Hacker News Reader

Comment by prng2021 | Hacker News Reader

prng2021

Yea this article makes it sound like the loophole is the primary reason but I don’t think it’s even a significant contributor. Anyone can google the top 5 SUVs sold in 2022. None of them are over the 6,000 pound gross weight limit to be counted as a track. All of them over grown significantly in physical size over the past decade.

American family sizes have steadily dropped for many decades so the editor’s mention of millennials and family sizes contributing to demand for large vehicles is nonsensical.

Americans just love big cars and that desire vastly trumps and concern over environmental impact.

View on HN

> I don’t think it’s even a significant contributor

I know a surprisingly nontrivial number of people who needed an SUV, but upsized because of the tax deduction.

I know one person who did as well but these are tiny percentages of people that can’t possibly be affecting these macro trends.

That tax deduction requires having a business. The general population only knows the bare minimum to file their personal taxes, not how to create a LLC to take advantage of tax breaks.

And when gas prices go up, everyone gets all whiny and acts all oppressed.

High gas prices are regressive and are a little oppressive. So they function like a tax, most impacting the poor.

Makes sense to while about it. And is an oppression, while definitely not the worst.

I'd like to see the US jack up gas taxes, and then at the end of the year, refund most of it as an equal amount per adult. That would create some serious incentives to cut down on driving or even give up cars entirely, while not becoming a cash cow for the feds.

This is clever gamification but probably most of the players would be the suburban and rural poor, for whom excess driving is more likely to be non-discretionary and the only option for local + regional travel. The effect would be to limit their quality of life, either by deferring access to money for basic expenses, by limiting access to employment, or by discouraging children's access to recreation and socialization opportunities. There are similar arguments against VMT taxes

How about we tax cars as property, based on Blue Book value and modulated by income bracket, and maybe even by specs like weight and fuel economy? Some states are already doing at least a basic version of this. And instead of giving the money back, we can fund fare-free municipal bus and rideshare programs

>for whom excess driving is more likely to be non-discretionary

That's the point. It is a luxury to live on a 10k sq ft lot in a 3k+ sq ft house. Moving mass far distances requires lots of energy.

It's helpful to bear in mind that living out in the boonies is a choice, and that people who choose to live in built-up areas (at additional expense) are under no obligation to subsidise the formers' lifestyle.

In all scenarios, taxes decrease consumption. Kids can use bikes to get around, families' second cars can be glorified golf carts. Enviro-winning.

I agree about the desirability of free mass transit. To take a case in point, Tallinn (Estonia's capital) instituted it for residents (only), the idea being to get people to undo bogus out-of-city residences and return to the city's tax rolls. The last I read, it's working nicely.

> In all scenarios, taxes decrease consumption.

Not always. For example, an increase in the tax on a popular but very low-priced subsistence food can increase its consumption by reducing the amount of higher-priced alternatives that consumers can afford.

OK, I forgot to mention ceteris paribus.

So you suggest, by analogy, that higher gas prices might reduce demand for electric vehicles by pre-emptively emptying drivers' wallets ?

> It's helpful to bear in mind that living out in the boonies is a choice

It's usually an ancestor's choice and getting out is typically either prohibitively difficult or in conflict with family values

Spoken by someone who got out

Ya can't keep'em down on the farm once they've seen the city lights.

> are under no obligation to subsidise the formers' lifestyle

As an urban US taxpayer, I'm totally on board with fairness, revenue sharing (rural communities still receive full education, health, etc), and making sure every one has some kind of chance in life. In short, I really want "the greater good" for everyone.

The way it's worked out is urbanites like me unwillingly subsidize sprawl. Thru extortion, deceit (h/t Robert Moses), and tantrums. Some kind of acknowledgment of this parasitic (codependent?) relationship would be nice. Instead, the recipients hate us. Worse, they think they're carrying us.

The USPS is subsidised for the boonies and that's just fine by me. In wider comparison to urban service levels, perhaps health care is the most glaring gap nowadays ?

Spending the extra money from increased fuel and vehicle sales taxes on public transport would be great for city dwellers in general.

Reduced minimum cost of living for the poor, less traffic for those who drive for a living or have no choice or are willing to pay for luxury.

Rural poor would struggle, they'd need support through another means.

I don't like the idea of extra tax complexity when it could just be an adjustment to headline rates though. Too much admin and potential for benefits cliffs.

Huh, about as whiny as people here get about internet bandwidth prices. or about apartment rents when any increase is a vast landlords conspiracy.

> Americans just love big cars and that desire vastly trumps and concern over environmental impact.

Not like it’s just Americans either.

Cars in the U.S. are still FAR bigger on average than anywhere I‘ve seen (in Europe or Asia).

They are, but from what I’ve seen there are idiots getting US-style pickups in Europe these days.

The stupidity threshold is just higher, because European countries are not designed for vehicles this long or wide so your want for the bloody things has to exceed the sheer inconvenience they are for you (I assume whoever buys these cares nothing for the inconvenience to others), and the money pit they are in fuel and maintenance (as they’re uncommon I’d also assume most garages can’t handle them).

In the richer neighborhoods of Tokyo you'll see quite a few land rovers and Teslas, which are probably the most inconvenient cars to have in Tokyo.

At that point it's about showing off more than anything.

Are teslas really the most inconvenient to have in Tokyo?

They’re not small which definitely counts against them, and their weight may play against the stacking garages some folks have, but IIRC having a car in Tokyo requires justifying that you have an off-street parking spot so it seems well suited for EVs.

It's mostly the size. I cycle a lot and Teslas are noticeably bigger/wider than most domestic vehicles, which means they don't fit in a lot of smaller side roads.

There's more inconvenient vehicles out there, but those are the ones I see most frequently.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com