THE US GOVERNMENT IS TO BLAME

[regfootball]

If i recall, one of the big reasons SUV sales of a certain vehicle weight or higher were so high was because of the accelerated tax credit for buying such vehicles.

Um, the government is responsible for driving SUV sales and now they are using those sales as a reason to lynch the domestics?

Despite toyota and Nissan expanding their full size truck and SUV offerings immensely? Kia too?

WHat am I missing?

[GXT]

If i recall, one of the big reasons SUV sales of a certain vehicle weight or higher were so high was because of the accelerated tax credit for buying such vehicles.

There were tax credits for buying larger vehicles?

[loki]

There were tax credits for buying larger vehicles?

i think the credits for "business vehicles" is what he's talking about...?

you could just as easily say it was the lack of power in the 80's into the 90's that only the trucks had then, buyers just stayed in them, for safety too.

regs have become so strict since 70's .. keeping small diesels in a tiny niche, and larger ones only for trucks

[PurdueGuy]

Yeah, I don't think most people bought SUVs because of tax credits. It may have been icing on the cake for some, but most people have been convincing themselves that they needed them for safety and/or image. As much as I'd like to point the finger at the gov't, I think they had very little to do with it. What is the gov'ts fault is not creating an environment of fair trade relating to the Japanese auto industry and others. Considering the help that the foreign competition gets from their gov'ts, I think some loans that the gov't will make money off of as long as the automakers don't go belly up are a pretty reasonable way for the gov't to help the domestics. It would be very sad to see automaking go the way of the textile industry.

[regfootball]

wow. crazy, i know at least 3 people off the top of my head that bought large trucks or SUV's a certain GVWR or above specifically to depreciate them quickly and save big bucks. it was for purveyors of businesses, and they used them as work and pleasure vehicles. i.e.e run the kids to soccer in the big durango.

why do you suppose detroit was building so many, how else did hummer take off so much?

Edited November 19, 2008 by regfootball

[pow]

The thing is, automakers lobbied for these tax credits.

[GXT]

wow. crazy, i know at least 3 people off the top of my head that bought large trucks or SUV's a certain GVWR or above specifically to depreciate them quickly and save big bucks. it was for purveyors of businesses, and they used them as work and pleasure vehicles. i.e.e run the kids to soccer in the big durango.

As I understand it you only get a certain percentage of the loss back, but the loss of value is real and permanent. Therefore you aren't going to make any money off the transaction you will only get a larger effective discount. So you are still paying more for a bigger vehicle. If they engaged in that then they did want the bigger vehicle to begin with.... or they or I don't understand the economics.

why do you suppose detroit was building so many, how else did hummer take off so much?

Probably the same reason you bought a 500 instead of a civic. Convinced themselves they "needed" something bigger, that the extra cost was worth it, etc. But mostly I imagine it was a status thing.

[FAPTurbo]

Um, I don't think the government is at all to blame for SUV sales. It was cheap fuel, status, pussy-whippage, and below-average penis size that really fueled their sales.

[Camino LS6]

The tax advantage (accelerated depreciation) was intended to help people like me that need a truck to make a living. But, like most things congress does, the law was crafted poorly so that stock brokers and dentists and anyone who could claim to be a business owner or self-employed could get the tax advantage. So, instead of the BMW, Joe Wall Street bought an Escalade and took the tax break.

Not the only factor in the now dead SUV boom, but a large one.

[regfootball]

As I understand it you only get a certain percentage of the loss back, but the loss of value is real and permanent. Therefore you aren't going to make any money off the transaction you will only get a larger effective discount. So you are still paying more for a bigger vehicle. If they engaged in that then they did want the bigger vehicle to begin with.... or they or I don't understand the economics.

Probably the same reason you bought a 500 instead of a civic. Convinced themselves they "needed" something bigger, that the extra cost was worth it, etc. But mostly I imagine it was a status thing.

no, i got the 500 because i got more for my money. my lease payment and total money outlay was about the same as a civic or mazda 3. better safety, way cheaper to insure, 23-25 city real world mpg, and actually sturdy enough on frozen potholes. aside from being repulsed by the notion of driving something as flimsy as a civic, i actually got real function out of the car. and close to 30mpg on trips. not to mention being alble to take an entire family including pack and play and stroller or even small bicycles, plus luggage for 3. the trunk alone on my 500 was twice as large as that stupid civic with the gameboy dash.

Edited November 20, 2008 by regfootball

[regfootball]

The tax advantage (accelerated depreciation) was intended to help people like me that need a truck to make a living. But, like most things congress does, the law was crafted poorly so that stock brokers and dentists and anyone who could claim to be a business owner or self-employed could get the tax advantage. So, instead of the BMW, Joe Wall Street bought an Escalade and took the tax break.

Not the only factor in the now dead SUV boom, but a large one.

all the people who took advantage of it, are probably the ones now decrying SUV's like mad. in fact, yes, one of the people i know who bought an SUV with that credit, not only does the wife drive a prius, but he traded his ford for a touareg. She is fervently a green talker, yet his VW weighs on the way to 3 tons. go figure.