So those of us who want to be safer have to pay more money?

…or, In some people’s world, this is actually a viable proposal?

If the U.S. really wants to get serious about funding highway infrastructure, besides renewing the gas tax the most positive step we as a nation could take is to let the American public decide not only how much they wish to drive, but also give them an incentive to seriously consider what size of engine is really needed in the vehicle they drive.

Charge an annual fee ranging from $100 for any vehicle with an engine of 1.8 liters, scaled up to $1,500 for engines of 5.0 liters, payable annually with the license renewal.

So those of us who want to drive bigger vehicles to haul our families around should have to pay an extra $150 a month? Actually, for what I drive now, Michael Wimberley’s proposed fee would be even more, considering my Ford F-150 has a 5.4 liter engine.

Look. The laws of physics aren’t going to be denied. Smaller engines are only going to work in smaller vehicles, which are only going to be more vulnerable in accidents. A tax on engine size is blatantly unjust on several levels, not the least of which is the fact that such only makes bigger, safer vehicles available only to those who can afford it. And, again, such an idea only discounts the advances made with modern technology in improving gas mileage in all sorts of vehicles.

We haven’t even gotten to the effect on at least a couple of sectors of the economy, namely automotive sales and construction. If what I’m reading is right, the Ford F-Series and Chevy Silverado were the two best-selling vehicles overall in the United States last year; and the F-Series has been on top for at least the last several years. Not just for trucks, mind you, but ALL vehicles. Can you imagine what such a recurring tax would do to sales of those trucks and the bottom line of the businesses of the people who use them? It would crush them like a bug, that’s what it’d do.

And that’s why taxes like this must be vigorously opposed.


5 Responses to “So those of us who want to be safer have to pay more money?”

  1. Peter Says:

    Thought you had a Ranger. I’m jealous. I want an F-150

  2. mick Says:

    Larger engines are already thoroughly taxed by the gas tax. Adding an extra flat fee is excessive. Don’t worry, it won’t happen. This guy is just some random schmo writing to the editor.

  3. Bob S. Says:

    This is one that always gets me.
    When my kids were in school; we often picked up 2 or 3 other kids- from band practice, games, 2-a-days, etc.

    Every try to fit a trombone, a tuba, a trumpet and a cornet and 4 boys into a small sedan? Ain’t gonna happen. So my big ole SUV actually took 3 other cars off the road for a little bit.

    When my boys were in Scouting, we often went camping. My stuff, 2 son’s stuff, allotment of troop food, and most often 2 other Scouts and their stuff. Again….guess what would have happened if I didn’t own a SUV?

    More cars on the road.

    Guess logic isn’t a strong point for the ‘totalitarians trying to save the world crowd’.

  4. Sabra Morse Onstott Says:

    Silly boy, don’t you know you’re only allowed to have enough kids to replace yourself and your spouse?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: