Mass. governor pondering so-called "Hummer Tax"
Click above for a high-res gallery of the 2009 Hummer H2
The Governor of Massachusetts is backing a new state proposal to tax larger gas-guzzling vehicles each year when drivers register them. The so-called "Hummer Tax" would be the first in the nation, and it is designed to directly discourage ownership of SUVs and pickups. To further chill ownership of larger and more inefficient vehicles and steer buyers towards the small cars, the plan includes provisions to discount fees for owners with lighter and more miserly cars.
"It's a penalty for driving an SUV, which currently is not the popular choice. Or you're being penalized for a lifestyle choice, or maybe the fact that you have a large family and you need that size vehicle to put them in and it just doesn't seem fair," said Tim Lerchenfeldt, general manager of Cadillac Hummer Saab Village in Norwwood. He argues that now is not the time for additional fees, especially when the industry is struggling and sales across the board are down.
The transportation system in Massachusetts is suffering from more than a decade of neglect, according to Democratic Governor Deval Patrick, and the tax would be just one of the ways to raise the funds to foot the repair bill (the plan also includes a controversial 19 cent increase in the state's gas tax). While the "Hummer Tax" benefits from a lightning rod of a nickname, the premise of hitting select consumers who already pay more at the pump with yet another fee doesn't exactly sound universally welcomed.
Gallery: 2008 HUMMER H2
[Source: Foxnews]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 9)
BigMcLargeHuge 12:35PM (3/09/2009)
I don't like large vehicles either, but that is an unfair tax. I know several families with 5+ kids. They just plain don't fit in a Fit.
Down with government meddling!
Reply
Sea Urchin 12:42PM (3/09/2009)
Average family has 2.5 children, 50% of all vehicles are trucks and SUVs, so i am taking a guess that MOST do not need a 3 row, V8 vehicle that gets 2 MPG.
If someone has 5+ children, Hummer or any other SUV will not help them.
Taglane 12:44PM (3/09/2009)
They're called Crossovers. Use 'um!
Or they can get a sedan and strap the rest to the roof. Hey, they're safe if they can tie a knot.
BigMcLargeHuge 12:49PM (3/09/2009)
I'm sorry but that's basically a retarded response.
We're talking 3, 4, 5 and more children to compensate for the ones and twos out there. And this most certainly IS an unfair tax on them.
And this is a tax on pickup trucks, SUVs, and I would assume truck-based conversion vans as well.
The Yukon, Suburban, Land Cruiser, Expedition, and a handful of others all seat 8 people thanks very much.
Sea Urchin 1:00PM (3/09/2009)
Look Big, you are right, i agree 110%, it is unfair, it is an SUV tax.
But the far bigger question here is how long can we continue to pollute environment? That is the issue. Most Americans could not care less about environment or where oil comes from, and on some occasions the government needs to step in and save people from their own stupidity. .....................much like we are seeing in the mortgage field. Many went out there buying what they could not afford, and forcing government to step in. Here is the same, most out there do not care about environment, most think that when white smoke leaves the tail pipe it forms into those white clouds and look so nice on a sunny day. Most think that Saudi Arabia is a friendly country, like Laplandia.
henrykrinkle 1:08PM (3/09/2009)
No one ever said kids were cheap and having so many was their choice. Someone with 5+ kids also needs a bigger house which comes with a bigger tax bill so this is really no different.
The alternative is to raise gas taxes so everyone pays but that just penalizes those who make an effort to conserve while prices are being driven up by those who don't.
But, of course, this isn't about oil conservation, it's just a money grab.
Ligor 1:08PM (3/09/2009)
I agree,
if you're gonna do this then you'd have to bring a tax on CO2 emisions and each vehicle (including the Prius) would pay taxes on how much CO2 their car produces
but why not just raise the tax on gas and keep it at $4/gal and this will assure only those that need it will buy it. of course you'd have to wait out this downtur economy to avoid a longer recession adn possibly a depression
why not the LS2LS7? 1:10PM (3/09/2009)
Having lots of kids brings extra costs. This could be one.
And besides, there are great minivans out there that carry 5 better than an SUV does anyway. Get one.
Daily Driver 1:11PM (3/09/2009)
Masshole.
Why doesn't he close down the Ford/GM/Dodge dealers that sells SUVs and pickups and hand the money to over priced gas saving imports? That Masshole doesn't realize, the only thing that are attractive to customers right now is those big gas guzzlers.
Kappy 1:36PM (3/09/2009)
@ Sea Urchin
While I completely agree that we need to take steps to take better care of Mother Earth, the honest truth is that SUVs, while obviously not good, are a relatively insignificant part of the problem. Far more pollution comes from Industry, and that is where we really need to focus our efforts in reducing emissions. Taxing large vehicles is not the answer right now.
Rob 1:31PM (3/09/2009)
It is perfectly fair. 95% of all SUVs never leave the pavement. And most are used for commuting, not towing. In rural America, fine. Allow SUVs for farmers that need to tow gigantic trailers with horses or ATVs or something. But in MA? Come on. Those people are NOT going offroading, nor are they ever towing anything important.
BTW, read this:
http://fc99.deviantart.com/fs27/f/2008/101/1/d/SUV_Research_Paper_by_cash68.pdf
BigMcLargeHuge 1:35PM (3/09/2009)
Henry,
How does this accurately tax based on an effort to conserve?
Pollution = miles driven / miles per gallon
This is a REGISTRATION fee. Meaning even if you drive 3000 miles per
year in your pickup just to take the dirtbike to the woods or drive
the kids 2 blocks to daycare, you pay a higher fee than someone
driving a Civic 30,000 miles on their 50-mile commute.
(yes, I know someone who's SUV gets 3000 miles per year,
and a compact driver who has a 50-mile commute. I know another that drives an SUV on family vacations only, it is NOT a daily driver. This is real life in America)
Guess who produces more CO2? Its not even close.
This is not a pollution tax, its not a scaled tax. The only way to have a registration fee that is fair is to make it contingent on how much driving you actually do with it.
Aprime 1:35PM (3/09/2009)
Why are you arguing over the fairness of a tax when there's not such thing as fair taxation?
>_>
Luis 1:43PM (3/09/2009)
To say it's unfair is ridiculous. It could easily be offset with additional tax breaks for large families. This already occurs and will continue. Give it a rest, people.
BigMcLargeHuge 1:48PM (3/09/2009)
A gas tax would technically be fair. So would a mileage tax.
Its like a rental fee. If you spend the most miles on a road, you have the greatest responsibility to pay for repairs for that road.
If you burn the most carbon, you are the most responsible for conservation programs.
Owning and registering an SUV does NOT necessarily mean it will do more environmental damage than the owner of a compact at twice the miles and twice the mpg.
The best argument anyone can have for this tax is saying that 'most' people don't need SUVs and pickups. Not arguing that. A gas tax would chase off those that don't.
For the handful that NEED a pickup truck, this is tantamount to persecution. How much more damage can the small business or economically strained homeowner take? It affects the economy and indirectly affects you.
In this time of economic crisis, its really nice that everyone is falling into the self-centered trap of "tax them! tax them!" Are you really naive enough to trust a beaurocracy not to listen to 'them' when they tell the govenrment to tax 'you'?
"Its always someone else... until they come for you." - excert from a holocost survivor.
catgirlshyla 1:51PM (3/09/2009)
And how do we know said 5 kid families aren't "Welfaries" just popping out kids and grabbing a welfare check and public housing?? You can afford a SUV, yet you still want a handout from my taxes?
I say tax 'em. Give exceptions to Businesses (with STRICT regulations [i.e. No Magnetic Signs, must be Permanent Decals]) and Rural Users (as defined by Zip Code and Land Use Codes).
Geeky1 1:54PM (3/09/2009)
"...on some occasions the government needs to step in and save people from their own stupidity." -Sea Urchin
That has to be the most idiotic statement I've ever read. It's most certainly in the top 5 or 10, at least. The purpose of government is not to execute social engineering projects "for the good of the people."
Don't like SUVs? Awesome. With few exceptions, neither do I. Know what? The fact that you and I don't like them isn't a good reason to try legislate them out of existence. Nor is the "fact" that they "cause too much pollution" or that they "use too much oil" or whatever else the idiocy du jour is.
This is a treacherous path to venture down; it's not that far of a leap in some peoples' minds from a suburban to a Z06-the fact that the 'Vette will hit 25+ on the freeway is irrelevant to these idiots, they just see "7L V8" and start crying about all the little fishies and birdies and kiddies that that mean, evil car is killing. KILLING, I SAY, KILLING! *flail* Morons. But I digress.
Point is-and this can and should be applied universally, not just to this issue or to cars in general-supporting an attempt to force something that you don't agree with, support, like or whatever out of existence solely on the basis that you think it's somehow wrong is wrong in and of itself and idiotic to boot. After all, once the moral busybodies of the world have been allowed to impose their will on everyone and harass every other group of people that you don't like out of existence, the only one they'll have left to harass is you.
BigMcLargeHuge 4:10PM (3/09/2009)
Catgirl,
I'm pretty confident that the middle class would be most affected by
the 'Hummer tax'. As would American automotive companies, who are
currently working hard on better fuel solutions for full-size
vehicles. They do need to survive the recession though. Now is not
the time.
If the Mass. gov't doesn't think trucks are 'necessary', I suggest
that all the pickup owners with snowplow attachments should boycott
plowing out government buildings if this tax is passed.
Just for reference, Boston gets roughly the same annual snowfall as
Detroit. Try plowing out New England with your Prius you smug
beaurocratic b@stards! Haha!
tankd0g 4:53PM (3/09/2009)
Look, the people already own these vehicles. There was no such tax on them when they purchased them. If you support this sort of BS then you might as well bend over because you'll be opening the door to the same tax on increasingly smaller vehicles until a moped that runs on fox urine is all you can afford to register.
Level 8:00PM (3/09/2009)
So let me get this straight the state wants to discourage in a form of tax from people owning this large SUVs that consume a lot of gas which will then result in less consumption of said gas in the state which will then be force to raise taxes on gas for the result of taxing large cars which are consuming less gas....
This F-ing country is going to sh*ts where do these people come up this crap. The state is going to Tax people for their way of life are, things have to stop soon...Whats next? im going to get taxed for taking 2 showers a day? or for the amount of air I breath for a day?