Let's quit complaining and actually do something...

Something that (amazingly) hasn't been mentioned here yet is the renewal and expansion of the current tax break for hybrids. I suppose that's probably because most of you already own a Prius.

Perhaps the current tax break can be expanded. A large, $2000-3000 break on the purchase of the vehicle, plus a smaller annual credit. This wouldn't penalize anyone, though you could argue that it will only benefit "ultra-rich, tree-hugging Prius-driving hippies." But at least everyone's air will be cleaner and America's fuel consumption lower.

 

Sun_Tzu,

Good point about the tax break. I like this kind of insentive better then being taxed. Off of the top of my head, I could see dealerships, titileling cars, then selling them as "used" or "TRAC" vehicles to get around the tax.

Wood,
I also agree with you that we need to think long term. I like the insentives ideas rather than the penalities systems. I don't think that the Manufactures will go for putting a "sin tax" on some of their best selling vehicles.

There are a lot of good ideas out there. I'm not sure which would be the best, or how any change would effect our econimy as a whole.

 

For most people, a $1,500 deduction amounts to a rebate of from $200 to $500. That size rebate is not going to create much of an incentive to buy a $20K (base price) car. And with such a popular car, the deduction will not get one additional Prius on the road.

However, a 300% tax on 15 mpg gas guzzlers would create a real disincentive to buy one. It would also generate revenue which could be directed into alternative energy investment.

Older cars could be taxed upon re-sale based on a comparison with the most economical car made in that same year, so a 1985 car, for example, would not be taxed based on the mileage of a 2004 prius.

That way people who cannot afford a new car could still avoid the tax by buying the most efficient car made in that same year.

Yearly registration could also include a gas-guzzler factor: the same formula, but used as a multiplier on the base registration fee, so if your base registration is $250 for a particular model/year, and it burns twice as much gas as the most efficient car of that year, then the registration would be $500.

Since gas guzzlers generally tend to be larger and more expensive, this would be a progressive tax.

 

Daniel, is there a tax out there that you DON'T like?

It is NOT the governments job to push alternative energy development. This has already been tried back in the 70's - with the typical disastorous results that are atypical when the government starts meddling in social policy.

If you want alternative energy use, then buy into it. Nobody says you have to spend $60k on a full blown self standing solar system. Such systems are always scalable, and you can buy the basics, and then add as your budget allows.

Go to www.homepower.com and subscribe to their magazine. I did for several years. There are numerous articles dealing with inexpensive means of building solar ovens, wind power, solar water heat, solar power generation, and the like.

Use your own wallet to make the point. Causing a tax revolt will yield the exact opposite of your desired goals.

 

Thx for the link wolfman, I'll be sure to check it out.

I think most of us who are arguing for tax breaks feel like we should be rewarded by our government for "doing the right thing." The Federal tax code is already all about encouraging certain behavior: get married, have children, save for retirement, etc. Since these breaks aren't going anywhere, we'd just like to see a few for those of us saving the planet with Prii and solar setups.

So yes, I'd still like to see a tax credit for people who install solar/wind/geothermal/biomass power on their homes. Or perhaps a government subsidy of such purchases (20% of purchase price? 30%?).

 

Wolfman, with all due respect, I disagree with your view that the government should not be pushing alternative energy development.

The government gives all sorts of incentives, subsidies, and other give-aways to oil, coal, and nuclear, thus making them cheaper than their true market cost, and obstructing the development of alternative energy.

Example: the government paid for the R&D on nuclear, it gives the nuclear industry an arbitrary cap on liability (greatly lowering their insurance rates and placing the burden on us in case of an accident), and the government takes on the full cost of storing nuclear waste for the next half-million or so years.

Example: The government allows coal-fired plants to dump obscene quantities of pollutants into the air, which in the long run increases the cost you and I pay for health care or insurance. The coal industry made an agreement with the Nixon administration to phase out the dirtiest plants right about now, but now the Bush administration is allowing them to reneg on that promise and continue polluting.

Alternative energy would not need subsidies if the government made other energy sources pay their full real costs.

And, yes, there is a tax I don't like: any tax on me. I hate taxes on me. But I pay them because that's the price of living in a country with paved roads and garbage collection and public schools and libraries and medical care for the indigent, etc., etc., etc.

 

I look back at the 70's when this was tried. MASSIVE damage was made to the solar market due to substandard building practices from fly-by-night companies that sprang up from this attempt. Houses suffered serious damage from leaking solar water heaters, and improperly installed solar electrical systems. AE cannot afford another one of these miscarriages.

Yes, I'm fully aware of this. It really only shows the damage that is done when the feds meddle where they don't belong.

Actually, they got a free ride here as the R&D for power generation went hand in hand with the development of nuclear weapons. More proof of damage from government meddling. However, I say that with the caveat that we my all be speaking Russian, and living sardined in tiny apartments, eeking out an existance on a pitilance of an income without Nuclear weapons development.

The solution here is to have this piece of policy put back in line. Taxing the public for buying a big vehicle will not correct this issue.

This may be the case. However, wind power is now getting down to the same cost per kw/h as subsidised power generation, and they did this without any governmental meddling. Right now their biggest problem is the radical environmentalists that scream bloody murder in the court system when a new wind farm is put up. They are an "eyesore" in their opinion.

This should make you take careful consideration before slamming others with massive taxation. It just very well may be you that inadvertently ends up having to pay them. Presuming you're married, your wife may end up getting pregnant, and surprise, having more than one baby. All of a sudden, you will be faced with being forced into buying that bigger vehicle, that you tried to tax into extinction.

I can agree with yanking the subsidies. Again, the feds are meddling where they shouldn't be when they do this. Instead of severe tax penalties for making one choice, offer large tax INCENTIVES for making the better choice. The public would be much more receptive to it, and you wouldn't be seeking the fury of a public that is getting increasingly fed up with the tax load.

 

When we pay taxes, we are paying our own way. When we cut taxes we are putting the debt onto our grandchildren, who will curse us for leaving them a nation mired in debt. I don't like taxes, but I pay them, because I have no right to leave my debts to the next generation. Just like I don't like standing in line at the grocery store, but I do it because I have no right to butt in the line.

The funny thing is that it was the Republicans who lambasted debt financing and demanded a balanced-budget amendment, and then gave us (under Reagan) record-high national debt. After 8 years of the man who could not keep his weenie in his pants we had a surplus, and now after just 3 years of The Shrub we again have the highest national debt in history.

BTW, my mom bought a solar hot water heater way back then. It worked fine for 25 years. It saved a lot of gas. Then it was too old and she had it removed. She didn't think she'd live long enough to reap the long-term benefit of installing another in the absense of the tax break.

Here in ND the biggest impediment to wind energy is that the coal companies own the grid, and won't let wind power onto it, and a majority of our state legislators are in the pockets of the coal companies and refuse to legislate access to the grid.