Mmmmm. algaeburgers.
I was merely expressing my vehement disagreement with the above statement. Government should stay the hell away from finding more crap to regulate, unless there is a clear need for its intervention. In the case of SUV’s, I don’t believe there is a need for the government getting any more involved than they already are. They’ve got enough to meddle with already.
The taxing of SUVs though is arbitrary in this scenario.
Why not tax watermelons? That would make just as much sense
Or better yet, how about we tax people who tell other people what to drive?
What we should, and do tax is gasoline.
I am much more environmentally friendly in my Durango, which gets driven 5 miles a day during the week, and only gets used on weekends to haul cargo or a trailer, than Joe Smugass in his Ford Focus compact commuting 45 minutes to and from work each day.
Why I should I be taxed for my responsible usage when Joe Smugass is the one out there burning all the fuel?
No because now you are mixing two different probelms (i.e. fire and murder). Try:
- My house is on fire.
- Every house in the neighborhood is on fire.
- It is silly to worry/do anything about my house on fire.
By the way Scylla, I appreciate your argument (there are more serious concerns than SUV environmental impact) but I am inclined to ignore you when you attack me personally: “On the other hand you could waste your time pissing people off, and acting morally superior while accomplishing nothing.” It’s funny how the SDMB can have a perfectly civil debate about religion or gun control, but when trying to discuss SUVs suddenly I am “acting morally superior”.
If you say I started it with my comment in the OP, then fine. But lets end it here.
Oh no, I hate SUVs. Isn’t that why we tax cigarettes and alcohol to pay for sport stadiums?
Setting aside pollution, how about fuel consumption?
Because if you only drive your SUV 5 miles a day, you are way off from the average. Why aren’t you opposed to other taxes which cause you to pay for others’ usage (Road Improvements, Public Works, Car Registration, Medicare, Social Security)?
**
No. You started off mixing two different problems (neigbor’s murder/house on fire) I stayed that way to maintain consistency.
try this:
- My house is on fire.
- It is too hot in my house
- It is silly to worry/do anything about the thermostat of my house.
**
I am not attacking you personally. I am attacking people who make stupid assertions concerning SUVs. If you identify with that group, that is your problem, not mine.
Similarly, I drive an SUV. Your attack on SUV drivers and SUVs in general is not a personal attack against me, unless I choose to identify with that group and take it personal.
You can’t have it both ways. Either an attack against a group is personal or it’s not.
You can. If you can’t take the heat stick to making salad. Me? I’m cooking.
Yeah, I suck.
I drive an explorer 38 miles each way for my commute.
But I’m not going to tell you where I live. I’m frightened.
Seriously, the fuel consumption issue is really secondary. It’s the net effects (pollution, arable land converted to asphault, suburban sprawl) that are more important when it comes to automobile debates.
Does this mean if you don’t use your SUV for everyday driving and take it off-road, then that is an acceptable use of an SUV ? I’m just wondering, Jayrot because I’m very curious as to who can and cannot have an SUV. Or maybe everyone can, but they need to pay more for the damage they’re causing the environment ?
If somebody uses renewable energy to power their home, and recycles what they can and buys products with an eye to minimal packaging and energy use, do they get to use the SUV ? Is their neighbour, who chooses to do nothing at all for the environment(except buying a smaller car) and in fact creates more environmental damage than you do, better than you ?
If you’re going to tax SUV owners for the environmental damage they do, let’s tax everything that’s environmentally damaging, starting with those things that damage the environment most. Hopefully the proceeds will go towards cleaning up all the damage, and not into more bureaucracy 
Actually I hate social security.
But, I in general benefit from roads and the travel of vehicles on roads as it brings me goods and services.
You do understand that in SUV is neither good nor bad in and of itself. My decision to own an SUV is neutral.
A Ford Excursion with 6 or seven passengers is much more efficient than one guy in a civic.
By living close to my place of business I use very little gas, and I am much more efficient than the guy who commutes 50 miles back and forth in his efficiency car.
The problem has nothing to do with the vehicles themselves, with but one caveat. Emmisions requirements should be identical. An SUV is allowed to pollute more than a passenger car. That should change.
Once that is accomplished the question is purely one of efficiency.
You usage of a Honda Civic can be highly inneficient, and if your car is badly tuned it can be highly polluting.
The use of my Durango can be highly efficient
The most efficacious way to encourage efficiency is at the primary source, not the secondary source.
The primary source is gas.
The secondary source is the car you burn it in.
Tax gasoline as you do, and you present a value/efficiency proposition to an automobile buyer.
He weighs the desire and need for a vehicle against the cost of using it and makes the most efficient decision for himself and his circumstances.
If he chooses poorly, he pays for it at the pump. If he chooses wisely he is rewarded for his efficient usage in lower costs.
What could possibly be fairer?
Exactly.
I move that all SUVs be increased in size until they can carry their own nuclear reactors.
Speaking seriously for a moment, you would have looked like less of a nut (and your thread been taken more seriously) if you had started with the hard facts about SUV fuel consumption instead of “I hate SUVs.”
The SUV drivers already pay for their choice when they have to fuel up more often, and a large part of gasoline prices are taxes. Now, if you want to increase gasoline taxes so people with high-consumption vehicles will be discouraged to keep them, be prepared to pay higher prices for a lot of goods that are shipped around the country on 18-wheelers, plus you’ll be penalizing people who actually have legitimate reasons for owning large vehices.
It’s the assumption that passing a law will instantly solve problems that I find most disturbing.
I think I’m pretty safe in assuming our dear friend Jayrot is not a Republican.
This is hilarious for so many reasons!
I feel the same way you do, Jayrot. I used to argue with a guy at work (we’ll call him “Moe”) about the exact same thing. Moe and his wife owned a Land Raider that seated somewhere between 12 and 25 people, yet they did not own a landscaping business, were not part of either a professional or amateur sports team, and had no family to cart around!
Moe was frustrated because he assumed my argument was based solely on fuel consumption, and demanded that I justify my need to own a gas-guzzling (17 city/22 highway, according to spec) Ford Mustang GT. Of course, we all know that nobody with a good car needs to be justified.
I think, contary to what manhattan’s drawn up, that many of todays SUV’s and Big Big Trucks do in fact constitute oversized vehicles that should be licensed differently. You should see what a Ford F-350 Super Duty looks like crammed into the tiny spaces available in our underground parking facility here; it’s downright hazardous!
In Texas, we do in fact have special registration for “Farm Trucks.” What I would like to see beyond this is special licenses and training to discourage the average citizen from tooling around our narrow city streets what in my mind is the equivalent of an Imperial Main Battle Tank.
Yeah, they use a lot of gas. That’s OK - mine does too - but they are huge and ponderous, difficult to see around even when they are two or three cars ahead of you. That’s just plain unsafe.
Plus, like Harmonix said, they are more difficult to manuever than something nimble, like a Ford Mustang GT. I curse the time my Mustang was in the shop and the only rental vehicle I could get was a Chevy Silverado 1500 - a truly sizeable beast - and I noted that I clearly enjoyed a height and mass advantage over my fellow drivers at the cost of both my own manueverablility and their visibility.
We have a responsibility to our fellow drivers to make the road a better and safer place. Sealing yourself inside the armoured hull of a 5-ton monstrosity so you can be safer than your fellow motorists (to their detriment!) is just plain unacceptable.
The biggest reason I find this hilarious: Moe is… not from our country. He is particularly fascinated with Austin Powers and Seinfeld. With his Bangel accent, he is quite adept at saying “No ____ for you,” delighting us all in a perfect mockery of the Soup Nazi’s voice.
Oddly, he’s on the other side of this argument. 
Clearly, we’ve identified a problem. Now we just need some legislation to correct it.
No, if you say “we” should ban assault rifles, I make sure mine are well-oiled and ready.
Hope that helps.
Since you’ve admitted that this was not a well-thought out thread, I’m pretty confident not much more need be said on the subject until you have an actual argument.
The only thing that bugs me about large SUVs are when the asshole driving it parks in a compact car parking space. And then takes up two spaces to keep people from it being too much of a squeeze. That guy’s a jerk.
Wow, someone actually read my post =)
Class S(UV) license? On that note I might be going for a class B license next year. I think that would also suffice.
damn straight! I once had a picture of this big ass ford truck with an extended cab AND an extended bed parked inbetween 2 civics in a compact spot.
Scylla:
“You can. If you can’t take the heat stick to making salad. Me? I’m cooking.”
Wow, Scylla, you’re cool…and sassy!!
I have a solution: let’s outlaw jerks.