I read about this in Slate magazine a few weeks ago. Here in California there are many cities that prohibit vehicles over 6000 lbs. on residential streets. Just about every SUV has a gross vehicle weight of over 6000 lbs. The Chevy Tahoe and Suburban, GMC Yukon, Toyota Sequoia and Landcruiser, Dodge Ram Pickup are a few examples.

SUV also owners qualify for heavy federal as well as state tax breaks if you claim to use your 3 ton truck for work. They are also exempt from gas guzzler taxes because they are classified as trucks.

So...considering the decrepit state of our schools, emergency rooms and highway systems, should local police departments enforce the ban on 6K trucks on residential streets? I mean think of the revenue from all those tickets. Or should SUV owners pay an extra license fee every year for the privilege of putting the extra wear and tear on their own residential streets? Or should car salesmen be required to inform a potential customer that they in all likelihood will not be able to legally drive the truck they are about to purchase on their own street?

How about those of you in other states? Do you have signs like this posted on your residential streets?

It's our turn to shout get off the f***ing road.
The only difference is we would be right :cool:

Heard some folks on drivetime radio this morning bemoaning the $3+ gas prices that we're seeing as a result of the hurricane tragedy. They were crying about having to pay so much for gas because their trucks only got 12 miles to the gallon and so on and so forth... Umm, how about getting a car that gets better fuel economy? One guy was talking about how he is going to have to put his new Toyota Sequoia in the garage and have his wife start driving the minivan again... Are these people morons or what?

Growing up, I had 5 kids in my family. We never had an SUV. We did have a station wagon, but that was more than enough room for Mom, Dad, and the 5 kids and a bunch of crap.

Call the cops on them. Get them towed away. Make the country safe for democracy.

Growing up, I had 5 kids in my family. We never had an SUV. We did have a station wagon, but that was more than enough room for Mom, Dad, and the 5 kids and a bunch of crap.
We had station wagons as well...but I don't think they got all that much better mileage than our current SUV does. Plus they ran on regualr gas and put out tons of emissions. My Explorer is certified as a Low Emissions Vehicle. Not everyone drives a full-size SUV anyway like Tahoe, Suburban...many of us drive smaller versions or at least midsize like the Explorer. Really folks...it's hillarious to see otherwise rational people demonize one type of vehicle so much.

Beautiful.

Around here (Northern California), many of the police and sheriff departments drive SUVs, so don't count on them enforcing the law any time soon.

We had station wagons as well...but I don't think they got all that much better mileage than our current SUV does. Plus they ran on regualr gas and put out tons of emissions. My Explorer is certified as a Low Emissions Vehicle. Not everyone drives a full-size SUV anyway like Tahoe, Suburban...many of us drive smaller versions or at least midsize like the Explorer. Really folks...it's hillarious to see otherwise rational people demonize one type of vehicle so much.

Well, we never had the huge monster ones back in the early 80's. We always drove Subarus, seriously. 4 cylinders baby, 4 cylinders. Good stuff. Maybe we were ahead of the curve? Nah, they were cheap, and went through the snow well in the Northeast.

BoJo II, (love that name) I don't mean to demonize all SUVs. No offence, really. I just think that SUV owners should pay the car taxes I pay considering the extra wear and tear the added weight puts on our streets. And you should see the schools and emergency rooms here. They really need the $$.
I hear you. The exemption was made so that farm vehicles and such would get a break--not taking into account that many of these beasts get driven by soccer moms as well. I just think it's funny that amount of vitriol reserved for a certain type of vehicle. Are some people driving SUVs that don't need the "utility" of them? Sure...but some also drive huge pickups when they don't need to haul anything. Some drive ridiculously overpowered sports cars that get crappy mileage just because they are "cool" and fun to drive. Some drive their Honda Civics half a block just to get their mail instead of walking. Some drive their family of 7 around in a large SUV instead of having 2 cars for the same thing. Any vehicle that burns gas can and is part of the problem--some just more than others.

We had station wagons as well...but I don't think they got all that much better mileage than our current SUV does. Plus they ran on regualr gas and put out tons of emissions. My Explorer is certified as a Low Emissions Vehicle. Not everyone drives a full-size SUV anyway like Tahoe, Suburban...many of us drive smaller versions or at least midsize like the Explorer. Really folks...it's hillarious to see otherwise rational people demonize one type of vehicle so much.

BoJo II, (love that name) I don't mean to demonize all SUVs. No offence, really. I just think that SUV owners should pay the car taxes I pay considering the extra wear and tear the added weight puts on our streets. And you should see the schools and emergency rooms here. They really need the $$.

Growing up, I had 5 kids in my family. We never had an SUV. We did have a station wagon, but that was more than enough room for Mom, Dad, and the 5 kids and a bunch of crap.

It's looks to be a lifestyle choice. I'll bet there is a huge amount of SUV owners who's busing and and hauling needs would be as well served with a station wagon.

When I bought my car I paid several thousand $$ worth of taxes and fees. It's very easy for someone who purchases an SUV to avoid these taxes. If someone does not actually need the hauling space provided by a truck or SUV they should pay the same taxes I paid, perhaps even more because of the additional weight of the vehicle.

I wish we could all look at the state of the schools, parks, 911 systems, etc. in our communities. They could all use the dough.

This thread is one of those "deja vu all over again" threads.

A 4x4 <a href="http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/chevrolet_suburban_15004wd_2005/15221/style_specs.html;_ylt=AuHkhz3ihaPMGkVwo7P6ViIuWcIF ?p=ext">Suburban weighs 5474 pounds</a>. "Gross weight," which you refer to, is the rated capacity of the vehicle, not actual weight. There is no indication the signage you reference means gross weight, versus actual weight or curb weight.

Now, an Excursion is 7725 pounds, a huge increase over the Suburban. I don't see many of these around, though.

Unless someone turns up a law that authorizes this signage that states the weight means "gross weight," I'm fairly certain that any judicial interpretation would be actual weight, as criminal statutes are strictly construed as a requirment of due process (fair notice to potential offenders). Ambiguities are construed in favor of the accused.

Someone else has posted before that these signs only apply to commercial vehicles.

This thread is one of those "deja vu all over again" threads.

A 4x4 <a href="http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/chevrolet_suburban_15004wd_2005/15221/style_specs.html;_ylt=AuHkhz3ihaPMGkVwo7P6ViIuWcIF ?p=ext">Suburban weighs 5474 pounds</a>. "Gross weight," which you refer to, is the rated capacity of the vehicle, not actual weight. There is no indication the signage you reference means gross weight, versus actual weight or curb weight.

Now, an Excursion is 7725 pounds, a huge increase over the Suburban. I don't see many of these around, though.

Unless someone turns up a law that authorizes this signage that states the weight means "gross weight," I'm fairly certain that any judicial interpretation would be actual weight, as criminal statutes are strictly construed as a requirment of due process (fair notice to potential offenders). Ambiguities are construed in favor of the accused.

Someone else has posted before that these signs only apply to commercial vehicles.
But if you get the tax break for it being a commercial vehicle, then surely it is a commercial vehicle?
OR is this then a case of calling blue green?

But if you get the tax break for it being a commercial vehicle, then surely it is a commercial vehicle?
OR is this then a case of calling blue green?

If you take the tax break, then it might well be considered a commercial vehicle. That still does not mean the signage means gross weight. Terms can have vastly different meanings in different contexts, and what the IRS uses for tax purposes, which I think specifically references "gross weight," does not in the slightest affect what some city council decided for a street weight limitation.

I was riding in this morning and got a couple of car lengths behind one. It pulled me along at 30 mph. It's almost like free gas!

Dancer

A 4x4 <a href="http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/chevrolet_suburban_15004wd_2005/15221/style_specs.html;_ylt=AuHkhz3ihaPMGkVwo7P6ViIuWcIF ?p=ext">Suburban weighs 5474 pounds</a>. "Gross weight," which you refer to, is the rated capacity of the vehicle, not actual weight. There is no indication the signage you reference means gross weight, versus actual weight or curb weight.

Now, an Excursion is 7725 pounds, a huge increase over the Suburban. I don't see many of these around, though.

Unless someone turns up a law that authorizes this signage that states the weight means "gross weight," I'm fairly certain that any judicial interpretation would be actual weight, as criminal statutes are strictly construed as a requirment of due process (fair notice to potential offenders). Ambiguities are construed in favor of the accused.

Someone else has posted before that these signs only apply to commercial vehicles.

According to Chevrolet.com the gross vehicle weight for the 1/2 ton Suburban is 7000 lbs. The GVW for the 3/4 ton Suburban is 8600 lbs. According to Ford.com GVW for a Ford Excursion is 9200 lbs.

There are a handfull of smaller SUVs that weigh in around the 6000 lb. mark. Some of them have their curb weight below 6000 lbs. but with the GVW above that mark. Many people get the tax break by declaring their vehicle weighs in above 6000 lbs.

I don't want to cut and paste you guys to death but here is an excerpt from the article.

* * * * *
As it stands now, big-SUV drivers have it both ways: They use their trucklike status when it benefits them, yet they ignore the more onerous restrictions that "real" truck drivers face.

I think the Golden State has stumbled on a way to end this hypocrisy, and the rest of the country should take notice. Six-thousand pounds is a reasonable and established dividing line between passenger vehicles and trucks. (I even think it's an instinctual dividing line between SUVs that seem large, like the Ford Explorer, and those that seem absurdly large, like the Ford Expedition.)

Why not classify SUVs under 3 tons as passenger cars and regulate them accordingly? Make them meet car gas mileage and safety standards, and let them drive anywhere cars can drive.

For vehicles over 6K, classify them as trucks, pure and simple. Let their drivers use more gas, roll over more often if they want, and take tax breaks. And ban them from residential streets. Make them stick to the truck routes, including truck lanes on highways. (Heck, maybe even require a truck driver's license to pilot one.)
* * * * *

Fixed, thanks for mentioning the sign. Here is another one.

That is not a bad idea of removing the commercial status so that people that drive SUV's can "pay their way". While your at it, for the ones that send their kids to private schools why dont you give them the a tax credit, since they are being taxed for a service that they don't use. Or the senior's who's property taxes went up this year to remodel a school district when they dont use or havent used that service in 50 years.

Or how about all the people using hospital services with no means to pay, so entire hospitals have to close or ask the rest of the working stiffs to fork the bill. Seems a little unfair to worry about an SUV driver who atleast paid for the car and pays the gas bill.

According to Chevrolet.com the gross vehicle weight for the 1/2 ton Suburban is 7000 lbs. The GVW for the 3/4 ton Suburban is 8600 lbs. According to Ford.com GVW for a Ford Excursion is 9200 lbs.

There are a handfull of smaller SUVs that weigh in around the 6000 lb. mark. Some of them have their curb weight below 6000 lbs. but with the GVW above that mark. Many people get the tax break by declaring their vehicle weighs in above 6000 lbs.

I Fixed, thanks for mentioning the sign. Here is another one.

The majority of the vehicles you mention do not weigh any where close to what you have posted. :rolleyes: And it should not matter since they are not commercial vehicles. The signs are referencing commerical vehicles like large 18 wheelers.

Morgan

This thread is one of those "deja vu all over again" threads.

A 4x4 <a href="http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/chevrolet_suburban_15004wd_2005/15221/style_specs.html;_ylt=AuHkhz3ihaPMGkVwo7P6ViIuWcIF ?p=ext">Suburban weighs 5474 pounds</a>. "Gross weight," which you refer to, is the rated capacity of the vehicle, not actual weight. There is no indication the signage you reference means gross weight, versus actual weight or curb weight.

Now, an Excursion is 7725 pounds, a huge increase over the Suburban. I don't see many of these around, though.

Unless someone turns up a law that authorizes this signage that states the weight means "gross weight," I'm fairly certain that any judicial interpretation would be actual weight, as criminal statutes are strictly construed as a requirment of due process (fair notice to potential offenders). Ambiguities are construed in favor of the accused.

Someone else has posted before that these signs only apply to commercial vehicles.


Counsellor, let somebody who actually has some experience in the field (like myself) explain the meaning of that sign. It has a "no trucks" pictograph, which would infer that the limit applies to the registered total weight of a commercial vehicle. If it has commercial plates, is registered for 10,000 lbs but only weighs 4,500, it gets a ticket, but if your 8,000 lb Excursion with car plates goes down that same street, it's OK.

OTOH, if the sign said something like "Weight Limit 6000 lbs", such as you often see before bridges, then the 4,500 commercial vehicle would be OK, but the Excursion woudn't.

OTOH, if the sign said something like "Weight Limit 6000 lbs", such as you often see before bridges, then the 4,500 commercial vehicle would be OK, but the Excursion woudn't.
Unfortunately, 90% of the Excursion drivers would try to cross the bridge as they would have no idea how much the vehicle weighs.

Counsellor, let somebody who actually has some experience in the field (like myself) explain the meaning of that sign. It has a "no trucks" pictograph, which would infer that the limit applies to the registered total weight of a commercial vehicle. If it has commercial plates, is registered for 10,000 lbs but only weighs 4,500, it gets a ticket, but if your 8,000 lb Excursion with car plates goes down that same street, it's OK.

OTOH, if the sign said something like "Weight Limit 6000 lbs", such as you often see before bridges, then the 4,500 commercial vehicle would be OK, but the Excursion woudn't.

I'm really cracking up. You're telling us, based upon your "experience in the field," that a "pictograph" creates law? I can just see the city council debate... "should we put the pictograph of a box truck or an SUV on the sign, so that people can correctly be on notice of what we are criminalizing?"

Nonetheless, your conclusion is the same as mine, for different reasons.

I'm really cracking up. You're telling us, based upon your "experience in the field," that a "pictograph" creates law? I can just see the city council debate... "should we put the pictograph of a box truck or an SUV on the sign, so that people can correctly be on notice of what we are criminalizing?"

Nonetheless, your conclusion is the same as mine, for different reasons.

No, because signage is standardized by the state. The city has nothing to do with signs such as these, because they must conform to the laws of the state. Any sign that is designed by a different entity has no basis in law. Here in NY, I was mailed a revocation notice of my EZ-Pass for going faster than the 5mph that was (not clearly) posted at the entrance to the thruway. Since the sign posted was on a green background and was undersized, I sucessfully had my EZ-Pass reinstated. The next week, they put up a huge sign with a white background. Being peripherally involved in transportation safety investigations has increased my knowlege of traffic law quite a bit.

Go down to your local licensing bureau and pick up an official Caltrans Driver's Manual. In it, you will find the specific meanings and limitations of each specific sign. Usually, a white background means that you must obey it, a yellow background means that it's for warning of a hazard, green for informational use only, and the pictographs refer to whether the sign pertains to cars, cycles, commercial vehicles, horse-drawn vehicles, whatever. By procuring a license in your state, you agree contracturally to know and obey the traffic laws of that state.

That is not a bad idea of removing the commercial status so that people that drive SUV's can "pay their way". While your at it, for the ones that send their kids to private schools why dont you give them the a tax credit, since they are being taxed for a service that they don't use. Or the senior's who's property taxes went up this year to remodel a school district when they dont use or havent used that service in 50 years.

Or how about all the people using hospital services with no means to pay, so entire hospitals have to close or ask the rest of the working stiffs to fork the bill. Seems a little unfair to worry about an SUV driver who atleast paid for the car and pays the gas bill.

I'm just trying to come up with ways our states/counties/cities can come up with the dough to provide our kids with better schools and provide us with better trauma centers, 911/ambulance services, etc... So I'm afraid I would have to say "no" to your tax cut ideas as lovely as they may sound.

I'm just trying to come up with ways our states/counties/cities can come up with the dough to provide our kids with better schools and provide us with better trauma centers, 911/ambulance services, etc... So I'm afraid I would have to say "no" to your tax cut ideas as lovely as they may sound. Only fools would finance essential services with consumption taxes on a non-renewable, finite resource. Especially when most of that resource is under foreign soil.

So...considering the decrepit state of our schools, emergency rooms and highway systems, should local police departments enforce the ban on 6K trucks on residential streets? I mean think of the revenue from all those tickets.


First-year deductions on a $110,000 Hummer H1 (note: all other SUVs are fully deductible) under Jobs and Growth Act 2003
Equipment Investment $100,000
Bonus Deduction $5,000
5-year depreciation $1,000
Total deduction $106,000

First-year deductions on a $110,000 Hummer H1 (note: all other SUVs are fully deductible) under Jobs and Growth Act 2003
Equipment Investment $100,000
Bonus Deduction $5,000
5-year depreciation $1,000
Total deduction $106,000

There aren't that many H1s sold. Plus, a couple of things. That $106,000 deduction, assuming your numbers are correct, saves roughly a third of that in taxes, is only useable if you have that much in taxable income, and you won't get hit with AMT. My experience is that AMT would probably wipe out that deduction, anyway. Plus, you must justify the business use, right? We're probably talking about a total fiscal consequence of less than $500,000 to the federal government here.

Only fools would finance essential services with consumption taxes on a non-renewable, finite resource. Especially when most of that resource is under foreign soil.

Well should we raise the income tax then? Or how about the property tax? I would be willing to pay the higher taxes but the conservatives in this great state would cry like babies over even the teensiest of tax hikes.

First-year deductions on a $110,000 Hummer H1 (note: all other SUVs are fully deductible) under Jobs and Growth Act 2003
Equipment Investment $100,000
Bonus Deduction $5,000
5-year depreciation $1,000
Total deduction $106,000

And the gross vehicle weight on the H1 is over 10,000 lbs. Waaaayy over even the most relaxed standards for residential streets and many bridges.

Well should we raise the income tax then? Or how about the property tax? I would be willing to pay the higher taxes but the conservatives in this great state would cry like babies over even the teensiest of tax hikes.
I really don't care how you go about it in your state, my point still stands: only fools would finance essential services with consumption tax revenue, especially when the consumption is a finite resource that we do not control.

What will you do when the tax raises the price high enough to impact revenue and you end up with a shortfall? It happened here in the DC Metro area (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/26/AR2005082601669.html). People adjusted their driving habits because of the increasing gas prices and the states LOST money because of it, and that was in June. Fortunately, the gas tax here goes for roadwork. What would have happened had that money be ermarked to hospital trauma centers or homeless shelters or emergency services? Would you raise the taxes even further?

We're not against taxes per se, we like waste eliminated first and then we like to see them (the taxes) thoroughly thought out so they don't do more harm than good.

I really don't care how you go about it in your state, my point still stands: only fools would finance essential services with consumption tax revenue, especially when the consumption is a finite resource that we do not control.

We're not against taxes per se, we like waste eliminated first and then we like to see them (the taxes) thoroughly thought out so they don't do more harm than good.

So how about it then? Doesn't it make sense that an 8000 lb. truck that is being used to transport groceries and kids pay taxes on the same scale that a 4000 lb. passenger car does? And shouldn't that same truck also conform to the same rigorous crash safety standards that a passenger car does? And how about emissions and fuel economy standards while we're at it. Seems to me we are in agreement here.

So how about it then? Doesn't it make sense that an 8000 lb. truck that is being used to transport groceries and kids pay taxes on the same scale that a 4000 lb. passenger car does? And shouldn't that same truck also conform to the same rigorous crash safety standards that a passenger car does? And how about emissions and fuel economy standards while we're at it. Seems to me we are in agreement here. My opinion is that ALL (personal/commercial) gas/diesel powered vehicles be held to the same emmissions standards and that those standards should be high (as in low emmissions). I also believe that all passenger vehicles should conform to the same safety standards regardless of the type of auto.

If you wanted to tax by pound I could go for that but no exemptions; all cars are taxed.

If you wanted to tax by pound I could go for that but exemptions; all cars are taxed.

Yeah, the reason I say tax by weight is because of the extra wear and tear on the streets.

There aren't that many H1s sold. Plus, a couple of things. That $106,000 deduction, assuming your numbers are correct, saves roughly a third of that in taxes, is only useable if you have that much in taxable income, and you won't get hit with AMT. My experience is that AMT would probably wipe out that deduction, anyway. Plus, you must justify the business use, right? We're probably talking about a total fiscal consequence of less than $500,000 to the federal government here.

Guess again:

With passage of the Jobs and Growth Act, Congress dramatically expanded the already generous SUV loophole by raising the deduction ceiling for certain purchases-including SUVs-from $25,000 to $100,000.7 Under this new rule, the entire cost of all but one large SUV-the Hummer H1-can be deducted. This act also increased the "bonus deduction" from 30% to 50%8, which businesses can utilize in the first year of purchase on the amount above the initial deduction. This bonus deduction was established in addition to the five-year depreciation schedule, which remained the same.

http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/whitepapers/SUVtaxbreak.htm

Guess again:

With passage of the Jobs and Growth Act, Congress dramatically expanded the already generous SUV loophole by raising the deduction ceiling for certain purchases-including SUVs-from $25,000 to $100,000.7 Under this new rule, the entire cost of all but one large SUV-the Hummer H1-can be deducted. This act also increased the "bonus deduction" from 30% to 50%8, which businesses can utilize in the first year of purchase on the amount above the initial deduction. This bonus deduction was established in addition to the five-year depreciation schedule, which remained the same.

http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/whitepapers/SUVtaxbreak.htm

Are you saying that this is unaffected by AMT?

Are you saying that this is unaffected by AMT?

I do not believe businesses are subject to AMT, are they? These deductions deal with businesses, not households.

I do not believe businesses are subject to AMT, are they? These deductions deal with businesses, not households.

I'm no tax lawyer, but I assume that if we are talking about a C corp, then no (unless there is a corporate equivalent, of which I have no idea). If an individual is buying it, and taking a business deduction on personal income tax, then you may have AMT. If a Sub S corp, partnership, or sole proprietorship, LLP, etc., with pass through tax consequences, then I think AMT may apply, too.

Also, I checked and there were only about 200 H1's made in 2004.