Town May Double Taxes On SUVs --

[Breeze54]

Town May Double Taxes On SUVs

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/13263292/detail.html

Owners' Group Calls Proposal 'Nutty'

POSTED: 6:51 am EDT May 5, 2007

BOSTON --

An environmental activist wants to double the excise tax on SUVs in Brookline, Mass.,
the Boston Herald reported Saturday.

Lawyer and bike commuter Andrew Fischer told the Herald that SUVs use more gas, produce
more pollution and were designed by auto makers to “evade fuel-efficiency standards.”

Under the proposed hike, the excise tax for a 2007 RAV 4 would double from $575 to $1,150 annually.

“That stinks. It’s un-American,” Tommy Lee, 43, a contractor told the Herald. “What’s next? Are
they going to go after people with high-end washing machines? It’s dangerous because you wonder
what’s next.”

Fischer’s proposal goes before Brookline's Town Meeting at the end of the month.
The tax could not be implemented without approval from the Legislature.

“They’ve made their choice and they should pay for the choice,” Fischer said.
“This is an example of think global, act local.”

Barry McCahill, head of SUV Owners of America, told the Herald the proposal is “nutty.”

Other communities have considered similar measures, said McCahill,

“especially in more liberal areas where political correctness runs rampant, like California."

:crazy: ?

--------------

POLL: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/13263292/detail.html

The town of Brookline is considering a proposal to double the excise tax on SUVs.

What do you think?

Choice -------- Votes -------- Percentage of 419 Votes

I agree -------- 130 ------------------- 31%

I disagree ----- 287 ------------------- 68%

No Opinion --------2 ---------------------0%

[Iris]

1. I love the high-end washing machine comparison.

I mean, aren't most high-end washing machines more energy efficient front-loaders?

[JohnLocke]

6. I thought that immediately, too.

:D

[Iris]

11. off topic - are you JohnLocke the philospher or the LOST survivor?

Glad I'm not the only one who thought of that!

And I like your John Edwards sticker!

[JohnLocke]

19. The philosopher, and my grandfather's middle name.

:)

[Iris]

20. cool! n/t

[Forkboy]

39. I just want to say John

That you are an exemplary model of the perfect supporter.

My makeup (no,not Max Factor) doesn't allow me that kind of patience and temperment very often...but I wish it did.

[Breeze54]

7. Who knew they had a group?? SUV Owners of America?

:rofl:

[enid602]

48. driers

He should have said clothes driers; they use a ton of energy, and are almost never seen outside the US.

[Iris]

50. yes, but that would have required that he actually express a thought

and not just run off at the mouth.

[sutz12]

2. They might want to exempt businesses....but WTH....

The CAFE exemptions for large vehicles was always kind of stupid to begin with.

[Breeze54]

3. Whats a 'CAFE exemptions'??

:shrug:

[Iris]

5. If it's big enough to be a coffee shop it's exempt! (maybe?) n/t

[sutz12]

10. OMFG!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Breeze54]

14. lmfao!!

:rofl:

[sutz12]

8. Corporate Average Fuel Economy...

it's how they establish fuel economy limits across all models of a given manufacturer's vehicles. Currently, SUV's and light trucks, etc. are exempt. Which is why fuel efficiency standards are about half of those in more advanced countries, like China*. :evilgrin:

*at least per An Inconvenient Truth.

[Breeze54]

12. Thanks! Currently, SUV's and light trucks, etc. are exempt??

:wtf:

:evilfrown:

[sutz12]

24. I believe so.

If they included them, they couldn't make the current standards.

We have to get them on the lists, though, or we'll never boost the numbers to internationally accepted levels. But even without those included, American cars are woefully behind other nations in fuel economy. Of course, we have artificially low gas prices supported by subsidies. Plus, our gas taxes are low compared to most other countries.

[krispos42]

38. Yes, I don't believe they are considered "passenger cars"

That should probably be reconsidered considering the number of people that buy them only because they want something cooler than a minivan for the same purpose.

But truck in general are recognized as work vehicles and are usually exempt from fuel-economy standards. Or at least have a lesser standard than passenger cars.

There probably needs to be a different standard for car-based SUVs (crossovers) versus traditional body-on-frame heavy-duty trucks like the Explorer and Suburban. A Subaru Forester, for example, has similar dimensions, passenger capacity, power, etc., as a Dodge Avenger, and they get similar fuel economies, so a Forester should meet the same standards. In other words, they fill essentially the same role, passenger transportation, as opposed to a work truck. I wouldn't expect a Tahoe to get the same fuel economy as a Caravan because a Caravan can't tow a 7,000-pound trailer through the Rockies.

[hatrack]

55. Well, they're held to a lower fleet average standard, and if over 6,000 lbs . . .

They're COMPLETELY exempt from CAFE standards.

[Hobarticus]

54. Wanna hear something even better?

Remember how Gore said that we can't seel American-made cars ibn China, becaus ethey have higher fuel-efficiency laws?

I've been to China, and I've see lots of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean makes on the road....and several Ford and Chevy models that I didn't recognize.

I asked my host where these cars came from, and he said that they are built in China, on contract. China can't export them, by the terms of the contract.

So Ford and Chevy already are building cars that match China's high fuel-efficiency demands....but we can't get them here.

Fabulous.

[Selatius]

4. They should repeal the excise tax if the federal government increases CAFE standards

Otherwise, it will simply make a complex tax code even more complex. If the federal government repeals the tax credit for SUVs (better yet, simply tighten it by a large degree so people other than business owners cannot freeload onto the credit and claim it) and increases one for hybrids, then that should be more than enough to convince people to dump their SUVs in favor of 4-door sedans and hybrids and wouldn't need tinkering at the local level with the tax code.

[Breeze54]

9. Yeah! Lower excise taxes for smaller cars!

Hear! Hear!

;)

[ContraBass Black]

13. Are they going by fuel economy, body type, offroad utility, or just general classification?

Not all SUV's are gas hogs or indulgences. If the measure does not hinge on specific, relevant criteria (the article suggests that it doesn't), then it is unproductive and unfair.

[Redstone]

15. That'll never happen. There are legal strictures in most towns and states that prevent

people from being singled out in the local or state tax codes.

Sorry; I detest SUVs as much as anyone, but it's MUCH more important to me that their owners be treated FAIRLY under the law.

The laws are supposed to be applied the same way to anyone.

Redstone

[Breeze54]

16. Not in Taxachusetts!!

:P

[Redstone]

21. OK, then I'll say this, and anyone can flame as they wish: It's fucking un-American to single

them out.

How's that?

Property should be taxed on its MARKET VALUE, not on SOMEONE'S OPINION.

If the Republicans ran that town, should they be allowed to add a tax surcharge to Hondas and Toyotas because they think people should "buy American?"

Of course not.

But this is the same crap, but in reverse.

Redstone

[Breeze54]

25. Ok, what if they increase the cost of Emissions test on SUV's?

Wouldn't that test take longer? Larger engine or something?

They charge more for property taxes, based on value of that property, don't they? :shrug:

(This would never pass in Brookline anyway! Too many SUV drivers live there.) :P

[murloc]

40. not really

exhaust gas is exhaust gas.

Exhaust gas doesnt really have any concept of what vehicle it came out of it, and is as hard or easy to test as any other.

[LiberalFighter]

26. I agree

If the state creates legislation that applies the same standard for the whole state then fine. But for a city or other local government to determine what is taxed is wrong.

I don't know how they determine taxes on vehicles in MA. It would be reasonable that trucks would also have the same excise tax as SUV's. Are they going to base the excise tax on the value of the vehicle, the gas mileage, age of vehicle?

[Breeze54]

27. We all get excise taxed in MA!

It's based on year and make of auto, blue book value, etc.

-------------

Do I have to pay excise tax with my Massachusetts registration?

In Massachusetts, excise tax is paid to the city or town where the vehicle is registered.
You are not required to have proof of paid excise tax when you renew a registration.
However, if you don't pay excise tax, you can have your registration suspended or refused for renewal.

Calculation of the Excise Amount

The amount of the motor vehicle excise due on a particular vehicle in any year is calculated by multiplying the value of the vehicle by the motor excise tax rate of $25.00 per thousand. The value of a vehicle for the purpose of the excise is the applicable percentage for that year of the M.S.R.P. for that vehicle. the manufacturer’s suggested retail price for the vehicle is the price recommended by the manufacturer as the selling price of that vehicle when new. It is the manufacturer’s list price rather than the actual purchase price which will control for purposes of calculating the motor vehicle excise.

The applicable percentages are set out as follows:

· in the year preceding the year of manufacture -50%

· in the year of manufacture 90%

· in the second year 60%

· in the third year - 40%

· in the fourth 25%

· in the fifth and succeeding years 10%

[LiberalFighter]

29. Does the state determine it or the local governments?

I bet the state does.

[Breeze54]

31. The state sets the rate, looks like.

If You Disagree with Your Assessment, File for an Abatement

http://www.wayland.ma.us/assessors/abatements.html#ABATEMENT%20PROCESS

There is no perfect assessment, and from time to time errors of fact or judgment will occur.
That is why the state provides for hearings and an abatement process. The process allows
taxpayers to present arguments, supported by sales data that their assessments are too high
or they have been disproportionately assessed.

[Digit]

17. On a Rav 4? You have got to be kidding...that is like a mini suv

It is not like it is a frigging Hummer or Expedition.

[Redstone]

23. That's exactly why injecting ideology into taxation policy is bullsht. It's a LOUSY idea,

even though some people will champion it as some kind of "Victory for the People."

Just another stupid idea, and I can't even believe I'm wasting time discussing it. Just wanted to let you know that I agree with you.

Redstone

[Forkboy]

18. Horrible idea.

What if I drive a compact car but leave all my lights on all day at home,dishwasher running,tv going,etc.?

(For the record,I don't have a vehicle,a dishwasher,or even a house.I do have a tv,but strictly for research on my thesis that cartoons are still funny at age 39).

[LiberalFighter]

28. The old cartoons or the newer cartoons?

[Forkboy]

32. Actually,it's on the ties between Acme and Halliburton.

:)

[gravity]

22. They could just increase gas taxes

That way total gas consumption is taxed, and not just the type of car you drive. That seems the most fair to me.

[ContraBass Black]

30. That could screw poor people who have to drive to work.

Edietd for tyops.

[Breeze54]

33. "Edietd for tyops."

:rofl:

We have so many comedians on DU!! :P

[drm604]

34. SUV Owners of America

I never heard of that group before but as soon as I read it I became suspicious and decided to do some googling. It turns out that they are exactly what I suspected, an industry front group.

sourcewatch.org page on Sport Utility Vehicle Owners of America

PR commentator Paul Holmes has called SUVOA, while not technically "dishonest or unethical," an example of deceptive PR. "What is clear is that SUVOA is a front for SUV manufacturers. Its board of directors consists largely of industry reps and public affairs execs with ties to the industry," Holmes wrote. "It's hard to believe that there isn't an attempt to deceive here. It seems likely that SUVOA gets most of its funding - directly or indirectly - from the auto industry rather than from individual owners and that its true purpose is to represent their interests. ... At the very least, the group's funding is opaque: It's certainly not explained on SUVOA's website or in its press releases. And that's my problem with front groups."

The registrar of their domain page shares an address with the PR firm at http://www.stratacomm.net.

odwyerpr.com gives this information:

Strat@comm made our name with our industry-leading automotive and transportation practice, and our roster of current and past clients in the field reads like a who's who, including manufacturers (DaimlerChrysler, Ford, General Motors and Mitsubishi), suppliers (Continental, OnStar, Siemens, Tenneco), associations (Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, American Public Transportation Association, Automotive Retailing Today, SUV Owners of America), and highway safety groups (American Trauma Society, Checkpoint Strikeforce, Click It or Ticket, Governors Highway Safety Association).

So it looks like Barry McCahill is an industry shill pretending to represent a grassroots group of SUV owners.

[Breeze54]

35. Great research!!! Thanks!

"It seems likely that SUVOA gets most of its funding - directly or indirectly - from the auto industry..."

Why am I NOT surprised??

I was suspicious when he was quoted in The Herald! :P (RW newspaper in Boston)

[ComerPerro]

36. its stupid to tax SUVs higher. We already tax gasoline anyway, and they use a ton of it

so they are paying the price.

[Tesha]

49. It's stupid to take economic steps to save the planet, right?

We ought to have all sortsof economic disincentives
against wasteful consumption and that certainly includes
(real, light-truck-derived) SUVs.

Tesha

[ComerPerro]

51. we do. Gas taxes.

[Tesha]

52. Gas taxes are not nearly high enough.

Gas taxes are not nearly high enough.

Remember when Republicans used to wail and moan
about how a (say) $0.50 per gallon rise in gas
taxes would bankrupt America?

Oddly enough, they seem to think that $2.00/gallon
in additional oil company profits doesn't have the
same bad sorts of effects.

Tesha

[lligrd]

37. They Didn't Complain When They Got The Tax Exemption

for buying the big ass gas guzzlers. Cry me a river!

[ContraBass Black]

53. Most of the vehicles that this would affect did not receive the tax exemption.

[murloc]

41. $575 is rather steep already

Is that every year? my god.

doubling it to $1100 will just encourage people to register it in a neighoring town.

[Breeze54]

42. They can't, insurance would get them.

;)

I doubt it will happen anyway.
Selectman is trying to make a point, is all, imho.

[murloc]

43. insurance don't care

where its registered.

Just only ask where its garaged.

[Breeze54]

44. Where it's registered (address), determines the rate of insurance.

[murloc]

45. I guess it depends on the insurer.

I know that Geico determines rates based on where its garaged.

They record the registration but its the garage address that determines the rate.

[Breeze54]

46. Geico is outlawed in MA.

MA car insurance is regulated.

[murloc]

47. Interesting. What did they get banned for? nt?