Should We Tax People Who Have Long Commutes? Hey, Why Not?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

After all, many want to tax SUV owners for getting bad gas mileage, but is MPG within itself the only factor that affects fuel consumption? I think not.

What about commute? Doesn't that come into play a little bit? Intellectual reasoning would tell me that it does. For example, I own an SUV: 2002 Chevy Blazer to be exact. It gets 16 miles per gallon, and lord knows I and others here with similar vehicles get treated like the anti-christ sometimes because of it. But ya know what? I have a 9 mile commute to work each way, and don't drive much outside of my commute.

What I want to know is how long are the commutes of some of the self righteous gas preachers that put their noses in the air at those with lesser gas mileage? I'd wager there are plenty of em that have 20 mile commutes, 30 mile commutes, or even 60 mile commutes.

Know what that means? It means if one of these nose lifters drives 20 miles each way to work in their 30+ mpg hybrid, they're using more fuel then I am. Yes, that means that even though I own an SUV with 16 mpg, I'M PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT BETTER THAN THEY ARE! BWAHAHAHAAAAA

Seriously though, can't argue with the facts. Why not tax the nose lifters with long commutes? Isn't the distance they commute every single bit as much a factor in fuel consumption as the miles per gallon itself? How come that aspect is never mentioned?

Sure, there are some that have environmentally friendly vehicles and drive the same or less commute as I do, or don't drive at all. To them, I guess you can still keep your nose up in the air. God bless ya. But to those smearing SUV owners and that look down on me because I get 16 mpg? Check yourself. If you drive 18 miles or more each way to work the chances are it is ME, not YOU, who is more responsible to the environment. Funny that...


On edit: I'm not really proposing a tax on these people, or claiming it as a solution. This a semi-sarcastic take on their hypocrisy, is all.

[pnb]

1. They alreay pay more taxes for the commute

Due to all the taxes on the gasoline itself...buy more gas, pay more tax.

[acmavm]

2. That's funny.

[whistle]

3. Of course, double the taxes on toll road fees, commuter trains

...gasoline and diesel fuel. While we're at it, increase the tax on all electrical energy use over say 750 kwh per month by 100%. That will hit the wasters particularly hard as well as those people who live in large homes.

[MiniMe]

40. I disagree with the commuter trains

At least people taking mass transportation are conserving fuel.

[Horse with no Name]

4. I'm sure that is the answer.

After all...everyone that works in the city can live in the city.
Sure the population explosion won't hurt much.
Cities are already polluted...what is more pollution?
Why not shut down all the schools in the suburbs and the rural areas.
Hell, I will quit my job as a nurse because the only work around here is at Piggly Wiggly or Dairy Queen. We have a glut of nurses anyway.
That would allow me to fund my new lifestyle on Food Stamps and Welfare.
Yeah, I am sure you have your hands on a workable answer.:sarcasm:
However, I am more inclined to think that if we expand public transportation and encourage more carpooling that might be a better idea.
Personally, the higher gas prices have worked for me. I really limit my extra trips.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. Obviously, increasing tax on cars or fuel is only a good idea

if it's coupled with effective public transport.

One of the best ways to combat pollution is to introduce effective mass transit.

I do think, however, that making a journey that could be made by train or bus (or by cycling or walking) by car instead is generally a luxury rather than a basic right, and will become increasingly so as pollution becomes a bigger issue

[cornermouse]

5. How about we tax you for idling your engine at a stop light.

Sounds pretty durn good to me.

[BOSSHOG]

6. Aren't they already taxed more at the pump?

- Carpooling
- Mass Transit
- Alternative fuel sources

All of the above should be given a nice boost each time gas prices go up.

[BOSSHOG]

7. DELETE PLEASE

[JuniperLea]

8. Do the math

My car gets 30+ miles to the gallon, yours gets 16 mpg. How far do you have to drive to burn a gallon of gas? How far do I have to drive? See? One number is bigger than the other.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. I Did The Math. That's The Whole Point.

If someone's commute is 15 miles or more each way, there is one hell of a chance they go through more gas a year than I do. That means in an individual sense I am supporting our environment more than they are, thereby erradicating any validity they have to bark out their preachings. Quite simple really.

Just for curiosity, how far is your commute, honestly?

[JuniperLea]

66. Mine is 20 miles

So I use less than two gallons a day.

I still say that using more gas than necessary is wrong. No matter how little you drive, it's wasteful to lug around that much vehicle to go to the grocer, the library, or to drive one person to work.

Why should I be taxed so you can waste more gas just because you WANT to drive a big gas hog? I traded in my SUV in 2002 because I saw the turning of the tide. My current car is ultra low emissions and gets twice the gas mileage. I made my sacrifice so I wouldn't be using as much gas. It's the right thing to do.

Why should I move to Downtown Los Angeles? So you can use more gas than necessary? I can make enough money to afford to live near where I grew up if I work in Los Angeles proper. There are no jobs at my level of pay any closer than that. If I worked closer, I couldn't afford to live here.

[Leopolds Ghost]

123. Where I live, 20 mi is a long commute. You work Downtown, why not take

the train? Before you say "that's not flexible enough" you already pointed out that you pretty much have to work downtown to support your wage needs. Here in DC area, a 20 mile commute is at least an hour into the city if you aren't takin the train. And I know LA has a more extensive commuter rail than we do (surprisingly enough)... too bad they passed a law banning subway construction.

[JuniperLea]

141. I'd have to leave the house at 5:30 to get there by nine

Two trains and two buses later.

If I leave the house by 7 I can drive for 30 minutes and be there by 7:30. I drive an ultra-low emissions vehicle (I traded my SUV for it in 2002) and I get 30+ mpg. And I have my car available should there be an emergency with one of my kids. I wouldn't want to sit on public transport for four hours under those circumstances.

There are no jobs in the suburbs that pay enough for one to afford to live in the suburbs.

[Mountainman]

36. You obviously don't get it. It is how many gallons you burn not how far

you drive. If a guy gets 18 MPG and drives 18 miles he burns 1 gallon. If you get 30 MPG and drive 60 miles you burn 3 gallons. If your commute is 60 miles and his is 18, you burn more gas and are polluting more and are causing more wars than he is and causing more people to die in the mideast and are causing more oil wells to be drilled in sensitive areas and are hurting the alternative energy sources more.

[JuniperLea]

65. Ummm... no

If I drive 60 miles, I've used two gallons. Thirty multiplied by two is sixty.

If I go to the library, or the grocer, or anywhere else in town while running my errands, I use less gas too.

It's not my responsibility to use less gas so he can waste more gas.

[Leopolds Ghost]

124. But the OP doesn't drive much outside of work

Which really surprised me because I got the impression he was no raging leftist environmentalist. As for me, I prefer to use a bicycle or mass transit -- meaning subways. And the bus system sucks where I live! They all stop at the nearest subway station and turn around. So it's actually a lot easier for me to bike to the nearest grocery store (1 mile away) than mass transit (walk 1/4 mile south to waste over two dollars on a train going one stop, 1.25 mile north.) Point is, there's all sorts of errands people can run on foot or bicycle, although I'd recommend "on foot" for taking your kids places..... I would never raise kid anywhere where they couldn't walk to school accompanied at age 4 and unaccompanied at age 8, it really isolates them. We're raising a generation of selfish, isolated kids who can't take care of themselves without mechanical assistance. Future republicans, or at least "security conscious" centrist twerps who can't think for themselves and would NEVER let their kids play on a steel jungle gym...

[patrice]

5 miles.

[patrice]

11. ?

I don't know how that happened.

[patrice]

9. 5 miles.

[Rosemary2205]

10. Don't we all pay gasoline taxes?

A longer commute using more gas means more taxes. There's also the sales taxes and environmental fees with more sets of tires, oil changes etc. There's also a few cities that require people to buy a special sticker for the privilege of bringing a car into the city.

[Eric J in MN]

13. We have a federal gasoline tax already, and..

...both gas mileage and the number of miles driven affect how much gas tax drivers pay.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. I Edited To Clarify. I'm Not Really Saying To Tax Them. It Is A Rebuttal

to those who think SUV owners should pay an ADDITIONAL tax because they own one. This is merely making some aware of their own hypocrisy and false preaching, using the 'Tax them too' statement as a catalyst.

[Lost-in-FL]

25. There's more to that than simple gas math

Engineering.

SUV's are heavier on the roads, parking spaces are now bigger, safety issues such as regular cars not able to sustain the impact of an SUV for being higher, etc. In a collision, the one who pay more on medical bills would be IMO the one with the regular automobile and not the SUV owner. We can either tax or make better SUV's but something must be done IMO.

People drove cars for many years before SUV's went in the market and now SUV owners act like it would be a tragedy if they couldn't own one. I think that it is ridiculous. Whatever happened to station wagons?

[susanna]

56. RE: Whatever happened to station wagons?

They were stuck on a truck chassis, raised two feet and sold as SUVs. That's what happened.

I always tell my SUV-driving friends they're just driving a tall station wagon. Pisses 'em off something awful, I tell ya. :-)

[Leopolds Ghost]

125. Station wagons were banned by CAFE standards. GM, Ford et al took

Truck chassis and glued the station wagon floor plan to it, but SUVs are basically trucks whose middle class popularity stems from:

1. "Late adopters" who still buy into the 90s mindset that SUVs are upscale, because that's who they were originally marketed to;

2. The illegality of station wagons unless they are designed to look and perform like SUVs. (the original station wagon, the Chevy Suburban, was in effect the worlds first SUV as well).

For those who are wondering, the Federal Government has f*ked up mass transit in the exact same way. An entire transit system in Raleigh/Duram/Research Triangle/Cary/Chapel Hill was recently cancelled due to FRA safety requirements. Any transit trains traveling on or NEAR a mainline freight railroad must be built to withstand collision from a locomotive, and are thus immense, heavy gas (or electricity) guzzlers.

That's why so-called "light" rail is typically heavy, cumbersome, and expensive to build in this country; 80% of what's built in Europe and Asia (cars or transit vehicles, or for that matter pedestrian-friendly mixed-use subdivision zoning) is ILLEGAL in this country and would be banned and torn out if we exported our laws to Europe and Japan (as China is now doing.)

Regarding the illegality of pedestrian-friendly suburbs like those that used to exist outside cities until the 1950s, the simple fact is that mixed-use is illegal in America today, including the "enlightened, progressive" urban centers. That's why funky old neighborhoods get ripped out and abandoned to make way for high-rises -- insurance, banks and state will not allow development or infrastructure imprements unless consolidation of property takes place to allow for megastructures that can pay for brand-new structured parking. Hence the need for eminent domain -- and the unattractiveness of walking even 5 blocks around these megastructures in the "vibrant new town centers" that are being built with their mid-block garages and 8-lane "pedestrian friendly" streets with bike trails on both sides and mandated 1000 feet from the nearest single family residence or corner store.

[JuniperLea]

67. What about the additional wear and tear on roads?

What about the additional tire waste space? We have only so much gas. Why should one person be allowed to use more than necessary?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

78. Exactly. Why Should You Use More Than Necessary Because You Chose To

work further away? LOL

See how that logic applies to you as well?

[JuniperLea]

82. So, I should "choose" to live among the homeless of downtown

So I can have the privilege of working there? Or, should I work for far less pay 10 miles from home and not be able to afford anything more than a fourth floor walk-up in the ghetto surrounding downtown? Either way, I'd have to commute.

Los Angeles is a different beast. There are no jobs within the suburbs of Los Angeles that would pay enough to allow you to live within the suburbs of Los Angeles.

I made a sacrifice. I got rid of the SUV I loved because I knew it was better for me economically and better for me, you and the rest of society if I drove a car that used less of a resource that is limited and polluted less as well. When I want to take a trip, I rent an SUV. I'm not wasting a non-renewable resource. I'm using the minimum. You are wasting a resource. You can make the choice.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Leopolds Ghost]

126. So living in the suburbs is a "sacrifice" because you "chose"

to work -- but not live anywhere near -- horrible, "ghetto" downtown LA? How progressive.

Downtowns have made a comeback in most places other than Detroit and LA since the 1960s, you know. It's not my fault that developers have exploited this. YOu could not in all likelyhood afford to live in a comparable home or flat in downtown LA. The progressive thing to do is choose NOT to live in downtown because you don't want to FURTHER displace and generally screw up the lives of the poor like Los Angeles and most urban city governments have been doing for the past 50 years in the name of making the downtown area only affordable to the rich. If LA hasn't reached that point yet and people refer to downtown LA as a sinkhole that they "sacrifice" just driving thru at night, well... with a time machine I could go back to 1976 and encounter people like that in other parts of the country besides LA and Detroit.

[Stardust]

134. LA is definitely becoming yupscale. Lofts abound. Don't know where

they're gonna shove the pesky 80K+ homeless ones to.

[JuniperLea]

137. It's really so strange

Million dollar loft buildings two blocks from homeless shelters. The homeless vets who walk the streets on the west side (near Beverly Hills and the Vets hospital) are shipped downtown now too. And if a homeless person ends up in a hospital, they are dropped on the streets upon release.

I routinely see homeless and drug addled begging outside of the new Wolfgang Puck fast food joint. The dichotomy is getting unnerving.

[Stardust]

145. We must work in the same vicinity. The Puck place is right across

the street from where I work (CB&T Bldg.) Every day I have to harden my heart just to make it down the street. I help out when I can, but it's never enough to assuage my guilt. I suspect more steps are not done to alleviate the homeless problem so that we are constantly reminded how tenuous our lives are. Toe the line, don't rebel too conspicuously, keep your nose to the grindstone, and don't ever question the powers that be. And then there's the fact that the current administration is the greediest bunch of humans ever. Thanks for letting me rant.

[JuniperLea]

147. You're right, methinks

It certainly shines a light on the thin veil that holds society together.

I'm in the AT&T building, soon to be moving across the street to the AON building.

What a sight. Perfectly coiffed, utterly perfect lady in a Chanel suit and Via Spiga heels opens the door to WPucks... and there's a homeless man leaning against the building. I hope he gets some good food.

We sometimes entertain clients at the California Club on Figueroa. That short walk can be depressing. Leftovers from business breakfasts and lunches don't go to waste. All I have to do is bring them downstairs. I have to be careful. The building management doesn't like it when we "encourage" people to hang out there.

:eyes:

Do you ever hear the homeless trumpet player?

[JuniperLea]

136. I didn't make the ghetto

And I did nothing to encourage the slippery slope that caused homelessness and I don't buy or sell the drugs down there either. I'm just saying it's not safe. The slum homes smell of piss and you take your life into your hands living there. No, I will not bring my family into that. So fucking shoot me. It's not like I'm driving an SUV just because I want to and you can't stop me. Neener neener. :eyes: The loft homes down there are selling in the millions. I don't support the gentrification either.

Where do you suppose the suburbanites work if there is no work in the suburbs that will support an income that would enable you to live in the suburbs?

[mike_c]

14. I think this is a good idea, and it has already been implemented....

Gasoline is already taxed. The more gas you buy, the more tax you pay. The same is true for drivers of vehicles with poor economy-- they pay more tax than people who drive fuel efficient vehicles. People who drive fuel efficient vehicles and limit their driving pay the least gasoline tax. I think that is completely fair and fitting.

Unfortunately, the status quo does little to encourage conservation-- this is rather self evident simply because we are having this discussion. Surely you agree that conserving fuel is a good thing? So how would you suggest encouraging automobile owners to conserve fuel other than by encouraging them to either drive less or to maximize fuel efficiency?

[RB TexLa]

15. Don't give them ideas, I'm sure I'd be at the top of the list

I drive a SUV that gets about 9 mpg in the city and work outside sales, I've had several 500+ mile weeks lately.

[MADem]

17. Nose lifting is an unproductive exercise

So is tut tutting, and lip curling.

A lot of folks drive SUVs because they bought the arguments--you'll be safer, protect your kids, never mind those rollovers. Some drive them to be assholes who are higher than everyone else and run everyone off the road. Some drive them because they are fat or large, and can't fit into a smaller vehicle. Still others buy them because they could get the thing for a thousand bucks when gas went sky-high, and they desperately needed a car and couldn't afford one of the gas sippers.

And some just like them.

The process of educating people to be sensible about fuel consumption, plan trips, and seek out alternatives is not aided by shitting on those who don't have the cash or the credit rating to trade in their old SUV for an expensive hybrid.

I will only make exceptions for assholes who bought HUMMERS when gas hit three bucks. A little disdain in that direction I find acceptable...!

[yurbud]

18. you are comparing apples and oranges--the real test is different cars for

the same commute.

So even if you are just putzing around town in your SUV, you are using more gas than you would if you had a smaller car.

Incidentally, how often do you take that SUV off road? Or fill it up with people or lumber or something?

Or do you use it precisely the way a petite suburban soccer mom would, to carry you and your latte to your office job?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. No, It Is Apples To Apples.

Spin it however you want. At the end of the day, what it really comes down to is how much fuel is somebody burning into our atmosphere and how much resources are they going through? That's it, period.

If at the end of the week I burned 5 gallons, but you burned 8 gallons, then I did better for the environment that week then you did. Really is quite that simple.

But if you want to blindly follow your logic, then I also have every right to turn it around on you by saying the real difference is different commutes with the same car. That because you drive a longer commute and chose to work farther away from home you are using more fuel then if you had the same car and worked closer to home. See? The logic applies to you as well.

Apples to apples.

[yurbud]

39. that's just stupid. but I agree it's better to live closer to work

unfortunately, a lot of us change jobs more often than we move, and unless you want to work at 7-11 chances are low that your new job will be right around the block.

If it makes you feel good about carrying around your golf bag in your Excursion though, no one can stop you.

[InkAddict]

52. It's really hard to drive to India for an IT gig!

[yurbud]

60. You need the new watertight trans-oceanic Expedition.

or buy a house there for $7.

[Leopolds Ghost]

128. They actually came out with a watertight SUV / recreation boat

I don't know if it's seaworthy, though.

[onenote]

93. nope. not really -- more like bananas to batteries

If you have to fill your tank with 20 gallons every 320 miles (20 gal x 16 mpg) and I can travel 600 miles between fill ups, its you who are using more fuel. Focusing only on commuting is completely artificial. What if the person with the short commute has a weekend rental at the shore that they drive to every weekend, while the person with the short commute stays home on weekends and doesn't drive very much. Commuting is only one aspect of a person's gas usage.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

97. Well Commuting Makes Up Most Of Typical People's Driving.

But I acknowledge your point as well. I mean in total. I said I don't drive much outside of my commute, so if just their commute alone was 18 miles or more I have them beat. But taking additional driving into account I have them beat even more.

For example, I put maybe 8000 miles on my car a year if I'm lucky. I'd wager many of the nose lifters drive 12000 to 20000 as per average. If that's the case, I'm better than they are in this sense, in spite of me driving an SUV. That's a fact.

[onenote]

102. and I guess my wife is "better" than you

She currently has a Prius, took public transportation when she lived within five miles of her job, now doesn't commute at all, and has averaged less than 3000 miles a year on her cars for the 12 years we'be been together. DOes that make her "twice as good" as you? Or does it just point out the silliness of this entire thread.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

104. In The Fuel Consumption Sense? Absolutely. It's Basic Math.

But like I've said elsewhere, I really don't care anyway. It's just a point that if your wife drove a prius, but drove 30 miles each way to work, I'd be using less fuel than she and she'd have no right to whatsoever to falsely preach righteously at me, if she was the type that would've.

It's really rather basic. Ya get what I'm sayin?

Way I see it, to each their own and God bless us all.

[onenote]

105. i understand your point, but

also look at it from my wife's perspective. When she occasionally has to go into town for a meeting (rather than working from home), its a less than ten mile drive. If she sees an SUV in traffic next to her there are three possibilities: that person is travelling farther than she is and thus is using more gas than she is, that person is travelling the same distance she is and is using more gas, or that person is travelling less distance than she is and probably is still using more gas unless they live so close (less than 3 miles from town) that its hard to understand why they aren't using public transportation, which is available.

So in her case, I think her attitude towards SUV drivers that she encounters (which is not particularly favorable) makes sense.

[JuniperLea]

107. The FACT is that you choose to waste

Because you can and you feel you can justify it... that's the fact. The fact is, regardless of your commute or any extra driving, you choose to use more gas than necessary. Sorry... truth outweighs justification of choice.

[Leopolds Ghost]

129. What surprises me is all the talk about whose "drive into town"

is better for the environment.

Nobody should "lift their noses" because they take the train into the city. It should be the default thing to do, as it is in most other civilized countries. In smaller cities, we should have informal ridesharing using HOV-3 lanes, like they do in DC and San Fancisco.

[Leopolds Ghost]

127. Real workingmen drive pickups... only foremen drive SUVs :-)

And that is generally a macho, materialist, status symbol thing. You can't pack an SUV with lumber. I mean, I've packed a SAAB with lumber when working on a minor construction project, it's only a bit more difficult.

[Lars39]

19. Hindsight's 20-20.

We should have been designing communities in which people can live and work instead of the endless urban sprawl we have now.
Commuter trains, reliable bus routes should have been high on the list also.
Tax breaks and outright grants to help people that are willing to move closer in to their commute would be a start.

[hedgehog]

29. We need a genius to get us out of this mess we made.

Years ago Robert Caro wrote a book about Robert Moses in which he blamed Moses for many of our problems today. Moses was a master developer who wrapped NYC with all kinds of bridges and roads to move traffic in and out of the city. Other cities copied this template and are still doing so. The only problem; it never occurred to Moses that the average person would be driving a car. He envisioned these as roads for the elite and had no idea they would become so congested so quickly. I wouldn't put all the blame on Moses but I would take him as a symbol of a kind of thinking we need to replace.

How can anyone travel around a suburb, rural area or even most cities without a private car? That's the problem we should be working on. If nothing else, what happens when all those babyboomers get too old to drive?

[InkAddict]

53. Don't worry

King George has plans to make the rest of you Handi-Van volunteer drivers! Plus, you'll have a career path, promotion to hearse drivers at minimum wage. So there!

[yurbud]

21. SUV hypothesis: modern jobs don't require men so SUV makes us feel manly

I grant an exemption to farmers, hunters, construction workers, and anyone who actually NEEDS an SUV. (If you just have some kids to haul around, you NEED a minivan).

Face it. A ten year old girl could handle most jobs physically. Masculinity is superfluous. So a guy needs the SUV to make him feel like a man because it looks like he is driving off to some manly activity.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

49. Actually, I think that's more those big pickups

But you're right otherwise. I see so many of those extended cab macho monstrosities on the freeways. Most of them are spotless and have shiny rims. These dudes are clearly not hauling stuff or using them for work.

[skids]

22. No, tax companies with no telework plans/arrangements.

...and companies that insist on moving their offices to areas that their workers cannot find nearby housing suitable to their needs, like smack in the middle of a city with an apartment shortage and already congested commuter highways from overbuilt suburbs.

[Momgonepostal]

74. While I don't entirely agree, I think you've hit on something

The longest commute my husband every had was working full time for a company in an industrial part of the SF Bay Area. He made somewhere in the low $30K range. Housing that we could afford nearby was NOT to be found. So he had a long commute.

Current city planning practices are such that land development is spread out, so we live far apart, and many big companies choose to locate in outlying industrial parks, where they is little or no housing, let alone affordable housing. Couple that with low wages, and of course workers are going to have long commutes.

I don't know that taxing the company is the answer, but taxing the worker certainly is not.

My husband just started a new job teaching HS in a town 25-30ish miles away. He'll be making a teacher's salary and working in a town where the average home price is in the $400K range. We will NOT be moving anytime soon.

[Leopolds Ghost]

130. Tax municipalities that don't HAVE (never mind provide) affordable housing

measured on a NATIONAL income scale, not local (which just precipitates location inflation when people say "$500,000 for a house IS affordable housing" and don't realize where all the sprawling working class housing -- frequently miserable hellholes just as bad as the "urban tenements" everyone is supposedly fleeing -- is being built BEYOND what they consider the "affordable housing area" where "affordable" has been redefined as anyone who makes less than $100,000 a year, household.)

[Critters2]

98. Better yet

tax companies that build large campuses on newly developed land, that requires the building of new roads, all of it contributing to suburban sprawl.

[Leopolds Ghost]

131. We offer tax BREAKS to such companies.

Hopewell, or Homestead, or some such b-f town in central Jersey recently built the "new Princeton corridor" near Trenton out in the middle of nowhere to be the home for essentially ALL of the Merrill Lynch employees displaced by 9-11. Even though a train station stops right outside the door (and was one of the features that allowed for the upzoning) the new "neotraditional, progressive urban design" office park will not allow Merrill Lynch employees to take the train onto campus, because they are afraid of terrorists getting there by train, so they will all have to move north of suburban Trenton what is now farm country.

[bluerum]

23. It would make more sense to tax based upon consumption.

[AngryAmish]

24. One solution to long commutes

We could just chain our workers to their desks or machines. Give them a bucket for waste and feed them gruel. No commute at all then.

[high density]

26. Commutes depend on the location, the job, your family, etc...

I live 1/2 mile from my place of work, but I don't expect everybody to do that. For one thing people in metro areas may not be able to afford or desire living in the city. People with children may opt for a longer commute when they get a new job instead of relocating the kids to a new school.

As others have mentioned, your tax is already in place and it's called the gas tax and tolls. Probably what we need are improved public transportation systems before we start taxing people even more on their commutes to work.

[Leopolds Ghost]

132. The vast majority of Americans actively avoid living in the city

No matter how large it is.

The "liberal" urban planners in the cities themselves (cite -- housing policies in SF, LA and New Jersey; a recent expose of the DC government's housing plan in the local alternative weekly) promote urban living exclusively for the childless rich -- and advocate closing down public schools and displacing the remaining families with children (mostly poor) to the suburbs "for their own good" because in America, even urbanites refuse to raise children in the city.

That's one of the reasons there has not been more outcry over Katrina. One Washington Post reporter went so far as to claim that moving to Fayetteville Arkansas was the best thing that ever happened to a Katrina survivor because he could send his remaining child to a better school in a mostly-white, suburban neighborhood unlike anything in the dirty city -- the rest of his family died...! The artcile literally said something about "blessing in disguise". That is how much Americans hate the city. Any place you cannot drive and park is not worth investing in, especially if there are lots of poor people or "ghetto people".

[genie_weenie]

27. why not give all money to the Local, State and Federal Government

And then petition them for the goods and services you wish to buy? The more expensive the product the more paperwork you need to fill out.

1 page for a Bo-Rics haircut
100 pages for a Salon akin to the Reality Show cut...

1 page for a Ford Focus
100 pages for a Ford Mustang
1 million pages for a H3

[InkAddict]

54. To whom do I apply to process

the claim forms for those with so little time or energy because they have to go manage things, play golf, take a vacations, clear brush, mountain bike, test new Segway products, take the kids to soccer, mow the grass, go vote!

[hlthe2b]

28. In many communities, all but the very rich MUST live far away...

from their jobs because housing is not available. Not just ski resorts, either. In many areas of the country, the middle class, much less the poor, have been so shut out of the housing market that they can not live near where the jobs are. I don't know too many who an afford $1500-2000 /month for rentals, either.

It used to be that people chose the "burbs" to have the "American Dream." Now, there may be no choice but to live in "bedroom communities." Our anger should be at the idiots who, for years, stuck their heads in the sand regarding alternative fuels--and even more so, to the idiot regressive politicians who chose not to think ahead to the need for high speed rail and other infrastructure that might have saved us now. Had we build such systems decades ago, it would have been difficult to finance, but not impossible. Now, the costs are astronomical, but we may not have a choice but to try to do so.

[OnionPatch]

94. Yup, that's our case

There's no way we could afford more than a decrepid cracker box in the bad side of the town where we work. We commute around 17 miles one-way each day so we can live in a safe neighborhood in a decent house, grow a garden and have a yard for our daughter to play in. I'm really sorry about the gas I have to use but I don't know what other answer there is for me and my family. I'd love to drive a low mileage auto and plan to once I can afford car payments again. I'm praying that there will actually be an AFFORDABLE efficient car on the market by then. (Note: $25,000+ base price is NOT what I consider affordable.)

[Leopolds Ghost]

133. There should not BE a "bad side of town". The reason there is

Is because of redlining on the basis of income and subdivision age, but mainly, these days, subdivision age. If a subdivision is NOT an auto-oriented bedroom community, it is illegal. You heard me, illegal. You could choose to invest there, but the slumlords have let the buildings run down because they plan to clear EVERYTHING out to make way for "new urbanist" pod-complexes of garage townhomes, garage town center shopping centers with Bed Bath and Beyond as far as the eye can see. You have no choice because the selection is so limited -- the few "urban neighborhoods" that are protected from auto-mization (usually by historic ordinance) are so few and far between that they are tremendously expensive. Even in the most desirbale, dense urban neighborhoods, the childless rich refuse to improve the schools and refuse to allow sky-rises to be built without at least 1.5-to-1 parking and low FARs (meaning state-mandated "open space" used for unsightly median strips and auto access.) genuine livable cities like you see in Europe or even Canada or Mexico! are illegal in the USA. Like any highly regulated commoditry, they are tremendously expensive.

Few people understand that the plight of the "ghetto poor" in America has nothing to do with the "welfare state" and everything to do with the "corporate welfare state". They use poor people to "blockbust" neighborhoods they are intent on redeveloping.

Invariably these neighborhoods are "obsolete" (read: too urban). Invariably when what little housing for the poor or homeless shelters are provided, it is in flex space in the very areas the developer intends to tear down in 20 years time -- these things are planned far in advance. One of the things I heard in a recent lecture on Real Estate development is that 80% new housing and development is for the rich and NONE of it for the genuinely poor and develpers expect that trend to continue. The poor belong in whatever neighborhood, whatever buildings are "obsolete" and "fully depreciated". As for public schoos in cities, they might as well not exist, because the "DLC power structure" that is based in urban areas has essentially said the city is only for the childless rich and the very poor, whose kids they no longer want to educate.

[hedgehog]

30. They are already paying an incredible time tax.

Some people are spending almost as much time driving to and from work as they are at work.

[1620rock]

32. Hmm, well yes and while you are at it, why not tax the hell out....

...of large famlies...after all, they are consuming more than their share of everything.

[valerief]

31. People who send their kids on school busses should get taxed more.

If commuters didn't have to spend that extra half-hour to forty-five minutes sitting in traffic caused by school busses, then less fuel would be used.

[salin]

34. hey I've been looking for the right place to post this

... in the past month the fuel consumption for my Prius has shot WAY up - I used only 8 gallons of gas to drive the past 600 miles. :D

Note that I only gloat, when I am being called a "nose-lifter" due to the car that I drive.

This whole hater thing (per the cars folks drive) - gets real old. Except when directed towards mocking Hummer2 drivers ;-)

[Mountainman]

35. I try to make the same point you are making in every SUV thread I see

and the reply is that no one needs to drive a SUV alone. It really doesn't matter what the truth is to these folks. They have the holier than thou act down to a science. It is almost as if there is a dogma all of us has to follow to be a real Dem. Fuck that, this is supposed to be a free country and not a DU fascist state.

[Critters2]

99. Why would one need to drive an SUV alone? nt

[OnionPatch]

122. Well, maybe because

no one nearby works in the same place during the same hours as the SUV driver? :shrug:

That would be my situation.

[lectrobyte]

109. If the OP only drives it 9 miles back and forth to work, then why have

an SUV? I really don't get the point of a "long commute" tax. Seems like the gasoline taxes would work just as well. I really don't mind folks having SUVs, it's a free country, but I can't resist messing with them when they start yet another "rationalizing my SUV" thread because they feel picked on or guilty or whatever. I'm looking forward for when I get a 3 mile commute, I'm gonna trade my economy sedan and my house in on one of these:



Muy Macho!

[Deja Q]

37. Who does the zoning? They help decide which area is for what purpose.

[SammyWinstonJack]

38. !

:applause: :applause: During those bash chevy tahoe ads that DU was all giddy over, I posted that I had one which my husband and I shared, probably driving no more than 50 miles a week. Some DUer wanted to know why I needed to have such an expensive gas hog for so little miles driven. Guess he/she was insinuating the gas hog tahoe was in some way compensating for a lack of something. :eyes: Can't win! Thanks for this thread.

[IChing]

41. In order to move our automobile society that is more energy,

environmentally and socially responsible and only if you believe that citizen should be,
then one must ask the question should we give subsidies to gas guzzlers in the form of license plate fees which are a form of tax.

The way to do this is to give incentives to people that it is to their economic advantage to change.
Right now, the tax on licenses is tied to the amount, depending on the state, on what the resale value of the car is.

Now, if the value of the SUV is going down, the yearly license fee goes down and there is no incentive to purchase a vehicle which is more responsible unless gas goes through the roof.

The extra duty placed on a vehicle could pay for program incentives that the consumer might buy into from automobile manufacturers or fuel money into good public transportation, clean energy or other ways. The use of vehicle for rural situations and work would have to be taken into account on assessment.
The SUV is given a break that is way beyond it's original meaning that have prevented it from reasonable cafe standards for way too long.
Transportation for a family of 6 can very well be accommodated in mini-vans that are roomy and energy efficient.


Peugeot has upgraded the entry-level diesel engine in its seven-seater 807 minivan for the European market with a more powerful 2.0-liter 120 hp (90 kW) turbo-diesel power unit that delivers 305 Nm of torque. Coupled with a six-speed manual transmissions, the 807 offers improved acceleration from 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) in 12.9 seconds and a top speed of 179 km/h (111 mph).
Euro-4 compliant, the new engine achieves a combined drive cycle fuel consumption of 6.9 l/100km (34 mpg US) and 5.8 l/100km (40.5 mpg US) highway, with 182 g/km of CO2 emission link: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/05/peugeot_upgrade.html

I need not tell you about global warming, CO2 emissions, energy dependence, or the problems we face that need solutions.

[sweetheart]

42. twenty dollars a gallon

pay the cost, don't care what you drive.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. Are You An Exxon CEO Or Something?

Or do you just enjoy seeing people suffer...

[IChing]

57. How much will it be for you when it is too much?

Do not look at solutions, only live in the past.

How would you solve it or is it a problem?
What do you think about my thought on this thread?

[sweetheart]

62. ending the culture of subsidies

IF the price of gas at the pump included all the subsidies to the petroleum
and automobile industries, including the wars, the price could very well be near
20 per gallon. Then, people would find alternative forms of fuel, solar might
become interesting, natural gas, compressed air and pedal power, you name it.

Heck, your 9 mile commute could easily be done on bycicle... and if it hurt
enough, we might both think about a way to not use the car for alternatives.

We cannot sort this problem out by legislation. People are ultimately economic
creatures who will behave expectations based on price comparison and open
price discovery... and as long as 1 price is artificially low, the alternatives
will never be invested in.

[pitohui]

44. let's tax people for being poor but still working?

i'm glad you can afford to live in a ritzy apt in manhattan or boston, but most people don't earn such fabulous incomes

people have long commutes because they can't have both a house and a job any closer -- only the rich can afford to live in many urban areas near to the work

some suggestions are just heartless and cruel from the get-go, people, please think before you post

if you have an idea and it sounds like it might be a stupid idea, sleep on it first before you post

why alienate people w. crap like this?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

45. Obviously You Missed The Point. It Also Seems Evident You Didn't Even

read the whole OP.

This wasn't about seriously taxing these people. It was a sarcastic take to show them their hypocrisy and false righteousness they spew towards those with SUV's. I was not in any way seroiusly considering taxing these people. The whole point was to call out their stupidity and show that some of those that are so quick to blast SUV owners as the anti-christ, are in fact using more resources than they are.

[IChing]

58. The obvious OPERATION-MIND-CRIME is that you do nothing

or provide solutions to the problems that face this nation and this planet.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. Some of the "can't afford a house" rhetoric is genuine, especially in

the more expensive parts of the country, but in some cases, "can't afford a house" really means "can't afford the kind of house we think we're entitled to" or "can't afford a house in the kind of neighborhood we think we're entitled to."

In other cases, people haven't balanced the costs of owning a house and driving. Each car that you can get rid of automatically gives you thousands of dollars of extra disposable income, tax-free. In some cases, it might be more economical (and less wear and tear on the worker) to buy a more expensive house closer in, sell one of the cars, bike or bus to work, and have more time to spend at home.

Those far-flung Los Angeles suburbs where people have two-hour commutes each way strike me as being some sort of earthly version of hell. What is so great about owning a house if you have to spend 1/6 of every 24 hours on the road? When do you get to see your family? When do you get to enjoy the Sacred American Dream House? When do you get to just live? Even the suburbanites in my extended family lead what look to me like horrible lives: commute, work, commute, hurriedlly tend to kids and housework, fall exhausted into bed. Start over the next day, Devote weekends to the chores you can't do during the week. Ugggh!

This stressful suburban lifestyle is the result of the corporate brainwashing that says that every red-blooded American needs to buy a house, no matter what, and the farther away from the city, the better.

(There was an article in Harper's in April or May addressing the housing bubble, and arguing pretty persuasively that no, it's not a good idea for everyone to buy a house.)

[MadHound]

47. Sure, go ahead, try and tax me

I admit, my round trip commute is thirty four miles. However this is what I do it with:


A 2005 Bajaj, cruises at 55-60mph, and it gets 100 mpg

Funny isn't it, my commute is almost twice as long as yours, but my gas usage is three times less. Oh, and so is my emissions too.

Now as far as why I'm living in the country, well gee, a large part of it has to do with my desire to lessen my footprint on the earth. I grow a great majority of my own food, and here in a few years will be producing enough to take to the farmers' market. Said food will be going in one of these vehicles:


A Bajaj three wheel car, street legal in the US. Cruises at 40mph, gets 80mph, hauls over half a ton of produce. I imagine that I will retrofit it with a solar powered chilling unit to keep the produce fresh.

I'm living on twenty acres, about half of which is wooded. This fall I'm putting in a woodstove for heating. One with a catalytic converter in order to cut my out the flue emissions by ninety nine percent. In fact I'll be putting out less greenhouse gases than your average natural gas furnace.

And within five years I will have a three kilowatt wind turbine producing my electricity. Much easier on the enviroment than centralized power plants.

And next spring I start digging out my cistern, in order to store rainwater for irrigation use later in the summer.

So what's that you're doing again? Oh, yeah, using an SUV to schlup your ass back and forth to work.

Whatever friend. Thanks for continuing to be part of the problem.:eyes:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. I'm seeing more scooters and mopeds around town

I aim to own one some day. :-)

They seem like a sensible option for a single person.

[MadHound]

50. I highly recommend them

Mine has run like a champ. I've had it for a year, put 5400 miles and have had to do nothing other than regular maintenence. It has saved a ton of money, which I'm rolling over into a woodstove, and besides, it's a blast to ride.

I'm looking forward to getting my three wheeler produce truck. I'll paint it distinctively and between that and the novelty of such a vehicle, I'll be a rolling produce promo.

If you're getting a scooter, I truly do reccomend something like the Bajaj. Honda makes a similar four stroke scooter, but it is an automatic transmission, where as the Bajaj is a four speed manual. I can get off to a quick start from a dead stop at a light, while it takes automatics a bit of time:shrug: But either way, you're saving fuel and the air.

If you're interested, you can get more information here<http://www.bajajusa.com/>

[InkAddict]

51. Nah, just lay them off for moving so they'll have a shorter one n/t

[johnaries]

55. I work in the richest county in TN with the highest property taxes.

I have to commute a long distance. I have no choice.

I did have a choice whether to buy an SUV or an economy car. I picked the economy car.

[lisainmilo]

59. well, that really stops our oil dependance!!!

How about getting a government intact that has the brains to start production on autos that run efficiently and are not dependant on oil!!? And that are reasonablly priced for consumers.....?

[last_texas_dem]

61. I disagree for a couple reasons

For one, a tax on a commute is an indirect tax on people for going to work. For many, it *is* the primary aspect determining how much gas they use, but it is a necessary drive. No, I'm not saying it is always necessary that people live as far from their workplace as they do, but even if some do live further away from their workplace than it is necessary for them do, the commute to work is hardly joyriding. It would make more sense to tax people for "joyriding" and any "unnecessary" driving that they do, but I don't think that's territory many people really want to get into. Gas taxes already do this to a certain degree, and defining what sort of driving is "acceptable" and what isn't is something I can see getting under the skin of many.

For another, I think this sort of tax would be counter-productive, considering the long-term situations of many. Many who take jobs with long commutes are people who are in "transitional" phase of their life (yeah, I'm talking about myself and some friends here). They may live in a place with few work opportunities and have to take a job that can support them (even minimally so). It may not be a job they plan to do for life or even for an extended period of time. For example, I took my current job without the intention of being there beyond about ten months or so. It is the only job I've ever had with a long (50 mi. round trip) commute, but financial considerations and, again, the consideration that I wasn't likely to be at the job for even a year, which would have made purchasing housing closer by counter-productive. Placing further taxes on people with these considerations would definitely be counter-productive, as it would lessen the chance that they could move on from the particular situation by putting an even greater financial burden. If working were truly a luxury for most people, this tax might not seem so regressive, but for many it definitely would be.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

63. Just For The Record, I'm In Awe Of The Responses Here.

My God I didn't think the sarcasm was going to zing over everyone's heads so easily.

I am not in any way, shape or form seriously advocating a tax on commuters. I never once for a second would truly want that or condone that. The whole friggin point of this thread was to turn flawed logic back around on those committing it: The nose lifters who think they're better than others because they drive higher mpg vehicles, even though if they have longer commutes they're actually doing worse for the environment than I am!

Wasn't about tax. It was about hypocrisy. It was about showing through sarcasm that many of them have no logical standing to vehemently put down SUV owners when the owner of that SUV may be in fact using less resources than their smug asses are.

Do you get it now? I really hope so, because I've found myself irritated now at how many responses actually took the 'tax the commuters' concept seriously. Simple sarcasm. That's all it was.

[Bridget Burke]

64. Sarcasm requires wit & a light touch.

Please--tell us why you've chosen to drive such a behemoth?

(I commute via mass transit.)

[last_texas_dem]

72. Well...

The "sarcasm" of the original post isn't exactly obvious. There's one sentence at the end noting that the post is "semi-sarcastic" but that's it. Sure, I'll accept that the purpose of the original post was more about making a point than actually advocating for a proposal. I'm just not sure why you're surprised that the sarcasm of the original post went over the heads of so many.

I simply argued why I wouldn't favor the proposal if it were to be seriously proposed. I also don't think a tax that has to do with where people work and live (often not a choice) is the same as a tax that has to do with the vehicle they drive (generally a choice). However, as far as I can remember I've never advocated a tax on gas-guzzlers anyway.

[MadHound]

76. Oh we get the sarcasm alright

We also get the fact that you are trying to rationalize your continued use of a vehicle that wastes resources and pollutes the planet at a far higher rate than others, all to schlup your happy as back and forth to work. Sorry pal, but your ratinalization doesn't hold water.

Look, I live on a farm, I understand the need for having a work vehicle around. But when I don't need my truck, it stays parked and I ride my scooter for the daily commute. Yet here you are, with no good reason, using a fucking behemoth as your daily commuter. Why? Because it's safer? Sorry, but that little meme has been disproven time and again. Because you need such hauling capacity every day? You haven't made mention of it. Because of the simple fact that you like to drive your SUV around, all the while wasting gas and polluting the atmosphere? Well, judging from your posts here and elsewhere, that is the only conclusion that I can come to:shrug: And that friend is why your continued insistence on using that particular vehicle makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.

If we want to clean up this enviroment and stir this planet onto a better path it is going to take the work, and yes sacrifice of all of us. I'm doing my part and continue to do more. Time for you to step up to the plate and do your share. That's the real issue behind all of this.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

81. All I Know, Is That At The End Of The Day, I Use Less Fuel Than

most of the self righteous nose lifters. That's all it comes down do. As self righteous as they are, when it comes down to it I, not they, use less resources and have more of a right to lift my nose up at them. So how bout you spew your self righteous rants their way and convince them to work closer to home. Same damn difference ain't it? All it comes down to is total fuel consumption. As long as my fuel consumption is less than the person with their nose up in the air, then I have a right to drive whatever the fuck I want and they have zero standing on which to criticize. Period.

[MadHound]

118. You don't get a gott damn thing!

It isn't about who sticks whose nose up where ever, it is about *you* doing what you can, how you can, in whatever manner you can to use less of our declining resources, leave less of a footprint on this earth, and living a less polluting lifestyle so as to preserve this planet, because it is the only one we have both now and for future generations.

Comparing the amount of fuel you are using by driving your SUV eighteen miles back and forth as opposed to somebody driving a Prius twice as far still misses the fact that YOU CAN DO BETTER! Forget other people, look around at your life, your lifestyle, and ask yourself "What can I do to minimize my impact on our one and only planet?" For starters, stop driving the SUV! Do you need it for work? Do you regularly(as in once a month or more) haul heavy loads with it? If not, ditch it for something that gets better fuel mileage! If you're like me, and need a truck on a regular basis, let it sit in between hauling loads and buy something that gets great gas mileage for the regular commute(big hint, two wheels leave less of an impact on this world than four, even riding a Harley you'll eek out 50-60 mpg). If you're uncomfortable with two wheels, go for the highest mpg vehicle that you can afford. After all friend, this is your commuter car, not your star car, don't get your ego or image wrapped up in it. And if you've absolutely, positively got to drive some behemoth, at least make it one with a diesel engine, and run biodiesel in it. It is, after all, a renewable fuel, less polluting that both gas and dino diesel engines, and adds life to the engine.

But don't stop there friend. What do you heat with, light your house with, where do you get your food? If you've got the money to invest, and own your house, consider putting up thin film photovoltaic panels, and run your house on solar power. If you're like I am, and have some land, put up a windmill. Both these options will save you money in the long run, and oh, you'll be leaving a smaller footprint on our overstressed planet. And even if you're renting, you can grow a garden somewhere. Lots of excess fuel is burned, and more excess pollution is tossed out in the air because grocers truck you rubbery red tomatoes from Mexico in the dead of winter. Instead, buy your food from local suppliers, put your wallet to work to help the planet. Not only will the food taste better, and be better for you, but you'll also be helping out local farmers like myself(plug, plug). Oh, and in many cases you'll be paying less too.

And speaking of putting your wallet to work, let's look at your investment portfolio. What's your money in? Don't answer that, but if you've got holdings in traditional 401Ks, mutual funds or IRAs, you might want to make a change. Investigate what is known "white hat funds", those investments that not only pay attention to the bottom line, but also to being socially responsible too. Groups like Working Assets and various others screen various companies based on their pollution record, societal responsibility, etc. Oh, and one cool thing about this is that most such white hat investments make as good as money as normal investments in the bull market, and continue to produce well when the markets tank. Wow, social conscience and bang for your buck.

And right about now I can see your head spinning. Good God, the Hound's gone all out green on your ass, and is demanding that you change your whole damn lifestyle. Well, yep, that's about the extent of it friend, changing your whole damn lifestyle. But when it really comes right down to it, that's what we're all going to have to do to keep this ol' planet of ours going. And the thing of it is, making some changes isn't that hard. Hell, I dropped down $2800 for my scooter up above, and have already made $580.00 back on fuel savings alone. In less than five years, I will have a vehicle that will have paid for itself, long term vision, that's what that is, and something that is sorely lacking in this country. Stop worrying about what other people are or aren't doing, and you do your part, and maybe a bit extra. It isn't a matter of who's doing the most, it is a matter that we're all doing what we can. And interestingly enough, by engaging in some long term thinking, you'll realize some long term savings and long term profit. Now that's a concept, save the planet while making money doing so. Whoa!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

119. "still misses the fact that YOU CAN DO BETTER"

So can they.

I have never said I couldn't do better. I look forward to getting a vehicle with far better MPG next time I'm due for one.

But that wasn't much my point. I recognize that I could do better and know that the nose lifters have plenty of things they could do better as well. My only point was that we all could do better, but in the meantime don't come at me like your toilet paper is any less soiled after you wipe than mine is (not directed at you. I'm speaking generally).

That is my inpsiration for this thread. The concept that some of these people are so self righteous that they think they have the right demonize me for owning an SUV even when at the end of the day they use more fuel than I do, and are being completely ignorant to the reality that there are other factors than MPG alone. They have no idea what someone's commute is and to ignore that aspect of it is irresponsible and narrow minded. It is that hypocrisy and false preaching that I can't stand. I find it a simple fact: Yes, I can do better. Yes, so can they. Yes, as long as I use less resources than they do, they have no more right to look down on me than I on them, regardless of the improvements we each can make.

It is about productive critique with good intent to push for change: (i.e. I'm glad you have a short commute, but someday if you get a better car you could use even less!) vs. vitriolic demonizing via false hypocritical preaching from someone who actually uses more resources than I. There is a difference, ya know. And it is that difference that I rail against. I hate false prophets and hypocrites: Period.



On Edit: Oops, don't want to be impolite: Goodnight and Peace.

[U4ikLefty]

120. I'm sure you save gas by shopping at WalMart, eh OM???

:rofl:

[TheFriedPiper]

68. How about Tax based on vehicle weight?

That way, since those taxes are used to fix the roads, the people that tear them up the most pay the most.

Sound fair?

Yeah, it is.

[The2ndWheel]

69. Agreed

Which is why I keep saying that fuel efficiency won't solve much. The more gas you get for your buck, the further you will take that buck. When gas was "cheap", did less people drive shorter distances? No.

[wuushew]

70. You could downsize your Blazer to a similar year car

which would allow you save on gas, insurance and maintenance costs.

Unless you need to scale the great New Jersey mountain ranges your choice of vehicle is in some way influenced by factors other than the basic need for a reliable means of conveyance. Unfortunately such personal "freedoms" are ultimately externalized and paid for by the rest of society.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

83. Again, You Missed The Point.

If I use less fuel per year than the average fucking hybrid owner then they have absolutely no right to criticize me at all, since I'M acting more responsibly towards the environment than THEY are.

What about their personal freedoms of having chosen to work farther from where they live? Tsk Tsk, if only they were more responsible and worked closer to home, we'd save so much fuel a year. (and yes, I consider the last statement to be ridiculous, but no more so than the reverse cast upon us).

[JuniperLea]

110. Yes, they "fucking" do have the right

It's a waste. What gives you the right to waste fuel? Because you can and you want to?

It's not always a choice. A person has to work where the jobs are and live where they can afford housing.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

111. They Waste As Well.

Argue all night if you want, you have no leg to stand on. The fact is if I use less fuel a year than somebody else, they have no right whatsoever to criticize how much fuel I use. If they do, it is utter hypocrisy. That's the point. You don't agree with it, that's fine. But that doesn't change the reality that the point has been made.

Fact is, they do have choices. I'd wager that the majority of them absolutely could get a home closer to their work, they simply choose not to. Some may have to downgrade to a smaller home, sure. But that's still there choice not to. You'd be amazed how small a home a family could get by in if they chose to, and I'd also wager that most nose lifters could definitely downsize their home a bit and still survive just fine: But they choose not to. Some more could also use some form of public transportation, even if it takes them out of their way, but they choose not to. Some could carpool if they had to, though it may offer inconveniences, but they choose not to.

Fact is, the majority of the nose lifters with longer commutes than me do have choices, but they'd rather ignore them so they can falsely claim their asses are clean because they have a higher MPG vehicle. I'm here to call them out on their bullshit and say their preaching is false, and it is ME that uses less them THEM! BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA

And again, in all seriousness, I'm not against them. They can drive what they want, how they want where they want. It is not me that offers ill will. The point is that if they use more fuel than I do annually, they have lost any right they had to preach to me about it, since I am better in a fuel sense than they are: Regardless of their false righteousness.

[JuniperLea]

112. Well neener neener... they waste more... so there!

:eyes:

You want me to move to the ghetto so I can work in Downtown Los Angeles.

Who do you propose live in the suburbs of Los Angeles if there are no jobs in said suburbs to support the cost of housing there?

Your argument is flawed. Just because something sounds logical to you doesn't mean it's practical.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

113. "Who do you propose live in the suburbs of Los Angeles"

No.

I'm merely proposing that nose lifters who use more gas per year than I do should just quite simply shut the fuck up. :rofl:

That really is, in the end of it all, all I was saying to begin with LOL

[JuniperLea]

117. So, you don't care what the possible choices of others are or are not

You just want them to STFU?


And you need some sort of self-gratification here to live in that LA LA Land?

Whatever!


:rofl:

[Midlodemocrat]

142. Generally, people work where the job is. Not a choice a great deal

of the time and to say that it is a 'choice' is somewhat ignorant.

I work from home. My commute is upstairs to my office. My husband's office is in New Jersey. We don't want to move there because our house in NJ within a decent commute for him, (one hour) would be $800,000.

Not a lifestyle choice, a reality.

[Liberal Veteran]

71. I drive 17 miles to work each day.

There is public transport that would take me there, of course. The only problem with that is that the way our routes are, I'd be adding approximately 3.5 hours to my daily commute time. This is why I support a light rail system that is being proposed that actually goes to the area I work. Until then, I am sticking with a drive of some sort.

Now there are some people willing to car pool with me, unfortunately, due to seniority rules at work, the two people I could commute with that live near enough to make it feasible would be forced to change shifts to match mine, which being on the bottom of the totem pole isn't exactly what one would call a choice cut. Without the shift change, they would have stay an 2 hours later at work amusing themselves in the break room and I would have come to work 2 hours early and do the same.

Of course I suppose I could get a job closer to home, but quite honestly, it took me nearly 8 months of hunting just to find a job in my field and the benefit package which pays for HIV medications and doctor's visits as well the generous allotment of personal time bank hours and the fact that it's a union job and the fact that my shift essentially covers any hours one would expect to go job hunting or get interviewed sorta makes this a bit more difficult.

I'm certainly not happy about it, but that's reality and I certainly wouldn't want to be taxed even more than already am at the gas pump (which I might add, I voted to raise the gasoline taxes to help pay for our infrastructure and fought the attempt to repeal that tax when it was put on the ballot).

[bluestateguy]

73. The anti-automobile extremist wing of DU would like to do this

The OP may have been joking, but some on this board would love to live in a country where nobody drives, and everybody lives in a dirty one bedroom apartment and takes public transit everywhere they go.

[GumboYaYa]

75. Hell yes, we should tax gasoline in general to pay the real

environmental costs of all the cars out there. I wish gasoline would get to over $5.00 a gallon. Maybe then people would start to change their behaviour.

There are more ways to destroy the environment than driving an SUV, long commutes are definitely another. It's just that it is easy to identify SUV drivers as people who could care less about the environment, simply by the car they drive.

Of course two wrongs don't make a right; the answer for you and the long commute person is to modify your behaviour so that you stop destroying the planet for humans in the future.

[lectrobyte]

77. Sell that gas guzzler, get a Ford Escape Hybrid if you must have

an SUV, and save even more gas.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

84. No. I'm Fine With What I Drive.

Like I said, I use less fuel a year than most hybrid drivers. So if you tolerate their fuel consumption, than you have to tolerate mine without providing self righteous suggestion. Thanks.

[lectrobyte]

108. Self righteous? I only use that term to describe folks who brag

about how little they drive their SUVs.

[JuniperLea]

139. When I traded in my SUV in 2002, I breathed a sigh of relief

I was beginning to be embarrassed by the beast.

I can't for the life of me understand how a person cannot have enough self-respect and enough sensibility to understand that they are making a fool of themselves for driving those dinosaurs.

They don't have enough sense to be embarrassed, apparently.

:eyes:

[lectrobyte]

143. I can understand wanting one. After my car was rear ended by a

full size pick up, I wanted something bigger to drive around, so I went for an SUV myself. But after a while, I really hated what a pain in the ass it was to fit into a parking space, how it slopped around a corner, and the braking, or lack thereof. Anyway, what I'm getting at is, I understand folks wanting to drive an SUV, I've had one myself for a few years there. But I'd never come here and start a thread alleging that its better for the environment since I only drive it 9 miles a day.

[JuniperLea]

144. That's why I drove an SUV too

And I had three kids with multiple activities and a lot of equipment.

Alleging is the operative word. There's just not enough lipstick for that pig, imho.

[azmouse]

79. So what happens when someone changes jobs?

And needs to drive farther for that job? Happened to my husband. He found a better job but it's 33mi each way to work now. We don't want to move. Do you know what it costs to move an entire house full of stuff??? It's far cheaper for us to stay in our current home (which we love by the way) and to pay for the extra gas than it is to move closer to his place of employment.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

85. So Be It. Just As Long As You Don't Hypocritically Criticize Me For

owning an SUV, when I use less fuel than he, than that's just fine by me.

[TheFriedPiper]

89. I criticize your choice of vehicle, not because of gas mileage

but because the big slow thing ties up traffic when you have to almost stop to turn because it has too high of a center of gravity.

MOVE

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

90. You Obviously Have No Idea What You Are Talking About.

Don't know about what Blazer you're drivin, but the one I'm drivin takes corners pretty damn well.

You also obviously have never seen me drive. Tying up traffic is notttttttttt exactly the proper description.

[TheFriedPiper]

92. Then you are the exception and I take it back

but you still look VERY silly driving that thing on the road.

I will reserve the right to point and laugh at you.

[LSK]

80. let me see if I got this right...

In the era of rapidly increasing real estate prices and declining jobs, you want to tax people just because they were not lucky to find affordable housing located nextdoor to their work???

And another thing, this is not the 1st time that YOU STARTED A THREAD defending your SUV. Feeling a little guilty there?

:shrug:

ps: I drive a 94 S10 Blazer with half the commute of yours. I see some of your logic, but I am not going to attack those who care about fuel economy because I know I am somewhat guilty and I COULD drive a 30mpg car.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

87. No.

Again, I don't really want to tax them. I don't want to tax anybody.

It is making a point about the level of vitriol some cast towards SUV owners when those spewing it actually use more fuel a year than I fucking do.

It was my was of demonstrating that they are falsely self-righteous, and that MPG is not the only factor. Way I see it, as long as they use more fuel commuting per year than I do, they have no leg to stand on whatsoever in preaching to me about fuel consumption. That's all this argument was really about.

[LSK]

91. oh yes, The Some again

http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/003781.php

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

96. Nope.

Horrible Analogy.

My point really is quite straight forward and simple to understand. Even the most rabid of the nose lifters should be able to ascertain the basic math involved and reach the conlusion that I'm right, and do use less fuel than they do.

[LSK]

100. and for some of them theres nothing else they can do

They can quit their job and not use any gas, but starving is not an option for most people.

You however can still go buy a 30mpg car and use even less gas.

I could too, but I dont start threads attacking people out of guilt.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

103. They Can Move Closer To Work

I'm sure there's something they can find if they wanted, even if they had to reduce their living space.

Point is, I really don't want them to have to. I'm not the one casting misguided self righteous rage upon them. I'm just simply trying to make a point.

Frankly, it isn't my business where they live or what their commute is and I can honestly care less. My point is that as long as they use more gas a year than I do, they have zero right to preach to me no matter what car I drive. Now that has nothing to do with guilt, it has all to do with ignorant narrow minded hypocrisy.

[mccoyn]

86. More excuses, few answers.

That my friends, is why the human race is fucked. It ain't politcal or technological. We just won't control ourselves.

[yasmina27]

95. Not quite :)

Okay - so you get roughly less than a round-trip per gallon you burn. So do we. We have a 20 mile commute each way and average 40+ mpg in our Prius. So far I would say we're about even.

HOWEVER, the Prius is rated a PZEV - Partial Zero-Emission Vehicle

Definition: Partial Zero Emission Vehicle. A PZEV-rated vehicle is 90% cleaner than the average new car and also has near-zero evaporative emissions.

http://hybridcars.about.com/od/glossaryofhybridcarterm/g/pzev.htm

So while we're even on gas consumption (and neither one - or both - doing our part to reduce our oil dependence on the middle east), I would say that we are beating you on environmentally friendly driving :).

The only drivers I turn my nose up at are the Hummers. It's pretty much impossible to tell why someone would have big truck. U
nless I know otherwise, I assume it's necessary in some way for their profession. I'm not one to make a snap judgement unless/until I know the facts. And I have no tolerance for those persons who do make judgements.

I see no reason to own a Hummer. There are many other, more reasonable vehicles, that can be used for heav duty hauling. Besides which, the Hummers I see are always sparkling clean. IOW, they're nothing more than tax write-offs for the fuckers who are ripping off us common folks.

[DireStrike]

101. WOW, Jesus H Christ!

People should be required to take a course in sarcasm detection before they are allowed on the internet. This thread and the op's point have been thoroughly diluted by the responses that don't take that into account.

NOW. His point. YES! A long commute can be even worse than driving a gas guzzling vehicle. Do you know what this makes the humvee? The lesser of two evils. It is still bad.

Everyone with a long commute should make an effort to change the situation.
Everyone with an SUV should make an effort to use a more efficient car.

Which of those two changes is easier to make? The SUV owner simply has to buy a better car next time. Perhaps we could look at incentives to get them traded in and off the road, as opposed to the pure punishment road of taxing them (which would NEVER happen in America anyway.)


SUVs still waste gas. They are large and block views on the road, encouraging yet more people to get SUVs so they can see over the mass of SUVs. When parked on a corner, they can be a real challenge to see past. There are many reasons NOT to drive an SUV, and few reasons to drive one. What is yours?

[Lorax]

106. It's not just because of MPG

that people like me are nose turners. It's the fact that people who drive regular sized cars (gasp, gas sippers!) can't see around all of the bloated SUVs on the highway. I've missed exits because of it AND it's impossible for me to see what is in front of you, so I can't know if I can trust your breaking skills or your attention to the road. See, I was taught to be looking several cars ahead of me when I drive, so I can anticipate what's coming. But I can't do that when I'm dwarfed in a sea of SUVs.

It's also being unable to see when I'm trying to back out of a parking space in a lot where I'm sandwiched between a couple of clean and shiny yuppie buses.

Or the fact that the great majority of drivers I've seen driving them aren't particularly skilled drivers and don't have an awareness of just how big their vehicle is. I'm sorry, your testiment to testosterone is not so big that it doesn't fit in your own lane. So get off the phone and get out of my lane.

Unless you need your SUV for your livlihood, which few people do, then driving it around announces an arrogance and selfishness that the rest of us turn our nose up at. Gas usage is just one part of the equation.

Most of the time, the answers I get from SUV owners are "well then you should buy a bigger vehicle too, so you can see around us." Well then, if we all get bigger cars, then someone will have to be getting even bigger cars. When does it stop, when we are all driving RVs to get to the Stop-N-Go to pick up a newspaper?

The other justification I hate is, "we don't all fit in a regular car," or, "I can't fit the dog and the kids and the soccer equipment in the car". How on earth did we all used to fit in cars before Madison Avenue told us we "needed" SUVs? Maybe if we all drove a little less, we'd be a little smaller, and we'd fit in regular sized cars again.

You are justifying how little you drive that SUV. Are you saying you NEVER take a road trip? You never go on vacation? You never have to go shopping? You never, ever drive it around town to run your errands? So tell me, why exactly did you buy such a behemouth?

[lectrobyte]

138. They're probably not going to answer. I can't decide if the OP is

just trolling, or sincerely needs to rationalize their vehicle choice for some reason I can't grasp.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

146. First Of All, Don't Ever Imply I'm A Troll Ever Again. Thanks. Second,

The point is that some people here or outside of here think they have some right to be self righteous and preach to me while calling me the equivalent of the devil merely because I own an SUV. They will spew this narrow-minded falsely righteous garbage at many others on this site as well. This thread was to show a specific example of how they are being narrow minded by only looking at a limited criteria of consumption. It was to show flat out to these nose lifters that at the end of the day I use less than they do and technically are doing better for the environment than they are. You can argue with that as much as you want, but it is simple fact.

In the argument of fuel consumption, it doesn't matter what other factors are involved to arise at the per person usage. There could be one factor or ten. At the end of it all, it is the end result that matters. Simple math: Person x uses 10 gallons a week. Person y uses 15 gallons a week. I don't give a fuck what car person x has, how far person x works, how many vacations person y takes, it only matters that 10 < 15. The person on the left is doing better overall, in terms of fuel consumption, than the person on the right. Therefore, the person on the right would be exercising hypocrisy, foolishness and false righteousness if they chose to call the person on the left the devil, or similar terms. Argue if you must, but it is that damn straight forward in the realm of fuel consumption.

So no, this thread has not a goddamn thing to do with rationalizing anything. Frankly I find it to be none of anybody's damn business the reasons why I drive what I drive or my desire to buy something better. What this thread is about, is to display to the self righteous in plain terms that they shouldn't be so quick to get all uppity at someone merely because they own an SUV with bad MPG, when they might actually be the ones using more fuel than that which they criticize. This thread is about their misguided hate, not my need validate my choice.

[Lorax]

148. So...

if it's no one's business, then why even start the discussion? You can say it isn't an attempt at rationalization, but it sure sounds like it to a lot of us "nose lifters". Gosh how I love that phrase of yours. Nose lifters. I'd like to hear your rationalization for taking up more space in parking lots, or blocking everyone else's safe view? Do you have a rationalization for driving a heavier than necessary vehicle so that our roads get torn up quicker? This nose lifter would really like to know. Maybe us nose lifters might use the term "leg lifter" to describe SUV owners since they seem to enjoy pi$$ing on everyone else.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

149. Please Provide Irrefutable Evidence That Chevy Blazers Tear Up Roads

more quickly. I find it to be one of the most ridiculous aspects of the SUV arguments I have ever come across. If you wouldn't mind, please quantify for me in a factual manner, real data and all, the level of road damage my 2002 Chevy Blazer is doing. I'd be thrilled to see you do that.

Furthermore, I don't take up any more space in any parking lot. That is yet another of the silliest damn things I've ever heard in the context of this argument. I have never had any problem whatsoever fitting into any standard parking space that any other average vehicle can fit into.

Lastly, as far as the blocked view goes, I do whatever I can to go out of my way to make sure at intersections etc. that I leave room ahead of me for the person next to me to be able to see. I make a conscious effort to do that.

And P.S., It was none of your business. Why start the discussion? Cause the discussion wasn't about that. The discussion was illustrated way of showing that some of the self righteous nose lifters are preaching falsely, since they consume more than others they falsely preach towards. That is the discussion in a nutshell. You and others want to deflect from that simple fact but that is the simple reason of the OP.

Like I said, if you drive 15-18 miles each way to work, than I am likely consuming less fuel than you are and thus being better for the environment. Fact. Period. That is the point.

[lectrobyte]

150. Someone called you the devil? Got all self-righteous on you?

Well, an SUV is a wasteful vehicle, though, and fuel consumption is not their only drawback or social impact.

Hey, you started this thread, and what did you expect would happen? Still not sure why you started this thread: It seems very trollish, and reeled me in, I can't resist a thread about SUV owners who get all self righteous about percieved hypocrisy of economy car drivers.

I'm happy for you in your 9 mile commute, but the plain and simple fact is you could be driving a more fuel efficient vehicle. I'm still curious why an SUV, if that's all the driving you are doing with it? Look, I'm fine with folks driving SUVs. I had one myself, drove it for several years. Just don't try to pass it off as as some responsible choice because you only allegedly drive it 18 miles a day.

On the total gas used front, although my commute is significantly longer, I drive it less because of a carpool and working from home when possible. Could I live closer to work? Yes. But there are lots of factors relating to picking a house or apartment that I won't go into, the neighborhood, schools, house prices, location of spouse's job... Be that as it may, since my car gets more than triple the mileage of your SUV, still want to talk about taxing folks with a long commute? I'm pretty sure I used less gas than you did last month. Probably last year, too, even counting a 1500 mile vacation trip. I figure 150 gallons, plus or minus 5%, 8500 miles driven at 55MPG.

[ecstatic]

114. But-- There's a moral issue involved--wasting gas

Imagine the government setting up Katrina victims in hotel rooms for $500 per night for 2 days; while another agency houses Katrina victims for $50/night for 30 days. Yes, the private agency spent more to house the evacuees, but look how much efficient and useful their efforts were, compared to just housing someone for two days!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

115. Whoa. What A Horrible Analogy.

Seriously, no bitterness intended, just honestly a severely flawed analogy.

[ecstatic]

116. lol nt

[Irreverend IX]

121. Seems like you don't want to tell people...

Just why you choose to drive that SUV. You've been asked the question several times, with naught but stony silence in reply. And since I use only public transportation, you can feel free to start kissing the ground I walk on.

[JCMach1]

135. Flat tax libertarian idea that would be profoundly unfair

to the poor who have to commute to jobs because they CANNOT AFFORD to live in the area they work...

This is a REALLY bad idea

[Virginia Dare]

140. Tax breaks for those...

who work near their homes, those who use mass transit, and other environmentally friendly modes of transportation. Get rid of the tax breaks for parking your car, unless you are carpooling.