D.D ~ I have learned so much from your posts in this section. You are just AWESOME ! And wiping the floor with a certian someone who posts here~ LMFAO!
Keep up the good work !
D.D ~ I have learned so much from your posts in this section. You are just AWESOME ! And wiping the floor with a certian someone who posts here~ LMFAO!
Keep up the good work !
Example of discrimination (Imho):
the only prudent way to treat Islamics in the US and western europe today is along the same vein as Russians and Eastern Europeans were treated during the 'cold war' days - with some degree of suspicion warranted until proven otherwise !
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44590
Thanks hon .<<blushing>>





well, let's look at some 'hard facts' about Hybrids ...
(snip)"Limousine liberals? Call them "hybrid liberals."
But unlike other, low-volume niches such as plasma TVs or high-performance sports cars, hybrid buyers will not be paying a premium for their products. In fact, they will be receiving a federal subsidy of $2,000 per car.
Billed by its congressional supporters as a way to seed new technology in the fight against global warming and oil dependence, the hybrid tax break has lined the pockets of some of the richest people in America.
For example, the Toyota Prius--America's best-selling hybrid at 30,000 units sold last year--is typically bought by childless couples with an annual household income of $100,000, according to Toyota's own demographic study. The
car has become a status symbol among the liberal Hollywood elite. Millionaire celebrities like Cameron Diaz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Larry David, and Jack Black are all proud owners of the Prius and its $2,000 tax break. And this year, Toyota is offering its second hybrid vehicle through its luxury division, Lexus. The Lexus E330 SUV hybrid--already pre-sold to 11,000 buyers--is being gobbled up by Hybrid Liberals making $130,000 a year on average.
With the Lexus SUV and other new hybrid offerings from Mercedes, Honda, and Ford, hybrid sales are expected to more than double this year to 165,000 units in the United States. That means a total federal subsidy of some $330 million to upper-income customers. (snip)"
As to widening the scope of the business expense tax deduction 1 year expensing to benefit other small businesses, I would fully support this ... as do many in Washington ...
~
Last edited by Melonie; 04-22-2005 at 12:51 PM.
because it lowers fuel consumption, etc.Originally Posted by Melonie
You mean those some call elites that GW calls (in public speeches) "my base"?the hybrid tax break has lined the pockets of some of the richest people in America.
and the super-SUV tax deduction helps the poorer people, smaller companies?
Great. What's your point?E330 SUV hybrid--already pre-sold to 11,000 buyers--is being gobbled up by Hybrid Liberals making $130,000 a year on average.
These people can take a $2,000 credit to lower fuel consumption or they can open a small busines on paper and take a $10-30,000 credit for the super-huge H2 or the Harvester International SUV. You want they take more money off the tax rolls AND more oil?
Multiply that by 10 if these same upper demo folks utilized the small business deduction.That means a total federal subsidy of some $330 million to upper-income customers. (snip)"
Remember $500 in fees and 2 days is all it takes to open an LLC in most states...many of these folks already have businesses.
BMW is working on releaseing a hydrogen powered car. I wonder if there will be a tax break for getting one of these?


I'm not optomistic about H2 cars. Currently our best source of H2 is oil so it wouldn't be doing anything to reduce oil consumption. We might be able to use solar power in some way to break apart H2O but I haven't read much about it. Overall, that process uses more energy than it produces.
SD is correct, unless we use renewable energy sources to generate H2 from water...the equation isn't perfect. However, if the cars were out there...people MIGHT (likely not, but) opt to do the "from water" conversions at home with solar powered (or similar) units...it's doable today but requires a mental shift from centralized energy.
(snip)"Limousine liberals? Call them "hybrid liberals."
oh whatever, please. And you claim no partisian bias eh ? This complaint about the hybrid credit and no complaint about the SUV one is so obviously just an anti liberal thing. IMO based on postings on this website she would oppose anything and everything that is considered a "Liberal" thing. I mean if I was wrong about that then the complaint would be about both hybrids and SUV... not JUST the hybrid one. Libertarian my ass, looks alot more like neo-con than anything else. But whatever....Both credits have a good purpose but the SUV one needs to be revamped to include only those it was meant to help which was FARMERS. However that change was blocked by her fellow neo-cons. Gee why, could it be because they just might be driving SUV's and getting that $30,000+ deduction ?
Things that make you go hmmm![]()
Last edited by Hello~Kitty; 04-22-2005 at 02:26 PM.
Example of discrimination (Imho):
the only prudent way to treat Islamics in the US and western europe today is along the same vein as Russians and Eastern Europeans were treated during the 'cold war' days - with some degree of suspicion warranted until proven otherwise !
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44590
Kitty..cool point. It ocurred to me that what seems to be happening (in bringing this "liberal" and "class/income level" game into our discussion (let's all re-read the thread title) is called a DIVERSION
Can't speak to the facts, get people riled up on stereotypes, labels and class bias.
Much as I hate to post on the pink side, I have to respond on this thread. Everyone keeps talking about a $2,000 tax credit, or subsidy. According to the IRS web site it's only a deduction, not a credit. So previous comparisons seem to be misguided.
Clean Fuel Tax Deduction For Hybrid Vehicles
Tax Tip 2005-57, March 22, 2005
(Corrected April 4, 2005 — Removed a paragraph of outdated information.)
If you are the original (first) owner of a qualifying hybrid vehicle — one that combines an electric motor with a gasoline-powered engine — you may be eligible to claim a one-time tax deduction on your federal income tax return.
Under the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004, the deduction amount is limited to $2,000 for cars first put into use in 2004 and 2005. the deduction will be limited to $500 for vehicles placed in service in 2006, and no deduction will be allowed after that year.
Certain Toyota and Honda models qualify for the deduction:
The deduction must be taken for the year in which the vehicle was first used (regardless of model year). For a car first put into use earlier than 2004 but for which the deduction was not yet taken, a taxpayer may claim the deduction on the amended tax return, using Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Taxpayers may amend a previously-filed tax return to claim a refund within three years after the date they filed the original return or within two years after the date the tax was paid, whichever is later.
- Toyota Prius — Model Years 2001 through 2005
- Honda Insight — Model Years 2000 through 2005
- Honda Civic Hybrid — Model Years 2003 and 2005
- Honda Accord Hybrid — Model Year 2005
- Ford Escape Hybrid — Model Year 2005
This benefit is taken as an adjustment to income. You do not have to itemize deductions on your tax return to claim it, but you do have to use Form 1040. Include your deduction on the dotted line to the left of line 35 of the 2004 Form 1040, and identify as “Clean-Fuel.”
Federal tax law allows individuals to claim a deduction for the incremental cost of buying a motor vehicle that is propelled by a clean-burning fuel. Hybrid vehicles obtain greater fuel efficiency and produce fewer emissions than similar vehicles powered solely by conventional gasoline-powered engines. The deduction amount was set after the automotive corporations documented for the IRS the incremental costs of buying their hybrid vehicles.
For more information on the clean fuel deduction, see IRS Publication 535, Business Expenses. However, hybrid vehicles do not have to be owned or used by businesses to qualify for the deduction — individual taxpayers may also take this deduction. Download Publication 535 or order a free copy by calling toll free 1-800-TAX-FORM (1-800-829-3676).
Thank you Joe! A taste of reality is always welcome (by me at least) in this "PP" section!
Might I suggest (since even I didn't question the "credit" statement as the argument works fine both ways) this illustrates the difference between STATEMENTS and FACT? Facts can be backed up.





Facts can indeed be backed up. The federal tax 'deduction' for hybrid vehicles is indeed $2000 for this year (and I say quote deduction because it is NOT treated as an itemized deduction). It can appear either as an 'above the line' adjustment to income for an individual or as a business expense on Schedule C. But yes I must admit that upon further research it is not the $2,000 'handout' commonly referred to by the media.
Different states also offer additional Hybrid vehicle tax credits against state income taxes, some of which are even larger than the federal credit.
As far as a partisan 'diversion', I would point out that it has been the Sierra Club who has been the #1 noisemaker about the SUV business expense deduction, and it has been liberal democrats who have tried to introduce legislation to end it. No matter how you slice it, that makes the topic partisan.
(snip)Senators push for closure of loophole
Several proposals have been offered to fix the loophole, at one point, the Senate Finance Committee staff actually proposed raising the weight limit to 14,000 pounds, enough to disqualify even the Hummer. Bills introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA) would take a different approach to closing the SUV tax loophole. In The SUV Business Tax Loophole Closure Act, they propose that SUVs weighing 6,000 pounds or more simply be reclassified as cars under the tax code.(snip)
And lastly, if it's OK to disbelieve anything without seeing 'hard proof' facts, nobody has actually produced any 'hard proof' facts that the 6,000lb vehicle business expense deduction is actually being abused !!! That tactic cuts both ways.
But it is an undeniable fact that the hybrid vehicle tax credit was created out of nowhere and applies to every US taxpayer, whereas the 6,000lb vehicle 'accelerated' business expense deduction only applies to businesses, not individuals, and was in actuality a minor change from previous tax law which already allowed businesses to deduct the cost of new vehicles (albeit spread over a 5 year period instead of all in the year the vehicle was put into service).
Thus as Monty posted earlier, the facts would indicate that the actual cost to the gov't for the 6,000lb vehicle accelerated business expense deduction (ignoring any secondary effects which may produce enhanced tax revenues which offset that cost, but for which no 'hard proof' data is available so by your reckoning they don't exist) are only the 'carrying costs' of taking the reduced tax revenue hit all in one year instead of spreading it out into five smaller hits over 5 years.
It is also an undeniable fact that, prior to this year, every hybrid vehicle eligible for the tax credit was produced in Japan by a Japanese company and imported into the USA - and this year there was one model from a US company added to the approved list. It is a similarly undeniable fact that, prior to this year, the 6,000lb SUV's being criticized in regard to the 'accelerated' business expense tax deduction have overwhelmingly originated from US companies and were overwhelmingly built in the USA by US auto workers, with more 6,000lb foreign made models being added this year.
As to the 'libertarian my ass' commentary, it's a perfectly consistent libertarian position to resist having the gov't reach into my purse to hand my tax money as subsidies to other people ... and particularly to people who typically earn more money than I do ... for the purpose of achieving a 3mpg improvement in fuel economy and (more importantly) a 1 second improvement in 0-60 acceleration time. It's also a perfectly consistent libertarian position to reduce taxes on businesses (although in point of fact the 6000lb vehicle 'accelerated' business expense deduction is more accurately described as a 'reduce business taxes now versus reduce business taxes later' scenario).
~
Last edited by Melonie; 04-22-2005 at 07:47 PM.





Also, at least under US laws regarding gov't subsidies for Research and Development and US laws limiting 'vertical integration', hybrid vehicles are a losing proposition for US automakers and their stockholders ...
(snip)One indicator of hybrid technology's expense came this December when General Motors and Chrysler announced a pooling of resources to develop their own hybrid vehicles. Says David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor: "The sheer costs are horrendous. They'll do a whole lot better with a partnership."
The costs put manufacturers in a box. They cannot make money on hybrids, and yet their public relations value among Hybrid Liberals in the press, Hollywood, and elsewhere mean they cannot afford not to. Even GM product guru Bob Lutz, one of the industry's legendary executives and a hybrid skeptic, admits that General Motors' decision not to get into the hybrid business was a mistake.
"The reason we missed the boat on hybrids is we business-cased it too much," he recently told the Detroit Free Press. "We took this hard analytical look at it and said for that amount of investment to sell that quantity of vehicles where we lose money on every one is irresponsible vis--vis the shareholders. We failed to appreciate that Toyota basically treated it as an advertising expense. They said we need these to demonstrate our . . . concern for the environment, capture the imagination of the growing environmental movement in the U.S., and get all those East and West Coast intellectual opinion leaders, movie stars, etc. on our side, which they successfully did. So even if they lose money on it, it's cheap at twice the price." (snip)
" undeniable fact that, prior to this year, the 6,000lb SUV's being criticized in regard to the 'accelerated' business expense tax deduction have overwhelmingly originated from US companies and were overwhelmingly built in the USA by US auto workers"
How is it undeniable the vehicles are made in the US when you haven't provided any evidence of this and I can't find a link EITHER WAY ? If these are US made and bred products, wouldn't the companies fly the flag in their ads?
"nobody has actually produced any 'hard proof' facts that the 6,000lb vehicle business expense deduction is actually being abused "
Nobody has to....you're the one saying how GREAT it was for the economy, etc....all I've been saying is that it discriminates against other business owners who choose other vehicles and is therefore unfair. i asked for the higher purpose in it.
As for the proof of "abuse" the best I can offer is "add water and stir" instructions on sites like http://www.selfemployedweb.com/suv-tax-deduction-6.htm regarding quick and easy ways to qualify. Take their opening line:
"How'd you like to use pretax dollars to buy an SUV or pickup?" NOT How'd you like to expand your business faster with more delivery vehicles? NOT How'd you like to improve profits and expand payroll?
Partisanship: Who cares what party someone is from? I don't follow labels, and even if the parties are mudslinging....it has no purpose in this conversation. My point was in a thread that focused on the FACTS of the deduction (and in fact should have remained focused on just the "SUV TAX LOOPHOLE" as the title suggests...sorry Kitty) you threw in an article that the hybrid deduction was simply a tool for the rich/"Limousine liberals" - without speaking to the purpose of the thread.
"But it is an undeniable fact that the hybrid vehicle tax credit was created out of nowhere and applies to every US taxpayer,"
yes...equally and fairly to acheive a higher purpose (as is the role of modern government...whether that's ideal or not)...as demonstrated, a 3mpg improvement is worth ALOT, and most hybrids (if consumers demand so) will always do better
BUT AGAIN...the topic at hand is..SUV tax loophole.
"But it is an undeniable fact that the hybrid vehicle tax credit was created out of nowhere and applies to every US taxpayer," yes, and I will resist any action that will further restrict the SUV TAX LOOPHOLE to ever-larger businesses, reducing the actual effect it can have on thousands of TRULY small businesses who don't need or want overly large vehicles. Raising the limit (if the loophole truly has a purpose at alll...of which I'm unsure because no data has tracked its effectiveness and the economy hasn't improved) IS GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION
Oh, and Toyota is not entirely "buzz rating" the hybrids...nor is Honda (though both probably are somewhat, the lack of company marketing for the product speaks VOLUMES against that theory) - both companies have a long history of environmental and product innovation....as all Japanese (hell most overseas) manufacturers do. Substantially, that's driven by the HIGHER cost of materials and fuel...





By process of elimination if nothing else ! You might try looking up available vehicles for sale by Japanese, German and other foreign auto manufacturers prior to the 2005 model year which had a 6,000lb weight rating - they're practically nonexistant. A liberal blog website summed up the point as follows ...How is it undeniable the vehicles are made in the US when you haven't provided any evidence of this and I can't find a link EITHER WAY ? If these are US made and bred products, wouldn't the companies fly the flag in their ads?
"Some suspect the answer is that this artificial market is one of the few areas American automakers have an advantage in: no other country I'm aware of has been stupid enough to encourage widespread passenger use of oversized vehicles the way ours has. But German and Japanese companies are entering the 3+ ton market now, too, so look for that advantage to evaporate over the next decade or so, too. Then all we'll be left with is the unnecessary emissions, gas consumption, and safety concerns these policies have helped create."
I don't particularly agree with the point of that liberal blog, but they do at least concede the point of American dominance. Obviously the civilian Hummer was highly touted as the definitive oversized flag waving American vehicle.
Not to be argumentative, but you have attempted to reject offhand similar 'logical progression' arguments I have attempted to make in the past i.e. that a new delivery truck leads to a new truckdriver job leads to new income taxes being collected from the new truckdriver's weekly paycheck (i.e. additional income taxes which would not have been collected had the business not been given an incentive to buy the new delivery truck and hire an additional truckdriver in the first place).As for the proof of "abuse" the best I can offer is "add water and stir" instructions on sites like ...
I'll grant you that the 6,000lb vehicle 'deduction abuse' issue is certainly a logical progression. However, in keeping with your point, I doubt that you can turn up any short term statistics showing relative percentages of 6,000lb vehicle deductions taken by single person corporations/LLC's to prove that the logical progression you allege does in fact occur. If you want me to accept your logical progression arguments, I expect you to do the same in respect to mine.
semi-true. Their history of product innovation stems from huge R&D subsidies from the Japanese gov't which are illegal here in the USA. Their economics also benefits from laws permitting vertical integration i.e. an auto manufacturer also buying an electric motor company and a battery making company which are also illegal here in the USA. As to marketing, the Sierra Club, liberal media and Hollywood celebrity hybrid vehicle owners are certainly doing enough of that on behalf of the Japanese hybrid car companies for 'free'.Oh, and Toyota is not entirely "buzz rating" the hybrids...nor is Honda (though both probably are somewhat, the lack of company marketing for the product speaks VOLUMES against that theory) - both companies have a long history of environmental and product innovation....as all Japanese (hell most overseas) manufacturers do. Substantially, that's driven by the HIGHER cost of materials and fuel...
If you'll reread Kitty's very first post in this thread, she attempts to set the tone for discussing the 6,000lb vehicle deduction by comparing its relative costs and (lack of) merits to the Hybrid Vehicle tax credit herself. Therefore any further meaningful discussion must examine the validity of her original comparison i.e. the actual merits of the 6,000lb vehicle deduction and the actual merits of this year's large gasoline engine powered hybrid vehicles.My point was in a thread that focused on the FACTS of the deduction (and in fact should have remained focused on just the "SUV TAX LOOPHOLE" as the title suggests...sorry Kitty) you threw in an article that the hybrid deduction was simply a tool for the rich/"Limousine liberals" - without speaking to the purpose of the thread.
~
Last edited by Melonie; 04-23-2005 at 08:49 AM.
Process of elimination...that tells us the BRAND of vehicle is "American" - not the location of manufacture. Many "american made" vehicles are actually Canadian or Mexican in origin.
"add water and stir" is simply to counter the assumption that the tax deductions are supporting business expansion, job creation, etc...and not an "SUV Lovers" deduction
Semi-true....I agree the vertical integration helps them...but that doesn't change the motivation of the company.





For a fact the civilian Hummer is 100% US made. Most of the heavy truck chassis are made in the USA as well, since major heavy truck plants in Edison, Louisville etc. have been threatened with closings. Also, since you insist on factual evidence, try the overtime statistics for US TRUCK PLANT production at -Process of elimination...that tells us the BRAND of vehicle is "American" - not the location of manufacture. Many "american made" vehicles are actually Canadian or Mexican in origin.
unfortunately, there is no distinction between light truck/SUV production and the production of 6,000lb+ trucks which qualify for the tax deduction in the link data. Even so, the overall US truck production totals vastly outnumber Canada and Mexico truck production totals listed further down on that page.
Again I agree that the conclusion is logical, but no more or less so than my logical conclusion that the 6,000lb vehicle deduction actually produces new tax revenues from secondary sources to offset the initial cost. Both are equally impossible to prove due to lack of timely 'hard' data to support or disprove either claim."add water and stir" is simply to counter the assumption that the tax deductions are supporting business expansion, job creation, etc...and not an "SUV Lovers" deduction
Granted that the motivation of Japanese automakers is toward technical innovation and upscale pricing. But I would argue that this is simply a business necessity given the proximity of Korean downscale automakers at much lower prices, and the absolute necessity of Japanese automakers to export much of their product since their domestic market is too small to support large cost effective production runs. Also, it's much easier to pursue innovations when the Japanese gov't is footing much of the bill, versus American auto companies having to explain R&D expenditures to their stockholders versus dividend payments.Semi-true....I agree the vertical integration helps them...but that doesn't change the motivation of the company.
Last edited by Melonie; 04-23-2005 at 09:22 AM.
Here is a list of some of the ones that are over 6000 lbs. Of course my dumb ass has TWO SUVs and neither is. I know it's a loophole in the law but as a self employed person I need every deduction I can get.
BMW X5 $39,500 16/21
Land Rover Discovery $34,350 12/16
Cadillac Escalade $53,855 12/16
Land Rover Range Rover $71,200 12/17
Chevrolet Suburban $39,750 14/18
Lexus LX 470 $63,625 13/17
Chevrolet Tahoe $35,015 14/18
Lexus GX 470 $44,925 15/18
Dodge Durango $28,995 14/18
Lincoln Navigator $49,225 11/16
Ford Expedition $34,390 14/18
Mercedes-Benz M-Class $37,320 15/19
Ford Excursion $39,690 Not rated*
Mercedes-Benz G-500 $74,320 13/14
Hummer H2 $48,455 Not rated*
Porsche Cayenne $55,900 14/18
Hummer H1 $105,160 Not rated*
Toyota Land Cruiser $54,465 13/17
GMC Yukon $35,725 14/18
Toyota Sequoia $32,135 14/17
dd.
You sayAny business which does not make money within 3 years is declared a hobby and you have to pay back taxes and interest.These people can take a $2,000 credit to lower fuel consumption or they can open a small busines on paper and take a $10-30,000 credit for the super-huge H2 or the Harvester International SUV.
The SUV thing is not a credit. It is a deduction. It is the same deduction a business gets on any other item which is a cost of doing business as a charge against income as a cost of doing business. They get the same number of dollars as deductions both before and after. What is different is the tax year they get it in.
And Melonie, the benefits are small as are the costs. the whole thread exagerates the tax costs of this act way beyong the real significance. The full time period costs of the depreciation provisions pales in comparison to the $10billion bribe to states government in the 2003 act.





In regard to Bunny's list, the German (BMW and Porsche and Mercedes) and Japanese (Lexus and Toyota) trucks are 'late entries' to the list, which essentially did not include any 6,000lb German or Japanese vehicles prior to last year. Land Rover is owned by Ford, but I'm not sure how much actual Land Rover production takes place in America at this point. At any rate, even with this year's German and Japanese additions, American car companies still dominate the list of eligible vehicles.
I would also add (without bothering to search for links to prove the point) that the vehicles listed by Bunny are a tiny minority of the actual 6,000-14,000 lb vehicles covered by the 'accelerated' business vehicle tax deduction, with the majority being 'serious' business trucks i.e. Class 2 and Class 3 commercial vehicles a la . While Ford and GM make a sizeable contribution, there are also many Foreign entries into these vehicle classes as well. However, foreign or American made, US companies such as Cummins diesels and Allison transmissions dominate the drive trains of some foreign made trucks as well. The point is that the SUV 'abuse' accusations, even if true, refer to a small minority of vehicles actually covered by the 'accelerated' vehicle business expense deduction, and that this deduction does benefit both US businesses who use the trucks and US companies who build the trucks and/or major components of the trucks covered by the deduction.
That is the point that I was trying to make all along, that the actual out of pocket costs to gov't to provide the tax deduction to any individual for purchasing a hybrid is on the order of say $2,000*30% tax rate = $666, whereas the actual out of pocket costs to gov't to provide the 'accelerated' 6,000lb vehicle depreciation deduction to businesses is only the 'interest' costs of having that deduction taken 100% in the year of purchase versus taking the deduction 20% per year over five years as permitted under previous law. Of course, bandying about figures comparing a $110,000 Hummer business vehicle deduction versus a $2,000 hybrid tax credit certainly paints a very different mental picture than the actual tax economics and costs to gov't involved.And Melonie, the benefits are small as are the costs. the whole thread exagerates the tax costs of this act way beyong the real significance. The full time period costs of the depreciation provisions pales in comparison to the $10billion bribe to states government in the 2003 act.
~
Last edited by Melonie; 04-24-2005 at 09:15 AM.
Bookmarks