All laws which target a specific group will be immediately circumvented by redefining the group. People can afford and want SUVs, therefore, there will be SUVs. We need to rescind the laws that make SUVs desireable. SUVs are classifed as trucks, making them exempt from some pollution, mileage and safety regulations. We also reward the purchase of the largest SUVs with tax regulations that allow them to be written off in a single year. Simply classifying them as cars would eliminate much of their appeal. I suggest that the definition of a truck be changed to something like: a vehicle with no more than one row of seats, that can safely carry a payload of 1000 Kilos. Also, the gas tank size of all non-commercial vehicles could be limited to 11 gallons or the maximum purchase of gasoline could be limited to 10 gallons. During the Arab oil embargo, I got rid of my 6 mpg truck for a 30 mpg hatchback because I had to spend my day scavenging gas. I didn't care what gas cost, but my 50 gallon tank was useless when I could only buy 5 or 10 gallons at a time.

SUV's are taxed more! Gasoline is taxed by the gallon, SUV's get less MPG, therefore pay more tax. It is the freeloading, tree-hugging, hybrid-drivers that are wearing out the roads without paying their fair share ;-)

As any economist can tell you, government intervention only makes things worse. First, any extra tax collected will probably be used, to put in gold toilets in politicians offices. There are already large taxes on gasoline (almost half the cost of gas is tax alone), and that actually brings in a lot of money, and all of it legally has to go towards repairing roads and other ground transportation. Guess what, more than 95% of that money goes towards pork projects and into people's pockets, and you can bet a new SUV tax would do the same.

To make things worse, the tax would be useless after just a short time, because companies would just start classifying the vehicles as something else. There is no law saying you have to classify a vehicle as one thing or another (the exception being vehicles over certain weights, or with more than 2 axles, ect); you can build a truck and call it a car if you really wanted, it's just that the government gives certain benefits and disadvantages to each vehicle class.

SUVs per se shouldn't be taxed, but a higher gasoline tax -- offset dollar-for-dollar by reductions in payroll taxes -- might be a better solution.

The comment along the lines of "as any economist will tell you, government intervention always makes things worse" would raise the eyebrows of many economists.

When markets fail because of externalities, economists generally favor trying to internalize those externalities. It looks like a tax, but its purpose is to force consumers to pay something closer to the full price. The current gas taxes do not cover all those costs, so you're NOT actually paying full price for the resource.

In the case of autos, the externalities include the costs of pollution, congestion, roads & traffic engineering, accidents, and (some argue) distortions in foreign policy w/r our oil suppliers.

Better to tax gasoline consumption -- which has some undesirable offsets to the wonderful benefits of mobility -- than to tax payrolls. We WANT people to create more jobs, and we WANT more people to work those jobs, so it would be a good thing to reduce tax distortions in that market.

Before jumping to the conclusion that SUVs are a luxury item, consider that some people are very tall or very large and cannot buy most cars due to fit issues.

Case in point: My husband and I have been car shopping, with the intent to purchase a station wagon. My husband is 6'9" tall and has very broad shoulders. We are finding that station wagons are not built to accommodate his height in terms of front headroom, shoulder room and hip room. It's not only a matter of how far the seats adjust, but also the line of sight when sitting in the vehicle. This is not about comfort, but about being able to safely operate a vehicle. Many SUVs are no better, but it happens that the best vehicle for us seems to be the Acura MDX, an SUV. We were hoping for a more fuel-efficient option, but with his size and kids in our near future, our options are very limited.

Fortunately, we can afford a "car" that will meet our needs. Others who are tall or large may not be so fortunate. Adding unnecessary taxes only discriminates against a minority of people who have legitimate reason to buy these vehicles.

I fully agree with a comment (pat208, Jul 12 2004) that it would be better not to tax SUVs as such, but rather to tax gasoline - or even better, energy in general - with related decrease in income taxes i.e. this type of tax would be revenew neutral. See also my related entry "income -> consumption tax".

I don't care what people drive or what gas mileage they get. I just think everyone should be limited on how much gas they can buy. That's right...rationing. That would take care of both the gas shortage and pollution. If someone wants to use their ration to go 100 miles while making a Hummerstatement when they could go 600 in a Corolla, that's their business.

I'm all for it. The current situation with SUVs is one of enormous externalities passively subsidized by those with more efficient modes of transportation. But first we should get rid of the active subsidies for SUVs. Like the favorable depreciation treatment in the federal income tax. And the laws in many states (NY, for instance) forbidding insurance companies from adjusting liability insurance premiums based on the car you drive (even though you're obviously far less likely to do much damage even if you drive your Mini blindfolded). And the pass that manufacturers get on emissions and safety requirements, thus reducing the cost of the vehicles. In NY and NJ, SUVs are treated as trucks whenever there is a benefit to be a truck, yet curiously become cars when it's time to drive on a road restricted to trucks. Hmmmm. I say kill the subsidies, and make 'em decide once and for all if they're trucks or cars. After that, you can tax gas up the wazoo as far as I'm concerned.

People can't be micromanaged (e.g. make rich people give money to needy people) but people can contribute to a general pot (called tax revenue) and the society (read: government) can determine ways to apply that money for the benefit of everyone.

A tax on SUVs in particular is just too narrow an example of what should be taxed: we should find a way to tax activities that deteriorate community property (whether a public building, road, or the environment), and cars or people or companies eating up more than their share of resources or spewing out more than their share of pollution should pay for the mess they leave behind for others to suffer with or clean up for them.

If you are concerned with pollution, tax pollution. (a gasoline tax is a good start)

First, eliminate the favorable tax treatments and close the loophole that lets SUVs claim to be trucks. They are obviously cars (non-commercial passenger vehicles), they should be subject to the same pollution and fuel efficiency standards as other cars.

There is no valid basis for objecting to the above points, because in effect they are saying that everyone should play by the same rules. No one is entitled to a loophole.

Second, increase the gasoline tax so we're paying at the same level as Europeans, and earmark the funds to provide R&D and purchasing incentives for new-technology vehicles. (Or do you want to keep subsidizing Middle Eastern regimes that support people who fly planes into buildings?) (Anyone who objects to gas taxes is free to enlist in combat positions in the Army or Marines and sign up for a few tours in Iraq.)

Re. the case of the 7' guy who needs the legroom in order to drive safely: that would be an accessibility case, and should be given the same types of allowances as for an electric wheelchair, wheelchair ramp, or home elevator. A note from the doctor stating that the person really is however-tall-or-big would serve as the proof for tax and other purposes.

Note, the "one row of seats" rule doesn't work: think of crew-cabs on certain types of trucks, for example public-works vehicles that are engaged in road repairs. Also the minimum weight category doesn't work for certain types of tradesman's vans and delivery vans, which carrry light but bulky materials. In those cases, a requirement for commercial registration will solve the issue, and also provide commercial drivers with advantages such as access to "yellow zone" commercial parking spaces on downtown streets.

I don't find an SUV obviously a car or a truck. Perhaps we should consider why the gov't has this classification scheme to begin with. It obviously leads to the sort of loopholes and perverse subsidies that are big enough to [ahem] drive a truck through. What benefits does it offer?

For pollution, I believe Denver was testing a radar-gun-like device that would allow highway patrolmen to detect autos that exceed a given emissions threshold. Haven't heard more about it.

I am a big supporter of individual liberty and the efficiency of free markets.

However, when you make a decision that negatively affects someone else without their control, then you are responsible for the impact of your decision.

This is why we tax and regulate pollution. Most people agree that is fair and necessary to require organizations to have to pay for the environmental impact they create.

SUV's have at least these two major negative impacts:

1. They create pollution, including CO2 emissions, more than smaller cars. This cost can be covered by a gasoline tax that taxes gas consumption per gallon.

2. SUV use raises gasoline prices. When drivers choose to use more gasoline, they drive up the price of gasoline. Based on the principles of Supply & Demand, when demand rises, so does the price.

That is, when you buy an SUV instead of a smaller car, you're demanding more gasoline. More demand for gasoline drives the price up. In other words, when you choose to use a vehicle that gets bad gas mileage, you're making it harder for someone else to buy gasoline to get to work.

If every driver of a large SUV traded down to a station wagon, and every driver of a mid-size car traded down to a smaller car, etc, then we would see a HUGE DROP in the price of gasoline.

It would not be unfair to tax the gas-price-increasing impact of an SUV purchase and use the revenues from tax to reward gas-price-reducing purchases of more fuel-efficient vehicles.

i agree that these highly inefficient vehicles should be taxed, perhapse in states which require inspection, you pay by the mile every time they recieve state inspection. the real irony here is that these huge, inefficient SUVs should recieve extra taxation, but in reality in many states recieve tax brakes, I know here in MA, many people with large SUVs meet the weight requirements to register as a work truck, even though they are not in trades, nor do they own businesses. rediculous, right?