After Model X, Tesla To Sell Cheaper Electric;...

Massachusetts wants SUV owners to pay more for the privilege

 
14 1,471 views March 9, 2009

hummer h2 black chrome motorauthority 001

More efficient models will be necessary in order to comply with America’s tough new fuel economy measures

More efficient models will be necessary in order to comply with America’s tough new fuel economy measures

Enlarge Photo
It's got a snazzy title, it's controversial, and it's already popular. No, it's not Britney Spears' new 'Circus' tour. It's a plan - called the 'Hummer Tax' - to increase the registration fee on SUVs, and it has the backing of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick.

Car dealers and SUV owners are already up in arms over the proposal, though exactly how much money the increase would be isn't yet clear. "It's a penalty for driving an SUV, which currently is not the popular choice. Or you're being penalized for a lifestyle choice, or maybe the fact that you have a large family and you need that size vehicle to put them in and it just doesn't seem fair," Norwood, MA Cadillac Hummer Saab Village dealer Tim Lerchenfeldt told Fox News.

The registration fee would also graduate payment based on fuel efficiency, offering an incentive to own a more fuel efficient vehicle.

But apparently the politicians in Massachusetts don't go to the last stop on this train of thought: older cars will be penalized too, since they are less efficient that new ones. And who owns older cars? Both older and younger people tend to, as do poorer people of all ages. That makes this a regressive tax on the basic means of livelihood for a lot of people.

If Massachusetts does move forward with the proposal, it will be the first state in the country with such a Hummer Tax.

Massachusetts isn't all out of good ideas yet, however. Another proposal to help raise funds to fix the state's troubled transportation infrastructure is a 19 cent hike in the gasoline tax to 60 cents per gallon. Of course, the same basic criticisms that apply to the registration fee problem apply to this one, but the same argument hasn't stopped mega-states such as California or New York from driving up the gas tax.

Still, Massachusetts is left facing a need for an additional $19 billion over the next 20 years, and it will have to find some way to fill that hole. Unfortunately, the solution almost always comes out of motorists' pockets.
2009 Hummer Black Chrome H2
Hummer H3T pickup

HI-RES GALLERY: hummer h2 black chrome motorauthority 001

HI-RES GALLERY: hummer h3t 01




Tags:
Posted in:
 
Contribute
Send us a tip Comment Contact the editor
Follow Us

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

  • Posting indicates you have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
Comments (14)

  1. ma_HECTOR avatar HECTOR Posted: 3/10/2009 3:35am PDT

    Every time I read something like this I get incensed but I really shouldn't be surprised anymore at the antics of politicians in these States mentioned (California, New York, Mass...). You get the kind of government you vote for.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  2. ma_mitzo avatar mitzo Posted: 3/10/2009 5:51am PDT

    This is only logical if it progressively vehicles based on weight and engine displacement. After all, the bigger the vehicle, the more wear and tear on infrastructure and so on. Good start, Massachusetts!
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  3. ma_JSH avatar JSH Posted: 3/10/2009 6:36am PDT

    I vote for progressive fees based on weight and fuel economy.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  4. ma_Chris avatar Chris Posted: 3/10/2009 7:11am PDT

    hector.. canada is worse for this kind of behaviour.. but in honesty.. if you have a problem with these kinds of rules, you need to have your head checked. its through policy that governments shape the country into what it is. its the reason why canada is different from the united states, while having nearly identical histories and demographics. we're two countries very similar yet so far apart.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  5. ma_gus avatar Gus Chyba Posted: 3/10/2009 7:27am PDT

    I'm not sure either way. While I agree people need to be encouraged away from vehicles they do not need, I own an Expedition that serves me and my extended family well. I tow my boat, I have my dogs, my kid, and her cousins and Aunts and Uncles, and they all pile in regularly.
    So, do I really want to pay more for it than I already do in fuel prices? I'm not sure.
    However, my single nieghbor who has a Tahoe and never uses it for anything that it's capable of, except for fitting 25 inch wheels, is a wasteful idiotic showoff.
    But in the end, I'm usually against increased government involvement...
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  6. ma_Mike avatar Mike Posted: 3/10/2009 10:03am PDT

    This is ridiculous. It's one thing to tax people that drive Hummers and Suburbans who don't need them, but some people need the capacity to haul large families, as well as luggage, groceries, etc. sometimes all at once, not to mention if you are into outdoor activities like boating, cycling, etc. The part that pisses me off is the taxing older cars. Like the article said, people who own older cars are generally senior citizens, young people just out of school, or impoverished people. What do all these constituents have in common? They all have low income. Why tax the poorest people the most? This country is becoming so backwards it sickens me.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  7. ma_mitzo avatar mitzo Posted: 3/10/2009 4:02pm PDT

    Mike, I guess if you're into outdoor activities and have a big family to schlep around with luggage and groceries, you'd be in the same boat as a similar person in another part of the world where the jumbo trucks we glide around in here are not available or are priced much higher. How do German, French, Japanese, Italian families ever cope, I wonder? Maybe they have more choice of smaller-on-the-outside, well-designed, lighter vehicles which can still do the job?!
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  8. ma_mdliver1 avatar mdliver1 Posted: 3/10/2009 5:28pm PDT

    In Japan, the road tax is mandated by Japanese law and rises based on a vehicle’s engine size. There is a substantial difference between them (~$1 = 100 Yen)

    - 500 yen for motorcycles and scooters below 125cc;
    - 1,000 yen for motorcycles above 125cc;
    - 3,000 yen for mini-cars
    - 19,000 yen for vehicles with under 4.5 liter engines
    - 22,000 yen for vehicles with a 4.5 engine or larger
    (up to 32,000 yen)

    This addresses the wear and tear issue fairly as heavier vehicles do more damage to the road. It is, ultimately, a choice - have a hobby with need for a larger vehicle, a large family, or just because, you need to pay for your choices. [As an owner of a 4x4 SUV in Japan, I made and happily pay for my choice.] This squarely puts the choice in the hands of the consumer with the government giving people choices instead of telling the car companies what to make.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  9. ma_gus avatar Gus Chyba Posted: 3/10/2009 7:38pm PDT

    Mitzo, as someone who is VERY familiar with the German and European systems, I'll tell you that it is extremely expensive to own anything other than a small vehicle, and something like an Explorer or God forbid an Expedition is outrageously so. Now, that basically means only the wealthy can afford to own a boat of any size, etc.
    It's an elitist thing, certainly. I'm sure the European rich prefer their lakes empty, and they don't have the room for the vehicles the way we do (and we certainly do, let's face it). So, if it weren't for the CO2 and the gasoline use, it would be fine if every last person in the US had an Expedition (except for places like NY and SF).
    Living in America, I like my cheap boat, my cheap truck, my open mountains to take a Jeep or ATV into. People who come here MARVEL at our opportunites, even for those who don't make 6 figures...
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  10. ma_Rice1 avatar Rice1 Posted: 3/10/2009 8:13pm PDT

    Excellent point Gus
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  11. ma_mitzo avatar mitzo Posted: 3/11/2009 5:30am PDT

    If we are not going to implement a sensible progressive taxation system on vehicles so we can protect the small minority of people who have large boats to haul to a lake, and if we call that fair and unelitist, then I guess we really are a world apart here in North America. Good grief!
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  12. ma_NaBUru38 avatar NaBUru38 Posted: 3/11/2009 7:54am PDT

    While I agree people need to be encouraged away from vehicles they do not need, I own an Expedition that serves me and my extended family well. I tow my boat, I have my dogs, my kid, and her cousins and Aunts and Uncles, and they all pile in regularly.

    I didn't know that people needed four-wheel drive, heavy-duty suspension and a good ground clearance to carry nine people, luggage and a dog. I thought that a minivan or a full-size van was enough. Some of them are really luxurious, you can't complain.

    some people need the capacity to haul large families, as well as luggage, groceries, etc. sometimes all at once, not to mention if you are into outdoor activities like boating, cycling, etc.

    Outdoor activities are no need. If someone likes them, then he/she must pay for them.

    people who own older cars are generally senior citizens, young people just out of school, or impoverished people. What do all these constituents have in common? They all have low income. Why tax the poorest people the most? This country is becoming so backwards it sickens me.

    That could be solved helping owners of old, inefficient cars to switch to newer, more efficient ones. Some European countries do that, for example. In contrast my Uruguayan governments increase the new car tax every time they can.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  13. sidraja avatar Siddarth Raja Posted: 3/12/2009 3:12am PDT

    Nubaru most vans can barely tow a trailer and would not be able to tow a boat.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with large SUVs. Most people drive cars with only 1 person inside them and could therefore drive more efficiently with a motorcycle. But you'll never see them being targeted like SUV owners are.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  14. ma_mitzo avatar mitzo Posted: 3/12/2009 6:40pm PDT

    I still don't get why the fact that a minority of North Americans migt once or twice a year be towing a boat trumps promoting conservation of resources and infrastructure and nurturing a car industry which can compete globally. SUVs and personal-use pickup trucks tend to be targetted because they are the most obvious examples of sheer needless aesthetically unappealing excess on our roads, and also the epitome of the type of thinking that gets our manufacturers in trouble. If taxes and registration etc. were progressive, based on weight and engine displacement you wouldn't need CAFE or carbon taxes, and people would have choice - in fact, lots more choice.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

Research New Cars

Go!


More from High Gear Media

 
 
MotorAuthority
  • Follow Us
  • Twiiter
  • Facebook
 
 
© 2011 MotorAuthority. All Rights Reserved. MotorAuthority is published by High Gear Media. Stock photography by Homestar, LLC. Send us feedback.
 

Use the form below to send us a tip, give us feedback, or just say hello.

(max 750 characters)