"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Still waiting for an answer, NOYB:

Do YOU have any bright ideas for getting lazy thinkers to reconsider the
types of cars they buy, or how they use those cars? Or, is everything just
fine the way it is?


I'd impose much stiffer gas guzzler taxes on vehicles before I'd tax
gasoline. If the vehicle is necessary for business, I'd make the gas
guzzler tax partially deductible/refundable so that businesses that need
trucks/vans/SUV's aren't squeezed as hard by it.

It must be realized that this would negatively impact truck/SUV sales, so
the government must offset the tax with huge tax rebates to those factories
which attain a certain production level of vehicles employing new
fuel-saving technology.






To put it another way, it's EXTREMELY likely that this country could, in
the
not-so-distant future, exercise some leverage with oil prices in the same
way I can exercise leverage with new car prices because there are at least
4
dealers for any brand of car in Rochester NY.

To put it another way, people in relationships will refuse to admit
they're
wrong about even the most trivial crap until they've been dragged through
194 hours of couples counseling. Analogy: At some point, people need to
give
up their attitude of "God gave every American the right to own whatever
vehicle we want, to drive it as much as we want, and maintain it as poorly
as we want, and you're a fascist/commie/whatever if you suggest
otherwise."

Do you think it's worth beginning the oil consumption counseling now, or
doesn't that give you as big a hard-on as seeing cities in flames? A real
man would get a HUGE woody from being able to tell a supplier to shove
their
product.

Taxing gas isn't the answer. A person who is driving a hybrid fuel car may
be doing so because they have a long commute to work and that's the only way
they can fit fuel expenses into their budget. By taxing the fuel, you may
make them exceed their budget, but leave them with no alternative. Taxing
the purchase of products which use a lot of fuel is a better answer.

It's cheaper to buy a two-stroke outboard motor than a four-stroke. If the
government wants to attack the fuel economy issue and some environmental
issues at the same time, then they should impose a stiff
gas-guzzler/polluting tax on the conventional two-strokes.

They can also offer huge incentives on the manufacturing side. Having
manufacturers make large changes in technology is very expensive. The
government needs to reward the companies which make those changes.

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Still waiting for an answer, NOYB:

Do YOU have any bright ideas for getting lazy thinkers to reconsider the
types of cars they buy, or how they use those cars? Or, is everything
just
fine the way it is?


I'd impose much stiffer gas guzzler taxes on vehicles before I'd tax
gasoline. If the vehicle is necessary for business, I'd make the gas
guzzler tax partially deductible/refundable so that businesses that need
trucks/vans/SUV's aren't squeezed as hard by it.

Logical, although you'd have to work out some sort of highly detailed scheme
for hobbyists, like someone who raises horses for kicks and needs one of
those huge diesel pickups with a 5th wheel for the trailer. Same for people
who haul an RV and need that same kind of truck.


It must be realized that this would negatively impact truck/SUV sales, so
the government must offset the tax with huge tax rebates to those
factories
which attain a certain production level of vehicles employing new
fuel-saving technology.

Only if those car makers redesign their SUVs to reflect the fact that maybe
10% of owners actually need the vehicles geared for off-road use. Otherwise,
all they'll do is tweak the engines just enough to squeeze under whatever
new limit is set. No redesign, no tax break.



To put it another way, it's EXTREMELY likely that this country could, in
the
not-so-distant future, exercise some leverage with oil prices in the
same
way I can exercise leverage with new car prices because there are at
least
4
dealers for any brand of car in Rochester NY.

To put it another way, people in relationships will refuse to admit
they're
wrong about even the most trivial crap until they've been dragged
through
194 hours of couples counseling. Analogy: At some point, people need to
give
up their attitude of "God gave every American the right to own whatever
vehicle we want, to drive it as much as we want, and maintain it as
poorly
as we want, and you're a fascist/commie/whatever if you suggest
otherwise."

Do you think it's worth beginning the oil consumption counseling now, or
doesn't that give you as big a hard-on as seeing cities in flames? A
real
man would get a HUGE woody from being able to tell a supplier to shove
their
product.

Taxing gas isn't the answer.

I'm not referring to taxing. I'm talking about an advertising scheme as
pervasive as what we now see for tobacco, drugs and DWI. Taxing may cut
demand indirectly, but changing minds is direct. If you don't believe this,
take a peek at what the carbohydrate scandal has done to the earnings of the
major bakers in this country.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Still waiting for an answer, NOYB:

Do YOU have any bright ideas for getting lazy thinkers to reconsider
the
types of cars they buy, or how they use those cars? Or, is everything
just
fine the way it is?


I'd impose much stiffer gas guzzler taxes on vehicles before I'd tax
gasoline. If the vehicle is necessary for business, I'd make the gas
guzzler tax partially deductible/refundable so that businesses that need
trucks/vans/SUV's aren't squeezed as hard by it.

Logical, although you'd have to work out some sort of highly detailed
scheme
for hobbyists, like someone who raises horses for kicks and needs one of
those huge diesel pickups with a 5th wheel for the trailer. Same for
people
who haul an RV and need that same kind of truck.

I would make no allowance for vehicles used for "hobbies". Hobbies cost
money. If the tax puts a hobby out of reach financially, then it's time to
find another hobby.



It must be realized that this would negatively impact truck/SUV sales, so
the government must offset the tax with huge tax rebates to those
factories
which attain a certain production level of vehicles employing new
fuel-saving technology.

Only if those car makers redesign their SUVs to reflect the fact that
maybe
10% of owners actually need the vehicles geared for off-road use.
Otherwise,
all they'll do is tweak the engines just enough to squeeze under whatever
new limit is set. No redesign, no tax break.

Not if the limit is set high enough. They don't have to reinvent the wheel
(at least not immediately), they just need to build a better mousetrap.





To put it another way, it's EXTREMELY likely that this country could,
in
the
not-so-distant future, exercise some leverage with oil prices in the
same
way I can exercise leverage with new car prices because there are at
least
4
dealers for any brand of car in Rochester NY.

To put it another way, people in relationships will refuse to admit
they're
wrong about even the most trivial crap until they've been dragged
through
194 hours of couples counseling. Analogy: At some point, people need to
give
up their attitude of "God gave every American the right to own whatever
vehicle we want, to drive it as much as we want, and maintain it as
poorly
as we want, and you're a fascist/commie/whatever if you suggest
otherwise."

Do you think it's worth beginning the oil consumption counseling now,
or
doesn't that give you as big a hard-on as seeing cities in flames? A
real
man would get a HUGE woody from being able to tell a supplier to shove
their
product.

Taxing gas isn't the answer.

I'm not referring to taxing. I'm talking about an advertising scheme as
pervasive as what we now see for tobacco, drugs and DWI. Taxing may cut
demand indirectly, but changing minds is direct. If you don't believe
this,
take a peek at what the carbohydrate scandal has done to the earnings of
the
major bakers in this country.


You're assuming that people who buy the gas-guzzlers have a conscience.
Otherwise, advertising won't work. A large gas guzzler premium *will* have
an influence however.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Still waiting for an answer, NOYB:

Do YOU have any bright ideas for getting lazy thinkers to reconsider
the
types of cars they buy, or how they use those cars? Or, is everything
just
fine the way it is?


I'd impose much stiffer gas guzzler taxes on vehicles before I'd tax
gasoline. If the vehicle is necessary for business, I'd make the gas
guzzler tax partially deductible/refundable so that businesses that
need
trucks/vans/SUV's aren't squeezed as hard by it.

Logical, although you'd have to work out some sort of highly detailed
scheme
for hobbyists, like someone who raises horses for kicks and needs one of
those huge diesel pickups with a 5th wheel for the trailer. Same for
people
who haul an RV and need that same kind of truck.

I would make no allowance for vehicles used for "hobbies". Hobbies cost
money. If the tax puts a hobby out of reach financially, then it's time
to
find another hobby.

Good! You may not be the 100% useless sack of **** we thought you were. :-)



It must be realized that this would negatively impact truck/SUV sales,
so
the government must offset the tax with huge tax rebates to those
factories
which attain a certain production level of vehicles employing new
fuel-saving technology.

Only if those car makers redesign their SUVs to reflect the fact that
maybe
10% of owners actually need the vehicles geared for off-road use.
Otherwise,
all they'll do is tweak the engines just enough to squeeze under
whatever
new limit is set. No redesign, no tax break.

Not if the limit is set high enough. They don't have to reinvent the
wheel
(at least not immediately), they just need to build a better mousetrap.

No. No wiggle room. I was about to say "think back 35 years", but you can't
do that, so I'll help. Used to be you only saw SUVs owned by people who
actually needed them:

1) People who used them for a sport which took them off-road constantly,
like hunters or surf fishermen.
2) People who lived where there was snow. Not pussy snow like along the
entire coast from Massachusetts down to Washington DC, but SNOW.
3) People who towed often and needed a truck's gear ratio, but not a huge
pickup like a bricklayer wants when hauling 2 tons of cement.

Now, it's different. My previous number was a guess, but I'll bet it wasn't
far off: 90% of the people who buy an SUV have absolutely no MECHANICAL NEED
for it. Therefore, the manufacturers should be TOLD that they will sell 90%
of those things with a gear ratio set up like a passenger car, and that they
will train their sales staff to qualify customers correctly. The soccer mom
who wants an SUV because the bumper's higher up and she thinks that makes it
a safer car - she can have one, but she doesn't get the truck gear ratio
that a hunter gets. Even if 20% of the customers lie, it's better than what
we have now: Millions of vehicles getting 17 mpg, driven by fools who think
they're cool.


Taxing gas isn't the answer.

I'm not referring to taxing. I'm talking about an advertising scheme as
pervasive as what we now see for tobacco, drugs and DWI. Taxing may cut
demand indirectly, but changing minds is direct. If you don't believe
this,
take a peek at what the carbohydrate scandal has done to the earnings of
the
major bakers in this country.


You're assuming that people who buy the gas-guzzlers have a conscience.
Otherwise, advertising won't work. A large gas guzzler premium *will*
have
an influence however.

Doesn't matter. The government can afford television spots. If it works for
half the viewers, it's better than what we have now: NOTHING. No effort
whatsoever.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:55:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

No. No wiggle room. I was about to say "think back 35 years", but you can't
do that, so I'll help. Used to be you only saw SUVs owned by people who
actually needed them:

1) People who used them for a sport which took them off-road constantly,
like hunters or surf fishermen.
2) People who lived where there was snow. Not pussy snow like along the
entire coast from Massachusetts down to Washington DC, but SNOW.
3) People who towed often and needed a truck's gear ratio, but not a huge
pickup like a bricklayer wants when hauling 2 tons of cement.

Now, it's different. My previous number was a guess, but I'll bet it wasn't
far off: 90% of the people who buy an SUV have absolutely no MECHANICAL NEED
for it. Therefore, the manufacturers should be TOLD that they will sell 90%
of those things with a gear ratio set up like a passenger car, and that they
will train their sales staff to qualify customers correctly. The soccer mom
who wants an SUV because the bumper's higher up and she thinks that makes it
a safer car - she can have one, but she doesn't get the truck gear ratio
that a hunter gets. Even if 20% of the customers lie, it's better than what
we have now: Millions of vehicles getting 17 mpg, driven by fools who think
they're cool.

I am absolutely 100% four square in your corner on this one. Average
Soccer Mom/Dad doesn't need a truck based SUV with geared to tow a
house down the street.

Regular street gearing w/all wheel drive is sufficient for my area of
the country. I dare say regular street gearing w/o all wheel drive is
sufficient for my area because they drive like idiots in ice/snow/rain
anyway. I have a F-250 4x4 diesel and I don't drive it unless I'm
towing my boat or have to haul a load of wood out of my woods. You
would be surprised at how many folks I see running similar trucks,
with nothing in them, to the grocery store. I have a little Ford
Focus that I run around town, for errands and such.

Take care.

Tom

"The beatings will stop when morale improves."
E. Teach, 1717

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:55:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

No. No wiggle room. I was about to say "think back 35 years", but you
can't
do that, so I'll help. Used to be you only saw SUVs owned by people who
actually needed them:

1) People who used them for a sport which took them off-road constantly,
like hunters or surf fishermen.
2) People who lived where there was snow. Not pussy snow like along the
entire coast from Massachusetts down to Washington DC, but SNOW.
3) People who towed often and needed a truck's gear ratio, but not a huge
pickup like a bricklayer wants when hauling 2 tons of cement.

Now, it's different. My previous number was a guess, but I'll bet it
wasn't
far off: 90% of the people who buy an SUV have absolutely no MECHANICAL
NEED
for it. Therefore, the manufacturers should be TOLD that they will sell
90%
of those things with a gear ratio set up like a passenger car, and that
they
will train their sales staff to qualify customers correctly. The soccer
mom
who wants an SUV because the bumper's higher up and she thinks that makes
it
a safer car - she can have one, but she doesn't get the truck gear ratio
that a hunter gets. Even if 20% of the customers lie, it's better than
what
we have now: Millions of vehicles getting 17 mpg, driven by fools who
think
they're cool.

I am absolutely 100% four square in your corner on this one. Average
Soccer Mom/Dad doesn't need a truck based SUV with geared to tow a
house down the street.

Regular street gearing w/all wheel drive is sufficient for my area of
the country. I dare say regular street gearing w/o all wheel drive is
sufficient for my area because they drive like idiots in ice/snow/rain
anyway. I have a F-250 4x4 diesel and I don't drive it unless I'm
towing my boat or have to haul a load of wood out of my woods. You
would be surprised at how many folks I see running similar trucks,
with nothing in them, to the grocery store. I have a little Ford
Focus that I run around town, for errands and such.

Take care.

Tom

I'd also wager that the manufacturers could sell the truck-geared SUVs
without having to charge more for them. After all, they'd be subsidized by
the 90% who buy what I assume would be a less expensive drive train. It
would just be a question of finding a dealer who has the one you want.