My first car had a curb weight of 2400 lbs. It’s absurd how fucking huge these planet-destroying, environment destroying, life destroying monstrosities have become.
Okay this makes no sense. What about semi trucks or anything commercial? Did we decide decades ago that they can just fuck off and die?
Do they get hazard pay?
Normal people have to read a booklet, memorize basic things, take a written test, take an eye test, and drive around the block. All can be done in the span of a day. License acquired, go drive whatever 9,000lb vehicle you want in the way you see fit.
Commercial vehicles require a commercial license to operate, which requires training and one at-fault accident may revoke their commercial license. Plus depending on the loads they carry they can be worth millions of tens of millions. That’s why you don’t typically see 53’ flatbeds going 20 over the limit and weaving in and out of traffic. Sometimes it can get sketchy if they’re close to their destination and it’s a rush against their (electronically) mandated off-time, but also one speeding ticket can put their license at risk.
Stupid post. 60,000 lb semi laughs.
Max weight load for commercial vehicles is actually 20k lbs more, at 80k total.
And the drivers are trained, and most of them do well most of the time.
But some companies run them like Amazon drivers… No matter what happens (brake problems, engine problems, stuck, accident traffic, etc you better get there by X time. That’s not such a problem until drivers start driving through their mandatory sleep times to stay awake.
A bit before COVID they implemented an electronic tracker that reports any driving at all during mandated off-times (for sleep).
Before that you’d have truckers either fighting sleep, or, stimulants were a big thing at truck stops, right up there with lot lizards.
I had a girlfriend who’s dad was a long-haul trucker. I’ve heard some seriously fucked and sad stories. Thankfully there have been new safety implementations
“The goliath-like GMC Hummer EV weighs a staggering 9,083 pounds, 2 tons more than a gas-guzzling H3.”
I’m confused 'Murica, do you want freedom or not?
There was a discussion a couple of years ago around gasoline taxes and how they are supposed to pay for roadway maintenance. The question came up about EVs. There were discussions about how to include EVs in the taxation system so they would pay for their fair share of the road. One of the options was to impose a tax attached to your vehicle registration based upon the weight of the vehicle. The greater the weight, the more wear and tear it produces on the road surface. This might be one solution to the barrier problem, namely moving the extra cost to the reason for the extra cost.
There was a discussion a couple of years ago around gasoline taxes and how they are supposed to pay for roadway maintenance.
I just want to point out, even if they’re supposed to, gas taxes do not pay for roadway maintenance, not by a long shot
Every mile an EV drives is already taxed as we already tax electricity consumption. There is no reason to add a tax for something already taxed.
That depends on if the tax is sufficient to cover the societal costs of driving that mile or not. Not every use of electricity degrades public infrastructure to the same extent, so if the maintenance burden an EV adds is more than what the electricity tax brings in, then additional taxes to make up the difference would make sense.
That is true also for fossil-fuel
Come April, NZ will be charging EVs road user charges using the same price-per-kilometre mechanism diesel (diesel not have a fuel levy) vehicles use.
The “problem” with that tax is that if it’s applied fairly, it gets very big very fast. The damage to the road goes up with weight, but not linearly. Not a square factor, either. Not even cube. It’s to the fourth power.
Start applying that to long haul trucks and the whole industry will be bankrupt in a month. The implication being that we are all subsidizing that industry with taxes on roads. Including that one trucker with a “who is John Galt?” sticker on the back.
That said, this is also a very good argument for improving cargo trains to the point where most long haul trucking goes away.
Speaking of road tax, you know that bad-faith argument about how cyclists need to pay our “fair share?” Well, I would be happy to pay 1¢ for my 10 kg bicycle if everybody with a car had to pay fairly by weight4.
Maybe it’s because I don’t really know anyone passionate on either side of this issue, but I’ve never heard of this argument. I know you said it’s a bad faith argument, but I can’t really imagine what a cyclist’s fair share would be aside from maybe widening a road to add a bike lane lol
You see it a lot on in the comment sections of local newspapers or the city specific subs on Reddit.
Makes sense, that’s where my local NIMBYs hang too.
I heard it on Top Gear.
No reason the tax had to scale exactly to match the damage though. At least make it painful enough so people consider whether a larger vehicle is worth it.
What I’m suggesting is to ramp up the tax on roads over several years in order to pay for the initial outlay on new train infrastructure. Then you don’t need 90% of the trucking industry at all.
Which would be great for many other reasons.
Train infrastructure is being removed around the world - good luck convincing people to build more.
The fact is a train turns one trip into three trips - truck to the railway station, train to another station, truck to the final destination. That often adds days to what otherwise might be a 3 hour delivery - because trains are only cheap if you send about a hundred or so trucks full of cargo on a single trip.
Only really makes sense for really long trips but more and more of those are done by ship or airplane. Trucks aren’t going anywhere.
What if it’s not a larger vehicle, but transitioning from a petrol burning vehicle to an electric vehicle?
We don’t want to give people reasons to hold on to old combustion vehicles any longer than they have to, but the roads of course need to be made safe for passengers and pedestrians and wildlife, I agree.
If they hold on to their existing vehicle than thats just another upside. If they buy a new gasoline car instead of an EV this is bad. But EVs dont have to be insanely heavy if we stop the whole cars getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger crap. They will still be heavier than their gasoline counterpart but one solution might be 2 tax brackets: One for gasoline cars and one for evs that has the same taxation levels but allows for, lets say, 500kg more weight in them
To be fair, it’s the fourth power of the axle weight, not vehicle weight. So it’s not as extreme for long haul trucks as you make it sound, but still much higher than for a car
Long haul trucking shouldn’t exist.
As a truck driver, I would like to ask, how would you acquire all the “stuff” you have bought over the years? I am reasonably sure most of it was not produced locally to you. And the raw materials almost certainly aren’t locally sourced. Trucking and logistics generally has its issues, and you only have glimpsed a fraction of them, but it is absolutely necessary for modern society. Unless you’re proposing we kill off 2/3rds of humanity and go back to hunter-gatherer. Not a fan of that idea.
He’s proposing trains should do the ‘Long Haul’ portion.
Even if we put 100% of freight on trains, and expand the existing rail network 10x, the need for trucking infrastructure would not decrease by any significant amount. Trains can’t stop at every single business that needs freight, and trucks are still needed to get that freight from the railport to its destination (this is called “last mile” freight, but it can be up to a few hundred miles depending on where the nearest logistics hub is compared to the destination).
By the way, we already use trains significantly. Look up the intermodal logistics network. The general concept is smaller trucks pick up freight from different businesses, consolidate it in a single warehouse, then the freight gets put on full size trucks to move to the nearest railport and the trailer is loaded on a train which carries it as far as possible, then the reverse happens at the other end. The vast majority of freight movement uses this method.
You’ve moved away from the part which specifies long-haul trucking. To my understanding this is an area where trains are a reasonable solution.
Last mile coverage we also have room for improvement with much smaller vehicles, like bikes.
My point is that long haul is a very small minority of long-distance freight. Anything that can fly, does. Anything else will go on a train if a route exists (this is where rail expansion would help, but there are other problems with that we won’t address). The only freight that travels long-distance is truckloads that can’t fly (hazardous goods that are dangerous to put on a plane, or stuff like certain foods that could be damaged by the pressure changes in flight) AND doesn’t have a good train route to take. My cross-country routes were always stuff like fresh produce or other foods that would be damaged by the pressure. Everything else would travel a few states, but never from one coast to the other.
And you can’t put 3 full pallets on a bike, you’ll always need trucks to some extent.
Which have their own issues. Namely, to my knowledge, upfront cost and lack of flexibility. I’m sure there are others.
Here in the US, you are unlikely to find enough people willing to think far enough ahead for that to happen. Too many emotions guiding actions.
The cost has already been paid. Even small farming communities have rail line access that’s mostly been abandoned because the line owners switched business models.
As for flexibility, again, that’s mostly an issue with how rail line management has evolved. From shorter more frequent trains to ultra long infrequent trains. Mostly to cut the cost of staffing.
The solution is simple, nationalize the rail service. Put it under the USPS and have them figure out scheduling to optimize the speed of goods shipping.
The current state of the rail system is entirely due to the monopolistic nature of ownership. The incentive is to increase prices as much as possible while shipping to the fewest stops possible. Profit motives are in direct conflict with generalized shipping.
The reason trunking works today is the public nature of roads. Well, why shouldn’t rail lines be equally public? We practically gave the property away to the current rail owners with the notion it was for the public good… They’ve failed that.
But if the true costs were quantized in the formula and not just externalized maybe it would suddenly make more sense. After all, in the end, society pays for it no matter what.
Neither should lots of short haul trucking, more specifically drayage trucking, that industry sucks. We probably need to move more towards vans and stuff.
There’s no need to have the tax be the exact same for every vehicle class. Proper long haul trucks have to be heavy, private cars do not.
The US already has 8 or 10 different vehicle classes defined by weight, the lightest being 6000lbs (which is still ridiculously high, my VW Up is 2200lbs).
And frankly, I’m really ok with this.
Trains should be the backbone for shipping. They are WAY more fuel efficient, like 3 to 4x more efficient than shipping by truck. Rail requires far less maintenance. And there’s always the option install a 3rd rail and use electricity instead of fossil fuels to ship.
Oh well. I guess they’ll just have to go bankrupt then.
And now you starve. None of the stores will stay open long without them.
Think of the shareholders!
That should mean they don’t go bankrupt though. If their service is vital, people will pay for it even if the prices rise. It would mean an increase in prices for goods admittedly as the stores try to recoup the increased logistics costs, but intuitively I’d imagine the financial impact on the end customer wouldn’t be as much because they’re paying for the road upkeep either way, just via higher taxes in the current state and via increased prices in the new one.
That’s not a supply and demand thing though. There just wouldn’t be product to buy because there’s no way to get it to the stores. It’s less about the bankruptcy and more about availability.
I mean the supply and demand for the trucking companies. Shipping is a vital service, if it had high taxes, it would have to dramatically increase prices for their shipping service, but they shouldn’t go out of business because everyone else would still pay those dramatically high prices, because they’d have to
So? That money is still coming from somewhere. If the freight industry can’t afford to pay then it means we are subsiding them CURRENTLY. They by the very nature of capitalism deserve to go out of business
If you look down further, I’m just saying you can’t deal with the problem in this specific way.
True but unfettered capitalism is a terrible model.
Trucks already pay a lot more in tax and regulatory expenses. In my state, annual car registration is $30-ish. Annual registration for a full-sized 18-wheeler is $1350 for the truck and $30-300 for each trailer. They also have to pay annual fees at the federal level which can be $600+/year, and an additional fuel tax on top of the existing state sales tax on diesel which I don’t know the rate of right now. All of that applies to every single power unit and trailer in a fleet.
Trucks should be taxed much higher than cars, but too many people don’t know or just don’t care that this is already the case, and it has been this way since the 1940s.
They are taxed a lot. Are they taxed to the fourth power of axel weight? Not even close.
Based on your math, you’d be charging almost $2 million per year per truck. With that much money, you’d be building an entire nations worth of brand new infrastructure several times over each year.
In Australia (and I assume other similar countries) trucks have tax concessions to avoid the cost of food fluctuating too much with the cost of diesel. This tax doesn’t need to be any different.
Yeah, I think turning highways back into methods of travel instead of “rolling warehouses saving Walmart a few bucks not storing anything on site” is a good thing.
So much of that freight should be moved by rail.
Tax based on weight to 4th power would work if we nationalized railways like roads.
Only if rail can figure out their shit and hire enough workers and give them all time off. Too many train derailments from precision scheduled railroading.
Actually maintained rail shouldn’t have this problem, but the private companies like Norfolk Southern spend the minimum amount to keep them operational.
With a budget just a fraction of highway upkeep and expansion they should be able to be kept in good repair.
Why bother with maintenance when the EPA handles the cleanup?
deleted by creator
Sorry, the tax is a great idea but taxing the tires is a terrible idea.
Why is it a terrible idea?
Taking a guess, but it would lead to people replacing their tires less often, making cars more prone to accidents, and thus probably being counterproductive and more dangerous.
It should be linked to what a driver has to do (e.g. registration) so they can’t try to minimize the cost by delaying it, especially with maintenance.
Tire inspection is still part of vehicle registration inspections. You can’t delay more than a year, and states can always require a tire change within a certain % of being totally worn out if having tires within x-% is showing evidence of causing more accidents.
Unless the argument is that any additional cost will prevent people from performing maintenance. Like, “gas prices can’t go up because people will stop buying gas”. Or “if you make registration more complicated, people won’t register their cars”.
Taxes in the US also have a precedence of decreasing as you get into higher values. There is nothing saying taxes can’t be a higher % on low quality tires. Buy a better tire that last longer, lower percentage tax tier. The point of taxation is to deter behavior you don’t want while recouping the cost of operation over time. Cheap tires that only last 1k miles can be taxed at a much higher % than those rated at 50 or 100k miles. We do that shit all the time.
Not all states have regular inspection requirements. Some are only every couple of years. But even if they did all implement something, you still would be encouraging people to wait in until the last possible moment to do it, which might decrease the amount it increases the risk, but it would still do so.
For the same reasons others have said. Don’t increase the cost of safety equipment.
I think he is close though with his initial train of thought. I remember doing some research on this many years ago and road wear does not scale linearly with weight. All other variables being equal a 1,000lb load going across a stretch of road 10 times does less damage than a 10,000 pounds load going across the same stretch once. So what we should really be doing is looking at semi trucks and the heaviest of consumer vehicles. It would theoretically make consumer goods go up in price a little, but it’s not like that cost isn’t already being paid/subsidized by consumers in other ways.
Maybe it would even push the use of railroads for goods even more than it is used now.
I think you make want to go the other way. Making tires more expensive wont make people choose smaller cars, they will choose worse tires. And then they will crash into you because they cant stop.
It’s a good rule not to make essential safety items more expensive. Because consumers in general will always choose a cheaper, less safe option.
yeah if anything a subsidy for safer tires and doing proper maintenance on brakes and other safety system would be what you want.
what is subsidized, there is more of than there otherwise would be
and the opposite is true for what is taxed.
They’ll still have to replace them more often or won’t be able to drive their vehicles or pass a state inspection to get their annual registration completed unless their car is road-worthy, thus costing them more money in tickets and remedies of said ticket.
Sure, but the problem is that you dont want to make safety equipment more expensive, as it encourages cheaping out and cutting corners. People already buy cheap and nasty tires that dont grip well or stop well (but still meet roadworthiness), its best to avoid further encouraging that.
There is no reason not to just directly tax against the weight of the car, as defined by the manufacturer. There already is a yearly rego payments, just scale that directly against weight.
A direct tax is also clear and obvious. If someone has a large car, the rego weight tax will clearly show they are paying more. Making tires more expensive just gets rolled into the price of the tire, which are already moderately expensive, so its easier to just rationalise it and ignore it.
In the country I reside, everyone pays for the roads through income tax. Vehicle owners pay emissions tax. I think this is fair since everyone relies on the roads even if they never travel down a road themselves.
You can still tax large vehicles, because everyone bears the cost of having them around.
Not everbody “consumes” the same. So for consumer products (everything) would be distributed better if the price was in the product price itself. Along with it being included in the price of transfer services etc.
A more logical way would be to tax a car based on how many km/miles it travels in a year, at least partially.
I bet that my 1.5 tons car travelling 10.000 Km/year ruins the street a lot less than my neighbor’s 1 tons car that travel 30.000 Km/year
Some states do exactly that, or did back in the day. 30-years ago in Oklahoma, an old 2-ton dump truck with an antique plate was $20, a new Corvette $600. I think Texas flipped that and charged by weight vs. value.
And the heavy vehicles get classified as light cargo so are largely exempt from those taxes. They’re promoting and building heavy “cargo” vehicles specifically because they get exemptions for fuel efficiency and taxes (depending on location).
An alternative idea that I mentioned on a thread yesterday about vehicles with high bumpers, adjust the license class system to be more strict regarding vehicles. You already have to have extra training in a different license to run transport vehicles or semi trucks you should have to do the same with large vehicles, I’m not saying ban every pickup truck out there because I fully agree that trucks are a hard requirement especially in snow covered States like mine but there is a difference between having a pickup truck and having a monster truck at least in my opinion heavier or taller than low end transport vehicles
Agreed, there’s also plenty of people who think that just because they have a large vehicle, that they’re immune to the snow. Obviously there’s a quantity of snow that trucks are more necessary for, but I’ll admit to feeling a bit smug when I see ditches full of abandoned trucks and SUVs, as I drive by in my little front wheel drive sedan.
ah yes, another anti-environment tax. More barriers to fossil-fuel free adoption. As you would expect, Mississippi already has this tax. Don’t be like Mississippi.
Then add some exceptions to cars that aren’t as bad for the environment like electric cars.
Maybe exclude batteries for the weight calculation.
It isn’t a hard problem to solve.
Wouldn’t be anti-environmental… it would be for all vehicles including ICE and commercial, as well.
What a load of shit. Pretty sure roads are already used by many vehicles of Greater mass than 7000lbs. Trucks. Buses. Coaches.
18 wheelers and other heavy vehicles are definitely not going to be stopped by a guardrail. They also disintegrate any small passenger vehicle they come in contact with at any significant speed. I’m not sure how pointing out that they are dangerous is a load of shit.
Additionally, heavy vehicles cause upwards of 80% of road wear, which means we are subsidizing private transport companies by not forcing them to fund a proportional amount of road maintenance.
Additionally, heavy vehicles cause upwards of 80% of road wear, which means we are subsidizing private transport companies by not forcing them to fund a proportional amount of road maintenance.
They do. There are additional fee’s and fuel surcharges that states make transport companies pay for road upkeep.
They pay more but not 80% of the total cost of maintenance. That’s what the distribution would need to be in order to cancel out the outsized influence they have on infrastructure degradation.
The article is focused on passenger cars becoming heavier, no?
Yes, but you brought up other heavy vehicles not me.
But not with nearly every vehicle being one of them and operated by people with CDLs that understand a lot of the safety features of the road aren’t going to work for them.
Mentions skidding on ice in first paragraph. No amount of training can reverse the laws of friction.
Thing is, I agree and think normal consumer passenger cars are getting far too heavy. Like people.
Not to mention that the 7,000 pound EV can do 0-60 in waaaay less time than a big truck.
Natural selection
…and yet I don’t feel even a bit sad. What could this mean ?
I say we change nothing and let evolution do her thing
You mean protect those inside the 7+ ton vehicles and to hell with anyone else?
If you haven’t read sir Darwin as of late, I think you should consider another look.
You’re a psychopath?
7000 Pounds is 3.2 Tons (metric)
3.2 Tons
geez, i wonder why these guardrails wouldn’t work on a fucking Truck
Seems like we need some regulation for maximum car weight to be. It’s a safety thing now
Seems like we need some regulation for maximum car weight to be. It’s a safety thing now
Yeah well let’s quit making 7000 pound consumer vehicles. Small EVs would be more efficient and better for the environment because they need less materials to build and and less energy to recharge.
Small PHEV’s would be ideal for the current generation. Battery advances will come, but we should always try to optimize with the current technology and 10 cars with a 10th the battery of a Tesla would be better for the future.
I do want to see more efficient, smaller EVs, but no one wants an EV that only gets 50 miles per charge. They aren’t worth producing from the manufacturer’s perspective.
The article has a link to EVs by weight all but two of them were under the threshold.
Yeah but I’d like to visit my family and the nearest charging station is halfway across the state
Your house is halfway across the state?
Many people live halfway across the state from their family.
Could be a student or military or live in an apartment.
Not sure any of those establishments are going to be thrilled with you running an extension cable across the parking lot or sidewalk to charge your car.
Also pretty sure they meant their family lives outside of the range of a single EV charge and there’s no charging infrastructure on the way. What would be an 8 hour drive to visit family for the holidays turns into a multi-day trip with a stay at a motel/hotel to wait for your car to charge.
I live in Wyoming, people not from here have a hard time understanding how desolate it is here. If I were to switch to an EV I’d have to take a plane everytime I wanted to visit my elderly mother, who would send a cousin in her ancient f-250 to drive me around, because there isn’t a single electric charger in that QUARTER of the state
Without doxing myself, from my hometown the nearest charging station is 30 miles away, that’s not end of the world far its definitely feasible but its not good enough. Especially when there’s gas stations everywhere. Charging stations need to be in way more places outside cities before they become appealing to folks living outside built up areas.
Nearest one to my hometown is about 3-4 hours out. I would have to take a plane and have a cousin come get me in her truck whenever I visited my family if I used an EV the tech has come a long way but the infrastructure just isn’t always there as much as I hate that
If you are unable to find a charging station at some point halfway across the state you’re either being too picky, or blind. I live in the middle of nowhere Maine and I can still find at least one electric vehicle charger per major town. Hell there is three of them in the town next over and it’s not even considered one of our highly populated towns. I thought the same that you did until I actually looked up where charging stations are located I was pleasantly surprized
I live in Wyoming, having been to Maine, yall have an amazing and beautiful state but your definition of bumfuck no where is lacking. I checked the EV map again the ENTIRE QUATER of the state I live in that doesn’t have a single charger is where my family lives. I down south near Colorado for reasons I don’t want to get into right now but I want to be able to actually visit my family without having to take a plane between the two airports in Wyoming.
yea looking at wyoming I can see there is defo a lack of EV stations, it looks like for southern wyoming the longest stretch is between rock springs and Lareme, but that’s mostly if you lack the ability to use super chargers. I can see how it would be a pain to use an EV in that case, doable but it would stretch it a little further than i would be comfortable with as well. That being said you would never catch me driving 3 hours one way to visit someone anyway lmao
Ehh 3 hours isn’t that bad, just means the trip back happens the next day or you’re dropping in to say hi while passing through town.
Plus, it’s Wyoming. Famously the least densely populated state. That comes with some associated costs.
The benefits are great though, people leave you alone and living here is cheap
Couldn’t pay me to live that far from an ocean. Or good internet.
Lighter vehicles should be able to have the same range as larger ones, just have to find the right battery/weight/range combination.
Yeah the current weight/range/battery combo for me in my almost entirely rural state is an ICE vehicle as much as I like EVs they just can’t get me where I need to be with the current infrastructure. Unfortunately my attempts is also revoking its green energy tax stuff, got to love Republicans. But at least we got rare earth metals now, so that means nothing has to change! (God I love my state but hate the people running it)
Congratulations, the fossil fuel industry just put a hit on you
Judging by the general trend I don’t think this is happening anytime soon. The overall car industry is obsessed with even bigger cars.
And even in Europe it is sickening to see those half buses on our roads. And this is especially true for big cities, where parking space is very limited and usually those cars occupy park space for 1.5-2 cars.
And knowing that the fertility rate is really going down I wonder what justifies those cars.
Yeah because emission standards are based on size and weight. So why spend the money making environmentally effective equipment when you can just make everything bigger and still rake in money?
That’s because the USA subsidizes bigger trucks as “work vehicles”. This practice needs to stop and they need to be taxed more than smaller vehicles.
I’m guessing you don’t actually pay attention to the tax law, then. Annual vehicle registration (aka, a vehicle ownership tax) is more expensive as the weight on the vehicle goes up. Vehicles over a certain weight limit require more complex and strict drivers license classes (granted, class B starts at 26,001 lbs which is way higher than even today’s heaviest consumer cars), and any vehicle used for work has higher insurance and regulatory costs, regardless of the size.
Buying an F350 (a truck that really only has a place in very specific situations anyway) requires so much extra work and almost always requires a class B license because of the kind of work being done with it. People who choose to get something like that because of small-dick syndrome are idiots. And that’s coming from a person who used to drive 18-wheelers and still has a compact SUV as my daily driver.
See my post above in the thread where I show the laws I am talking about and cite source.
That’s because the USA subsidizes bigger trucks as “work vehicles”.
Can you cite this? Don’t get me wrong, I understand that if it’s actually a work vehicle you probably get some tax credits/breaks, but I highly doubt many consumers are getting these breaks for buying large vehicles.
See my post above with citation.
In Australia it breaks down thusly. (for reference average wage is about $80k per annum).
If you buy a vehicle for $50k, you’re entitled to claim a tax deduction for that cost, usually spread over a number of years.
However, if you buy a vehicle for $100k, you’re only entitled to claim a tax deduction for the first ~$56k (changes each year), unless the vehicle has a large enough carrying capacity that it can be considered to have been designed for the purpose of carrying stuff rather than people.
This rule is designed to disallow deductions for wanky vehicles. Like why should someone be allowed a deduction for driving a wanky mercedes SLK when a cheap and chearful toyota camry can perform the same task of moving a taxpayer from point A to point B. Of course, if someone buys a $300k prime mover (tractor?) designed for hauling 90 tonnes of wheat from a farm to a port, it’s just not possible to do that with a toyota camry so you should be entitled to claim the entire cost.
Suppose you have 2 vehicles, both costing $100k, one is a regular sized Toyota truck, and the other is a ridiculous RAM truck or something. Suppose you plan to sell whichever you buy, after 8 years or so, when it’s value is $50k.
On the Toyota you can only claim a tax deduction on the $6k difference between the $56k notional purchase price and the $50k sale price, which if your tax rate is about a third then you save yourself $2k in tax, so the vehicle cost you $48k to own for 8 years.
On the RAM you can claim a tax deduction on the entire $50k difference between the $100k purchase price and the $50k sale price. A third of that is ~$16k, so it only cost you $34k to own that vehicle for 8 years.
https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo?feature=shared
Not op, but I really liked this video, as it explains quite a bit. It is of course a biased video, but still…
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/jN7mSXMruEo?feature=shared
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I watched most of the video, it’s primarily about safety. It’s says the growth is mainly due to the regulations not applying the same to light trucks, which SUVs are classified as. This seems to contradict the claim that I was asking about.
If there is something about the state subsidizing the vehicles and I missed it, I would appreciate a time stamp. Noone needs to convince me that suvs are unsafe and an environmental disaster.
In the US it is called the 179 deduction. For trucks over 6, 000 lb gross vehicle weight you can deduct the total price for the year the truck is put in service.
Thanks for the citation, I’ll look into it.
deleted by creator
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/azI3nqrHEXM?si=koJhe84uaGDsrLue
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
State vehicle registration where I’m at is based on vehicle weight. Costs about $400 to renew the registration on my daily driver and $600 to renew for a larger truck. Motorcycles are only like $80 to renew.
Consumers are being taxed more for larger vehicles, it’s the manufacturers trying to avoid safety regulations that are seeing the cost benefits.
This article summarizes the subsidies I’m talking about. Here’s an excerpt:
For now, the important point is that trucks generally are more profitable than cars thanks to two big government incentives, both of them historical footnotes.
The first is the so-called chicken tax, a 25 percent tariff imposed by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 on foreign-built work vehicles as part of a chicken-related trade war with Europe. If you’re making a pickup or cargo van in the United States, profits should be higher, because foreign factories can’t come close to undercutting you on price.
The second incentive lies in the fine print of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards adopted in 1975, Gerald Ford’s reluctant response to a crippling Middle East oil embargo that sent gas prices soaring. To protect American commerce, work trucks and light trucks were subject to less-strict CAFE standards than family sedans. Trucks are also exempt from the 1978 gas guzzler tax, which adds $1,000 to $7,700 to the price of sedans that get 22.5 or fewer miles to the gallon.
There was once a legend about vehicle’s size and … Well…
I would pay money to have this physically mailed to everyone. I have money because I have an economy car.
The EPA under the Obama admistration enabled this. I was surprised to learn this. It needs to change. I think trains need to change too.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/azI3nqrHEXM?si=koJhe84uaGDsrLue
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
My 2016 Nissan Leaf is 4400lbs, which is more than my larger (but still not that big) 2016 Mazda CX-5 at ~3500lbs. Both manage to fit my family of 5, but the Leaf is far less accommodating and it weighs a good deal more. Small EVs are still pretty substantial. A Kia EV6 which is roughly the same size as my CX-5 weighs 5500lbs. You add a lot to a vehicle when you add an EV battery.
Simple, if you buy a car that’s too heavy for the existing infrastructure, you either pay for the improved infrastructure or take the risk yourself. The minivan that I drive the kids in is only 4,300 lb. If you’re driving something heavier than that then, best of luck. I expect that if I’m driving a camper, and I fall off the road, I’m just done. Game over.
I don’t expect infrastructure to adapt to the minority. That’s not what it’s for.
what about trucks? should these rails not work for big trucks? or are trucks a minority?
edit: trucks like the ones that transport goods not rednecks
Trucks in America practically doubled in size within the last couple years. Expecting everything to change that quickly is ridiculous. If big trucks stick around then sure, expect infrastructure to become rated for it and also more expensive.
This reminds me of a recent news story where the government is unable to handle all of the new fraud claims that are originating out of Meta’s services. Coincidentally (read suspiciously) the increase in fraud claims began at the same time as the layoffs.
I think it was the New York attorney general that said directly “We refuse to operate as the customer service representatives of your company,” or something to that effect. [Sauce]
Companies really love foisting the responsibility that they rightfully own onto the government in this case I would say it’s the car manufacturers. They certainly have plenty of practice doing it
Trucks are commercial vehicles. People driving commercial vehicles should be professionals and we should have required a commercial class c license for all light duty pickup trucks or SUVs. Anything that gets an emissions credit so they can have lower MPG for being a commercial vehicle should also be classed as a commercial vehicle for licensing purposes.
I really like where your head’s at.
Trucks are driven by people that are supposed to be way better than the average driver. They also would need huge (and expensive) walls. At some point you have to compromise. It’s not feasible to truck-proof the roads.
I don’t think there’s a way to make it work for both cases.
It’s actually important that the rail gives in and deforms, as this reduces a cars energy much more quickly and safely than if it were rigid. Unfortunately this also makes them much less effective for larger vehicles.
In the end, it’s a question of protecting as many people as well as possible.
At the moment I believe there are minority that’s becoming a majority but I maintain that if they’re the ones that require the infrastructure the payment for that infrastructure should be built into the cost of the vehicle or the licensure thereof.
If you want society to rely less on cars stop subsidizing roads.
bruh
you realize of course that delivery drivers use roads.
Incredibly train-pilled. Clickety-clack, brother
Yeah! Everyone should have to pay full price for their roads or build their own!
Sounds only bad for people driving obese cars, which is good from my perspective.
So long as your perspective isn’t on the other side of these whales, than yes.
What whales…?
There was an article attached the post. Take a look
Then what?
EVs are significantly heavier than ICE cars. That’s why this is a problem. The Rivian R1S is over 8,000 lbs.
The Rivian is absurd. What percent of Americans can even afford one? And what percent need one? This is why a tax on weight would be effective.
That’d be the percent who should be exempt from the guard rails.
Sure the R1s are large, but R2 and R3 are much more reasonably sized and are planned to be lower priced. It seems that these new EV companies like to go with fewer of their higher end cars in the beginning to fund the production of the larger volume, more economic models later.
No, electric SUVs and other obese models are heavier. There’s plenty of EVs that are lighter than ICE cars.
Not than an equivalent ICE car. Sure you can make a subcompact EV, but it’s either gonna have no range, or weigh more than a Nissan Versa.
I mean, I never talked about just EVs. ICEs also have become way too big and consequently heavy over the decades. As far as I’m concerned, fuck cars in general.
