Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not to turn this political but these are the kinds of things a liberal democrat would say.
why don't people see that a government controlling a market through taxation is WRONG. the initial premise of the OP's taxation of engine sizes gives a government far too much power, and it destroyes our free market system that has thrived for 2 centuries.
its people like this OP who think that a collective salvation is possible through the control of the indiviudals desicion.
the OP needs to understand that taxation and spending is NEVER the answer to solving a problem.
yes we run on fossil fuels, no we're not running out any time soon.
like the <sarcasm>great</sarcasm> rahm emmanuel said once "never let a good crisis go to waste" and i think this whole global warming thing is a non existant crisis trumped up so the government can have all the taxes it wants.
OP, don't get me wrong, the sales of small cars are on the rise, and the average american is warming up to the idea of a smaller car (bmw 1 series, audi a3, mercedes glk, the new sonata is selling well the elantra was redesigned, the fiesta is back, as well as the mazda 2, the yaris was a pretty good seller before toyota went "thppppt".)
so smaller cars are coming, but please don't try and force me into a milk crate through taxation. its morally wrong and i want my big block v8 when i get that promotion to senior management.
Last edited by Orincarnia; 07-13-2010 at 08:21 AM..
Ok guys.....I get the message. I do believe it is an individual right for anyone to have the car/horsepower and displacement they want.
I am not for depriving anyone of their "toys" or joy of having that "little extra" under the hood at all, - in fact, - I am a super car enthusiast myself.
However, a Cadillac DTS without the engine it has would be like having a Hummer with a Ford Fiesta engine, so it can be justified that it needs that monster just to get it moving.....
What I am really suggesting is a more practical approach by auto manufacturers to go for a more realistic need/practical engine displacement in relation to weight, not depriving any vehicle of its safety features, but generally reducing proportional consumption to a sustainable and beneficial saving for the future.
I did not, nor had, intentions of making any political statements, neither do I promote additional taxes on an overtaxed nation, and agree that my original post could have been better thought out in this area....but words just flowed..and I do agree that fuel taxation is sufficient as it is to our already overtaxed population.
Thanks for the input, and I would like to hear additional comments. It is noted that car manufacturers are swinging to the smaller, more fuel efficient engines meeting emission standards/ safety and comfort, but keeping them to an average of top speed almost nearing...... twice the speed limits on US Roads......
I think the idea is not that bad, but another question is, why do manufactures build such large engines where it is not necessary? Only because people buy it. And why do they buy it? I guess, because they sometimes think a bit old-fashioned.... like the way "only V8 is good enough for a premium car", even the performance is not always that good.
In many european countries, the taxation for cars is based on cc and CO2-emission. That lead to very fuel efficient cars with 1,8 or 2,0 or lets say 3,2l with more than 200-250hp. In my opinion, taxation is not a good way to reach the goal of a lower fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. People are on the move to more fuel efficient cars. Will american car manufactures be ready for this, or will they still run commerical spots for their monster trucks?
I love the sound of 5,7L V8 engines but e.g. the 3,2l Audi supercharged or BMW 335 is at least as powerful as those V8s and much more efficient. Even smaller cars are not that bad, as you mentioned the BMW 1er, Audi A1, A3, Mazda 2... its really enough for most people to be stuck in a traffic jam on americas congested roads...
i dont think we are guna change,
at the root of it is the capitalism. rewards system. if you make it to the 6 figure income you deserve the toys.
without a trophy girl and a BWM what is the point of all the kicking and biting and clawing to the top?
btw here is mine-- bmw 540i, 160 mph. http://www.kenrockwell.com/bmw/540specifications.htm
of course the rewards system creates friction doesnt it.
that is why they give everybody in k12 a pretty ribbon for trying.
Looking at the limitations imposed by State speed limits, I still find it hard to justify motor vehicle engines exceeding 2,5/3.0 liters which would certainly bring down the consumption of gas and valuable resources which are being burned up daily.
Many vehicles on the road today with engines smaller than 3.0 liters amply provide sufficient power, acceleration, comfort and all the bells and whistles of cars normally considered to be of superior categories/bigger engines, meet with safety requirements and because they are considerably lighter do less damage to the communications infrastructure that provides less taxpayer money on road maintenance.
While I know I will be shouted down by the power hungry 0-60's in 3 seconds types, I do believe that a more practical approach should be sought by the Administration and auto manufacturers to support smaller engine use.
Those wishing to have larger cc's/horsepower and etc could either be subject to the following:
For those buying vehicles in excess of 3.0 liters-
a: For fun; - subject to a slight tax increase
b: For work/farm/business vehicles: having justification would not
require additional taxation
c: Collectors: Taxed in Collectors license
d: Government/service vehicles: Not taxed
How does one feel about a proposal or lobbying in the administration for a general reduction in the size of engines for the sedan/wagon/smaller sports car /SUV categories for a real change in fuel conservation measures for the future?
My reasons for suggesting this are that I see so many high cc engines that really have no justification (i.e. the high school kid with the "cool" 5,7 liter V8 that he drives 2 miles to school in and his main use is for weekend "fun" time) that could be amply performed by a very much cooler looking 1,8 liter engine......would be a lot faster in many cases if he is looking for that little extra....
I would appreciate any comments or opinions......
The sad thing is that politicians think just like this.... Somehow displacement magically equates to fuel economy. There are thousands of other factors aside from final displacement that contribute to the fuel economy of a vehicle. If anything this ridiculous idea should be based on vehicle mass.
So ignoring fact of matter how could you possibly rationalize this as a possibility in the US? This harebrained idea just sounds like typical amateur armchair environmentalist garbage. No fact, no critical thought, no study, no consideration of civil rights... just cavalier blurted out nonsense with warm and fuzzy intentions. Fail.
at the root of it is the capitalism. rewards system. if you make it to the 6 figure income you deserve the toys.
without a trophy girl and a BWM what is the point of all the kicking and biting and clawing to the top?
btw here is mine bmw 540i, 160 mph. BMW 540i 540 specifications
of course the rewards system creates friction doesnt it.
that is why they give everybody in k12 a pretty ribbon for trying.
Man I'm glad I don't live my life like that. Funnily enough, I'll be able to afford the toys anyways.
But making 6 figures, wouldn't you easily be able to pay a slightly higher premium on the luxury car anyway?
Someone brought up Global Warming in the thread, but I don't think that was really the point the OP was trying to get to, and it is essentially pointless anyways, whether it be real or not.
Children are getting airway deceases at an alarming rate and people are getting sick a lot more because of the local pollution inner city and close to cities. Driving more efficient, more frugal cars with ample functionality, will severely cut the pollution levels in inner city environments.
Couple that with a few other things and you'd gone a long way to fixing the problem all together.
Now, I'm as big of a car enthusiast as the next guy, but that doesn't mean I have to chain myself to a Ford Superduty with the engine idling and scream about rights to be dumb/uninformed.
No one is talking about a ban on fast cars, but I can see, just as easily as any other, that I have no real need for a 5.0L Mustang, if I get it, it's a pure case of "want", and if I just want something and that something directly impact the health of others by no choice of their own, I have no problem understanding why I have to pay a premium for that.
What I am really suggesting is a more practical approach by auto manufacturers to go for a more realistic need/practical engine displacement in relation to weight, not depriving any vehicle of its safety features, but generally reducing proportional consumption to a sustainable and beneficial saving for the future.
Carmakers are already heading in that direction. Turbo 6's are taking the place of V8's, and turbo 4's are taking the place of V6's. This is natural progress, which I'm all for, but like others have strongly interated, government has no place telling consumers how much power they need.
Man I'm glad I don't live my life like that. Funnily enough, I'll be able to afford the toys anyways.
But making 6 figures, wouldn't you easily be able to pay a slightly higher premium on the luxury car anyway?
Someone brought up Global Warming in the thread, but I don't think that was really the point the OP was trying to get to, and it is essentially pointless anyways, whether it be real or not.
...
Now, I'm as big of a car enthusiast as the next guy, but that doesn't mean I have to chain myself to a Ford Superduty with the engine idling and scream about rights to be dumb/uninformed.
No one is talking about a ban on fast cars, but I can see, just as easily as any other, that I have no real need for a 5.0L Mustang, if I get it, it's a pure case of "want", and if I just want something and that something directly impact the health of others by no choice of their own, I have no problem understanding why I have to pay a premium for that.
why do you feel that wasting money is ok?
my parents make six figures, my family is still middle class.
why pay more than you have to for a particular item? esspecially when the government will end up spending that revenue (without accountability) coming from your pocket.
i am 24 years old and its disheartening to see my finances nickel and dimed every time i turn around and then be handed a letter saying "taxes went up again"
i'm a car enthusiast, and i hope i'm not off topic when saying these things, but paying 54,000 for a shelby cobra mustang, sales tax, luxury tax, gas guzzler tax, and then additional taxes on top of it? its preposterous. i find the whole thing in favor of government control. and not in favor of the american way of ingenuity.
Last edited by Orincarnia; 07-13-2010 at 11:23 AM..
my parents make six figures, my family is still middle class.
why pay more than you have to for a particular item? esspecially when the government will end up spending that revenue (without accountability) coming from your pocket.
I don't think contributing to whichever society I'm a member of is wasting.
Yes, we should all work to try and get government spending to be more efficient, and I outlined what means I think any extra tax should go to in earlier posts.
I don't think disorganized government spending is a good reason not to tax something, it merely means it has to be worked on to be improved.
Saying it's a good reason not to tax is like those who don't give money to charity because "80% is lost in bureaucracy and organization", yes, that's not ideal, but that still means 20% goes where it's needed, so you start with that, and then if it bothers you, you try and do what you can to make it more efficient.
And lastly, when purchasing a premium/luxury car, I wouldn't consider the amount going to our common goals/needs/projects the wasteful part. Buying a luxury car is, when put in perspective, wasteful by definition, that however doesn't mean I personally think it's wasteful, given you have the funds to do so.
Global Warming or not, it's a fact that airway deceases are on a dramatic rise, it's fact that this happens most of all in congested, heavily trafficked urban areas, so I don't think it's unreasonable that drivers do what they can to alleviate the problems they are part in creating.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
