Would the tax still apply if the SUV drivers ran their car on carbon neutral fuels like biodiesel produced from recycled restaurant vegetable oil?

I voted for the general idea, but I don't like the rationale.

If you want to tax gas use, then tax gasoline at the pump, not "gas guzzlers". Your proposed fee is justified to the extent that large vehicles place an additional stress on the road system -- wear and tear on the road, additional risk to other drivers, and reduced visibility for other drivers.

You have to consider people who live in remote areas who actually need their 4 wheel drives because otherwise how do they get to the stores when its snowing (Ok they could use a snow mobile) and when the road system is not as well developed as in towns and cities and turns to mud when it rains.

To apply a blanket tax on people who own this type of vehicle doesnt make sense. What about buses and trucks, they use shedloads of diesel fuel and do a lot more damage to the roads and environments than SUVs.I think that we need to go down the gas-muzzling route and convert all vehicles to run on low carbon or carbon neutral fuels.

Reply to Hanfgeist (sorry for the delay)

Yes, the tax would apply whatever fuel they use. It's independent from the tax on gasoline. The rationale is, as well summarised by Dumllama, additional stress on the road system, additional risk to other drivers, and reduced visibility for other drivers.

I suppose that trucks and buses already pay higher taxes than cars in most countries and that these taxes are proportional to the load they can carry.

So, maybe, we should tax cars in proportion to their weight but, ultimately, the category 'under my gun' is SUVs / 4WDs.

And yes, indeed, I am aware that the SUV tax is unfair to farmers and other people who actually NEED four-wheel drive. I don't know how to solve that problem without adding administrative burden to manage legitimate exceptions.

Thanks to both of you for your participation.

www.fueleconomy.gov

Many "gas guzzlers" are 2 wheel drive sedans. In fact, most cars have poor fuel efficiency, given the number of years we've had to improve them (about 100). Anything less than 50 mpg or so should be considered terrible by today's standards.

Automobile horse power average cars such as Camry or Accord used to be about 80-120 and these cars gave about 30 MPG on the Highway. If the same horse power is maintained, with current technology, they should give over 40 MPG. Unnecessarily, auto makers have boosted the horse power sacrificing gas savings.Now cars have become power mosnters. Imagine 200 to 300 horses pulling one person around the city! There is no need for a 300 HP cars in cities.

Car prices/insurance and taxes should be proportional to horse power.

To call a car a Gas Guzzler based on it's MPG is too simplistic. Cars don't guzzle gas, drivers do. I have a 40mpg honda Civic that burns almost a thousand more gallons per year than my friend's Hummer. I drive from PA to Vermont and back once a week. He drives from his house to his job 2 miles away 5 days a week.

The fairest tax is a tax on consumption; if a 8 mpg Hummer consumes less fuel than a Prius, the Hummer owner pays less tax.

To further encourage fuel conservation, I believe heavier vehicles should have lower speed limits: a 55 mph limit for vehicles over 4,000 lbs GVWR.

I'm also in favor of stricter enforcement of speed limits.

We already have a tax on gas guzzlers - it's called the fuel tax. A good 60 cents per gallon you buy is state and federal taxes. If your car is less fuel efficient, you buy more gas and therefore pay more taxes. There is also a gas guzzler tax that new car buyers have to pay on the large SUVs and sports cars.