The U.S. Congress is mulling new legislation that would eliminate certain tax incentives and exemptions that make consumers more likely to buy SUVs. Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA) has issued a report titled “Tipping the Scales,” which focuses on two policies that favor the purchase of heavy SUVs. The first is the exemption of SUVs light trucks and minivans from the Gas Guzzler Tax which is imposed on cars rated below 22.5 miles per gallon. The second is the special tax depreciation tax preference that businesses can take for buying an SUV instead of a car or station wagon.
“Not only are these incentives contrary to good energy policy, they are costing American taxpayers billions each year,” said Markey. “It is incredible that the Bush Administration and Republican Congress can be so blind as to leave these tax loopholes in place while our dependence on Middle East oil soars, the price of gasoline spikes, and our soldiers are mired a war in the Middle East.”
The tax bias in favor of an SUV can be quite substantial, according to the report. It compares, for example, the hypothetical purchase of an Audi station wagon versus a Jeep SUV. The purchase of the 20.5 mpg Audi incurs a $1300 gas guzzler tax; the purchase of the less efficient 15.8 mpg Jeep is gas-guzzler-tax free. Similarly, a 21.7 mpg Chrysler 300C, a large sedan, pays a gas guzzler tax of $1000, but the 13.9 mpg GMC Yukon Sierra, a very large SUV, pays no tax.
“This makes no sense,” Markey said. “Congress is using the tax code to generate artificial demand for inefficient vehicles in the automobile marketplace. Regardless of whether we ever ramp up and modernize the minimum fuel economy standards, providing these out-of-date tax incentives that reward the purchase of inefficient vehicles just make things worse.”
Markey introduced The No Special Subsidies for Gas Guzzlers Act (H.R. 5579) to eliminate both forms of tax discrimination.
09/05, 4:14 PM
posted by:
WeezyFBaby
Good; finally a politician with half a brain…
09/05, 4:18 PM
posted by:
indi
Oh who cares, people don’t buy SUVs because they cost less, sorry!
09/05, 4:19 PM
posted by:
Undecided
indi, yes they do, frequent the Edmunds forums, you’ll see how many losers buy suvs just for the tax incentives
09/05, 4:21 PM
posted by:
Stuart
Caddilac Escalade
Chevrolet Taheo
GMC Yukon
Ford Explorer
Lincoln Navigator
R.I.P
09/05, 4:24 PM
posted by:
Sr. Automotive Engineer
FORD JUST STEPPED DOWN…GOODBYE MR FORD
09/05, 4:27 PM
posted by:
ss
there is a guy in my town that own lots of apartment buildings and rental property. needless to say he has FLEET of black Escalades and F150s (all on 22in wheels with big graphics down the side) I hope this passes
09/05, 4:30 PM
posted by:
Notre Dame is overrated
Finally
09/05, 4:33 PM
posted by:
Kraig
amazing simply amazing.
09/05, 4:35 PM
posted by:
Chris C.
SUV sales are down. Gas prices are up. However, SUV’s are still selling. Maybe not at the rate they once were, but there IS still a market for large, gas guzzling SUV’s. There is nothing evil about SUV’s. There isn’t anything wrong with SUV’s. (From an H1 Hummer to a Toyota 4Runner) This is America. If you want to pony up the bux and pay for the gas, you are able to.
Who cares if they remove this incentive. We’re talking about $1000-$1500 on a vehicle that, in many cases, already costs $45k plus. People WILL still buy them. If I had the money for the added gas expense I’d drive one. Do I need one? NO. Doesn’t matter.
09/05, 4:47 PM
posted by:
Steve
Good,now maybe people can start driving cars again and remember how to drive. Cuz frankly I never see anyone that drives an suv able to handle it,park it,manuver it etc.
09/05, 4:57 PM
posted by:
ss
This won t help the big three ….. well screw them, I don’t buy these non optimized / gas guzzling piece of crap
09/05, 5:11 PM
posted by:
Random Jerk
“If I had the money for the added gas expense I’d drive one. Do I need one? NO. Doesn’t matter”.
This is the worst attitude there is: “I can use as much energy as I can afford”. Yes, it’s true you can use as much energy as you can afford. I’d rather not see this change either. However, just because you can dosen’t mean you should. Howabout a little responsibility to your community – both neigborhood and globally?
If I was so wealthy that my energy costs were irrelevant I wouldn’t look at that as license to burn as much energy as I want. Rather, I’d see it as haveing the financial freedom to afford technologies that SAVE as much energy as posible.
But heh, we live in a culture where people struggle to make ends meet so they can afford to fuel up their 3 ton rolling “image projector”.
09/05, 5:13 PM
posted by:
Notre Dame is overrated
^^^ Good point, Jerk.
09/05, 5:19 PM
posted by:
1952 MG TD
Ok, Jerk…. I want to see your Prius tow that front end loader, or carry that 2 ton of river rock, or get up that FS road to your remote site, or hold the proper shelving to carry your businesses goods….
THESE LOOPHOLES ARE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES!!!!!!!!!!! NOT FOR AVERAGE CONSUMERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
09/05, 5:24 PM
posted by:
Paco
“once again, LLN provides only half the story, showing their bias. I guess it is even more apparent now where the Left in Leftlane comes from.”
What’s wrong? Doesn’t Fox News have a site providing “fair and balanced” coverage of everything related to the automotive industry?? If you don’t like how LLN reports it, quit reading it here. Go drink Rupert Murdoch’s kool aid.
09/05, 5:27 PM
posted by:
Notre Dame is overrated
1952, can you read? He was responding to the, “Do I need one? No” quote. WTF are you talking about? You’re way off base.
09/05, 5:29 PM
posted by:
BorEd
There is nothing wrong with SUVs if you actually need one. However, seeing some poser driving by himself in a gigantic Escrapade just so he can “portray” an image is just pathetic. I say drop the tax incentive and add a stupid tax on top just to pay for Bushie’s version of the all new Vietnam conflict.
09/05, 5:33 PM
posted by:
Ennui
How many SUVs were sold in 1989. That is probably the true size of the SUV market without fashion playing any part.
Hey Notre Dame ignore 1952 MG TD if you are not kissing Chryslers ass or praising sport utilities he don’t want to know
09/05, 5:51 PM
posted by:
chewy
Finally
09/05, 5:56 PM
posted by:
1c3d0g
Indi: I concur. It seems some people just can’t get it through their thick skulls that SUV’s are ALSO USED for practical reasons. Gheeez, damn it, how many times do I have to repeat this.
09/05, 6:15 PM
posted by:
Meatwad
Do what now?
09/05, 6:32 PM
posted by:
Hyperion
THANK
GOD
09/05, 6:57 PM
posted by:
elviososa
Hey…wait untile the measure passed….don’t get too excited too soon
09/05, 7:12 PM
posted by:
2006300C
Detroit will kill this bill. This is election time posturing, nothing more. The market system is working and the sales of SUVs are declining. My family did not buy our QX4 because of some tax exemption so this “bill†will affect no one. And BTW there IS NO GAS GUZZLER TAX ON THE 300C.
09/05, 7:45 PM
posted by:
Pompous Ass
yawn, when are you 20 2006300c? The QX4 is even uglier than the new Navigator. If you didn’t need a tax incentive to buy it then it won’t matter if the bill passes will it? 300C is so last year even with a vinyl top
09/05, 8:06 PM
posted by:
Durandal
This is what is needed right now, regardless of what effect it has on people. People want to use more gas, they should pay for it. nuff said.
09/05, 8:31 PM
posted by:
Jim Morgan www.idriveamerican.com
Another stupid idea from a lib in Mass! Where do they come up with these idiots in that state? Would the good people of Mass send some credible people to Washington instead of fools? Liberal = Terrorist
09/05, 8:42 PM
posted by:
Pakmann
if liberal = terrorist, Jim Morgan = dumbass
http://www.idontdriveamericanbecausetheyarepiecesof****.com
pull your head out of your ass, maybe then you would be able to see things from a better perspective.
09/05, 8:42 PM
posted by:
Anonymous
Ennui – your metric for judging the “need” SUV market is probably the best I’ve heard. Well done. Jim Morgan – are you clinically insane or just a poser? You certainly seem to be one or the other to equate liberal with terrorist. I’d say the idea of encouraging people to drive gas guzzlers which increases our energy needs which increases our military interventions abroad and risk of terrorist attacks at home which means more civilian and military casualties is the idiotic idea from people thinking purely with their pocketbooks. In case your lack the mental facilities, those people would NOT be “liberals”…
09/05, 9:22 PM
posted by:
1c3d0g
Pakmann: so *you* have the “better” perspective? Who died and made you Einstein?
09/05, 9:54 PM
posted by:
Ricardo Head
Dummass idea.
.
Instead of dropping exemptions to the tax, just drop the tax. A gas-guzzler tax is an assrape no matter what it’s levied on.
09/06, 1:16 AM
posted by:
elviososa
I think we should go futher—–>triple the lux. tax for the car MSRP over $30,000.00 since there are so many rich people out there can afford both expensive gas and car.
09/06, 10:15 AM
posted by:
Jim Morgan www.idriveamerican.com
I see Pakmann isn’t man or woman enough to put his/her own name to a post. Pakman = Chicken
09/06, 2:13 PM
posted by:
Someone
Pak-pak-pak-pak-MAAAN-pak-pak-pak-pak-MAAAN!!
09/06, 5:46 PM
posted by:
Anonymous
You are a retard someone
09/10, 10:09 PM
posted by:
Jon Luc
Who ever accused a politician of having half a brain? Oh I know, it was a politician.