Wayne's Bright Idea of the Day...

[Wayne 962]

Okay, there has been lots of talk about the new bills in the CA legislature about doing away with the pre 1973/74 smog exemption. I think that the problem comes not from our older cars necessarily, but from cars like my 1988 Nissan Pathfinder. I am told that my truck puts out many, many, many times more emissions than the newest 2003 cars. In fact, I hear you can't kill yourself anymore by locking the garage and turning one of these cars on.

So, I have a novel approach. It would seem that the government (through the high car taxes) penalizes people who purchase new cars. Why not reward the people who purchase new cars with financial incentives? How about reversing the 'car tax' or vehicle license fee. Instead of starting out high (based on the purchase prices), why not start low, or at nothing, and then increase the tax on the older cars. This of course would hurt me, and just about everyone here, but it might be a decent trade-off if emissions testing is eliminated or reduced.

The real problem is the old clunkers that people drive to work everyday, or even the older trucks (like mine) that everyone drives as well. Put everyone into a newer vehicle, and the air will become significantly cleaner. Until there are some economic incentives, the air isn't going to get much cleaner.

Comments?

-Wayne

[Porsche911NYC]

Don't give up your day job.

[n8marx]

The old class warfare propoganda will come out of the wood work. "Financing the rich on the backs of the poor!", they'll cry. "The poor are the ones driving all those old cars you know."

If you're not careful the taxes on new cars will end up increasing in order to buy new cars for the poor.

I'd better quit before I really start ranting about reallocation of wealth among other things.

[cstreit]

In order to be fair, the tax should be based on actual emissions level. I could understand a sliding scale, but honestly it should be based on miles.

You could power a small town from the leftowver hydrocarbon emissions on my 930, but I only drive it 2000 miles per year. Sholdn't the guy driving the 1975 impala back and forth to work on an LA freeway with no emissions equipment at all pay more?

Potentially good idea wayne, but in order to make it fair, it would be very difficult to regulate/enforce.

[maxnine11]

I'm pretty sure you can still kill yourself in your garage....unless carbon monoxide is no longer a product of a hydrocarbon burning!! On the money side- during the last financial boom, when people were flush with some extra money, what did they buy ?? A whole lot of Expeditions. Not many Honda hybrids. max

[rstoll]

Where are the "off topic" police when you need them.

[Oldporsche]

The insurance industrly of Japan kind of works that way. The insurance on an older vehicle is prohibitive. Thus a lot of low mileage engines are sold here in the back of rebuilder mags.

David Duffield

[island911]

Oh, I see Wayne. . . your devious plan is to put mechanics and part resellers out of business.
You just have absolutely NO compassion for those hard working tax paying folks.

You're one of those anti-mehanites aren't you. . AREN'T YOU!

TIC, as usual.

[Joe Bob]

Ain't gonna happen, Wayne.....defeats the major premise in economics, tax the new stuff. Subsidize the new tecxhnology then TAX the $$****ski out of it, when it gets popular.....

[Wayne 962]

Geez, not too many intelligent answers...

-Wayne

[Targa Dude]

Wayne.. you are really an intelligent guy.. why would you through away all your success to go into politics?? Hmmmmm I see it now
"Sen. Wayne Dempsey"
I guess I agree with, Porsche911NYC
Jorge (Targa Dude)

[Wayne 962]

Well, way back when I was running my own website design company (wait a sec, I still am), I turned down a job that would have paid well, but we would be hosting a porn site. I said to myself, "Self, if I ever run for Congress, this is sure to come out..."



-Wayne

P.S. It's nearly impossible to figure out and enforce a certain number of miles driven in a year...

[pwd72s]

Wayne...The way I read the National news, your Governor may soon be applying for a new job. Food for thought. Hell, if I lived there, I'd vote for you...

[island911]

Originally posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts
Geez, not too many intelligent answers...

-Wayne

perhaps its reflective of the question.

[TimT]

oops

[Emission]

I tend to agree with Wayne. Taking his idea one step further to prevent excessive penalties for those of us with "classics":

I'd propose a "Reverse Emission Tax" that increases as the car ages. The Tax is heavy on incentives, with acceptable penalties for those who fall in that Tax category (the idea is to incent new car purchases). A brand-new car would actually earn an incentive because of the strict EPA regulations they meet (my 2003 X5 is an "Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle" - I think it actually cleans LA air!). The incentive is reverse engineered to incent economy cars, not exotics.

This "Reverse Emission Tax" would be on a sliding scale that increases with age, peaks at 15-years-old, then decreases gradually to level off at a fixed number. This logic assumes that real "clunkers" are 15-year-old buckets of rust. Anything older than 15 will generally take some TLC (and reduced emissions) to keep on the road.

All cars are eligible for a "recreation use" discount. This discount is only available if your car is drive less than 12,000 miles a year. At 12,000 miles (verified at bi-annual smog inspections), you get a 10% discount. Each 1,000 mile-a-year drop will increase your discount by 10%. Someone who drives less than 3,000 miles a year effectively avoids the Tax.

Some examples:

2003 Porsche 996TT = No tax, no incentive
2003 Infiniti G35 = No tax, $1000 incentive
2003 Toyota Corolla = No tax, $2000 incentive

1987 Porsche 930 (2500 annual miles) = No tax
1987 Pontiac 6000STE (15,000 annual miles) = $500 penalty
1987 Toyota Camry (8,000 annual miles) = $250 penalty

1970 Porsche 911 = $50 tax

This is my first draft, so feel free to rip it apart!

[Targa Dude]

Comming from a Guy named Emission... Hmmmmm are you sure your not a politician???you sound like one..

Jorge (Targa Dude)

[scoll911]

I believe it is more than class warfare propaganda -- some individiuals can not afford newer vehicles. For example, lets say someone earns $2,000 month after subtracting taxes (30%), rent ($600), they are left with $800 for every thing else. The least expensive new cars would amount to about $200 per month -- with a new car comes a new car loan which means full coverage versus liability (Lets say $100/mos). That leaves $500 for food utilities and everything else.

Why punish the poor, Mr Scrooge ?

[speeder]

Interesting thought, at least a start to dealing with a very real problem. Don't think that it is workable, but certainly not as hair-brained as classifying all SUVs as "light trucks" for the last 20 years for emission and CAFE purposes when about 100% of them are designed, marketed and used as passenger vehicles. It would have been no problem for manufacturers to build these to auto emission standards, (not rocket science these days), but they had no reason to thanks to a sleeping EPA/ special interests.
Anybody care to design a projection of emissions from these millions of POSs as they reach the $2000 value in a few short years w/ a couple hundred thousand miles on 'em and the maintenence habits of their new owners?? What a focking environmental disaster. I can't wait.

As for our cars, I think that a reasonable compromise would be low cost emission testing for older cars that tested tail-pipe only, in other words, all the mods you want as long as car runs good and burns most of its fuel, based on efficiency standards of its year of manufacture, of course. I don't think that this would be a problem for maintenence oriented people like us, but would remove the '73 Cadillacs that I occasionally find myself behind, I want to fire a car-to-car missile at those slobs. (The ones running on 3 cylinders, not all old Caddys).

The big frontier is cleaning up diesel truck emissions, the special interests are squeeling like pigs in a poke as always, but change is gonna come, trust me on this. I know that there is a reasonable, intelligent solution that will not kill the collector car hobby, (not to mention the grandfather clause theory of law, if you allowed me to buy it in 1970, you cannot outlaw it now as long as it runs/burns good), we need smarter laws, (and lawmakers), not draconian measures on older car owners who maintain their cars, IMO.

[cstreit]

Wayne,

That's why I said " it would be very difficult to regulate/enforce." Perhaps my sales job makes me too "tactful" eh?

Making a reverse tax would be penalizing the people who could LEAST afford it, the people that have to by older/cheaper/ presumably more polluting cars. I'd call foul.

The idea is an interesting theory and makes sense, but can't be fairly implemented.

1. Because the taxes are set in place for the people who can afford them. The guy who buys the $50k luxury car can afford pay the $1500 road tax.

2. The guy who buys the 1982 Chevy Cavalier for $300 probably can't afford the $1500 road tax.

If guy #2 is your new "reverse" tax base, and he can't buy the car because he can't pay the tax, you end up with NO tax revenue instead of an "unfair" system. And lets remember the goal of that system is not "Fairness", it's "Revenue!"

So since you can't make it any more fair, don't mess with it...

Then again seems the powers that be will never be satisfied untill we're all driving brand new cars... Hmmm I wonder if the auto lobbyists might be helping the "ideas" of the legislators trying to remove older cars from the market. Remember that "old car nuisance law" that was up on the books in Illinois?

Now the oil lobbyists will be all frosted off, but so long as people keep buying Suburbans as grocery getters, they'll be okay.