Funding Mass Transit: The Next Sin Tax Should Be on SUVs
According to two higher powers – Ronald Reagan and the Bible – taxing SUVs makes perfect moral sense
Last week, Mayor Karl Dean made mention of his desire to create more permanent funding for mass transit. As a rare politician with foresight, the mayor knows that our future entails gas prices rivaling a four-bedroom house in Brentwood. And since our transit system has been awash in crimson ink as of late, Dean’s trying to ensure today that we won’t be highly screwed and homebound tomorrow.
The problem, of course, is where to get those funds. Most cities typically rely on sin taxes – like those on cigs and liquor – or what’s known as the Ol’ Gouge the Visitor Method, by which cities crank up taxes on things like hotels and rental cars. They’re the path of least resistance, since the pro-smoking lobby is not exactly a dynamic political force, and it’s easy to gouge tourists because they have no recourse at the polls. Welcome to Nashville. Could you please empty your pockets?
But it’s a little unfair – not to mention unoriginal – to keep picking on the same people. Which is why I humbly offer a new proposal: a sin taxes on SUVs.
Before setting your phasers to kill, hear me out. I don’t have a personal problem with SUVs. Like cigarettes, they’re perfectly legal. But since they have little utilitarian value—most are used for nothing more rigorous than driving over curbs at the mall—they’re largely a vanity purchase. And vanity, as we know from the Good Book, is a much bigger sin than smoking delicious American-made tobacco products.
Then there’s the theory of “user fees,” pioneered by the great right saint Ronald Reagan. It was his thesis that people who used certain services or resources were obligated to pay more for them. But since he didn’t much care for the phrase “tax hike,” he simply raised “user fees,” thus maintaining conservative cred while still charging people more. Behold the beauty of semantics.
Under Reagan’s thinking, we should be placing greater fees on SUVs, since they’re responsible for the lion’s share of unnecessary gas consumption that will eventually force us all to use mass transit. And because they’re also a product of vanity, higher fees would provide incentives for owners to limit their destructive behavior, just like we do with taxes on cigs.
So, who’s with me?
Comments
I can't think of a more intelligent idea. Smokers pay taxes on cigarettes which pay for anti-smoking ads, alcohol companies (thus, alcohol consumers) pay for "drink responsibly" ads, why shouldn't (large) SUV drivers pay extra taxes to fund mass transit made necessary by their unreasonable fuel consumption. It'll never happen though, it makes WAY too much sense, and the SUV-driving-soccer-mom-mobsters votes in higher numbers than the Marlboro-smoking Budweiser-chuggers.
Posted 09/17/2008 at 03:37:53 PMYou're oversimplifying things. I drive an SUV, a Ford Explorer XLT to be exact. Which is really nothing more than a Ranger pickup with an enclosed bed. It's not even a V8 so its rather underpowered, but I can haul a ton of gear daily, which I do. The cargo bay is rarely empty. That doesn't sound vain to me. I don't even wash the thing.
My gas milage is quite good actually, so I love it when Prius-drivers try to lecture me. Do you realize that if you bought a Prius 5 years ago, it still hasn't paid for itself in fuel consumption? And those things are aging terribly, ask any mechanic.
So my point after this rambling is that for your suggestion to truly apply, you'd have to figure out who was using inordinate amounts of fuel. And basing your proposal on 'vanity' isn't gonna win any votes. Some people just GASP need to haul large things about!
Posted 09/17/2008 at 03:51:16 PMIncreasing the fees on SUV ownership is not going to lower gas prices. And who decides how much gas consumption is "unnecessary"?
Posted 09/17/2008 at 04:45:07 PMWho decides when an SUV is a " Vanity " purchase or a practical one? We have an SUV and we also have a regular car. We almost have to have one with 2 kids, 2 dogs plus I am in Real Estate and need the cargo space. I can assure you vanity was never an issue when making the purchase.
Posted 09/17/2008 at 05:06:47 PMWe already pay more since we use more gas and pay more taxes on that.
Posted 09/17/2008 at 05:42:45 PM"have to have one"
Yeah right. You could get a station wagon or even a sedan with a large trunk. You do not "have to have" an SUV.
The social and environmental irresponsibility of your decision to use a gas guzzler when more economical vehicles are available is more than enough reason to charge user fees or outright luxury taxes.
Maybe you look at the combination of curb weight (to cover road wear), fuel efficiency, and odometer readings to arrive at the desired fees. It's true that it makes little sense to charge somebody who hardly ever drives their four-cylinder mini-SUV the same user fees as the Lexus driver that commutes 50 miles each way every day.
Posted 09/17/2008 at 05:52:14 PMI have 3 car seats that have to be in a rear seat, plus another child who requires a rear seat. I have an elderly parent who requires a wheel chair or large walker to be stowed along with a stroller and an oxygen back pack. When we are all in the car it takes 7 seats with belts. We could take two cars, but since I get 18-21 miles (hwy) per gallon in my Yukon, I feel pretty good about our per person mpg. The newer engine needs half as many oil changes, tells me when I need a change at about 7500-10,000 miles and uses synthetic oil. I make all of my trips count and rarely drive unless necessary. Just because some of us drive an SUV, it does not mean we are not aware of energy concerns. I did have a mini van once, and it got about the same mileage, but had less room. I rarely have less than 3 in the car, so if you divide it out, I am doing better per person on my mileage than a lone driver in any car.
Posted 09/17/2008 at 06:45:55 PMOh Joseph, I forgot to add, the last big station wagon that Buick produced got 12 miles per gallon. Same for the big Pontiac my father used to own.
Posted 09/17/2008 at 06:52:59 PMin other words, we are helplessly entrenched, leave us alone
Posted 09/17/2008 at 09:31:22 PMOkay, so my theory's not perfect. And the automakers aren't doing us any favors. I drive a minivan (yes, I am a loser; thanks for asking) due to a large batch of kids, and the last time I bought, I could no longer find a four cyl. model. To keep up with the SUVs, the automakers had all moved to 6. But maybe we could set up a tribunal to rule on what constitutes the legitimate need of an SUV, the same way we rule on handicapped parking permits. Maggie, with kids and an elderly parent requiring oxygen equipment, could probably avoid the tax, as could anyone who uses an SUV for extensive hauling capacity for work. But MLP206? You'd still have to pay in my book, because two kids and two dogs probably doesn't make the personal hardship category.
Posted 09/18/2008 at 10:48:20 AMHey, here's an idea: I'll drive what I want to drive and you drive what you want to drive.
Posted 09/18/2008 at 11:19:41 AMThat's the thing about this green trend. It's creating a bunch of persnicketers.
"Then there’s the theory of “user fees,” pioneered by the great right saint Ronald Reagan. It was his thesis that people who used certain services or resources were obligated to pay more for them."
"Under Reagan’s thinking, we should be placing greater fees on SUVs, since they’re responsible for the lion’s share of unnecessary gas consumption that will eventually force us all to use mass transit."
You win the booby prize for the most lame attempt to define "user fee" to fit total nonsense and then try to attibute it to Reagan.
User fees mean that those who use a particular service pay for the costs of it and those who don't do not pay for it.
Gas taxes are a user fee for using the roads. It is supposed to go toward paying for road construction and maintenance. Driving a vehicle that burns gas at a faster rate than some other class of vehicles isn't a "service" being provided by the government (or anyone else) to the owner of that vehicle. He isn't using up any gas that belongs to somebody else - he's using his own gas bought and paid for.
If you actually believed in user fees, you'd be advocating that the mass transit riders pay the full cost of their ride instead of making nonsensical proposals to force somebody else pay for them.
Some of the gas tax money that drivers pay is already being used to subsidize mass transit and has been for a long time. That should stop immediately.
Let mass transit stand or fall on it's own. The fiscal disaster that is the commuter rail line to Lebanon has become is no surprise to those who have been paying attention to how similar projects have fared elsewhere.
Posted 09/18/2008 at 12:42:47 PMWell said, Gilbert. Thanks!
Posted 09/19/2008 at 01:50:22 PM