What would it take to make small cars desirable?

[trebuchet03]

if we want them to use less gasoline, then MAKE cars that use less gasoline.

Why make such a car if there's no benefit to? I mean, gas guzzling car sales have gone down since the guzzler tax was implemented. This type of action on th mfr's part didn't happen in Europe until fuel was heavily taxed.

CA has some of the highest gas taxes in the US. 5% of the vehicle sales just so happened to be the Prius (higher than any other state) even though that car made up just 1% of the US sales market.

-----
I would completely agree if it were just as simple as making cars use less... Unfortunately, the majority of new car buyers need to want it first. We're almost to that point given a supply and the weak dollar - it's just kinda late. If you buy your car used - unfortunately, your influence in this regard is much lower :/

That's why I said -- give notice to the mfr's that this tax is coming (even if it's just a revised guzzler tax). Then tax new car sales. It worked in other countries - even the one's apparently bogged down with other huge taxes

[bowtieguy]

Originally Posted by rvanengen

<begin rant>

Well...the problem is that you have to believe that taxing a behavior to stop an "undesirable" behavior is the "right" or moral thing to do. Personally, I think it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

If smoking is bad (we all know it is), then take a stance and BAN tobacco. This will DRASTICALLY cut the number of people smoking because it is just a *tad* bit harder to grow and process tobacco than it is to make moonshine...so let's not get into a "Prohibition" argument.

Plain and simple, if the behavior is BAD, then PROHIBIT it...don't try to tax it. That sends mixed signals to society. Otherwise, why not tax murder??

The same thing goes for gasoline/diesel consumption...if it is BAD, then stop refining and selling it! All taxing does is hurt the people that are least able to absorb the cost, regardless of how our wonderfully inefficient and ponderous government might try to "help" people.

I am begging everyone...stop this wrongheaded discussion of taxing people into compliance...if we want them to use less gasoline, then MAKE cars that use less gasoline. The US fleet turns over in less than 10 years on average...it can be done, but it is so much EASIER to simply tax the ignorant and powerless masses and let big business operate untouched.

</end rant>

thank you and well said. obviously my hypothetical taxation will not happen, but it looks like my sarcasm(point) was understood.

it HAS to be evident to ALL that the wealthy wouldn't change their driving habits until gas prices got to be ungodly high. and obviously THAT is relative--meaning there would be different levels of tolerance before desired "compliance" was met.

and along the way,said individuals(those least able to absorb the increase) would be penalized. YES: wrong,wrong,wrong!

[bowtieguy]

clencher,

you could NOT kick my butt if you made it your life's ambition for two reasons:

1) you're OLD!

2) i run with world class speed when i'm skeered!

[Snax]

Originally Posted by theclencher

mebbe yoo shouda kept it wrinkled.

LOL! A damned fine arguement that is too!

Oh wait a minute, I sold my 400HP 7mpg gettin' 2 seater fun car for family life. Seems to me that my overall consumption actually decreased.

I think one distinction that should be made with any attempt at taxation adjustment is to decide whether it is a 'sin' tax or 'consumption' tax. I think based upon that, fuel taxation slides in more comfortably as a consumption tax which is generally harmful to lower incomes. Many NEED to drive, vs. sin taxes which tax items that people could arguably do 100% without.

[bowtieguy]

Originally Posted by Snax

LOL! A damned fine arguement that is too!

Oh wait a minute, I sold my 400HP 7mpg gettin' 2 seater fun car for family life. Seems to me that my overall consumption actually decreased.

I think one distinction that should be made with any attempt at taxation adjustment is to decide whether it is a 'sin' tax or 'consumption' tax. I think based upon that, fuel taxation slides in more comfortably as a consumption tax which is generally harmful to lower incomes. Many NEED to drive, vs. sin taxes which tax items that people could arguably do 100% without.

wow! something else we agree on.

was reading some of the archives about commute lengths. the only thing close to my employer is a high crime area, and just further out, very high priced homes $500k and up.

also, left a job 1-2 miles from my house to drive 18 miles(one way) to a job that doubled my income. aside from $ increase, quality of life went WAY up due to less laboring(more driving) and enabled me to quit my part-time job.

i'll continue to hypermile and hope for the best(gas prices) until that full size car w/ I-4 comes out that gets 30mpg city/40 hwy. maybe get 40/50 hypermiling w/ it.

[skewbe]

Please just try and be open to doing more. Telco thought he was all that and was close minded to doing anything else that didn't directly benefit him and his, and had a long list of excuses for not caring too.

[2TonJellyBean]

bowtieguy, if we didn't have cars, the job market would be remarkably different. In time I can see a lot more of the workforce working / adding value to an organization from a room in their home than an office.

[rvanengen]

Originally Posted by trebuchet03

Why make such a car if there's no benefit to? I mean, gas guzzling car sales have gone down since the guzzler tax was implemented. This type of action on th mfr's part didn't happen in Europe until fuel was heavily taxed.

CA has some of the highest gas taxes in the US. 5&#37; of the vehicle sales just so happened to be the Prius (higher than any other state) even though that car made up just 1% of the US sales market.

-----
I would completely agree if it were just as simple as making cars use less... Unfortunately, the majority of new car buyers need to want it first. We're almost to that point given a supply and the weak dollar - it's just kinda late. If you buy your car used - unfortunately, your influence in this regard is much lower :/

That's why I said -- give notice to the mfr's that this tax is coming (even if it's just a revised guzzler tax). Then tax new car sales. It worked in other countries - even the one's apparently bogged down with other huge taxes

New car sales are already taxed, and if you raise the tax much, people tend to keep their older (more polluting) cars longer. NC already has a 3% sales tax on new car sales, a road use tax, a sales tax on fuel purchases, and a county property tax on the vehicles. When is enough, actually enough??

Reminds me of the quote: "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." -- Winston Churchill

If people are offered decent, FE vehicles, they will select them. They just need to see that they are not crappy little econo boxes, but good and safe cars.

A recent study (post-Katrina) and found that the elasticity of demand for gasoline is about .1 (meaning prices have to increase 10% to see a 1% decline in demand)...so if we double gas prices, we only cut consumption by 10%...not very encouraging. (http://www.env-econ.net/2006/05/inelastic_short.html)

If someone has a limited budget, they cannot usually just decide to drive less to work...so they must save $ somewhere else in their expenses...and it sometimes winds up being vehicle maintenance...potentially costing more in fuel costs. This is life...and unfortunately, many people do not know how to do their own auto maintenance, or own the necessary tools.

I stand by my feeling that the solution rests with pressuring manufacturers, and giving SIGNIFICANT financial incentives for them to produce, MARKET and sell the FE vehicles. A line from Field of Dreams comes to mind... "build it and they will come..."

[2TonJellyBean]

Originally Posted by theclencher

When consumers pony up more $$ for economical cars than uneconomical ones, that is when the manufacturers will take notice. It's that simple.

It's sad to say, but in order for the majority of us sheep to want to do that, the marketers first have to reshape our thinking.

[trebuchet03]

New car sales are already taxed, and if you raise the tax much, people tend to keep their older (more polluting) cars longer. NC already has a 3&#37; sales tax on new car sales, a road use tax, a sales tax on fuel purchases, and a county property tax on the vehicles. When is enough, actually enough??

I'm not talking about a flat sales tax - increasing that will just modify overall vehicle sales. I'm talking about updating an existing law - the gas guzzler tax. Right now, the minimum FE to avoid the tax is 22.5 AND the largest market share vehicles don't even apply.

A recent study (post-Katrina) and found that the elasticity of demand for gasoline is about .1 (meaning prices have to increase 10% to see a 1% decline in demand)...so if we double gas prices, we only cut consumption by 10%...not very encouraging.

Short term trends are no indication of long term consumption Especially when someone can say "oh, it was [natural disaster] - it will get better soon."

If people are offered decent, FE vehicles, they will select them. They just need to see that they are not crappy little econo boxes, but good and safe cars.

No, if we are offered decent, FE vehicles, we will select them. But we're a minority and I'm not so sure how many of us bought our cars new (I know I didn't ).

In any case, such cars are offered, have been offered - but they don't take a big bite of the market share (the Prius, for example, only had 1% last year despite it's awesome sales) :/