4 ms·
Displacement taxes are terrible. There are many instances of large displacement engines (e.g. modern GM LS/LT series engines) that are lighter and more efficien
by wizee 4y ago
Displacement taxes are terrible. There are many instances of large displacement engines (e.g. modern GM LS/LT series engines) that are lighter and more efficient than comparably performing smaller turbocharged engines. Penalize heavy vehicles that damage pavement, or vehicles with poor pedestrian safety, or gas guzzlers, but don't penalize one aspect of engine design (displacement) that isn't directly harmful.
- throwaway0a5e 4y agoI propose we tax vehicles based on their 0-60 time. Soft tire compounds and abundant wheel torque and available power are directly correlated with tire wear and tire wear directly translates into particulate pollution. This tax would also have the side effect of being slightly more burdensome on particular demographics that are most likely to come up with half baked "let's tax X" ideas that fail to pass even the most cursory analysis as these demographics tend to drive fast high performance sedans. Edit: Just to be clear, lower number = more tax. Work vans pay little, high performance toys pay a lot. This is a semi-satirical proposal.
- appleiigs 4y agoSo you want to tax the lightest cars and give a pass to large trucks which have a poor 0-60 time? Just like the comment you are replying to, you're taxing the wrong metric. Need to be more direct in taxing the problem.