On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:31:40 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:32:20 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:37:21 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:04:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

Enlighten me. What change are you talking about? The evolving of light
trucks and SUVs into what the customer wants?

Having a consistent designation of what is a truck vs. a car rather
than allowing the companies to decide on a whim and change their mind.
If we are going to subsidize one over the other lets us have a
rational basis for doing so. Saying that trucks don't have to meet
safety or gas standards because they are used for business and then
allowing them to be marketed as cars to non-business users is
hypocritical at best. If we can't distinguish between the two, then
don't. Have one set of rules, a *simplification* of the current
system.

Sorry, the fact is that the government already does that; it's changes
in the vehicles that puts them into a differtent classification, not a
mere whim.

Nope. A given vehicle can be a car for import duties and a truck when
it comes time for sale.

This is deifferent that what you were talking about before. You were
spefcifically talking about for sale.
Keep changing the goalposts, I'll keep up.

No, I was talking about the costs of the car. Lowering taxes for one
particular group of vehicles means they cost less to the consumer,
thus distorting the market.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.