didn't they have a very similar (if not the same) incentive last year?

Mike

 

I find it EXTREMELY humorous that I just watched Bob Lutz on Autoline Detroit yesterday talking about how CAFE won't work, and the only way to get Americans to really cut back on consumption is to increase gas taxes, but that would never happen because the politicians won't touch it.

Yet... here is GM subsidizing the fuel prices to push their worst offenders.

Nice. Real nice. Little hypocritical?

So Ron, is the Autoline Detroit really such a great forum to get a better understanding inside the auto industry? Or just a another forum for corporate spin?

 

Aren't the people buying the big gas guzzlers normally the ones taht aren't too worried about how much they are spending on gas anyways?

I think this is dumb. You pay to play. If you want the big truck or hummer, you have to deal with all the pros and cons of it.

 

Aren't the people buying the big gas guzzlers normally the ones taht aren't too worried about how much they are spending on gas anyways?

I think this is dumb. You pay to play. If you want the big truck or hummer, you have to deal with all the pros and cons of it.

....and i think the public, by and large, is saying they won't play, so this is GM's way of trying to move inventory.

if anything, though, i could easily see this baskfiring on GM. when the manufacturer is even telling you 'yeah, this is gonna get REAL expensive,' that should really stand as an eye-opener.

Mike

 

Yet... here is GM subsidizing the fuel prices to push their worst offenders.

QFT. One word: Bull****. :thumbdown

The money spent subsidizing SUVs and pushing BS uneccessary services could be spent on materials and engines to make the vehicles more fuel efficient in the first place.

 

I find it EXTREMELY humorous that I just watched Bob Lutz on Autoline Detroit yesterday talking about how CAFE won't work, and the only way to get Americans to really cut back on consumption is to increase gas taxes, but that would never happen because the politicians won't touch it.

Yet... here is GM subsidizing the fuel prices to push their worst offenders.

Nice. Real nice. Little hypocritical?

So Ron, is the Autoline Detroit really such a great forum to get a better understanding inside the auto industry? Or just a another forum for corporate spin?

I think in a way they are proveing what they just said. If you make gas cheep, people will buy a big car, if gas is expensive, they will flock to smaller cars. They happen to have some big cars to get rid of so they are lowering the price of gas to sell them.

They are manipulating the trend to move cars that they allready built, but they don't have anything agains the goverment doing the reverse in the future.

Mandating higher fuel economy makes it almost impossable to make small nitch "halo cars" since the fuel mileage is regualted. If you simpally make the gas expensive, most people would buy a sensable car, but they can still make the image "halo cars" and they can still sell them if people do want them and are willing to pay the price.

With mandatory economy requiorments you CANT make them, and you CANT buy them no matter what.

 

this might be a good thing if it was on their whole line up.

but why give relieve to those that dont need it? Why can't I be rich, then gm could buy my gas!

 

Why not just give them away?

Even if it was on the whole lineup, there's not a single vehicle GM makes that I want and am willing to pay for.

 

QFT. One word: Bull****. :thumbdown

The money spent subsidizing SUVs and pushing BS uneccessary services could be spent on materials and engines to make the vehicles more fuel efficient in the first place.

Oh I agree but GM doesn't nor will they ever think that way.Also one of the reasons why they just slipped to #2 in global sales for the first time ever to Toyota.

 

They talk about suing California because the smog laws are causing them to lose money...but then they spend this oh-so-precious money like this? Retarded.

 

With mandatory economy requiorments you CANT make them, and you CANT buy them no matter what.

That's not true. BMW and MB don't meet the CAFE requirements. They just pay a penalty, something like $1000 per car. It's not a huge deal on a $40k luxury car.

this might be a good thing if it was on their whole line up.

but why give relieve to those that dont need it? Why can't I be rich, then gm could buy my gas!

GM isn't buying their gas. The people are buying their own gas. Basically, GM is selling them a hedge fund on the price of gas, and they are rolling it into their financing. Simple as that.

 

Its really simple. Rather than setting mandatory fuel requirements, just make a simple incentive system.

Anticipate what a reasonable fuel economy range for the average passenger vehicle is. Then take the top 10% of fuel consumers and charge the manufacturer the usual gas-guzzler tax, and take that tax and offer it as a rebate for the top 10% of fuel misers. Vinegar if you do "bad" and honey if you do "good".

While we're at it, ditch any hybrid programs left. It shouldn't matter what method you use to achieve high fuel economy, only whether it is high or it is low. GM has hybrid pickups that get fuel economy in the teens afterall. And speaking of pickups, if its on the streets and isn't registered as a commerical vehicle, its a passenger car like any other and should not be treated differently.

 

In Florida, eligible vehicles are the Impala, Monte Carlo, Grand Prix and LaCrosse.

Target demographics. :lol:

 

REDFOCZ

Consumers wouldn't get any credits if gas prices fall below $1.99.

RIGHT.
:lol:

Like that will ev4r happen.


Hey, RED; one should always supply a link to the article quoted... :thumbup:

 

:lol: Yeah sorry about that, I will have to look for it.

Could not find the same link, but here is a another one. :thumbup:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1997090

 

Its really simple. Rather than setting mandatory fuel requirements, just make a simple incentive system.

Anticipate what a reasonable fuel economy range for the average passenger vehicle is. Then take the top 10% of fuel consumers and charge the manufacturer the usual gas-guzzler tax, and take that tax and offer it as a rebate for the top 10% of fuel misers. Vinegar if you do "bad" and honey if you do "good".

While we're at it, ditch any hybrid programs left. It shouldn't matter what method you use to achieve high fuel economy, only whether it is high or it is low. GM has hybrid pickups that get fuel economy in the teens afterall. And speaking of pickups, if its on the streets and isn't registered as a commerical vehicle, its a passenger car like any other and should not be treated differently.

Canada has announced just that. It's called a "Feebate". Cars which get better than 6.5L/100km get a $1000 rebate, and gas guzzlers get an extra tax.

This is another way to handle it. Better than CAFE. It's a bit more like carbon trading, because the gas guzzlers are "buying" carbon credits from fuel efficient vehicles. One could stretch this to the point where... "You want to buy an Escalade? Fine, no problem, but you'll be buying one small car to give to somebody else to drive."

Funnily, the Yaris will get the rebate, and the Fit misses it by 0.1

 

Anticipate what a reasonable fuel economy range for the average passenger vehicle is. Then take the top 10% of fuel consumers and charge the manufacturer the usual gas-guzzler tax, and take that tax and offer it as a rebate for the top 10% of fuel misers. Vinegar if you do "bad" and honey if you do "good".

Great just what the US needs, ANOTHER tiered tax structure that involves excess tax, rebates, clamed forms, administration etc… All because it feels good and does not seem to hurt the poor and it taxes the rich etc.. etc… etc…

Just friggan impose a national gas tax that is like that of most countries. If you don’t want to shock people and hurt the poor phaze it in over a 4 -5 year period, each year raising it by say 20-25cents a gallon. That would give people a chance to cope with the rise in fuel prices and allow people to plan on buying more efficient cars the next time around. They could even use the “extra” money over the phaze in period to stabilize gas prices. Fix the selling price of gas at say $3a gallon during the tax phaze in. When it is cheaper the US government takes in tax money, and when it is higher they subsidize it a little bit. At the end of the phaze in period have the US arrive at say $5 or so a US gallon, BAN tolls on highways (except in congested areas to completely discourage road use and encourage people onto a well developed public transit system)

This extra gas tax would be compensated by lowering other taxes that people pay such as say federal income tax by the amount the new higher gas tax takes in. All money from the gas tax would be fully marked to ONLY transportation funds and spending.

I am so tired of all these ridiculous plans states have to tax car use per mile, have Ezpass (electronic toll collections, etc to discourage people from driving and raise funds for the highways. Just friggan raise the dam gas tax and skip the billion dollars in bureaucratic administration and info structure all other systems require.

 

Great just what the US needs, ANOTHER tiered tax structure that involves excess tax, rebates, clamed forms, administration etc… All because it feels good and does not seem to hurt the poor and it taxes the rich etc.. etc… etc…

Rebates?
Claim forms?
Administration?
I am talking about taxes and incentives straight to the manufacturer. How many new model cars come out every year? Its extremely simple. All vehicles, which includes SUVs are tested the same... thats simpler. And all taxes collected for gas guzzlers that are already EPA tested anyway are directly put into a fund to be dispersed for vehicles that are fuel misers, resulting in a zero dollar net change to keep the government honest. Theres already plenty of tax in gas, the average citizen pays plenty for gas already, and commercial vehicles (actual work trucks and such) don't need to be hurt even more to effect a positive honey/vinegar incentive system. Plus you NEVER stop talking about how high your income taxes are compared to other places in the US and how your money suffers from localized inflation... so I guess I can see where you're coming from.

 

This extra gas tax would be compensated by lowering other taxes that people pay such as say federal income tax by the amount the new higher gas tax takes in. All money from the gas tax would be fully marked to ONLY transportation funds and spending.

Hey, now you're copying my plan!

Yeah, what they're doing in Canada is reasonable trouble free, no forms or anything. I think it's all handled at the dealer level.

 

Rebates?
Claim forms?
Administration?
I am talking about taxes and incentives straight to the manufacturer. How many new model cars come out every year? Its extremely simple. All vehicles, which includes SUVs are tested the same... thats simpler. And all taxes collected for gas guzzlers that are already EPA tested anyway are directly put into a fund to be dispersed for vehicles that are fuel misers, resulting in a zero dollar net change to keep the government honest. Theres already plenty of tax in gas, the average citizen pays plenty for gas already, and commercial vehicles (actual work trucks and such) don't need to be hurt even more to effect a positive honey/vinegar incentive system. Plus you NEVER stop talking about how high your income taxes are compared to other places in the US and how your money suffers from localized inflation... so I guess I can see where you're coming from.

So how is that any different than mandating a fleet fuel economy, instead of it being a "fine" of your cars fall below an average you not get a "tax" on cars that don't make it, and a "rebate for the cars that do. As it is now companies make big SUVs with crappy mileage and big profit margins, and crappy small cars that are sold at a loss to offset it.

If you institute this policy how is it ANY different than cafe other than it is more complecated to administer? It's just even more buracratic because people REFUSE to take the simplest approach because it might hurt a small portion of the population. Instead lets come out with a system that costs $100 of millions more to administer and is less effective.

Hey, now you're copying my plan!

Yeah, what they're doing in Canada is reasonable trouble free, no forms or anything. I think it's all handled at the dealer level.

well then we fully agree!

 

If you institute this policy how is it ANY different than cafe other than it is more complecated to administer? Instead lets come out with a system that costs $100 of millions more to administer and is less effective.

You... you're serious? You have yet to explain how you think that could in ANY way be complicated or expensive. You just keep stating over and over that it MUST cost millions of dollars... cuz... cuz... cuz rpvitiello says so!!!

Answer a couple quick questions if you don't mind:
1) Do you think that all vehicles on public roads with the exception of commercially licensed ones should be tested by the EPA?
2) Do you think that all vehicles on public roads should be set to a single standard?
3) Do you think that small businesses with commercially licensed vehicles such as dirt haulers, Greyhound, landscapers, or such that NEED to be huge by design are a big part of the problem and need to pay for it?
4) Do you think that low and low-middle income people are going to be purchasing brand new vehicles anytime soon? Who do you think is driving 80s American cars right now and will continue to purchase old used vehicles in the future for economic reasons?

The benefit is that is IS extremely simple and dealt with at the manufacturer or dealer so transparent to anyone, costs nothing if you're testing all vehicles anyway (if its a passenger vehicle it deserves a window sticker), is simplified when all passenger vehicles have to meet the same standard, and it positively influences the future w/o disrupting the present (many of whom drive that $800 retired cop Crown Vic because thats all they can afford). What is going to happen to all these still running vehicles that wealthy people will never drive? Throw them away? What a hardcore conservationist of resources you are!

No the problem is the fact that people in the northeast are VERY heavily taxed because of their” income” with no recognition that money is less valuable in the northeast.

This extra gas tax would be compensated by lowering other taxes that people pay such as say federal income tax by the amount the new higher gas tax takes in.

At least be honest about your greed. You live in an overcrowded part of the country where you honestly don't even WANT to drive a car most of the time, and prefer public transportation. You've stated that MANY times. You've also stated that in spite of severe overpopulation issues and the localized inflation that causes, you think you are overtaxed on income tax compared to other areas of the country. You have stated that even a grocery checkout boy should make about $15 an hour there, so whats another ten cents a gallon especially if he's in such a dense living area that he may not even need a car? At least be honest about your self-interested greed.

 

And you are the one advocating endless urban sprawl and somehow trying to rationalize it as a way to cut down on driving. You seem to be living in an imaginary world where a huge change will happen soon in our ability to power cars, and to allow them to drive 100’s of mile a day for cheep with little environmental impact. You basically are unwilling to compromise on ANYTHING. Your life style, how you build your cities, where you live, how far you drive, where you work, how much things costs, (cars or energy). It all sounds nice, but I don’t see ANYTHING happening any time soon to allow the ridiculous urban sprawl (and continued urban decay) most of the US is experiencing to continue.

I live in an area where we are WILLING to make changes to how we get around and where we live to make our world sustainable. I don’t feel like my part of the country making intelligent decisions being taxed to hell so YOUR part of the country can build a system that will NOT be sustainable. Then when it all falls apart and you need financial aid WE get punished for YOUR areas bad decisions and refusal to compromise.

The US is a small country with ONLY a few 100million people and the gas prices are ALLREADY all over the place. The world has several BILLION people in India, and china who ALL want to have modern homes, cars, GAS, HIGHWAYS etc… Do you really think that there is ANY chance in hell for gas prices to stabilize or go down when demand is about to go up a MILLION times the current rate? The system the US is built on is NOT sustainable, and unless some MAJOR changes are made in the next few years we are just going to screw our selves over.

Like I said any changes to higher gas prices should be fazed in over several years as to not give a shock to the poorest people. It would also encourage the wealthy people who are driving right now to start downsizing there car as the prices slowly clime. That means that the cars entering the market to replace the ones out now will be slowly increasing in mileage.

Also maybe I am coming at this from the wrong perspective, but I though driving was a privilege and NOT A RIGHT. If you are poor I don’t see driving as being something you should have a RIGHT to do. If you are making minimum wage why the hell are you driving an hour to get there? You should live somewhere close since you are already making minimum wage.

Again tell me how taxing every inefficient car $1000, and crediting every really efficient car $1000 is any different than CAFE right now where if you don’t meet the “average fuel economy” rate you are “fined” $1000, and thus encouraged to build cheep cars that you sell at a loss of $1000 each to make up for the high profit cars? The only difference I see is the government collecting money from businesses during the year, and making interest on it, and then every year offer the manufacturer a rebate on the more efficient cars they made.

Other than your system being more complex what the hell is the difference!

and no i dont think a check out clerk should be making $15 a hour, i think they should be replaced by a self check out system where only one person makeing $15 an hour can over look 30 self check out machines.

 

And you are the one advocating endless urban sprawl and somehow trying to rationalize it as a way to cut down on driving.

Urban decay is occurring because smart people and businesses are leaving, but it means other places are prospering. And I don't know about you, but I average 80mph three times a week driving at 4PM in and 5AM out and according to Mapquest my commute is: Total Est. Time: 16 minutes Total Est. Distance: 12.06 miles (they don't factor in no-traffic and Vette speed tho heheheh).

How long does it take you to get into work, where you are fighting hundreds of thousands of others all sharing the same main arteries into a couple square feet of downtown workspace? O SNAP! PWNED!

I noticed you avoided all the questions I even put in blue for you, while regurgitating the same thing again that "its complicated because I say so". And why would the "charge" and "rebate" not be simultaneous, and the entire point is a net zero income for the government to keep them honest.

Face facts, this way is faster, doesn't hurt commercial vehicles, doesn't throw away thousands of already manufactured running vehicles (making a car costs energy and resources), and allows lower income families to drive their 10-15 year old cars. You just won't face the fact that the NE is overcrowded, does NOT need more people encouraged to wedge in there, and rather than admit the cause of your localized inflation just want your income tax reduced while enjoying that $3 a gallon for you is not the same as $3 a gallon everywhere else. You're not that mysterious.

PS: BRB, so nice outside, gunna go fly my RC plane in my big Texan yard, and maybe fire up the grill for some BBQ for tnight. L8s yankee!

*salutes*

 

It takes me about 20 minutes to get to my job as well averaging the same speed as you (when on the highways) Goolge maps says it is 14.5 miles and should take about 23 minutes. The reason traffic backs up in my region is the fact there are no choice between surface streets, and highways. There is only one or the other. The highways function both as a local road between neighborhoods, as well as a threw route for commercial traffic just passing through the state. That is simply a problem of the area being built up LONG ago. Hell one of the major roads in this region is RT. 1 yes Route ONE. What has to be one of the oldest roads between major regions in the country.

The big cause of traffic is a lack of detour options. If there is a crash 20 exits ahead you are already screwed because there is NO other local road you can take to “skip the traffic. The road you are on is your only option.

Also I drive from Stamford CT, to Queens NY every day, I need to be in queens @ 7:30 am, and I leave at 1:30 pm. On Google maps is says the trip is 35.3 miles and should take about 48 minutes, it usually takes me about 40 minutes on my bike to make this ride.

Also I can make it from Greenwich village, Manhattan to Yonkers, NY during rush hour by public transit in about 40 minutes (Google maps says it is 16.5 miles or about 31 minutes by car WITHOUT traffic.) can you drive through a dense urban area with almost NO delay during heavy traffic?

Again I may have a different mindset but when did I say the problem was only passenger cars, I think less trucks should be on the road as well. There is no reason freight being shipped cross country to not be shipped by train, and then a truck can finish the local delivery. Again the only reason driving trucks across country is cheaper than a train is the fact that roads are subsidized by taxes, where trains are expected to pay the full price of the rails they ride on. Make things even and see how much more demand there is for train freight.

The US government also is a “zero net” organization, EVERY time you pay in taxes and fees it gets used for something. Now if you are trying to say 100% of the gas guzzler surcharge and rebate should be returned it is not going to happen. It costs money for the organization to over see this process and test the cars and insure compliance with the program. I don’t know the exact cost, but ANY program involving dozens of manufacturers, 10,000 of models (if you factor in all the individual cars, there options, power train combinations etc…) and then selling millions of them you are looking at a very big administration to oversee this program. Even if you require all the surcharge money to be spent on subsidizing cheaper cars, you still will need MORE money to run the program.
So my question is how is this a better system than cafe that we have now? I fail to see how it does anything to improve the situation? The manufacturers themselves go "humm we can either pay a big fine for not meeting the fuel requirements due to these high profit cars, or we can build very fuel efficient cars to offset the mileage. the money we save in fines can be used to subsidize the cost of these cheap cars.

So the current system has the cost of big expensive gas hogging vehicle’s subsidizing the cost of cheap small fuel efficient cars...

The system you propose has big gas guzzling vehicles subsidizing smaller fuel efficient vehicles with massive amounts of government regulation and oversight.

I fail to see what this accomplishes or how it is any better that the current system?

Also I NEVER said MORE people need to move here. There is a such thing as TOO dense. But there is no reason the REST of the US needs to be so spread out, as we are jam packed in. There is a happy middle ground where people live in reasonably dense cities that are decentralized. Where you have 3-4 story buildings, and you have apartments and offices upstairs from shops. There is no reason a person that owns a mom and pop corner store, hair salon, tattoo studio etc cant live ABOVE there business. That cuts there commute time to 30 seconds. Also by mixing residential and commercial parking can be used for business during the day, and the residents at night. No need for huge road networks that are only heavily used ½ the day, and unused the rest of the day. Why not build roads and parking and sidewalks that have more constant use 24/7 that these extreme peeks and drops in usage.

As for income tax. The average person in the US pays about 40% of their TOTAL income every year in taxes. (sales tax, property tax, income tax etc…) The % of income the average person in CT pays is HIGHER than the average person in the rest of the country., just our INCOME tax averages about 40% of our income, PLUS we still pay sales tax, property tax etc… If you want to keep this ridiculous tiered system where your tax rate (and number of available deductions) goes up with your $ income, why not fix your tax bracket to where you stand on the standard of living. If you are below the poverty line, if the poverty line is $20,000 or $40,000 a year in your region you pay $0 taxes. If you are in the middle income class where you pay the standard 30% tax no matter if it is $30,000 or $60,000 a year, and if you are wealthy you pay the higher tax rate of 40% no matter if you make $50,000 or $100,000 a year (everything is adjusted for the standard of living where you live, not based on meaningless national averages)

It is unfair to poor people (the people you say you are SO worried about with your gas tax) to lump them in a 30% tax bracket and force them to pay all those taxes when they can’t afford rent and healthcare, wile someone in another part of the country in the same situations @ $15,000 a year gets a $0 tax liability. If you can be So worried about poor people unfairly carrying the burden of a gas tax (you know people doing something that is supposedly a privilege) why can I be worried about people unfairly being taxed based on INCOME when they are just trying to survive.

Talk about a double standard!


ps...

How long does it take you to get into work, where you are fighting hundreds of thousands of others all sharing the same main arteries into a couple square feet of downtown workspace? O SNAP! PWNED!

btw this just shows what you see a "city" as. You see it as only a bunch of office buildings surrounded by suburbs.

Even when you talk about “moving things to the suburbs” you still picture different districts with a "office" area, a "shopping" area and a "residential" area all requiring you to drive.

Like i said, rearrange that concept. Make the 3 story buildings have shops and stores below, and offices and apartments above with tree lined streets, and on street parking. During the day the owners of the business (that just live upstairs) have a commute of 30 seconds to work. Parking on the street could be used during the day for an upstairs office space, and at night it could be used for popular evening restaurants and clubs. The whole world does not need to be these neat isolated islands where each building has ONE function, and is surrounded by a huge paved parking lot that is only used for 1/3 of the day wile the rest of the day it sits unused.

Your whole concept of a "city" is based on the mess that most of the US has thanks to urban sprawl, and a world designed around cars and cheap gas. When I talk about a "city" I am talking about a area where you can live, work, and play all in the same area without having to drive 16 miles in the first place. You just walk 30 seconds to get to a convenience store, 2 minutes to get to a bank, a post office, a grocery store, a lawyers office, and if you DO need to go somewhere 20 minutes away you can hop on a bus/subway/public transit and get there with ease fast, and cheap.

 

Wow, that was really long winded, but at least you are admitting that this is all about you being pissy about income tax, rather than doing whats right for the country. You uhmm still kinda avoided the blue questions though. Oops!

Two quick notes;
1) You're over complicating something very simple, and I'll leave it at that.

2) I don't think you understand what a suburb is. Suburbs are a series of communities spread out around a major city on which it depends for some major services. I have a Krogers, Randals, Sears, Discount Tire, AMC24, Eckerds, Specs, Country club, hospital, Best Buy, golf course, tennis course, park, and so forth all within a few miles of my home (basically homes + light commercial, no industrial). Its decentralization, but there is still an advantage in being close to a big city to go into occasionally for major services (can't all build a dozen international airports for example).

In any case, I clearly don't drive more than you, and my suggestion still provides incentive for more fuel economic vehicles to be produced either way, so its kindof a moot point, isn't it?

*salutes*