Re: Some actual test results re Honda Accord Hybrid
Quote:
One tax credit supports a reduction in our fuel demand, the bigger one supports wasteful vehicles. HMMMM....
Actually, I never said that I supported the 'abuse' of the 6000lb vehicle business expense tax DEDUCTION. But it is after all a deduction, not a tax credit. Put another way, the deduction marginally reduces the amount of taxes paid by a profitable business and at most represents a cash value of say 33% of the vehicle's purchase price, whereas the hybrid vehicle tax credit is a straight out gift of $2000 no matter whether the taxpayer in question owed taxes on business/personal income or not.
Also, while the 6000lb vehicle business expense deduction has been abused in some cases, in many other cases it has resulted in American businesses being able to grow, profit, pay more taxes in future years on greater profits after growing than before, and hire additional employees as well who will also be paying taxes in future years. It has also resulted in the additional sales of primarily US made 6000lb vehicles, allowing Detroit to keep paying those union wages instead of unemployment benefits! Admittedly this trend is changing lately as foreign car makers are now entering the 6000lb vehicle area.
On the other hand the Hybrid Vehicle Tax Credit has resulted in US tax money helping Japanese businesses to do these things instead, and arguably hasn't helped American businesses one iota (OK maybe a handful of additional US car dealer commissions because people who bought hybrids would not have bought a non-hybrid instead)! I have yet to see one example where a hybrid vehicle allowed a small business owner to grow his business in any significant way, thus pay additional income taxes in future years to offset the initial cost of tax dollars for the hybrid vehicle tax credit !
~
Re: Some actual test results re Honda Accord Hybrid
hmmm ... apparently this more accurate concept of hybrid vehicles is starting to get around
BTW if the article is correct that 200,000 hybrids are expected to be sold this year, with a $2,000 tax credit going to each owner, that creates a $400 million dollar line item in the federal budget for hybrid tax credits - not all that much in the grand scheme of things I guess. As Senator Dirkson once said 'a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about REAL money'.
Re: Some actual test results re Honda Accord Hybrid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
Well, the 'option' I'm objecting to is handing these Honda Accord Hybrid buyers $2,000 in federal tax credits paid for by my tax money to lower their 0-60 acceleration time !
Tax credits (to purchasers) are given to help promote the adoption of the technology into the mass market. Tax credits or deductions included accelerated depreciation is often givwen th manufacturers to help them develop the technology and manufacturing facilities. This has a been a general principle for a Long Time. Both of these can be called "government meddling", depending on which side of the political spectrum one falls on.
But here I agree with Melonie that tax credits ought to be based on some realistic measure of reduction of gas consumption and pollution. I also like the technology of replacing gasoline with alcohol. (Even if it is the drinking kind.) The hybrid vehicles could use the 'gasohol' as well.
Actually it is methanol from renewable resources. But even that fuel alone also has an impact. It causes a need for increased acreage, devoted to a fuel crop, and increased production of fertilizer and fuel for farming and transportation to the conversion plants. Probably at those plants and on the farm, even more pollution is created, agri. runoff, solid waste, gaseous effluents, etc. At least at the conversion plants emissions can be much easier contained than if they came from such a widely distributed collection of lightweight, low-cost, mobile sources (autos). No matter what technology you are talking, there are global tradeoffs that must be considered. Such is life in the technology world.
Re: Some actual test results re Honda Accord Hybrid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
Put another way, the deduction marginally reduces the amount of taxes paid by a profitable business and at most represents a cash value of say 33%
1. 40-60,000 dollar vehicle * 33% = up to 20,000 (or the cost of a hybrid) TWENTY GRAND is marginal?
Compare that to a TWO GRAND benefit for hybrid....and you think it's imbalanced?
2. the cost of a Humvee or other LARGE truck can be/ is nearly 3x the cost of a hybrid...therefore the numbers are equal in many cases
3. if deductions aren't bad So you support the DEDUCTION for donation of conservation easment values on land?
Quote:
in many other cases it has resulted in American businesses being able to grow, profit, pay more taxes in future years on greater profits after growing than before,
And prevented my business from the same growth opportunity as we don't NEED or WANT a wasteful, huge vehicle. You want to promote business, make ANY business vehicle 100% deductible, not just the big fat ones.
Quote:
. It has also resulted in the additional sales of primarily US made 6000lb vehicles,
This is in the law? You have statistics for this? Or is this a melonie-statistic?
Quote:
foreign car makers are now entering the 6000lb vehicle area.
Yes, and we all need more oversized vehicles....not enough of those to keep the oil administration happy!
Quote:
On the other hand the Hybrid Vehicle Tax Credit has resulted in US tax money helping Japanese businesses to do these things instead,
and encourgaged American businesses to get on the stick, as some have.
Quote:
have yet to see one example where a hybrid vehicle allowed a small business owner to grow his business in any significant way
I'll name several"
My company (we need 3 vehicles, could afford maybe 1 more with a full tax deduction)
Entercom Communications - 200 radio stations nationwide, company policy of buying only hybrids....could improve company profits and increase volumes of sales and other staff if the "Fat Vehicle Deduction" were applied equally to all vehicles
All news/radio/TV outlets that drive ALOT and don't need big vehicles...
delivery services, outpatient medical care, repair crews for electronics (my sis in laws company bought FOUR NEW SUPERTRUCKS because of the deduction - to carry 1 person and 1 suitcase to jobs....they couldn't have benefitted from a hybrid and WRITTEN ALOT LESS OFF ON TAXES- COSTING ME A HELL OF A LOT LESS>?
I could go on, but frankly don't think you can really believe the ONLY companies that could use the vehicle tax deduction are ones that NEED big vehicles, or that there is ANY practical reason why (if the intent was really to spur our sluggish economy) vehicles under a certain size were EXCLUDED from the deduction. If anything, a strategic nation wishing to reduce dependence on foreign oil would exclude LARGER, more wasteful vehicles without special exemption...but AT LEAST apply the deduction EQUALLY AMONG ALL vehicles and leave the RIGHT OF CHOICE to the AMERICAN BUSINESSPERSON/
Re: Some actual test results re Honda Accord Hybrid
Quote:
1. 40-60,000 dollar vehicle * 33% = up to 20,000 (or the cost of a hybrid) TWENTY GRAND is marginal?
Compare that to a TWO GRAND benefit for hybrid....and you think it's imbalanced?
Again you miss the distinction entirely. Yes the hybrid tax credit costs the gov't $2,000 with no expected future tax receipts to offset that cost. And yes the initial tax deduction for purchasing a new business vehicle might cost the gov't up to $20,000. However, where the hybrid tax credit does not stimulate future tax receipts, the business vehicle tax deduction does (at least in the majority of cases). Thus while it might have cost the gov't $20,000 to 'prime the pump', in exchange the gov't (at least in the majority of cases) will be receiving more money in business taxes year after year from the buyer of the business vehicle - PLUS additional income tax receipts year after year from any new employees the buyer of the business vehicle is able to add due to growth of his business. Thus five years down the road, the hybrid tax credit has cost the gov't $2,000, while (in the majority of cases) the business vehicle deduction has been entirely paid off via increased tax receipts and eventually results in a 'profit' for the gov't.
Quote:
This is in the law? You have statistics for this? Or is this a melonie-statistic?
The tax law states 6,000 lbs GVW minimum, as this deduction was indeed intended for service trucks, delivery vans etc. A trip to foreign car/truck dealers will show that with the exception of Mitsubishi Fuso that very few 6,000+ lb trucks were being imported from foreign manufacturers prior to 2005. However, once Detroit discovered the Hummer/Escalade 6000lb loophole, European manufacturers weren't far behind to introduce competing products.
As to your examples of a handful of businesses actually benefitting from hybrid vehicles, I offer the argument that if this was the gov'ts intention then the hybrid tax credit, like the 6,000 lb vehicle tax deduction, should have only applied to businesses. As it is anybody in America can claim the hybrid tax credit, while only the 15% or so which operate businesses can take the 6,000lb vehicle tax deduction. I would have no problem whatsoever eliminating the hybrid tax credit for the 85% of persons who do not operate businesses, and allowing the business expense tax deduction to apply instead of a tax credit for the 15% who operate businesses. However this would be a departure from the apparent intent of the gov't which was to provide an incentive in support of hybrid technology for everyone.
Again it comes back to the basic point that second generation 'high performance' hybrid vehicles actually accomplish next to nothing in regard to improved gas mileage and exhaust gas reduction, yet we taxpayers are still financing a $2,000 'gift' to the buyers of such vehicles. A corrolary to this is that smart business owners would not invest in a second generation 'high performance' hybrid vehicle because the marginal fuel savings would not offset the additional and ongoing cost of battery replacement !
Re: Some actual test results re Honda Accord Hybrid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
Again you miss the distinction entirely.
But you miss the point..or are "simply being obtuse."
If government wants to "help small business" with tax breaks - fine. Then help ALL small businesses - not just those who need/want/can afford the larger, more wasteful vehicles.
Giving a company (who could choose a hybrid, minivan, small SUV or light truck under 6,000 lbs) incentive to purchase an overly large vehicle....and eliminating the OPPORTUNITY FOR GROWTH for any US business that needs a vehicle but doesn't desire or can't afford a behemoth (for my business, I cannot hope to purchase a 40,000 dollar vehicle outright, but I can swing a much less expensive car - Insight, Ford Aspire, minivan, etc )
I don't want my tax dollars underwriting $10,000 or more gifts to other companies for an incentive that I am NOT ABLE TO ACCESS given my business. How would it look for an environmental company to purchase a wasteful gas guzzler, yet that's the only option to which the government deduction applies.
Quote:
with no expected future tax receipts to offset that cost.
except the people now have $2,000 (a number that's dwindling) in their pockets To SPEND SUPPORTING OUR ECONOMY....so instead of it going to the IRS, it goes to our economy. Can't see how that's bad.
Quote:
the business vehicle tax deduction does
1. then apply it to ALL business vehicle choices
2. then explain the companies that were formed (as NBC and others reported) SIMPLY TO ALLOW INDIVIDUALS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE TAX BREAK
Quote:
while (in the majority of cases) the business vehicle deduction has been entirely paid off via increased tax receipts and eventually results in a 'profit' for the gov't
It's a pointless request I know...but can you provide evidence of this assumption?
Quote:
The tax law states 6,000 lbs GVW minimum, as this deduction was indeed intended for service trucks, delivery vans etc. A trip to foreign car/truck dealers will show that with the exception of Mitsubishi Fuso that very few 6,000+ lb trucks were being imported from foreign manufacturers prior to 2005. However, once Detroit discovered the Hummer/Escalade 6000lb loophole, European manufacturers weren't far behind to introduce competing products.
Great, so a country looking to "reduce its dependence on foreign oil" has used my tax dollars to encourage development of new and bigger vehicles which are (in the majority of cases) merely status symbols for their owners.
Quote:
As to your examples of a handful of businesses actually benefitting from hybrid vehicles,
Here's the point and here's you
MISSED
I didn't specify or even suggest the gov't business tax deduction be for HYBRIDS, I suggested it be LEFT TO THE NEEDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS OWNER what vehicle suited their needs, and that each purchase be treated equally under the tax law.
Supposedly "all men are created equal" but "all businesses do not deserve equal advantages" under the same government?
Quote:
that second generation 'high performance' hybrid vehicles actually accomplish next to nothing in regard to improved gas mileage and exhaust gas reduction, yet we taxpayers are still financing a $2,000 'gift' to the buyers of such vehicles.
1. that isn't the basic point..
2. buyers of such vehocles should DEMAND better fuel economy...as any vehicle buyer should
3. The end result of hybrids are reduction in oil usage (marginal or not) and awareness of fuel economy options and reasons....both GREAT things for the security of our country
The end result of the tax deduction for oversized vehicles AT THE EXCLUSION OF OTHER OPTIONS for business was that some businesses (a handful at best) got to invest now in a vehicle they need, MANY got to purchase fat flashy trucks for their owners, and businesses that don't need, don't want or can't afford the expensive oversized vehicles got left out of the loop, and end up PAYING FOR this gift to other competitors.
Re: Some actual test results re Honda Accord Hybrid
I see the issue as this:
Theory says Gov't should provide the same opportunities and options to all...not support ANY business or technology. Real world says "larger purposes" make gov't provide deductions, incentives, credits, etc. The thing we need to look at is WHAT LARGER PURPOSE is served and do we, as taxpayers (shareholders) in this nation feel it's good.
On the one hand, we have the Hybrid incentives....available to ANYONE that purchases a hybrid and serving the larger purpose of reducing our consumption of oil so our nation may more easily limit its dpendence on foreign oil sources. It also spurs national debate on fuel economy, makes fuel economy "sexy" and puts money back in the pocket of Americans both short term (tax credit) and long term (fuel savings). Finally it encourages companies to develop more fuel efficient vehicles.
The other hand, we have the FAT VEHICLES FOR BUSINESS tax deduction, which outstrips 6x1 (or more) the cost per unit of hybrid vehicle credits. Not equally available for all businesses, This deduction is only available to those wealthy enough to purchase a $40,000 vehicle AND desire or need such a vehicle. It EXCLUDES smaller businesses to whom a $40,000 investmnt is too much, don't need a delivery truck (as opposed to minivan or etc>.) businesses smart enough to seek long term savings from using less fuel, those who don't desire the "vanity boost" of a big vehicle, etc. LARGER PURPOSE behind this law? Maybe promote oil consumption for support of lawmaker stocks and perks? Maybe increase our dependence on foreign oil? Who knows?