And So....it begins - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Paq · 09-05-2005, 09:46 PM

not really
finance long term, get the tax write off offhand, put it under 'bidness expense' and there ya go

and no, i knew you were gonna chime in when i said free, but it's not free, it's just 'free' you pay the money, but you get it back one way or another.

either way, it's a nice writeoff for gas guzzlers and an incentive for car makers to make even bigger guzzlers.

jorgelito · 09-06-2005, 12:42 AM

I believe the original provision was supposed to benefit small business owners - trucks, farm equioment etc - vehicles to be used for business. I thought the 6000lbs minimum was a bit odd. That's probably why your Durango didn't qualify - too small.

Unfortunately, many small business owners really got screwed cause their vehicles were too "small" to qualify for the tax credit (up to $60,000 or $100,00?). For example - landscapers, vans, etc.

It still seems a bit a strange and counter-intuitive because it encourages buying bigger vehicles instead of encouraging more efficient types.

The original provision made sense to me: tractors, farm equipment - real utility vehicles for businesses. But somehow, it seems like the only people who benfited were the ones buying Hummers.

jorgelito · 09-06-2005, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Bush raised the tax credit on the hybrid to maybe 4k over two years (not sure right now) and I think the SUV incentive was a one time loophole.

It was designed to allow small businesses to buy light trucks but instead also covered the biggest of the SUV's.

This sums it up nicely.

GMontag · 09-06-2005, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

not really
finance long term, get the tax write off offhand, put it under 'bidness expense' and there ya go

and no, i knew you were gonna chime in when i said free, but it's not free, it's just 'free' you pay the money, but you get it back one way or another.

either way, it's a nice writeoff for gas guzzlers and an incentive for car makers to make even bigger guzzlers.

A $60,000 writeoff doesn't mean you get $60,000 back off your taxes, it means you don't pay tax on $60,000 of your income. You are only getting back 25%-35% of that $60,000.

spongy · 09-07-2005, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

we have refineries in Alaska?

Yes and no... we have refineries enough to make gas for Alaskans, the majority of our oil is shipped to California and overseas.

analog · 09-08-2005, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Yeah, as a matter of fact, I do remember those whacky days. I remember gas lines two blocks long. I remember gas stations closed because they had no gas to sell.

I remember that too- but for me, it was last year here in Florida because of the hurricanes we had.

Like other have said, I don't think anyone is out there joyriding with the prices gas is at currently. The only people it would affect would be those who don't care what the prices are because they have the money. All that's going to happen, if he says to conserve, is a bunch of conservative newspapers will run stories on people carpooling to church, "doing their part" so they can continue to paint Bush as a great leader with great ideas. It's propaganda so he can look concerned, at best. That's what I see happening.

Paq · 09-08-2005, 02:29 AM

Honestly, i've been thinking of this, and i think analog hit it on the head...

telling people, "we need to conserve' is probably only a message sent out to the people who are needing to conserve anyway, just for simple money's sake. A lower/middle to lower class family can't afford the joyrides they may have been able to afford bakc when gas was *gasp* $1.50/gallon, but thye have probably cut back a good bit. The ones who really need to start conserving are, more than likely, the ones who are least inclined to start conserving. As my parents told me, if you can afford a ferrari that gets 10mpg, you can probably afford the gas...I think this applies to most cars out today that are getting that abysmally low gas mileage

So, for a president to come out and say, "We must conserve' w/out giving any plan of action for everyone to start conserving, is merely pandering to the crowd. The uber-rich aren't going to care if their gas bill goes from $150/month to $300/month, they are still going to do whatever they please bc that is what they do and they can afford it. The poor/working/lower middle/budgeted people are already going to be doing what they absolutely MUST do in order to survive. If that means they have to cut out any unnecessary energy/gas use, then they are probably already doing it.

i think analog hit it on the head, honestly

Mr Honest · 09-08-2005, 02:00 PM

The United States has five percent of the world's total population and consumes 40 percent of the world's resources.

I think cutting back a little bit and conserving some energy isn't a solution....

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2005/Update46.htm

09-05-2005, 09:46 PM	#41 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	not really finance long term, get the tax write off offhand, put it under 'bidness expense' and there ya go and no, i knew you were gonna chime in when i said free, but it's not free, it's just 'free' you pay the money, but you get it back one way or another. either way, it's a nice writeoff for gas guzzlers and an incentive for car makers to make even bigger guzzlers. __________________ Live. Chris

09-06-2005, 12:42 AM	#42 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	I believe the original provision was supposed to benefit small business owners - trucks, farm equioment etc - vehicles to be used for business. I thought the 6000lbs minimum was a bit odd. That's probably why your Durango didn't qualify - too small. Unfortunately, many small business owners really got screwed cause their vehicles were too "small" to qualify for the tax credit (up to $60,000 or $100,00?). For example - landscapers, vans, etc. It still seems a bit a strange and counter-intuitive because it encourages buying bigger vehicles instead of encouraging more efficient types. The original provision made sense to me: tractors, farm equipment - real utility vehicles for businesses. But somehow, it seems like the only people who benfited were the ones buying Hummers. __________________ "The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter

09-08-2005, 02:29 AM	#47 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	Honestly, i've been thinking of this, and i think analog hit it on the head... telling people, "we need to conserve' is probably only a message sent out to the people who are needing to conserve anyway, just for simple money's sake. A lower/middle to lower class family can't afford the joyrides they may have been able to afford bakc when gas was gasp $1.50/gallon, but thye have probably cut back a good bit. The ones who really need to start conserving are, more than likely, the ones who are least inclined to start conserving. As my parents told me, if you can afford a ferrari that gets 10mpg, you can probably afford the gas...I think this applies to most cars out today that are getting that abysmally low gas mileage So, for a president to come out and say, "We must conserve' w/out giving any plan of action for everyone to start conserving, is merely pandering to the crowd. The uber-rich aren't going to care if their gas bill goes from $150/month to $300/month, they are still going to do whatever they please bc that is what they do and they can afford it. The poor/working/lower middle/budgeted people are already going to be doing what they absolutely MUST do in order to survive. If that means they have to cut out any unnecessary energy/gas use, then they are probably already doing it. i think analog hit it on the head, honestly __________________ Live. Chris

09-08-2005, 02:00 PM	#48 (permalink)
Mr Honest Crazy	The United States has five percent of the world's total population and consumes 40 percent of the world's resources. I think cutting back a little bit and conserving some energy isn't a solution.... http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2005/Update46.htm __________________ Human beings : who could ever claim to like them all?