Federal Budget 2007

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by Burninator

What Red was saying is that SUV's today are needless excessive. They are beyond most peoples needs. Do you really need 400 horsepower monster with nine seats and 36" tires to tow a trailer? Not really. Most SUV owners don't own a trailer, a boat, or go off-roading. Most of them drive to work by themselves. Anyone who spends forty thousand dollars isn't going to put that thing under much stress.

Agreed that some SUV's are excessive. However, my 260 HP Expedition that seats up to 7 and has 31" tires (regular 17" rims) does a good enough job of hauling our trailer. Our 24' trailer works well for 4 people (2 adults & 2 children), and is by no means excessive. I would venture to say that it also gets better mileage than my father's old 1975 Pontiac wagon with a 400 cubic inch big block.

Firefly, even if you were able to find a rental company that will rent you a full sized SUV, they'll probably yank the keys back out of your hand as soon as they find out you're going to haul 5,000 lbs plus with it.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

Agreed that some SUV's are excessive. However, my 260 HP Expedition that seats up to 7 and has 31" tires (regular 17" rims) does a good enough job of hauling our trailer. Our 24' trailer works well for 4 people (2 adults & 2 children), and is by no means excessive. I would venture to say that it also gets better mileage than my father's old 1975 Pontiac wagon with a 400 cubic inch big block.

Actually my mother drives one of those and I would consider it excessive. Not necessarily the highest in horsepower, but high in torque. It gets pretty poor gas mileage. We use to have a trailer and it pulled it well, almost too well because the Expedition could make the trailer sway back and forth at higher speeds. But I don't have a problem with people using a SUV for towing a trailer. The problem I have is that people tow their trailer what? Half a dozen times a year? Then the other 46 weeks a year they drive by themselves to work everyday. Hardly practical. The people that tow trailers or boats are easily the minority when it comes to SUV owners.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Actually my mother drives one of those and I would consider it excessive. Not necessarily the highest in horsepower, but high in torque. It gets pretty poor gas mileage. We use to have a trailer and it pulled it well, almost too well because the Expedition could make the trailer sway back and forth at higher speeds. But I don't have a problem with people using a SUV for towing a trailer. The problem I have is that people tow their trailer what? Half a dozen times a year? Then the other 46 weeks a year they drive by themselves to work everyday. Hardly practical. The people that tow trailers or boats are easily the minority when it comes to SUV owners.

Thank you! That's what I was trying to say.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by Burninator

But I don't have a problem with people using a SUV for towing a trailer. The problem I have is that people tow their trailer what? Half a dozen times a year? Then the other 46 weeks a year they drive by themselves to work everyday. Hardly practical. The people that tow trailers or boats are easily the minority when it comes to SUV owners.

Very true. I normally don't drive our SUV to work, due to the huge difference in gas consumption compared to the car. It is pretty much just used as the family mobile.

[eazyduzzit]

It's quite clear what the majority of opinions are here.

Simply because I can afford a little more, I have to pay the price, even though i've payed my dues through income taxes and GST like the rest of everyone. Since i've worked my ass off the last decade to get into a position I am now, I seem to be looked at differently. Just because I own a boat that I haul around places, I should have to pay levys for that "luxury", or even a family that owns a trailer. Great mentality. I pay for those "luxuries" by getting taxed more on my income. Bottom line is, we live in a society where your suppose to be able to strive for that bit extra and not be held back by fines and levys by the government. It's quite clear this levy will do nothing to solve the problem. Just like the Liberal oil sands plan.

I've payed my dues, I think it's more jelousy than anything else. Either your all a bunch of enviromental hippies, or you all drive 1988 Honda Civics that are just bearly running and hold some sort of grudge over me because i don't. One day when some of you are in my position, i'm sure your stance will have changed.

I'm not against this enviromental movement, or the reduction on emissions, I just see this levy as doing little to nothing. It will detere some, but for the majority it will not. So what does it accomplish? Other than giving 4k to Harper and Co.

Like I said previously, charging me 1-4K extra for my SUV isn't going to detere me and I don't believe it will detere many. 1-4k extra when your talking of buying a 35K+ vehicle is pocket change when there's things like financing, 0 down and low intrest rates. Thats like walking away from a house purchase because it needs a new double-glazed kitchen window fitted...it's sort of insignificant when you put it into prespective. Whats 2K extra on a 20 year mortgage?

Global warming won't be solved by making me or anyone else pay $1,000 to $4,000 extra on our vehicles. Nor will reducing emissions in the oil patch be accomplished by the Liberal "credits" plan. They're both on the same playing field and both destined to do little to nothing.

For the record, this levy wouldn't stop me from buying another SUV if the time should come.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Last time I checked, very few flights cost 50 grand, so its all relative. Nor is my vacation going to be needlessly polluting the air and clogging up roads for the next 15 years. The levies and taxes on these two things should not be similar.

Planes give off just as much pollution as automobiles do. I'm sure if you divide the pollution of a 747 by the # of passengers..you will probably come out with a similar figure as to what I might emit on a journey to and from Vancouver. Old article but intresting read nontheless. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/732004.stm

Uhmm, well sure if your going to look at it that way...but looking at the big picture it's not. We'll put it this way..into percentages.

I just booked a flight to Ft. Lauderdale last night for the coming weekend. I couldn't get a full breakdown of where the taxes and surcharges are coming from on the website but i was charged $102.00 extra on to my original price for the flight which was approx $897.00

So let's assume $40 of those levys where for what your comparing with this 1-4k Levy on gas-consuming SUVs...the rest being GST and airport fees, which have nothing to do with the enviroment.

$40 in levys is 4.4% of the final price for the plane ticket. So you pay 4.4% in levys.

Now a 4k Levy on let's say a very basic Dodge Durango SXT for about 36,000k (Doesn't list this model on the Canadian site...just the more expensive SLT and Limited versions, but it does exist)

4k in levys is 11.1% of the final price.

11.1% is a little different than 4.4%. Plus, theres a reason some people avoid planes and airports...for fees such as this. But for those who chose an alternative such as driving or purchasing a trailer, they are paying for that luxury through GST and the extra fuel it takes to run.

God, I hope you don't run into some unsuspecting trailer campers down a dark side road... I'd dread to think what might happen. You seem to shun people who don't fly around in planes everywhere.

[RougeUnderoos]

Trust me buddy, I'm not jealous of you. I promise. I'm not a petty, dimwitted jackass.

I am not in favor of these levies because I can't afford a Hummer and a motor boat. To suggest that people care about the environment because they can't afford to needlessly pollute it is pretty silly.

[Hakan]

Simply because I can afford a little more, I have to pay the price, even though i've payed my dues through income taxes and GST like the rest of everyone. Since i've worked my ass off the last decade to get into a position I am now, I seem to be looked at differently. Just because I own a boat that I haul around places, I should have to pay levys for that "luxury", or even a family that owns a trailer. Great mentality. I pay for those "luxuries" by getting taxed more on my income. Bottom line is, we live in a society where your suppose to be able to strive for that bit extra and not be held back by fines and levys by the government. It's quite clear this levy will do nothing to solve the problem. Just like the Liberal oil sands plan.

You can go get that little bit extra all you want so long as you getting it doesn't negatively affect me without you paying for that. Which is essentially what these fees are about. Want to drive a car that pollutes a helluva lot more than others? Fine, but you'll pay for it.

Essentially these fees begin to start building in some of the costs to 3rd parties of your purchases that aren't reflected in the price specifically pollution.

As an aside, this whole I pay taxes so I have zero other responsibilities to society is laughable. By the way, you pay the same amount of taxes as I do. On your first $50,000 we pay the same amount. You earn more you pay more. And judging from your attitude you consume and bring about a helluva lot more costs to the system of public goods that the government provides what with your heavy trucks and boats on roads to the amount of hot air siphoning from you car and your head. Hence, the progressive tax system.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Dion

True. Lets not forget that back then we were using less fuel effiicent carburated engines. Instead of SUV's the station wagon with the V8 engine was the primary choice followed by the full sized sedan.

Exactly and with the technology now there's no reason why the holiday mobile can't be powered by a 2.8L V6 with good mileage. Everyone is so obsessed with the horsepower nowdays. Even the econoboxes like Civic get worse mileage than the older models and it's all because of the market wanting more HP.

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Trust me buddy, I'm not jealous of you. I promise. I'm not a petty, dimwitted jackass.

I am not in favor of these levies because I can't afford a Hummer and a motor boat. To suggest that people care about the environment because they can't afford to needlessly pollute it is pretty silly.

Good reply.

I'm not the one comparing 50% of the US population to Nazis becase of segregation. Or giving people the O.K. to blow up innocent civillians for a greater good. But thats for another discussion.

Originally Posted by Hakan

You can go get that little bit extra all you want so long as you getting it doesn't negatively affect me without you paying for that. Which is essentially what these fees are about. Want to drive a car that pollutes a helluva lot more than others? Fine, but you'll pay for it.

Pay for it, but who am I paying too? Not you.

The government has announced they will be charging 1-4k, they never said they will be putting that back into the economy so people who drive smaller engine vehicles will reap the rewards. I'm "paying" to drive a larger engine SUV, but you won't be benefiting...so..

By the looks of things, you won't even be seeing a penny of the up to $4,000 some individuals are going to pay so it's a bit useless because as I have pointed out, it's probably not going to detere many. So in retrospect, we'll be in the same boat next year as we are now, only difference is a lot of people will be short a few thousand dollars.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Pay for it, but who am I paying too? Not you.

The government has announced they will be charging 1-4k, they never said they will be putting that back into the economy so people who drive smaller engine vehicles will reap the rewards. I'm "paying" to drive a larger engine SUV, but you won't be benefiting...so..

By the looks of things, you won't even be seeing a penny of the up to $4,000 some individuals are going to pay so it's a bit useless because as I have pointed out, it's probably not going to detere many. So in retrospect, we'll be in the same boat next year as we are now, only difference is a lot of people will be short a few thousand dollars.

It'll probably go towards the penalties for not meeting Kyoto targets, thank you Liberals.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Good reply.

I'm not the one comparing 50% of the US population to Nazis becase of segregation. Or giving people the O.K. to blow up innocent civillians for a greater good. But thats for another discussion.

This doesn't make any sense at all.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

I'm not against this enviromental movement, or the reduction on emissions

Clearly you don't:

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Global warming won't be solved by making me or anyone else pay $1,000 to $4,000 extra on our vehicles. Nor will reducing emissions in the oil patch be accomplished by the Liberal "credits" plan. They're both on the same playing field and both destined to do little to nothing.

It has to start somewhere. Would you prefer a drastic solution? It much easier to start small. How can you not think that this will deter people from buying an SUV? I doubt that the majority of the population will want to waste another $1000-$4000 on another tax. Also this is bringing to light environmental problems that some of the population isn't aware of.

Isn't ironic that everyone I talk to that is opposed to this new tax owns an SUV that gets poor gas mileage?

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Clearly you don't:

It has to start somewhere. Would you prefer a drastic solution? It much easier to start small. How can you not think that this will deter people from buying an SUV? I doubt that the majority of the population will want to waste another $1000-$4000 on another tax. Also this is bringing to light environmental problems that some of the population isn't aware of.

Isn't ironic that everyone I talk to that is opposed to this new tax owns an SUV that gets poor gas mileage?

I put it into prespective by saying this:

Like I said previously, charging me 1-4K extra for my SUV isn't going to detere me and I don't believe it will detere many. 1-4k extra when your talking of buying a 40K+ vehicle is pocket change when there's things like financing, 0 down and zero to low intrest rates. Thats like walking away from a house purchase because it needs a new double-glazed kitchen window fitted...it's sort of insignificant when you put it into prespective. Whats 2K extra on a 20 year mortgage?

The government is just taking money with no real plan for the future. They aren't re-investing the money, avarage joe citizen isn't going to see much results nor is the avarage driver who doesn't drive an SUV going to reap the rewards. It's funny how many "conservatives" brush off the Liberal oil sands plan as bogus, yet this little plan of there own stops at nothing short of replication, Hyprocisy 101.

To me, the issue isn't writing out a cheque for an extra $4,000, the issue is the fact that money is just going into a little piggy bank for politicians to look at. Re-invest it somewhere, give people who drive smaller vehicles a break in tax, using the money taken off me as the funds to make up the shortfall from taxing people with smaller engines less. Use it for research, invest it into motor companies trying to produce more efficient cars, use it for SOMETHING.

I think we can all agree the concept of global warming and green house gases is a very complex one, which needs complex solutions. Simply charging people a bit of extra cash on their purchase hoping to shovel all the rest that goes along with it under the bed is not helping.

Speaking of SUVs, how many citizens do you think are out there that drive trucks for pleasure and not out of neccesity? I can name about 5 of my friends without even thinking and I'd bet a lot of money there are thousands more. The whole point I had about having larger engine automobile drivers prove they need the power -- whether thats for "luxury" or work is irrelevant -- so they get the breaks, and those who do simply drive it around because it looks good, get slapped with the levys. As much as a lot of you may think I deserve to pay a price for buying an SUV to haul around a boat, those who buy SUVs and TRUCKS for looks are the real problem. It seems a very good % of truck drivers seem to be immune from this levy, which is simply not right. It's quite clear this little plan hasn't had much thought and it's more or less an attempt to starve off some of the pressure the tories are getting over the enviroment.

I'm sure if some statistics where released giving you the numbers of drivers who drive trucks/SUVs for nothing more than looking good over the number of truck/SUV drivers who drive them for need -- again work or "luxury" irrelivant -- I'm quite sure it would prove my point. I'm not the problem, people with trailers aren't the problem, people who drive trucks for work are not the problem. The problem lies with the ample amounts of people who drive around V8s for absolutly nothing. I'm quite certain, and I would be willing to bet a lot of money on the fact I am a minority in this issue. I'm quite confident the number of people who use trucks for "looks" instead of work are most likely leaning in the favor of "looks" yet they're all getting off completely free.

This plan sucks, bottom line.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Gee whiz, y'think? That's that whole point, that those taxes are passed on to the consumer. They're the ones buying the SUVs. It's more efficient from an implementation and administrative perspective to levy the tax on manufacturers. The government is doing so with every intention that 100% of that tax is passed down to the consumer through increased cost functions and reduced supply.

Negative reinforcement by way of tax is going to do nothing to get manufactuers to build more fuel efficent vehicles. Why not offer tax reduction incentives to the manufacturer for building more fuel efficent engines and vehicles? You know the ones the government is giving consumers to buy these fuel efficent vehicles.

People who buy those gass guzzlers usually have lots of money and can afford to pay that tax. It will do little to reduce the numbers of gas guzzlers on the road. in the future.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Do you know where a list of vehicles affected can be found?

I went looking and found a sample of vehicles here. I was also check the govt's website

Green machines
An illustrative list of 2007 model fuel-efficient vehicles that will be eligible for a rebate as part of a program to promote cleaner transportation.

Fuel consumption* Litres/100kmRebateToyota Prius 1.5L, 4 Cyl, regular gasoline4.1$2,000

Honda Civic Hybrid 1.3L, 4 Cyl, regular gasoline 4.5$2,000

Toyota Corolla 1.8L, 4 Cyl, regular gasoline, 5-speed manual 6.3$1,000

Mini Cooper M6 1.6L, 4 Cyl, regular gasoline, 6-speed manual 6.5$1,000

Ford Escape HEV 4x4 2.3L, 4 Cyl, regular gasoline, CVT 7.4$2,000

Saturn Vue Hybrid 2.4L, 4 Cyl, regular gasoline, 4-speed automatic 7.9$1,000

Jeep Patriot 2.4L, 4 Cyl, regular gasoline, 5-speed manual 8.2$1,000

Chevrolet Impala 3.5L, 6 Cyl, E85** Flex Fuel Vehicle 12.3$1,000

Chrysler Sebring 2.7L, 6 Cyl, E85** Flex Fuel Vehicle 13.0$1,000

*Based on 55 per cent city/45 per cent highway fuel-consumption rating.
**Engine that uses fuel that contains up to 85% ethanol.
SOURCE: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

Guzzler's levy
A sampling of 2007 model vehicles that would be subject to a green surcharge. The rate increases as the number of litres per 100 km rises.

Fuel consumption* Litres/100km

SurchargeNissan Pathfinder13.1$1,000

Dodge Durango14.1$2,000 Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT816.9$4,000

*Based on 55 per cent city/45 per cent highway fuel-consumption rating.
SOURCE: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE