Boston.com reports that Massive Taxes’ Governor is pledging to freeze toll charges throughout The Bay State. Before you get out your huzzahs, see: above. “Governor Deval Patrick said today he is looking at a Hummer tax—adding higher registration fees for gas-guzzling cars [ED: presumably SUVs will be rounded-up and shot] and offering discounts for those that do less harm to the environment.” The battle lines are drawn across entirely predictable boundaries, with common sense going out for a cup of Clover (at the taxpayer’s expense).
“The social costs of larger vehicles include not only the additional pollution, but also higher crash risks to other vehicles,” said Representative William Brownsberger, a Belmont Democrat who is cosponsoring two bills in the Legislature that would penalize expensive and heavy cars with higher taxes or fees.
But opponents say such fees could penalize families and small businesses who need big cars or trucks and already pay higher fuel prices. And at least one influential player in the transportation debate worries that adding an environmental component to the debate could complicate it, and ultimately delay important plans to fix the state’s broken road and public transit system.
So, as my father would say, how much is this boondoggle going to cost me? Not stated. Of course.
Meanwhile, as part of the whole raise revenues by saving the planet thing, the Patrick administration’s also looking at hoiking-up the gas tax. Although Deval was apparently encouraged by a not-entirely-scientific show-of-hands poll whilst addressing a not-entirely-representational group of potential voters, the Gov gets the whole petard hoisting deal.
But Patrick cautioned that even if lawmakers raise the gas tax rate, the state would probably collect less money in the future as drivers buy more fuel-efficient cars and need less gas. Because of that, he is also considering a replacement that would charge drivers a fee for every mile they drive.
I thought that prostitution outside the State House was illegal in MA. How can they tax it?
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
The first Boston Tea Party took place over a 3% tax. The time for us to roll over is coming to and end.
The next Boston Tea Party begins on July 4, 2009.
@ KnowItAll: Exactly…I concur.
While I don’t live anywhere near Taxxachusetts, I can certainly empathize. I think we are just starting to see a small groundswell of an anti-tax revolt.
I don’t see any reason why anyone, or any business should pay any more than 10% of our gross incomes to our government’s coffers. I’d love to see a Constitutional Amendment that reads something like ‘ the Federal government budget cannot exceed 10% of an average of the last 10 year’s annual GDP’.
Really sucks chuck(R).
Because of that, he is also considering a replacement that would charge drivers a fee for every mile they drive.
This will never work. People need to have an actual job to drive to before they rack up any serious miles.
Large families should be taxed at a higher rate also.
I miss the New England coast, but not the completely retarded politics and government that are associated with it.
Taxxachusetts? Less tax on prepared food, less on goods, less on our incomes, less on our TSX (received the excise charge this morning – 30% less than VA, after a year’s depreciation was accommodated). Hell, I paid more, on average in taxes in 3 months in VA (2002-2008) and SC (2000-2002) than we have paid in 7 months up here.
@Folkdancer: I agree. Wholeheartedly.
in a world of finite resources and fairness, those who use more should expect to – and be required to – pay more for the privilege. to help mitigate the damages they do to resources shared by all.
google ‘tragedy of the commons’ and see for yourself.
@philipwitak: Given that resources are not free, and that it costs more to build, buy, and operate an SUV, one could argue that this is already in place.
If you’re talking about some Harrison Bergeron-style leveling, then just remember that, once you manage to get the fifty million upper-middle-class families in this country down to an “acceptable” level of consumption, there will be approximately four billion people eating worms and grass who will have some expectations about leveling you.
Sounds like we just need to send all of our paychecks to the Gov. and ask him like his slave what to think and do! “You know better then me Gov.!”
I don’t oppose this. The vehicles would still be available – to those willing to pay for them. This type of tax policy should be the national policy instead of CAFE. It would keep choice, yet encourage the purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles.
Agree that this is a misguided proposal. Gov. Cadillac Deval is in desperado mode.
But as a resident of this great Commonwealth, it is worth noting that the “Taxachusetts” moniker (1985 called and it wants its lingo back) is no longer true.
CNN did a ranking on the relative tax burdens of the 50 states, and Mass. ranked 32nd highest. I’m sure you can fiddle with the stats – I’ve seen rankings by other sources that had Mass. at 28th and 37th – but otherwise not too shabby.
Why doesn’t the federal government just increase the gas guzzler tax? I don’t see why state governments need to play this game, nor how would it stop someone from going out of state to purchase said vehicle.
Pay to play.
nor how would it stop someone from going out of state to purchase said vehicle.
In Mass, you pay sales tax when you register the vehicle. I could buy a car in Iceland, put pontoons on it, row it to Boston Harbor, sell the fish I caught during my trip at a Haymarket stand, and I would still have to pay 5% MA sales tax when I register it at the RMV.
I don’t know how people who say that the gas guzzlers don’t pay their fair share. They most likely pay more for the vehicle and pay more in state, local, and federal gas taxes. The problem is that a lot real hard working Americans need trucks to make a living.
I was under the impression that businesses get a tax write off on vehicles used for commercial purposes.
Things like the H2 should be banned based on safety concerns. Plus their existence curtails the purchase of normal sized fuel efficient and practical vehicles.
One way to do without outright an outright ban would be radically higher registration fees based on vehicle weight. Something like a weight surcharge could be added to vehciles that weigh 4000 pounds or more, and the fee would have an exponential growth for weight above 4000. Something like $300 for 4000 pounds and the fee doubles for every 500 pounds beyond 4000. Thus a 5000 pound vehicle would have an annual weight surcharge of $1200 dollars and a 6000 pound one would be $4800.
Get the weight down and gas mileage will follow.
Personally I think that monstrosities like the H2 should be flat out illegal, the same way I would be prevented from welding japanese swords on the hood of my car. They are a danger to everyone on the road and a vehicle that size serves no purpose for ordinary use. They have been made large simply to be large. Current pickup trucks now fall into the same category.
By the same token, it should be illegal to jack up a truck and drive it on public roads. Not only are the trucks huge, they now have their frames raised above the crash protection provided by the doors of normal cars. If you want to go digging then transport your jacked up vehicle to the sticks on a trailer.
Well, we Canadian sheeple have allowed a $1000-$4000 tax surcharge on SUV’s to “save the planet”. They never talk about the increased gas tax we pay by driving a vehicle that needs more fuel so in essence we pay twice. Since there are no real 4wd stationwagons out there for a family of 5 I feel penalized as a family man.
Wagons can’t seat five? Minivans don’t have AWD?
“Wagons can’t seat five?”
Not comfortably.
“Minivans don’t have AWD?”
Only one. Not much choice.
in a world of finite resources and fairness, those who use more should expect to – and be required to – pay more for the privilege.
This philosophy assumes the economic ‘pie’ is a fixed size – but this idea is dead wrong. Where do you think economic growth comes from – by stealing from others? Those who “use more” have already paid for what they use. Why make them pay again – are you advocating some kind of class warfare, where we tax people just because they can consume more (whatever “more” means)?
Should we then also do the opposite – so that those who consume less are reimbursed for that? Sounds a lot like “spreading the wealth” to me.
This slippery slope will eventually lead to all wealthy citizens of the world paying financial tribute (“spreading the wealth”) to everyone else, regardless of each person’s work ethic or contribution to society.
re: “If you’re talking about some Harrison Bergeron-style leveling…”
Jack Baruth / February 19th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
not at all, jack. i provided a valid, salient reference for purposes of context, precisely to avoid confusing people, as i apparently have you.
“…tragedy of the commons…a dilemma in which multiple individuals acting independently in their own self-interest can ultimately destroy a shared limited resource even where it is clear that it is not in anyone’s long term interest for this to happen.”
:: snip ::
the tragedy of the commons metaphorically “illustrates the argument that free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately dooms the resource through over-exploitation.”
if you are genuinely interested in understanding my point rather than simply in being argumentative, you might wish to begin by reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Did you know that in some countries people with more money have to pay a higher percentage of taxes? Weird huh – I think it’s called progressive taxation or something? I suppose these countries will eventually dissolve into paying financial tributes (“spreading the wealth”) to everyone else, regardless of each person’s work ethic or contribution to society.
If we are all chiming in about why Hummers and SUVs need to be banned for the public good, why stop there? What about the national obesity epidemic. Just like there is a gas tax and a proposed mileage fee, we could institute a calorie fee.
Some government bureaurocrat could determine the appropriate caloric intake by age and height. Any consumption of calories over this amount would be subject to additional taxes and fines. Just think of all the problems this would solve. Not only the health issues directly associated with obesity (diabietes, heart failure, etc.), but people would save money by spending less on food, there would also be a reduction in pollution and positive benefits to the environment by producing less food. Sure some people will need more calories than the average but we are talking about the public good here so tough luck.
Personally I think that monstrosities like the Bacon Double Cheeseburger should be flat out illegal, the same way I would be prevented from eating pate du foie gras in Chicago. They are a danger to everyone contributing to Medicare and a burger that size serves no purpose for ordinary use when tofu and sprouts are available. They have been made large simply to be large. Current Super Size fries now fall into the same category.
And what about TV? I hear all the time how we watch too much TV and that national educational test scores are declining. Let’s have the government determine what and how much TV we should watch.
Hey, I think I’m on to something here. If the government would just tell us what to drive, what to eat and drink, what to do for a living and where to live we would be all better off because surely they know better than we do what is best for us. They could also determine what and how much gets made. They could create a new constitution whereby it is established that “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need”. It would be a workers paradise. Too bad this has never been tried because it just might work.
This is fine with me, as long as my motorcycle which weighs 1/10 wet what most sedans weighs only has to pay 1/10 the taxes (or they pay 10x my registration fee) of a sedan.
(for the humor impaired, that was sarcasm)
This is a great idea!
I would much rather have the government tax H2’s than do things like raise the income tax, as California just did. $1000 a year sounds fair to compensate all the other people for how ugly and dangerous these vehicals are.
And this isn’t even a tax increase since the fee seems like it will be reduced for other people, it’s a tax shift.
philipwitak: in a world of finite resources and fairness, those who use more should expect to – and be required to – pay more for the privilege. to help mitigate the damages they do to resources shared by all.
Unless they are giving away HUMMERS and gasoline for free, people who buy and use them are already paying more. If they are giving away HUMMERS and gasoline, I’d like to know where this is happening.
And rationing by ability to pay seems pretty fair to me. We don’t “share” gasoline, and being able to buy more isn’t a “privilege.” We buy it according to our ability to pay. If you want to “share” the gasoline I bought last night, you are free to write a check for the amount, along with an additional fee for the inconvenience of me having to make an early and unexpected trip to fill up the tank to replace the gasoline I sold to you.
The Tragedy of the Commons example only applies in a world when there is no disincentive to using more and more of a scarce resource. You might want to check out some of the articles from last summer to see what happens when gasoline prices start rising. Smaller car sales increase, SUV sales tank and the number of miles driven declines. All without any new taxing schemes or fees. Gasoline, meanwhile, is so scarce that…it is now priced at roughly half of what it cost last summer.
I’d rather have a higher income tax than a small tax here and a small fee there. Just take it all out at once so it’s easy for me to see how much of my money you’re using!
Last I heard, nobody was required to live in MA. There are lots of other states to choose from. Of course, many have zilch in the way of culture, good medical facilities, a highly educated populace, a skilled work force, a great variety of industries (many high-tech), etc. On the other hand, if you want factory hog farms, mountain tops that have been scraped clean to end up filling adjacent streams, declining industries, real estate Chernobyls, high infant mortality rates, high school drop-out rates, etc. (and a multitude of other social, economic and ecological ills), you have a substantial array from which to choose. Even RF’s Rhode Island has a 10% unemployment rate, one of the highest in the country. Do you suppose it’s because of a levy on Hummers?
arminius
you have an interesting way with words. !11! mmmm, H2 bacon…..
Btw, nobody I know welds Japanese katana to the hood. We all stick tanto knives in the wheel spokes. Some bastich won’t let us by, we use the ol’ Ben Hur chariot race move on’em.
Jeff Waingrow: On the other hand, if you want factory hog farms, mountain tops that have been scraped clean to end up filling adjacent streams, declining industries, real estate Chernobyls, high infant mortality rates, high school drop-out rates, etc. (and a multitude of other social, economic and ecological ills), you have a substantial array from which to choose.
Except for the factory hog farms and ruined mountain tops, Massachusetts has all of those, too. So I’m not quite sure of the point you are trying to make…
re: “…are you advocating some kind of class warfare, where we tax people just because they can consume more…”
gslippy / February 19th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
no. i never said anything about “class warfare.” those are your words. and i never endorsed taxing people “just because they CAN consume more.”
but i am advocating taxing – or otherwise charging – people when they DO use more, if and/or when that usage comes at an additional real cost to the rest of us.
its a very simple premise. ya wanna play? ya oughta pay.
Geeber – untrue my fine man. Would rather not have this devolve into a my-state-can-beat-up-your-state pissing match, but it is true that Massachusetts consistently ranks in the top five states in the nation in such categories as quality of and access to health care for both adults and children, per capita income, high school graduation rates, college graduation rates, low incidence of divorce, infant mortality, various crime categories, even air and water quality ranks near the top.
Of course, we aren’t living in utopia up here – we have a real estate mess like everywhere else and some truly zany politics…plus it’s been as cold as hell this winter, but Massachusetts? She ain’t so bad.
philipwitak: but i am advocating taxing – or otherwise charging – people when they DO use more, if and/or when that usage comes at an additional real cost to the rest of us.
Once again, unless they are giving gasoline away, people are already paying.
Oh, no. Setting safety standard is a terrible intrusion on people’s rights. Let’s get rid of all the building codes. People should be allowed to build whatever they want. In fact not allowing people to endanger others is equivalent to restricting their consumption of Big Macs. Where will it end? Soon we all be in reeducation camps or one of the Republicans’ gulags or secret prisons. We had better get rid of all of society’s laws and protections to be sure we are safe from the red menace.
Yup, everyone should be convinced by a ridiculous strawman argument like that.
Ya wanna play? Ya oughta pay?
Pay who exactly? Use more how? Does the State own the extra plastic, glass and steel that go into an SUV? We’ve screwed up any rational road usage fee basis by subsidizing 20-40 ton trucks. The road damage fraction difference between a 1.5 ton car and a 3 ton SUV is insignificant compared to that of a 40 ton five axle truck. The formula for use damage is a third or fourth order curve fit. A rational weight based assessment for all vehicles would have the SUV and light car much closer than you might think.
I hate SUVs. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve thought – move that f’n conestoga wagon outa my left lane. But I’d sooner put up with them than accept even more State control over things like the amount of steel in a vehicle. Its the choice between bad and even worse. If you want to go after them on safety grounds, then do so. Don’t conflate that with an argument based on some sort of ‘commons’ ownership that doesn’t exist.
PartsUnknown: Would rather not have this devolve into a my-state-can-beat-up-your-state pissing match, but it is true that Massachusetts consistently ranks in the top five states in the nation in such categories as quality of and access to health care for both adults and children, per capita income, high school graduation rates, college graduation rates, low incidence of divorce, infant mortality, various crime categories, even air and water quality ranks near the top.
It has a lower divorce rate because of an aging population, and fewer people marry in the first place. And its air and water quality rank near the top because most manufacturing left long ago.
Crime? Actually, Massachusetts has the 18th highest rate of violent crime among all states. Not the worst, but definitely not the best, either.
And the health care plan enacted by Governor Mitt RRomney has hit several snags. It was well-intentioned, but there is a real question as to whether the state can afford it.
Qwerty: Oh, no. Setting safety standard is a terrible intrusion on people’s rights. Let’s get rid of all the building codes. People should be allowed to build whatever they want. In fact not allowing people to endanger others is equivalent to restricting their consumption of Big Macs. Where will it end? Soon we all be in reeducation camps or one of the Republicans’ gulags or secret prisons. We had better get rid of all of society’s laws and protections to be sure we are safe from the red menace.
Well, if SUVs and HUMMERs were making the roads less safe, you’d have a point. But, since they aren’t, you don’t. You may want to check the latest fatality statistics for the nation’s roads. The roads are safer than ever, even with the increased number of SUVs and pickup trucks.
So you can set your strawman back in the cornfield where he belongs.
This tax has nothing to do with safety. It’s about raising revenue. Much like photo radar for speed enforcement is about raising revenue, as opposed to making the roads safer. We can only hope and pray that most people aren’t so gullible.
My point is not that we should eliminate all safety standards (although if you don’t want to wear a seat belt or helmet I don’t see why your stupidity should be prevented by law), my point is that government regulation or manipulation of behavior is a slippery slope. What is egregious to you may be acceptable and even desirable for others.
As for obesity endangering others, of course it does, just not as directly as a car crash. Heath care, like everything else, is a limited resource. The more preventable diseases there are utilizing the limited resource of health care, the less there is for other items. This will be amplified even more under a government run health care system that would rely on rationing as a means of distribution.
and just for the sake of clarification, lets all recognize that there are other costs associated with owning and operating hummers other than the expense of obtaining maintaining refueling and insuring them.
consider the costs to the public in terms of road access, usage and maintenance. those roads are a shared resource.
and consider the costs associated with the maintenance and sustainability of a healthy environment. that environment is also a shared resource.
and for the record, i do not share geeber’s opinion that the tragedy of the commons “…only applies in a world when there is no disincentive to using more and more of a scarce resource” – and neither would its author, nor any of those whom align themselves with its rational.
geeber, please dig deeper.
@geeber
“Well, if SUVs and HUMMERs were making the roads less safe, you’d have a point. But, since they aren’t, you don’t. The roads are safer than ever, even with the increased number of SUVs and pickup trucks.”
Your argument from generally increased road safety misses all of the numerous confounding factors that could play into the result. I’m not even going to get into it. Instead, I’m going to offer specific counter-evidence to suggest that big SUVs really are a menace.
As for sources for that point, how about our very own TTAC? See: https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/german-crash-tests-part-2/.
Large SUVs pose a safety hazard. Taxing them is the least we could do. In this case, mandating crash-compatibility standards on a national level is probably a much better idea.
Assuming we solve the crash compatibility problem through regulation instead of tax, is there a good justification for an increased SUV registration fee still? There are a few reasons, but nothing very compelling. Heavier cars wear down the roads more per mile — but then they also burn more gas and pay more gas tax per mile; they release more pollutants than an equivalent small car, but again, they pay more gas tax. Heavy but fuel efficient cars (hybrid Escalade?) might deserve a weight tax, and maybe you’d want to skew people’s purchasing decisions towards fuel economy because you think most people do a bad job discounting for future fuel price increases/volatility at the time they go car shopping, but that starts to get a bit paternalistic.
Regarding the proposed increase in MA gas taxes, one should note that the current per-gallon rate up here (41.9c per gallon) is much lower than the rate in most nearby states (CT: 62.5c, NY: 59.6c, RI: 49.4). The state transportation and turnpike agencies are also nearly broke. The money is needed, and local comparisons suggest that the current rates are actually relatively low. It doesn’t seem crazy to bring up the rates under the circumstances.
Geeber – I stated “various crime statistics” because there are numerous ways to define and measure crime, and you can jigger the stats to say whatever you want. That said, for all crime stats considered together, the FBI has a crime index. Massachusetts’ Crime Index for 2007 was 43, meaning, there are only seven states with lower per capita crime.
The divorce issue is interesting though. Isn’t population aging everywhere? Or are we getting older only in Mass.? I’ve actually heard this statistic attributed to the high Catholic population in the state. Similarly, manufacturing has withered all across the U.S. Mass. still has robust healthcare, biotech, technology and financial services industries. Not sure you can attribute clean air and water to the absence of manufacturing.
Wait…isn’t this a car blog?
Wait…isn’t this a car blog?
Nope. It turned into a political blog last year.
Hummer Tax – in Massachusetts.
That Bawney Fwank is one wascawy wabbit when it comes to taking money fwom the voters in his howm state (sowwy, commonwealth).
Now he has his minions at the state wevel helwping him out.
Tax the shit out of SUVs, they are virtually useless to the average person, and nothing but pain in the ass to everybody else with cars/motorcycles on the road. Pick up trucks come in a close second.
I would make exemptions to those actually use them for work (Pick-Ups, not SUVs, which I have already explained are useless as a dead rodent)
I also like – no – LOVE Robstar’s idea. Being a motorcyclist myself, I would like my bike to be taxed 1/10th of what regular vehicles are taxed at! It should be a two-way street, but I know that wouldn’t happen.
Qusus: Did you know that in some countries people with more money have to pay a higher percentage of taxes? Weird huh – I think it’s called progressive taxation or something? I suppose these countries will eventually dissolve into paying financial tributes (”spreading the wealth”) to everyone else, regardless of each person’s work ethic or contribution to society.
Actually, yes they will. Progressive taxation is an evil practice. It penalizes higher income citizens who would otherwise plow their money back into the economy by spending it on Hummers, boats, airplanes, or by hiring another employee. Instead, “progressive” taxation slows the flow of money, hurting everyone.
Rich guys sign my paycheck. Why should I tax them and lose my job as a result? How does taxing the rich guy help the little guy? How can we tax our way to prosperity?
Do rich guys build cars, boats, airplanes, or work for others? No – so “sticking it to the man” just means “the man” won’t do as much economic activity as he used to do, and the little guys who produce what he consumes will lose their jobs.
And I guarantee that the problems Massachusetts is trying to solve in the public sector will NOT be solved via these taxes – there isn’t enough money for that. The public sector has policy issues – not money issues – that need fixing.
Progressive taxation is an evil practice. It penalizes higher income citizens who would otherwise plow their money into the Chinese economy…
Fixed it for you.
I like the gas tax and the hummer tax. I very much dislike the per mile tax. Heavy SUVs are a major hazard to other drivers and as such, they deserve to be heavily taxed, since they are not being made to pay for their share of the mayhem through insurance. As for the per mile, a congestion charge I can see. And if the gas tax brings in less revenue every time the fleet becomes more efficient, raise the gas tax commensurately every time the fleet becomes more efficient. I can see. But I see absolutely no reason to charge this per mile tax.
@gslippy:
Your logic ignores the fact that the marginal value of money to the earner declines with each additional dollar, the fact that people who have so much money they can insulate themselves from the world’s problems become part of the world’s problems, and especially the fact that society is not a free-for-all if it’s going to work well. The high earners depend on the rest of society to be able to earn their wealth, and a lot of the wealth that they have today goes to them because of political clout as much as their skills at generating something of value. In some cases much more, or we wouldn’t have this financial crisis. Increasing the maldistribution of wealth has a pernicious effect on society. Studies have shown that people are happier in those advanced industrialized nations–like Sweden and Denmark–where the distribution of wealth is less unequal.
@philipwitak:
I appreciate what you are trying to say, but please understand that I’m thirty-seven years old. As a teenager and twenty-something university student, I found stuff like “The Tragedy Of The Commons” to be amazingly profound and relevant, and I was filled with scorn for suburbanites, old people, fat people, parents, children, and pretty much anybody who wasn’t a frisky, progressive student like myself.
Now that I understand that the vast majority of the work, effort, accomplishment, and production in the world comes from people who are variously old, fat, suburban, parental, and other such, I’m disinclined to believe that a magical tale which equates sheep-grazing to resource consumption has much, if any, validity.
Stick around a while, get a job, experience life, and see how you feel.
But if you don’t mind, I’ll take a moment to stab your argument directly in the heart. It’s been proven time and time again that natural resources are effectively variable based on effort of recovery. As the market-based price (not related to taxation) of a resource goes up, it becomes possible to extract or synthesize more of it. When oil is ten bucks a barrel, the Saudis can barely be troubled to go outside and carry the hose out to a tanker; at two hundred bucks, we’ll be chewing up tar sands, pressurizing the Earth’s mantle, and squishing old plastic toys. At a thousand bucks a barrel, you can probably put a platform in the middle of the Atlantic ocean.
But when oil is priced like it’s a thousand bucks a barrel but only fifty of that goes to the oil company, you can bet that we’ll all be bicycling to work. And that’s awesome if you’re a student in New York, less awesome if you’re a crippled woman in Wyoming. Like those people “count” anyway — some of them, like, voted for McSatan — but you get the idea, right?
re: Jack Baruth / February 19th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
jack. i get the idea. and no, i don’t mind.
and i absolutely love it that you encourage me to “stick around a while, get a job, [some] experience life, and see how [i] feel.”
let me share something salient with you. i’ve already stuck around for 59 years. i completed my military service as an e-6 drill sergeant, back in the vietnam era. i taught infantrymen how to kill. i’ve already completed a thirty-year career in marketing as a graphic designer/art director/copywriter/creative director. i am a life-long car enthusiast. and to be totally honest with you, i feel older than ever.
but i do retain enough energy to take issue with your description of the tragedy-of-the-commons premise as “a magical tale,” and your conclusion that it hasn’t “much, if any, validity.”
the tragedy of the commons was written by garrett james hardin and published in the journal ‘science’ in 1968. this paper – his most renown – is a serious work; published in a serious publication; and intended for a most-serious audience.
the author “received a B.S. in zoology from the University of Chicago in 1936 and a PhD in microbiology from Stanford University in 1941. Moving to the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1946, he served there as Professor of Human Ecology from 1963 until his retirement in 1978.”
@philipwitak:
Let me start by thanking you for your service to our country. I’ll admit that you’ve managed to confound my usually spot-on ability to estimate the age and education level of a commenter based on vocabulary, ideology, and treatment of certain concepts. So perhaps you will accept my apologies and my congratulations at once.
I think that you’ve identified the problem in your fifth paragraph. If TTOTC is, in fact, this fellow’s most renowned contribution to society, he’d have been better off sticking to zoology. It’s a political tract at best, it’s intended to advance a certain agenda, and it finds a most receptive home in the hearts and minds of people who would prefer that we apportion resources according to government fiat (small “f” there) rather than by market-based utility.
It’s actually precisely the kind of stuff that professors think up in their spare time. I’ve known plenty of professors and they are, without exception, completely bewildered by the fact that despite their education, erudition, and devotion to selflessly teaching basket-weaving to sexually adventurous coeds a whole seven months a year, the market still values people like Kobe Bryant, Donald Trump, and their local Burger King franchisee above them financially.
Frank Herbert said, “Scratch a liberal and you’ll find a closet aristocrat. Scratch a conservative and you will find someone who prefers the past to the present.”
“The social costs of larger vehicles include not only the additional pollution, but also higher crash risks to other vehicles,….” Dayum, we’re getting somewhere here! An at least partially sentient legislator! And in MA no less! Before long some of these guys may even figure out how to read the bills they keep signing. All I can say is keep up the good work. Amazing!
Seriously, while CO2 emissions, despite their current fad status, may or may not matter all that much in the big scheme of things; overgrown, poorly constructed and designed tractors on stilts most certainly endangers others more than vehicles more suitable for on road travel.
Even seriously suggesting otherwise is simply idiotic. And citing aggregate road fatalities statistics to prove one’s point even more so. Of course, if everyone drove around in supertankers on wheels, most 60 mph accidents would not be fatal, given 1000 ft crumple zone and all.
To be in any way meaningful, you have to hold the ‘other’ vehicle constant. That’s how you determine whether the H2 or the Fit poses the largest threat to others. Sit in a Camry, or any other car, and then see whether you would want to be hit by a Fit going X mph or a jacked up H2 at the same speed. Now, ain’t that a difficult question….
Also, regardless in what car you sit in, being surrounded by H2’s with the obligatory tinted windows limits your traffic awareness more than being surrounded by Fits. I hope no one here honestly doubts that. I mean, we’re supposed to be the best and brightest and all.
Furthermore, there’s even a qualitative difference. In a crowded traffic picture pre tractor fad, pedestrians and single trackers had sightlines above cars, and car drivers had sightlines around peds and single trackers. So everyone could see brake lights, turn signals and other traffic participants several car lengths ahead. And when crossing a road, one could, from the sidewalk, see far down the road in each direction. Now, forget about it. All you see is the tinted window chrome tractor of some vain retard trying to make up for being, well, nothing significant at all. Back then, school zones and playground areas were high alert zones, since small children did not fit into this dynamic, and could be lost behind cars. Now, there’s not even a difference anymore.
In addition, what do these tractor apologists believe wears down roads more, a low center of gravity, light weight vehicle with a well dampened suspension controlling light unsprung parts, or the aforementioned jacked up H2 on 22’s at the end of live axles? I’m truly at a loss here…
And remember, what we pay for under the rubric ‘roads’, is the ability to travel faster and safer from A to B than without them. As I hope I have hinted at above, to provide the same speed and safety to a traffic population containing these ill conceived and dysfunctional tractors, as to one without them, costs more money. Why should those not contributing to them have to pay these extra costs?
It’s plain stupidity.
Higher registration fees for guzzlers only leads to MORE USE of the heavier vehicles.
People will still buy to meet their percieved needs (which is why these taxes are so great, they are NOT demand reducing and thus bring in more money). What then happens is that, having paid the registration fee, users of the large trucks use them more than they otherwise would. Buying a second, lighter vehicle, is discouraged because it saves you very little in taxes or cost.
If you tax the fuel, you get a much better market response (which is one reason its not done, because demand will go down, and the revenue with it).
So, if you want to have a “tragedy of the commons” then go for the tax that doesn’t do much to change behavior. If you want to avoid said tragedy, tax the gas, and you will then get less environmental damage, etc.
Lastly, we all pay for the danger of the vehicles we drive through higher insurance costs. Strangely, SUV’s are NOT the most dangerous cars around based on insurance premiums. At any rate, they cannot be gotten rid of because many of them are necessary.
So, if you really want to reduce the average vehicle weight, tax gas. Otherwise, take your SUV hate and file it with the rest of your miseries. We don’t care.
Oh boo-hoo! Stupid SUV/truck drivers. Time to drop the pretense that you “need” them and drive something MORE SENSIBLE.
Show me some actual stats that large vehicles result in more fatalities, otherwise…you know what they say about the word “ASS-U-ME”.
I guess if politicians in Massachusetts want to “social engineer” the rights of their citizens away then that’s their business. Just don’t try bringing that Mickey-Mouse-totalitarian bullshit over here in “flyover country”. Folks out here tend to still cherish their inalienable rights…
@ Durask
Show me some actual stats that large vehicles result in more fatalities.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the data.
Vehicle to Vehicle, slide 4.
Car to Car fatality rate is dropping.
Car to SUV fatality rate is rising.
SUV to SUV fatality rate is rising.
Reclusive: With all due respect, the people of MA pretty much decide the “social engineering” they desire, not the politicians they elect. Even Mitt Romney tailored his ideology (if he even has one, other than to get elected) to fit the electorate’s. If one wants to talk about social engineering, it’s the right wing of the Republican Party and more specifically, the religious influences therein, that have been doing quite a bit of engineering over the last eight years, don’t you think? A famous Supreme Court decision once observed that it really “depends on whose ox is gored”. You get the point. Anyway, don’t you be so reclusive. Come visit us in MA and you might be pleasantly suprised with the welcome.
Most all the Hummers I see in NH are from MA anyway; the last time I saw a NH plate on one has to be a year ago. They’re not very popular up in central NH.
Anyway, I think it’ll be great if MA implements some more taxes on SUVs and trucks. The dealers will move/sell them up here, and the extra inventory will drive prices down even more.
re: “Folks out here tend to still cherish their inalienable rights…”
reclusive_in_nature / February 20th, 2009 at 3:00 am
as do we all.
those unalienable rights you refer to are yours to exercise as you see fit – right up to the point where they start interfering with mine. then we have a problem, in desperate search of an equitable resolution.
and to everyone involved: i’ve found the dialogue stimulating and enjoyed it immensely. my sincere thanks and appreciation to all participants.