SUV Loophole

I posted this as a comment on Streak's Blog but figured I'd put it up here, too.
Here's a good article Law change halts huge SUV tax break -- Page 1 discussing the SUV tax break. One comment from it expresses a disappointing point about the recent "closing" of the loophole:

"I don't think it's going to affect people's buying habits. Most people buying SUVs are paying $40,000 or $50,000, so by the time you take the 50 percent bonus deduction and the $25,000 depreciation expense, most of them are still going to write off the full amount."

Once again, what was supposed to be a break for small business owners, ranchers, etc... who NEED to use large vehicles for BUSINESS. My own brother purchased an SUV for his business just to take advantage of this loophole last year. I suggested a Prius would be just as good for running to and from work or hauling clients around. He pointed out that it didn't weigh the necessary 3 TONS to qualify for the tax break! In other words, the tax law encourages you to purchase a larger vehicle for your business when a smaller vehicle could have done the job. As the article points out, when the wording was originally drafted back in the '70s, there weren't any luxury vehicles weighing over 6000 pounds! The vehicle has to be used 50% of the time for business. That leaves you the other 50% for vacations, kids to school, etc... all at those SUV fuel efficiency rates!

Here's another article SUV TAX Loophole citing increase in sales following the original loophole. Given the fact that the new changes claim to "close" the loophole but in practice still allow for plenty of incentive to buy the monsters, don't expect to see them disappearing from the roads any time soon.

BTW, one article says that the new law requires the vehicles to weigh over 14,000 pounds to get the full deduction. Let's wait and see if a 7 ton SUV rolls out any time soon!
Bootlegger

A Little Good News about Greenhouse Gases

Being prone to melancholy which is sometimes near to depression when it comes to the current state of the world, I find it difficult to be optimistic about the future. Most of the things that I enjoy and care about don't carry favorable prognoses. Wild spaces, global diversity of species, peace, sustainable development, nuclear arms reduction (hoping for elimination would be too depressing), etc... I have found little in recent years to convince me that my children's world will be better than the current one, or at the very least as livable as our current situation. I've had people look me in the eye and tell me that the rainforest isn't really disappearing, that it's just another left wing concoction. Unfortunately for my psyche, I've been to several places on two continents that used to be covered with rainforest and seen the complete removal of thousands of square miles of it. I've personally witnessed the beginnings of desertification of areas that used to be the most biologically diverse places in the world. "Doctor, my eyes ......"

So, I am actually encouraged today by an article I read in the Washington Post entitled Benefits of Cutting Emissions (washingtonpost.com): "Chicago Climate Exchange". The article lists a number of countries, cities, and multinational corporations who have actually reduced their greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 and have benefitted financially from doing it. This encourages me because I admit that, particularly with the US's refusal to get on board with Kyoto, that I felt little hope in this arena. Granted, the UK reducing their fossil fuel consumption won't carry the impact that the US doing the same would have, but I'm still happy about it. Companies like Dupont, British Telecom, Bayer, and others have seen a financial RETURN for taking these measures. The most common complaint from our elected leaders, regardless of party affiliation, tends to be that the standards adopted by international agreements would hurt US jobs, etc.... More evidence is mounting that shows the opposite is true if you do it right.

I realize that proof and example rarely are incentives for politicians' decisions. I'm just happy that this is in writing in a widely distributed publication.