I lived in west London for at least 10 years without the need for a car and only bought one because my wife insisted she needed it to take our daughter to school. Even this was only for a couple of years until she got big enough to walk. As for country people, I suppose it depends if you live in a hamlet without any local facilities or in a village or small town that has its local school, shops and so on.

Having a car is great fun and makes it easy to zoom off for a day or a weekend without planning. When I was without a car I would just hire one if I wanted a trip to the country. Running a car costs £3,000 to £4,000 per year when you factor in fuel, tax, insurance, and depreciation, so hiring is a very good alternative for a lot of people.

dogma wrote:The price of registration is already incredibly low. In Illinois there is heated debate over raising the cost to $96, from the previous $78.

I think a better solution is simply to tax gasoline. The disproportionate affect this will have on rural areas could be offset with a geographically targeted tax credit.

You know, last I checked, we already pay taxes on gasoline.....

reds8n wrote:

Grignard wrote:
Kilkrazy, 800 dollars for a tax every year just to own a car sounds ridiculous. I couldn't afford to drive if that were the case here. At least it scales to the size of the automobile, which seems fair. Does that tax vary for individuals who actually need a large private vehicle to earn a living, farmers for instance? I ask because where I live, some people who own large pickups actually haul something other than air, and they need their vehicles, it isn't a luxury. Otherwise I think we should have a registration fee that scales with the fuel economy of the vehicle here in the states.

The cost can vary quite a bit, see here, it's no wonder people have a hard timw working out what they're supposed to pay. I'm sure this has nothing at all to do with the extra revenue they generate by fining people whatsoever.

My understanding is that bfarmers etc just have to suck it up, although I suspect that tehy might be able to claim some of this back as a business expense perhaps ? Pretty much the only break they get as such is Red Diesel, and the taxman would love to hit them for more for that.

We have ag diesel as well. I agree with you, we all know what it is really about, and that is that extra revenue.

I don't see why farmers are a special case for fuel subsidies and haulage companies aren't.

Grignard wrote:

dogma wrote:The price of registration is already incredibly low. In Illinois there is heated debate over raising the cost to $96, from the previous $78.

I think a better solution is simply to tax gasoline. The disproportionate affect this will have on rural areas could be offset with a geographically targeted tax credit.

You know, last I checked, we already pay taxes on gasoline.....

We do, but not enough. True, more people in the US need to drive than in Europe. That is simply a matter of geographic size. I'm simply saying that, given the global political climate, the price of gas should be used to make people consider driving as a choice and not a right. $5 a gallon gas does just that, and the tax credits make it more likely that the people that really need to drive are still able to.

I have to say that once you hear the ramifications of higher gasoline taxes, they make a lot of sense. It's not just a money grab...it's a lot more than that.

However, it's politically impossible in the U.S. Americans think cheaper gas = better, and will tune out any argument to the contrary.

Its also real easy for people to say who live where there is public transportation, and those who can afford to pay the taxes. Its ironic as its a highly retrogressive tax on the poor, both directly and in higher food and necessities costs.

I'm waiting for my hydrogen fuel cell cars thank you very much! I mean come on, if we're going to bail out GM/Chrysler-yet again-at least tie it to something. I leave you with the immortal worlds of the professor from Back to the Future. "Where we're going, we won't need roads..."

I agree with JF here.

Taxes in this area are rough on folks who live in rural areas, anyplace with really rough weather, and really anyplace without good public transportation systems. Which is quite a lot of the US.

Any support to US car companies has got to be contingent on innovation. Non-gas cars ASAP, and in the meantime much higher fuel efficiency requirements and lower emission requirements. They’ve screwed themselves and us for quite a while now by focusing on fuel-guzzling status symbol cars, instead of efficiency and reliability, which make for real value and help ameliorate our dependence on oil.

To be fair, the reason automakers concentrated on those vehicles is because that's what consumers wanted...very badly.

SUVs were/are ridiculously overpriced...the automakers made ridiculous profits off each vehicle compared to their other lines. And yet a never-ending line of customers were there to fork over their cash.

I'm not even sure the automakers understood it all...they just knew they sold like hotcakes. And that's why even Porsche made the decision to roll one out and pretend to ignore all the brand damage it would do. During that same time, sales of efficient compact cars plummeted. The Asian makers were the only ones to still have some focus on smaller cars, and that put them in a much better competitive position when the bottom fell out for SUVs.

Back on point, the automakers aren't to blame. We have to look in the mirror on that one. We're a wasteful society.

But efficient, reliable asian cars have been selling here very well for decades.

Not sure I understand your comment. Sales of compacts in the U.S. dropped considerably across the board over the past decade or so until the market changed. I don't have the data, but I'm positive the Asian manufacturers weren't immune to this in the U.S.

The difference is that American companies made their bet on their more profitable truck and SUV lines. The Asian companies pushed SUVs too, but also kept investing in their compact lines. The result was that they were better equipped to deal with the new market after things went downhill for SUVs. Remember that cars take time to go from concept to showroom.

Talking with a car salesman back in March, he was lamenting how the market had changed and Detroit got caught with nothing on the way but more large vehicles. Meanwhile the Japanese have shiny new Civics, Corollas, etc. to sell.

Ford is a US company isn't it? And they sell cars like the Ka and the Fiesta in Europe. They could sell the same models in the USA.

Only in America do people drive American style cars. Europe and the Far East do not have wide enough roads or cheap enough petrol or enough parking space.

Frazzled wrote:Its also real easy for people to say who live where there is public transportation, and those who can afford to pay the taxes. Its ironic as its a highly retrogressive tax on the poor, both directly and in higher food and necessities costs.

However, there are ways to target the tax more selectively. Giving tax breaks for shipping industries, farmers, people in rural areas, etc. Indeed, it may even be the case that a high gas sales tax administered by the municipality (I've wanted Chicago to do this for some time) could do much of the same good while keeping well away from the issue of unduly burdening the poor. In either case, this is certainly not a recommendation for the immediate future, you are right about that. The corporate architecture of America is simply to highly centralized to really make a gas tax feasible at the moment.

Kilkrazy wrote:Ford is a US company isn't it? And they sell cars like the Ka and the Fiesta in Europe. They could sell the same models in the USA.

Only in America do people drive American style cars. Europe and the Far East do not have wide enough roads or cheap enough petrol or enough parking space.

Ford tried that. They called them "world cars," with the idea being that the same car could be sold worldwide with only minor variations. Seems like a great idea, especially from a parts angle. But the program failed because the markets and customers are *different.*

I owned a Contour at one time (think it was called the Mondeo there). Solid mid-sized car, but the cup holders sucked and the seat angle was controlled by a dial and not a lever like in most American cars. These little things seem inconsequential, but they're not. All the little quirks added up for customers, and that contributed to the Contour getting killed here even though the Mondeo lived on in Europe.

Your second paragraph sums it up perfectly. Americans don't want a compact that works for Europeans. They want an American-style compact that works for them. I think people somewhat misunderstand the point here. It's not that US carmakers have literally no compacts to sell. It's more that they've neglected them for too long, leading to less competitive cars than their Asian counterparts.