Daily Kos

View Story | 247 comments

  •  Indeed (none / 0)

    Insurance is only one of the costs to consider.

    The example given is way understating the true costs of driving the guzzler.

    I don't have time to work it all out but if you were to consider investing the difference in costs between the SUV and a normal wagon the guy would be astounded.

    If the guy applied the difference to paying down his mortgage early he'd probably find that the SUV costs him well over $100,000 for the (dubious) safety factor.

    •  Also include... (none / 0)

      ...the costs of a future (presumably Democratic) admninistration deciding to tax SUV's according to their excessive level of road wear.  Currently they are taxed as cars, not trucks, even though they typically cause similar amounts of wear and damage to the roads as a large truck.

       - Trendar

      "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke

      by Trendar on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 07:41:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is an example of structurally bad law (none / 1)

        Good, general law wouldn't distinguish things called "trucks" from things called "cars". It would instead refer only to real physical and economic properties -- weight, gas consumption, cost, and the like.

        Law that mentions specifics can reward and punish specific companies and interests. It makes for worse policy, and sinks politics into the mire where campaign finance blends into bribery (by business) and extortion (by legislators) with no way to tell the difference.

        Better to not go there. Pressures toward structurally sound law can help a bit.

        "C'mon -- if THAT were true, you wouldn't be getting the news from some crazy email forwarded by your brother-in-law!"

        by technopolitical on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 12:10:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  never happen (none / 0)

        the UAW would have a fit

View Story | 247 comments