MD Dems want to tax your SUV $750 per year

[Sharon]

HOUSE BILL 424

Synopsis:

Requiring the owner of a Class M (multipurpose) vehicle that weighs 6,000 pounds or more to pay an annual $750 surcharge for each applicable vehicle.

http://mlis.state.md.us/2005rs/billfile/HB0424.htm

 

[itsbob]

HOUSE BILL 424

Synopsis:

Requiring the owner of a Class M (multipurpose) vehicle that weighs 6,000 pounds or more to pay an annual $750 surcharge for each applicable vehicle.

http://mlis.state.md.us/2005rs/billfile/HB0424.htm

I'm already paying that much a year in gas tax.. when you figure my commute, and the MPG a Land Rover gets.. paying a LOT more then that. Keep taxing me, I'll move somewhere else..

Don't like the snow.. but NH doesn't have a Sales or Income tax..

 

[aps45819]

Sounds good to me. 6000 lb vehicles cause a lot more wear and tear on the roads then lighter vehicles. 235 already has ruts and it's only a couple of years old.

 

[Voter2002]

Hey - I'm all for that!


You drive a tank, you pay an appropriate fee to be able to drive that tank on public roads! This is only aimed at the biggest of the big (Ford Excursion class & on up). Most of the SUV's, including some of the big ones still come in under the 6,000 lb. shipping weight.

 

[Spoiled]

HOUSE BILL 424

Synopsis:

Requiring the owner of a Class M (multipurpose) vehicle that weighs 6,000 pounds or more to pay an annual $750 surcharge for each applicable vehicle.

http://mlis.state.md.us/2005rs/billfile/HB0424.htm

This is very misleading, few SUVs weigh that much... Only very large ones (H2, Excursion/Navigator, etc...) (http://www.theautochannel.com/newcardb/cccars.html?bodystyle=All SUVs&titleid=124103 its not perfect, i checked GMs website on the 05 yukon and suburban and according to them they were less that 5800lbs so if anything, more of those arent in that weight class....)

Why would they want to do this? How many H2s have you seen driving around with big buisness decals on them? A lot? Ever wonder why?
http://www.selfemployedweb.com/suv-tax-deduction-irs.htm

 

[scupper trout]

HOUSE BILL 424

Synopsis:

Requiring the owner of a Class M (multipurpose) vehicle that weighs 6,000 pounds or more to pay an annual $750 surcharge for each applicable vehicle.

http://mlis.state.md.us/2005rs/billfile/HB0424.htm

Good find. Personal Property Tax on SUV's (like in Virginia on all cars, boats, etc.) maybe on the horizon?

 

[itsbob]

Hey - I'm all for that!


You drive a tank, you pay an appropriate fee to be able to drive that tank on public roads! This is only aimed at the biggest of the big (Ford Excursion class & on up). Most of the SUV's, including some of the big ones still come in under the 6,000 lb. shipping weight.

I drive a vehicle that meets this criteria.. and in doing so have to buy a lot of gas to keep it on the road.. in doing THAT I pay more in taxes, a LOT more, then say someone driving a Honda. You figure the price of a gallon of gas, at least 50 - 75 cents a gallon is taxes.. I'm betting closer to a dollar, either way I'm already paying my fair share, for the priviledge of driving a bigger safer truck.

$750 is a steep price to pay for a family vehicle a year.. for ANY vehicle.. and reading the piece on California, it seems the hybrids should be hit with this tax, NOT the 6000 lb weight class.. the state loses a LOT of income for every hybrid on the road.. all the lost gas taxes..

and ##### all ya want about my gas guzzler, if I'm ever in an accident I feel sorry for the fool that hits me..

 

[itsbob]

Sounds good to me. 6000 lb vehicles cause a lot more wear and tear on the roads then lighter vehicles. 235 already has ruts and it's only a couple of years old.

Thats lack of workmanship.. and I dare you to find the PSI diference between what my truck puts on the road compared to what any car puts on the road.. Hell, a Bradley only exerts 7 pounds.. bet your car is more then that.

 

[POOH]

This is very misleading, few SUVs weigh that much... Only very large ones (H2, Excursion/Navigator, etc...)

A Navigator is the same as a Ford Expedition and it's under 6,000 lbs.

 

[aps45819]

I wouldn't mind see registration fees being based on your vehicles net weight. Small light vehicles take up less space, cause less wear on on the roads and consume less resources.

 

[kwillia]

I wouldn't mind see registration fees being based on your vehicles net weight. Small light vehicles take up less space, cause less wear on on the roads and consume less resources.

I just knew this thread would get you all hot and bothered...

 

[Spoiled]

I drive a vehicle that meets this criteria.. and in doing so have to buy a lot of gas to keep it on the road.. in doing THAT I pay more in taxes, a LOT more, then say someone driving a Honda. You figure the price of a gallon of gas, at least 50 - 75 cents a gallon is taxes.. I'm betting closer to a dollar, either way I'm already paying my fair share, for the priviledge of driving a bigger safer truck.

and ##### all ya want about my gas guzzler, if I'm ever in an accident I feel sorry for the fool that hits me..

No one made you buy that SUV, you could have purchased a van, station wagon, or a truck... You knew you were buying something that gets 15MPG on a good day, no sympathy from me thats like playing with fire then #####ing that you got burned... its what fire does...

 

[aps45819]

Thats lack of workmanship.. and I dare you to find the PSI diference between what my truck puts on the road compared to what any car puts on the road.. Hell, a Bradley only exerts 7 pounds.. bet your car is more then that.

Wouldn't the pressure (psi) applied to the road have to be the weight of the vehicle divided by the area of the tire contact patch (x4)?

 

[Spoiled]

Wouldn't the pressure (psi) applied to the road have to be the weight of the vehicle divided by the area of the tire contact patch (x4)?

but then you have tire width... and the pressure of the tires, flat ones will have more contact with the road... the flaw in that argument is even if the heaver vehicle applied less PSI its doing it to a larger area, which means its still adding more wear on the roads...

 

[aps45819]

but then you have tire width... and the pressure of the tires, flat ones will have more contact with the road... the flaw in that argument is even if the heaver vehicle applied less PSI its doing it to a larger area, which means its still adding more wear on the roads...

No, because a 5000 lb car weighs 5000 lbs. You might change the psi but you've still got to support 5000 lbs, you're just doing it over a larger area. To get 5000 lbs down to 5 psi you'll need 250 square inches of tire (x4) in contact with the road. A 200mm wide tire (about 8 inches) will have a contact patch about 3 inches wide. That's 24 si in contact (x4) with the ground or 96 si total. Works out to 52 psi.

 

[POOH]

Hell, a Bradley only exerts 7 pounds.. bet your car is more then that.

Please tell us how you got this figure and could you give a link to anything that would come close to expaining it to be true. Thanks.

 

[Spoiled]

No, because a 5000 lb car weighs 5000 lbs. You might change the psi but you've still got to support 5000 lbs, you're just doing it over a larger area. To get 5000 lbs down to 5 psi you'll need 250 square inches of tire (x4) in contact with the road. A 200mm wide tire (about 8 inches) will have a contact patch about 3 inches wide. That's 24 si in contact (x4) with the ground or 96 si total. Works out to 52 psi.

I understand that, i just worded my post poorly, then again, when do i not ;\

 

[BigSlam123b]

6000lbs is a lot of weight. There really aren't to many SUV's out there that even meet that criteria.

 

[sleuth]

but then you have tire width... and the pressure of the tires, flat ones will have more contact with the road... the flaw in that argument is even if the heaver vehicle applied less PSI its doing it to a larger area, which means its still adding more wear on the roads...

And I'm a structural engineer... so let me tell ya that's not quite true.

Every material has a yield stress, measured in PSI. Meaning the material can withstand up to the yield stress without damaging the material. Once you reach that yield stress, the material starts to sustain damage.

Hence, lower PSI's, no matter the area covered, means lower stress, and assuming that at all points where the tire meets the road is lower than the yield stress, no damage is occurring.

Now, my expertise ends at metals because I'm not a civil engineer, but I can tell you that asphalt, concrete, etc. *probably* have characteristics very similar to homogenous metals. The only difference are that they are more of a composite, which means they are stronger in some directions than other directions. (tension vs. compression, tension in 1 direction vs. tension in another direction, etc.)

Same goes for fatigue stress. Assuming the PSI is low enough, you won't experience as much wear, even if you spread the areas.

Now, there are phenomenons called fretting, bearing stress, etc., but that's probably too deep a discussion here. The wear that occurs on roads, if I had to venture an educated guess, is probably due to friction, grinding, heating and cooling of the road surface, and water.

 

[Steve]

Sounds good to me. 6000 lb vehicles cause a lot more wear and tear on the roads then lighter vehicles. 235 already has ruts and it's only a couple of years old.

Can you point me to the study that proves this? :shrug: Ruts are caused by tractor-trailers and Cheney's henchmen (not SUVs), especially during the summer when the roads heat up and become more pliable. Ruts are found usually at intersections, where the additional force of breaking a vehicle that weighs 10+ tons "pushes" the road ahead of it. Once stopped, the vehicle will start to "sink" into the macadam.

Never mind, I found a link: EVALUATION OF PERMANENT DEFORMATION OF ASPHALT MIXTURES USING LOADED WHEEL TESTER

Good read!