On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:30:27 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:31:39 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:36:22 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:53:03 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:13:12 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:59:25 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

Seriously, what are you really trying to say?

And if they were considered cars, not trucks, they would be higher
priced still and less popular.

And if they were considered cars, so would all other light trucks in
that weight class.
Is that what you want? Because that's what you're saying.

Largely yes. What I want in this area in particular is for the
government to decide what is a truck or a car and do so consistently
if they are going to tax them differently.

So you want the government to make a case-by-case decision? So that a
new door handle or drivetrain configuration costs more to certify? You
really want to drive costs up by using more government?

Why does it have to be case by case? If they are going to make the
distinction in the taxes and regulations then there should be some
kind of distinction in the product. If not, then the tax distinction
should go away.

Again, you demonstrate that you don't understand how it's done now.
The Government *does* make distinctions by class. The car companies
*don't* get to simply say what class their vehicles go into. They are
designed and built specifically to go into specific classes.
If tyou don't want a case-by-case ruling, then you want what we have
now, but yuou don't seem to understand that. At least you write as
though you don't understand it.

I don't want the government
to tax them differently, but allow the manufacturer to decide which is
which and allow them to change the designation along the supply path.

This is in direct opposition to what you wrote above. Or did you
mis-type?

No, you mis-read. I don't want the government to allow the
manufacturers to decide on their own which tax and safety category a
vehicle fits into.

That's the way it is now.

If you wish to give subsidies to business because you think that is a
good thing then make that argument.

The reason I'm not making that argument is because it's not my
argument.
What I'm trying to do is get you to think about your stance; what will
it do besides your primary goal?
Unintended consequences can be a real bitch when you start mucking
with commerce and governmental intrusion.

Yep, so lets get rid of the distinction. Tax the vehicles and demand
that they make them safe. Have higher taxes based on gas mileage. Or,
better yet, raise the gas tax significantly. Let the market then find
ways to conserve the oil and reduce our dependency and risk.

We can't *let* taxes rise; higher taxes must be enacted.


`The taxes should not just be enacted. If you "Just" enact tjem, where
does the extra money go? Into a general fund? What fun -- we simply
include gasoline with alcohol and tobacco as sin taxes?

It's particularly annoying to hear people say, "The Europeans
pay 4, 6 or 8 dollars a gallon. We should just follow their lead." But
what do they get for it? When you can guarantee all citizens
womb-to-tomb medical care, it might be worth it. But just to **** it
down the general fund rathole is insanity.