SUV fees

MtnBiker

Senior Member
Sep 28, 2003
4,327
238
48
Rocky Mountains
Higher SUV sticker fee would affect 33 models

November 13, 2003

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter Advertisement


Thirty-three models of sport-utility vehicles tip the scales at 4,500 pounds or more and will be required to pay the $90 city sticker fee included in Mayor Daley's hard-times budget for 2004.

They range from the 4,504-pound Acura MDX, the 4,585-pound Lexus GX 470 and the 4,612-pound Chevy TrailBlazer to the 6,400-pound Hummer H2, 7,154-pound Hummer H1 and 7,688-pound Ford Excursion.

City Clerk James Laski released the evolving list of SUV heavyweights that will be hit with the 20 percent increase -- from $75 to $90 -- as influential aldermen acknowledged that the Daley administration's rationale for targeting the SUVs is bogus.

For the last month, budget director Bill Abolt has argued that SUVs should be required to pay more to erase a deficit in the fund used to repair city streets because "heavier vehicles place more wear and tear on the roads."

Earlier this week, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that engineering and transportation experts were poking holes in that argument.

They insisted that roads are typically designed for heavy trucks that weigh "at least double" if not 10 times what an SUV does. They argued that there is virtually no difference between the road damage caused by SUVs and passenger cars.

"If they're going to use an argument, they should use a rational argument. That one doesn't hold water," said Sidney Guralnick, a professor of civil and architectural engineering at the Illinois Institute of Technology.

Finance Committee Chairman Edward M. Burke (14th) acknowledged Wednesday that the decision to sock it to SUV owners was more about money than road damage.

"You go to the car wash now, if you have an SUV, they charge you more than for a sedan," Burke said. The weight of the vehicle is nothing more than "a factor that permits us to hook into a way to get a higher fee," he said.

Burke noted that the make and model list would be the bible for enforcement purposes because "I don't imagine there's gonna be somebody rolling around with a scale" to weigh vehicles.

Rules Committee Chairman Richard Mell (33rd), who drives an SUV, said he'd love to vote against the $90 sticker fee, but he's willing to swallow it if it's part of the mayor's overall $50.5 million tax package.

"What we're doing, obviously, is trying to solve the tax problems in our city by finding little glitches where we can add a little bit more money, instead of having people sit down and look at the whole package of how you devise enough money to run the state and the city," Mell said.


link
 
Considering the fuel economy on these vehiciles, owners of SUVs are already paying more in tax on gasoline purchases.
 
In Seattle, they just instituted a monorail tax of $15/yr per car, in a state that has been fighting for four years to have $30 car tabs (a fight that finally came to fruition in October). So what are Seattleites doing? Registering their cars at addresses outside city limits. Some people are getting P.O. boxes outside Seattle, using it as their mailing address for purposes of car registration, and saving the $15/yr.
I think many SUV owners in Chicago might start doing the same thing if this law is passed.
 
Interesting Jeff, are the really saving any money? How much does a yearly P.O. Box cost? I would think somewhere close to 15 bucks. I believe you that people are doing this, perhaps to spite the government and refuse to pay yet another form of tax or fee.
 
Originally posted by MtnBiker
Interesting Jeff, are the really saving any money? How much does a yearly P.O. Box cost? I would think somewhere close to 15 bucks. I believe you that people are doing this, perhaps to spite the government and refuse to pay yet another form of tax or fee.

Bingo - the principle of not paying the tax is worth the cost of a PO box. Seattle councilmen are pretty pissed off about it, but I don't think they are in a position to do anything about it.
BTW - I live about 50 miles south of Seattle, so this does not affect me.
 
Well, I'm glad it does not affect you. It seems Seattle is trying many was to increase the tax burden on the people and still being rejected. Didn't a proposed coffee tax in Seattle lose in a vote recently?
 
I have to say that no matter the reason behind it, I think the idea of charging more to register an SUV is a good one. Perhaps people will find a way around it but maybe the law will be created in a way to limit their non-compliance.

Unfortunately, money is usually the only language that people understand, so I say make them pay for the privledge of reducing the earth's resources and being a menace on the roads.
 
How about an SUV pollution tax? Think of it as "takings" legislation in reverse.

Under the Public Trust Doctrine, as well as federal and state laws, polluters are liable to the public for Natural Resource Damages for harming tidal lands, waterways, groundwater, wetlands, wildlife and fisheries that rightly belong to the people. If clean air is ruled to be a natural resource that belongs to the people, then people who choose to drive vehicles that emit unusual amounts of pollution (i.e., SUVs) could be "taxed" accordingly.

Of course, this could set a precedent that allows governments to tax people who fart too much.
 
Originally posted by Moi
I have to say that no matter the reason behind it, I think the idea of charging more to register an SUV is a good one. Perhaps people will find a way around it but maybe the law will be created in a way to limit their non-compliance.

Unfortunately, money is usually the only language that people understand, so I say make them pay for the privledge of reducing the earth's resources and being a menace on the roads.

Hey Moi, do you live in Virginia? What did you think of the repeal of teh car tax?

I totally agree with your post. I might take it a bit farther and say there ought to be a siginificant gas tax (for industry as well). Making suv owners pay a few dollars more for registration does not seem strong enough to me.
 
Originally posted by Moi
I have to say that no matter the reason behind it, I think the idea of charging more to register an SUV is a good one. Perhaps people will find a way around it but maybe the law will be created in a way to limit their non-compliance.

Unfortunately, money is usually the only language that people understand, so I say make them pay for the privledge of reducing the earth's resources and being a menace on the roads.
How are SUVs a menace to the roads?


Originally posted by Bry

I might take it a bit farther and say there ought to be a siginificant gas tax (for industry as well). Making suv owners pay a few dollars more for registration does not seem strong enough to me

There aready is a gasoline tax, 18.4 cents per gallon for the federal tax plus state tax. With New York being the highest at 29.65 cents per gallon.State gasoline tax
SUVs generally use more gas per mile, therefore owners of SUVs are paying more in gasoline tax.
 
Have any of you considered that there are legitimate uses for SUV's besides hauling around your family and ego? We use them in our business, instead of larger more environmentally unfriendly vehicles.

Just give that some though, please.
 
In that case they should be registered as for commercial purposes, and shouldn't have anything to do with the registration of your personal vehicles.
 
Originally posted by MtnBiker
There aready is a gasoline tax, 18.4 cents per gallon for the federal tax plus state tax. With New York being the highest at 29.65 cents per gallon.

Thanks for reminding me how bad the gas situation is here in NY! Costs me nearly $30 every time I fill up! (and it's a small 6cyl, not a an SUV!)
 
No, I don't live in Virginia but I spent the first half of my life there. I wish I could go back but that probably won't happen anytime soon. When I lived there, anyone who owned a car (or vehicle, more correctly) paid a personal property tax. The tax was based upon the type of vehicle...motorcycles paid less, say, than a 4x4 (didn't have SUV's then!).

I see no problem with those who consume more of the earth's resources paying the larger share of the freight. If you use 20 gallons of gas, you pay more in taxes but the rate you pay is the same. The gas tax is blind to whether you use 20 gallons of gas because you drive an awful lot or because you waste a lot of fuel with poor gas economy. Those who want to pay a low amount should either drive less frequently or use more gas efficient cars.

As far as why they are menaces, simple. Their size, their propensity to topple and their consumption make them menaces. Unfortunately, driver's licenses are passed out like candy on Halloween. Any idiot can get one and, it seems, does. The majority of whom drive over-powered, overweight vehicles and minivans they can scarcely control. They careen through all types of lanes, other drivers cannot see around them in the street or in parking lots. I know it's unfair to stereotype and believe me, I'm one of the last people to do so, but I gotta say whenever someone has done something dangerous on the road near me they are always driving an SUV or minivan.

I owned an explorer and was amazed at how often other SUV's (mostly larger like the expedition) scared the heck out of us. We no longer have the explorer and I miss being able to load groceries without bending over but other than that, I much prefer my sedan. Lots of horsepower, plenty of maneuvering ability and good gas mileage. But when I had the explorer I would not have had a problem paying more for it.
 
Originally posted by Moi
No, I don't live in Virginia but I spent the first half of my life there. I wish I could go back but that probably won't happen anytime soon. When I lived there, anyone who owned a car (or vehicle, more correctly) paid a personal property tax. The tax was based upon the type of vehicle...motorcycles paid less, say, than a 4x4 (didn't have SUV's then!).

Yeah, well said, your entire post. Under Jim Gilmore, he won the election and made good on his promise to eliminate the car tax. (I never cease to be amazed by the people's gulability when it comes to promises about tax cuts...) He thereby eliminated without recouse an important source of fairly applied revenue from the state, and Virginia has yet to recover from the disaster, (and the Democrat who is now the governor is getting the flak for the fallout) forcing severe cutbacks on all aspects of the State's administration, including, notably, the funding of Virginia's state schools (of which we were very proud.)

I too spent most of my life in Virginia, and my family are all die hard Hokie fans.
 
Originally posted by Moi


As far as why they are menaces, simple. Their size, their propensity to topple and their consumption make them menaces. Unfortunately, driver's licenses are passed out like candy on Halloween. Any idiot can get one and, it seems, does. The majority of whom drive over-powered, overweight vehicles and minivans they can scarcely control. They careen through all types of lanes, other drivers cannot see around them in the street or in parking lots. I know it's unfair to stereotype and believe me, I'm one of the last people to do so, but I gotta say whenever someone has done something dangerous on the road near me they are always driving an SUV or minivan.

Well, Moi you are right there are many idiots who have driver's licenses that cause a menace on the road. I see young drivers speeding in and out of lanes, people taking on hand held cell phones while driving, old people driving very slow, delivery trucks that are hard to see around. It is the nature of the roadways, I'm not convienced that SUVs are anymore of a menace than anything else, if your an idiot and driving it doesn't matter what your driving.
 
I have an interesting idea. If were are going to have an additional tax or fee placed on SUVs, why not mandate that the extra money go into a fund to research alternative energy.
 
May not be to bad of an idea for broad energy use but,we don't need addition revenue to fund private industry r&d. The car and oil industry will develop these methods as the become marketable and profitable.

GM plans SUV, truck hybrids

DETROIT, Nov. 5 (UPI) -- General Motors plans a gasoline-electric hybrid engine in its full-size Chevy Tahoes and GMC Yukons for the 2007 model year, it was reported Wednesday.

The move is expected to be announced as early as Thursday. It represents a shift of the No. 1 automaker's alternative-vehicle strategy from smaller cars and SUVs to what Tom Stephens, GM's group vice president for global powertrain, calls "the highest (fuel) consuming vehicles, such as buses, full-size pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles," the Detroit News reported.

GM's big trucks and SUVs are frequent targets for environmentalists, regulators and some politicians. The decision to focus GM's hybrid powertrain program on its lucrative truck lineup was seen as a move to reverse GM's image as a technology laggard, according to several GM executives familiar with the program.

GM appears determined to showcase engineering prowess and social responsibility as well by launching hybrids into a segment criticized for vehicles that consume too much fuel, the News said.


link
 

Forum List

Back
Top