Living Car Free - Tax incentive to live car free

Riddle me this:

Why is there a federal tax credit for buying a new hybrid car (more info: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=157632,00.html), but no tax credit for having no car at all?

If the goal is environmental conservation we shouldn't be encouraging people to ditch their old cars and get new hybirds because a lot of the environmental damage associated with automobiles occurs during the manufacture. Plus I'm fairly certain that the fuel economy of my bike is better than most any car out there.

Imagine being able to go to the DMV to get an official document that states that for the year 2007 you had no vehicles registered in your name. Then, you could include said document in your Federal tax return and, Voila! "A tax credit is subtracted directly from the total amount of federal tax owed, thus reducing or even eliminating the taxpayer’s tax obligation."

I'm trying to decide whether or not to write my congressperson, but I wanted to know what you guys think.

Cheers,
Dex

Pressure groups (aka lobbyists) and the concept of environmental correctness. Besides, the current hybrid privileges have been shown to backfire: In the Washington, DC area it was shown that the primary incentive to buy a hybrid wasn't saving gas, limiting emissions or anything that would actually do any good.

The big incentive was being able to use the HOV lanes without having to put a second nasty, smelly passenger in your car. In other words, it completely defeated the effort to get people to use fewer cars on the morning commute.

I hate using the tax code for social engineering. Bring on the flat tax, where you pay a percentage of what you make, period. No breaks, no withholding, no nothing. And everybody can easily see exactly how much tax they pay. Of course, the politicians never want that to happen.

nice idea dex. makes sense to me.

Meh. I don't think the tax credit offsets the many thousands the buyer will spend in interest, maintenance, and insurance over the life of the vehicle, hybrid or not, much less the gas used and the original price of the vehicle.

I'm not saying that it's worth it to go out and buy a hybrid if you're car free/light for the tax break, but right now, if you're in the market for a new car, there's a clear economic incentive to buy a hybrid. For a new Ford hybrid SUV you get a $2,600 credit! I think it would be really useful if there were a similar economic incentive to be car free.

I think another thing that is so appealing to me about this is that, in this era of tax breaks for the very wealthy, this is something that could positvely affect many of the poorest people in the US. Also, I'd end up with more money.

Personally, I like the idea of a tax credit for people with no motor vehicles; as has already been said, among other things, that would lead to more money for me. It won't ever happen in a million years, though. It's just plain incomprehensible to any member of congress, or most Americans for that matter, that the government would do anything to get people to spend less money on cars, petroleum, or dashboard Jesus bobbleheads. That would be simply un-American, something that Barak Obama's pastor might advocate.

You can't go "against" the car industry, so the way to do it would be a tax credit for going to work (a certain number of days out of the year) in an environmentally non-harming way. They could define that as public transportation, bikes, electric cars, etc. That's the only way you'd get a tax break for a bike, and even that's a bit of a long shot.

I think you'd have to look for a one time tax break like the one they give for "purchasing" a hybrid. It's not so much about being environmentally responsible as it is about contributing to the economy with the purchase. That's why they only get it for the purchase of a hybrid rather than simply driving one for that particular tax year.

Tax incentives are not established for moral behavior.
They are established for government approved behavior.

I also think that to some extent car manufactures factor in the tax advantage of a hybrid when they price the vehicle. I really don't think that in our free(ish) market that the government can give a tax advantage (or rebate, cash back, lower interest rate, etc. ) for a product without it being compensated by an increase in the price of that product.

For example the price of HDTV converters seems to have risen now that the government is offering the rebate coupons for them.

---

Would I like the government to give me money? Sure. But if say they gave a tax advantage worth $100 towards the purchase of a bicycle, I would expect the price of bicycles to go up $100 (or more). So sure, someone will be making more money, but I'll eat my bicycle if it ends up being me.

Tax incentives are not established for moral behavior.
They are established for government approved behavior.

Yep...personally I think that the tax "incentives" are nothing but a feel good game. If you want to make it fair, get rid off all the various nickel and dime taxes and go with either a VAT or use tax. The less you use or spend the better off you will be.

Aaron:)

Riddle me this:

Why is there a federal tax credit for buying a new hybrid car (more info: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=157632,00.html), but no tax credit for having no car at all?

If the goal is environmental conservation we shouldn't be encouraging people to ditch their old cars and get new hybirds because a lot of the environmental damage associated with automobiles occurs during the manufacture. Plus I'm fairly certain that the fuel economy of my bike is better than most any car out there.

Imagine being able to go to the DMV to get an official document that states that for the year 2007 you had no vehicles registered in your name. Then, you could include said document in your Federal tax return and, Voila! "A tax credit is subtracted directly from the total amount of federal tax owed, thus reducing or even eliminating the taxpayer’s tax obligation."

I'm trying to decide whether or not to write my congressperson, but I wanted to know what you guys think.

Cheers,
Dex

I haven't read the rest of this thread yet.

Some lawmaker/s likely got some good campaign donations from certain people/groups/corporations to cleverly increase the sales of the these cars with newer technology that cost a lot of money to develop. They can pretend that they care about the environment (and get votes from "environmentalists") by passing a law that provides tax breaks to people that buy these cars. This makes the manufactures of these cars more money because it helps to sell these cars. It's business and, yes, our government is for sale.

What's the benefit for lawmakers to create a law that provides tax breaks to people without cars? Do you think your congressperson cares that you'd like a tax break because you ride a bike instead of a car?

Jesus, conspiracy theory much? Promoting hybrids over regular cars is a GOOD thing, why does everyone get on the bashwagon about it? I say bravo government, you got something right for a change.

The economic benefits of being car-free speak for themselves, I for one don't need a government handout.

I think tax credits have traditionally been instituted to help someone when they incur extra expenses, like having a child, for example. By not owning a motor vehicle, we're usually saving money by choice, and therefore a tax incentive isn't necessary. The whole energy/environmental aspect of living car-free isn't even considered.

That, I believe, is the old school of thought.

In the new school of thought, there ought to be tax incentives for living car free, especially since there are already tax credits going to those who drive hybrids. And like I've always said, the SUV driver who only uses the thing a few dozen times a year is more favorable in my book than the hybrid driver who commutes 50 miles round trip five days a week.

I like the idea of an official DMV document. That seems to be the only legit way to prove car freedom. I think I'm going to write to my congressman about this.

Buy a hybrid: $30k cost - $3k credit = $27k spent
Don't buy a hybrid: $0 spent

Where's the problem?

Buy a hybrid: $30k cost - $3k credit = $27k spent
Don't buy a hybrid: $0 spent

Where's the problem?+1. I live in a country with VERY high taxes on car prices. Not buying a car is a tax incentive in itself.

--J

Jesus, conspiracy theory much? Promoting hybrids over regular cars is a GOOD thing, why does everyone get on the bashwagon about it? I say bravo government, you got something right for a change.

No, they didn't get it right.

Maybe it makes sense to incentivize driving a Toyota Prius or a Honda Civic hybrid, but does it make sense to promote the 2008 Chevy Tahoe hybrid (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml)which achieves a whopping 20 MPG (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f.jsp?year=2008&make=Chevrolet&model=Tahoe%20Hybrid%204WD&hiddenField=Findacar)? The 2004 Ford Focus my girlfriend and I drive maybe twice a week gets 30 MPG, 50% better fuel economy than the Tahoe, but somehow that's not eligible for a tax credit.

Something's not right.

No, they didn't get it right.

Maybe it makes sense to incentivize driving a Toyota Prius or a Honda Civic hybrid, but does it make sense to promote the 2008 Chevy Tahoe hybrid (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml)which achieves a whopping 20 MPG (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f.jsp?year=2008&make=Chevrolet&model=Tahoe%20Hybrid%204WD&hiddenField=Findacar)? The 2004 Ford Focus my girlfriend and I drive maybe twice a week gets 30 MPG, 50% better fuel economy than the Tahoe, but somehow that's not eligible for a tax credit.

Something's not right.

Its also about 7mpg better than a regular Tahoe, so I'd still call it a win for hybrids. The simple fact is, a Focus and a Tahoe aren't in the same class. If you're going to buy a Focus, you might consider a Civic hybrid, but you're just not looking at buying an SUV, and vice versa.

If you want to say SUVs are bad in general, that's fine, but thats what you really mean, not that hybrids are bad.

I'd rather see motorists paying the full price for their transportation choice, without the taxpayer subsidies for highways, accidents, pollution, health costs, wars for oil, etc., etc.

Problem is fuel taxes are not sufficient to maintain roads & bridges. Starting to see more stories on infrastructure problems in the media. Many bridges around here not suitable for school buses to cross, so county school systems end up spending 15% extra per year to route around those.

Fuel taxes should be high enough to cover all of these costs without taking money from somewhere else, nor should these taxes be spent on anything else. So fuel tax around $9.50/gallon, which would be plenty of incentive for the use of smaller cars, hybrids, public trans & cycling.

Problem is fuel taxes are not sufficient to maintain roads & bridges. Starting to see more stories on infrastructure problems in the media. Many bridges around here not suitable for school buses to cross, so county school systems end up spending 15% extra per year to route around those.

Fuel taxes should be high enough to cover all of these costs without taking money from somewhere else, nor should these taxes be spent on anything else. So fuel tax around $9.50/gallon, which would be plenty of incentive for the use of smaller cars, hybrids, public trans & cycling.

I kinda like this except you have to factor in cyclists and pedestrians using the roads. They wouldn't cause wear but bike lanes, sidewalks, crosswalks, etc. have to be built for them. I think this accounts for a very small percentage of the overall costs so motorists should pay most. One could argue that sidewalk and crosswalk costs should be taken from general taxes though. One could also argue that bike lanes aren't really necessary...it kind of depends on the road/area/type of traffic though.

There should be a deduction for commuting by bike, certainly. A credit is probably asking too much.

Its also about 7mpg better than a regular Tahoe, so I'd still call it a win for hybrids. The simple fact is, a Focus and a Tahoe aren't in the same class. If you're going to buy a Focus, you might consider a Civic hybrid, but you're just not looking at buying an SUV, and vice versa.

If you want to say SUVs are bad in general, that's fine, but thats what you really mean, not that hybrids are bad.

No that isn't a win for hybrids it was a score for the US auto manufacturers lobby. There is no reason that the average American commuter needs a 5,000+# vehicle to haul his 250# ass around. If they were really interested in conservation they would have been pushing the C.A.F.E. numbers for the past 20 years or so, allowing different classes of vehicles...like cycle cars (small 3-4 wheeled lightweight cars). As is typical of a lot of government actions it is a knee jerk reaction that doesn't have much to do with reality.

If someone wants to drive a 20mpg vehicle let them pay the costs involved.

Aaron:)

No that isn't a win for hybrids it was a score for the US auto manufacturers lobby. There is no reason that the average American commuter needs a 5,000+# vehicle to haul his 250# ass around. If they were really interested in conservation they would have been pushing the C.A.F.E. numbers for the past 20 years or so, allowing different classes of vehicles...like cycle cars (small 3-4 wheeled lightweight cars). As is typical of a lot of government actions it is a knee jerk reaction that doesn't have much to do with reality.

If someone wants to drive a 20mpg vehicle let them pay the costs involved.

Aaron:)

It's not necessary for the average consumer you are right, but there is a market for SUVs which doesn't involve soccer moms.

Again, if I'm going to buy a CAR I might just consider getting a hybrid car because of a hybrid subsidy, similarly if I'm going to be buying an SUV. If I'm going to be buying a CAR I'm not going to go out and buy a hybrid SUV because of a subsidy.

Again, if I'm going to buy a CAR I might just consider getting a hybrid car because of a hybrid subsidy, similarly if I'm going to be buying an SUV. If I'm going to be buying a CAR I'm not going to go out and buy a hybrid SUV because of a subsidy.
It's a valid point, but all it proves is that the tax incentive has absolutely nothing to do with fuel economy, energy efficiency or air quality/climate change. The incentive is designed as another way to pimp hybrid vehicles as a solution to a problem without behavourial change.

If there's going to be tax incentives, they ought to be based on a vehicles fuel economy - regardless of vehicle type. So if you set the bar at 35 MPG or better for a tax incentive, a 36 MPG hybrid SUV or a 41 MPG non-hybrid compact would both be eligible.

(I don't know if either vehicle exists, but it's just an example).

Or better yet, go with the original post in this thread: only give the tax incentives to those who have no vehicles registered.

It's a valid point, but all it proves is that the tax incentive has absolutely nothing to do with fuel economy, energy efficiency or air quality/climate change. The incentive is designed as another way to pimp hybrid vehicles as a solution to a problem without behavourial change.

If there's going to be tax incentives, they ought to be based on a vehicles fuel economy - regardless of vehicle type. So if you set the bar at 35 MPG or better for a tax incentive, a 36 MPG hybrid SUV or a 41 MPG non-hybrid compact would both be eligible.

(I don't know if either vehicle exists, but it's just an example).

Or better yet, go with the original post in this thread: only give the tax incentives to those who have no vehicles registered.

Then what is the incentive for someone who needs an SUV to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, aka a hybrid?

Rather than have a some fake money generated by some fake paper by a fake mill,

Why not tax the the crap out of the motor (in every way shape and form) and spend that monnies on me err alternative transportation.

The economic benefits of being car-free speak for themselves, I for one don't need a government handout.

I don't need a government handout either, but as long as the government is giving money to agribusinesses for growing corn for ethanol that nobody uses, thereby increasing the price of my food, I don't see any reason not to put my hand out, too...

Instead of a tax/government benefit, is there one at the private sector? Specifically health care. I will be looking for medical insurance in the fall, anybody know of a company who takes into account health lifestyles like car free?

I get health insurance thru my employer, but we get credit for excersising and getting regular workups of the big indicators (bp and cholesterol numbers); something non-trivial like 20 dollars off our premiums each month. For individually available insurance I haven't heard of anything.

There should be a deduction for commuting by bike, certainly. A credit is probably asking too much.

I never understood this. What's the difference between a deduction and a credit?

I never understood this. What's the difference between a deduction and a credit?

A deduction means you can take it off the amount you earned and if it's enough, it'll lower your taxes. A deduction does not guarantee money back and it's not 1-to-1. It takes a % out of what you owe. A credit is guaranteed money back.

For example if you made a $50 donation to charity, you get a deduction but you're not taking $50 off your owed taxes. In fact, $50 is too little to "count" so it won't affect your taxes at all (by itself). If you get a $50 credit, you get $50.

A deduction means you can take it off the amount you earned and if it's enough, it'll lower your taxes. A deduction does not guarantee money back and it's not 1-to-1. It takes a % out of what you owe. A credit is guaranteed money back.

For example if you made a $50 donation to charity, you get a deduction but you're not taking $50 off your owed taxes. In fact, $50 is too little to "count" so it won't affect your taxes at all (by itself). If you get a $50 credit, you get $50.

Thanks for the explanation. If people want to profit from being carfree, they should go for the credit.

Then what is the incentive for someone who needs an SUV to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, aka a hybrid?
I'm one of those crazy people that thinks the number of people who "need" SUVs is a lot smaller than the number of people who drive SUVs.

That being said, you raise an interesting question. Maybe, instead of buying a new vehicle, why not only use the SUV when you're driving off road, moving a refrigerator, or hauling seven kids to soccer practice and GET A BIKE for all your other trips. This is, after all, BIKEforums.net

Any way you slice it, it makes no sense to me to incentivize any vehicle, hybrid or not, that doesn't get excellent (or at least better than average) gas mileage.

Then what is the incentive for someone who needs an SUV to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, aka a hybrid?


I'm one of those crazy people that thinks the number of people who "need" SUVs is a lot smaller than the number of people who drive SUVs.

That being said, you raise an interesting question. Maybe, instead of buying a new vehicle, why not only use the SUV when you're driving off road, moving a refrigerator, or hauling seven kids to soccer practice and GET A BIKE for all your other trips. This is, after all, BIKEforums.net

Any way you slice it, it makes no sense to me to incentivize any vehicle, hybrid or not, that doesn't get excellent (or at least better than average) gas mileage.

Car sharing services are the way to go. If there was a service in my neighborhood I would sell my car and never look back. I think federal grants for non profit car sharing co-op's would be a a big help for car-free families. The grants could specify higher efficiency and emssions standards for vehicles bought with the funds. Personal tax credits would mostly be used by poor people that will eventually buy a car once they are able to get a loan. (car free tax credit = down payment on their auto loan)

+1. I live in a country with VERY high taxes on car prices. Not buying a car is a tax incentive in itself.

--J

I was going to say this same thing.

Well, apart from the different country -- but the option to not pay a tax by buying a car in the first place, plus no registration fees and no inspection fees, seems like plenty of a bonus to me. Depending on the locale, it might even be better than any tax credit.

It ain't worth it! Talk about hassle! You would have to camp out at the DMV until they got around to giving you a certified copy of non-registration. Hours of time wasted! They would probably charge $15 or so handling fee as well. And good luck finding a place to lock your bike up. :p




What's the benefit for lawmakers to create a law that provides tax breaks to people without cars? Do you think your congressperson cares that you'd like a tax break because you ride a bike instead of a car?

Why to ladle even more largess on the senior citizen vote! Don't just write your congressman about this, write the AARP as well, they will be a natural ally on this issue.

Half the folks in Manhattan do not own cars, CC Hillary Clinton in on the AARP letter! No better time for her to buy votes... er, introduce ground breaking progressive legislation on her constituents behalf (Yeah, that's the right way to say it! ;)) than in an election year!


What's the difference between a deduction and a credit?

A deduction reduces the amount of income that is taxed, a credit reduces the amount you are taxed dollar for dollar. For example, a $100 deduction for someone in a 25% tax bracket will reduce his "line 31" taxable amount by $100. It will reduce his taxes by $25.

A credit, on the other hand, is applied to the tax owed. For example, someone in a 25% tax bracket is found to owe $3,000. When the $100 tax credit is applied he will owe $2,900.

Roody has shrewdly surmised that tax credits are preferred over tax deductions! ;)

[FONT="Georgia"]Why to ladle even more largess on the senior citizen vote! Don't just write your congressman about this, write the AARP as well, they will be a natural ally on this issue.

Half the folks in Manhattan do not own cars, CC Hillary Clinton in on the AARP letter! No better time for her to buy votes... er, introduce ground breaking progressive legislation on her constituents behalf (Yeah, that's the right way to say it! ;)) than in an election year!

I'm confused. Why would senior citizens care if there was a tax break or credit for people that don't drive?...besides the really old/disabled ones that can't drive anymore.

I filled up my 1997 VW Passat TDI today, 49mpg again. 1992 diesel technology. When I use it as an SUV (4'x8' trailer) I still get a minimum of 36.

The EPA has made Diesel emission requirements stricter than gas, now Diesel get less MPG (than a few years ago) due to emissions requirements. The technology exists to get 60mpg in a mid-sized sedan, and when I say that I mean put the existing components on the assembly line, no batteries needed.

Soon the market force of the price of fuel will change most people's buying decisions anyway. I do think fuel taxes should be increased to cover the infrastructure problem as well.

A deduction reduces the amount of income that is taxed, a credit reduces the amount you are taxed dollar for dollar. For example, a $100 deduction for someone in a 25% tax bracket will reduce his "line 31" taxable amount by $100. It will reduce his taxes by $25.

A credit, on the other hand, is applied to the tax owed. For example, someone in a 25% tax bracket is found to owe $3,000. When the $100 tax credit is applied he will owe $2,900.

Roody has shrewdly surmised that tax credits are preferred over tax deductions! ;)

In the end they are the same thing: less money owed. In your example above one could ask for a 100 dollar deduction or a 25 dollar credit. So the difference is just semantics. The point is (I think) that 'deductions' are easier to sneak into the tax code, and 'credits' get better publicity which may want to be avoided by whatever politician is dumb enough to suggest americans give up their cars.

Personal tax credits would mostly be used by poor people that will eventually buy a car once they are able to get a loan. (car free tax credit = down payment on their auto loan)
Damn. I never thought of that.

Its also about 7mpg better than a regular Tahoe, so I'd still call it a win for hybrids. The simple fact is, a Focus and a Tahoe aren't in the same class. If you're going to buy a Focus, you might consider a Civic hybrid, but you're just not looking at buying an SUV, and vice versa.

If you want to say SUVs are bad in general, that's fine, but thats what you really mean, not that hybrids are bad.

Well, that *is* an example of a bad hybrid. An SUV (and other similar hauling vehicles) could get 20-25mpg with 1990 technology and no hybridization involved. Not much compromise in the way of hauling performance either, tho gas mileage does go down if you're hauling the full load the vehicle is capable of while using a trailer.

I know it's very odd of me, but if I'm paying extra for a hybrid, I want it to perform better. Not better than the non-hybrid version of the vehicle, better than my standards for acceptable miles per gallon for that *class* of vehicle. So for a small sedan, I would expect a hybrid to do better than 50 mpg on the highway. They don't. For an SUV, minivan or light truck, I'd expect 30+ mpg. Again, this doesn't happen. For a typical hybrid, there is no real improvement in fuel efficiency over comparable vehicles in their class. They also tend to have design "features" that limit the driver's ability to improve gas mileage. Thus, I'm unwilling to buy one.

Note that it's entirely reasonable for a driver to get a solid 5mpg more than the vehicle is rated for. More is possible, but it takes skill and can involve driving techniques that are inappropriate for use outside of a closed course. That's part of why I'm so hard on hybrids... if they're not producing a bigger change than a careful driver can, it's not much of a change.

The EPA has made Diesel emission requirements stricter than gas,
I'm not sure that's true. I thought diesels were just really dirty compared to gas, especially with particle emissions. I know requirements on trucks were tightened in the last few years, so they need extra exhaust filters, but I don't know if that affected mileage.

In the end they are the same thing: less money owed. In your example above one could ask for a 100 dollar deduction or a 25 dollar credit. So the difference is just semantics. The point is (I think) that 'deductions' are easier to sneak into the tax code, and 'credits' get better publicity which may want to be avoided by whatever politician is dumb enough to suggest americans give up their cars.

Not quite. You could get a tax "deduction" equal to the amount you earned but depending on which bracket you're in (and a few other factors), it might not make a difference in your taxes that you owe. Deductions are very complex in how they're applied. Credits are exactly that: you get the amount guaranteed.

I should sell my car to my company (Im the owner). I could still use it, and get the credit!
Whooooo! Double dipping!

I think the reason why there is no "car free subsidy" is because its simply too hard to implement it. How can you, on paper tell if someone is really living car free? The best way I can think of is to attach all car titles to a database that the IRS could fish data out of. But that would also have the effect of incentivizing illegal ownership of cars, cars with no title, or fake titles. In effect making people look car free on paper while really they do own cars.

Plus, really living car free is its own incentive program, the car payments, the insurance, the gasoline, repair bills, we don't pay any of that. That amounts to more than $2,600/year.

I know it's very odd of me, but if I'm paying extra for a hybrid, I want it to perform better. Not better than the non-hybrid version of the vehicle, better than my standards for acceptable miles per gallon for that *class* of vehicle. So for a small sedan, I would expect a hybrid to do better than 50 mpg on the highway. They don't. For an SUV, minivan or light truck, I'd expect 30+ mpg. Again, this doesn't happen.

That's just the nature of a hybrid. If they didn't use their gas engine on the highway, they'd have terrible range. It's ironic that they get better gas mileage in the city than on the highway. If you want better mileage for your driving, pick whichever one does better at your style of driving. For lots of stop & go traffic, a hybrid is still better (not yet counting a full electric car); for pure highway driving, a diesel might actually be best.


Plus, really living car free is its own incentive program, the car payments, the insurance, the gasoline, repair bills, we don't pay any of that. That amounts to more than $2,600/year.

Exactly -- can you imagine a $2600 tax credit becoming reality? I sure can't. Can you also say "widespread tax fraud" as people try to weasel their way into getting it?

Some people are SO car-free that they've forgotten how much it really costs.. ;)

That's just the nature of a hybrid. If they didn't use their gas engine on the highway, they'd have terrible range. It's ironic that they get better gas mileage in the city than on the highway. If you want better mileage for your driving, pick whichever one does better at your style of driving. For lots of stop & go traffic, a hybrid is still better (not yet counting a full electric car); for pure highway driving, a diesel might actually be best.

Heh. I usually can match listed highway mpg for city driving on a regular car (or at least I could last time I drove regularly... it's been a few years.). On a highway, I can easily add a few mpg over listed highway mpg, tho getting more than 5mpg over is hard to do safely. Driving for fuel efficiency is not difficult. Driving for fuel efficiency and not being a raving hazard to everyone else on the road *is*.

It comes down to design. Hybrids are smarter about fuel use than Joe Average, because they have a good computer program managing their fuel usage. But that same programming makes it harder for an economical driver to use the car effectively (from experience in fighting with such programming). I've got every reason to believe that I can't push a hybrid's performance to anything like the degree I can on a regular car. I'm also suspicious since in my experience, most fuel efficient programming does not handle hilly and mountainous terrain well. You'll often lose a few mpg, whereas when I'm doing the driving the mpg *stay*. If hybrids have the same performance issues, it's a real problem.

(and no, I'm not some kind of amazing fuel efficient wonder. just a cranky gearhead who doesn't like to buy gas. There are people who are much better about fuel efficiency than I am.)

With my current living situation, not owning a car is the best plan :D. Pretty silly to use a car when I can bike or use mass transit to get anywhere I want to go.

I did my taxes today, and when I considered that people who bought new vehicles would get a deduction, while car-free me would not be getting any vehicle deduction at all, I briefly became really irritated: I felt as though I was being punished for being frugal in my transportation choices. Yes, it's true that not owning a motor vehicle has huge financial benefits all on its own, but it's still galling to me that the federal government will, in effect, pay people a small subsidy to buy cars. Where the hell did that one come from? Why not just have a tax deduction for buying crack?

Yes, it's true that not owning a motor vehicle has huge financial benefits all on its own, but it's still galling to me that the federal government will, in effect, pay people a small subsidy to buy cars. Why not just have a tax deduction for buying crack?

At least they're buying newer cars with better gas mileage (in general) and up-to-date safety features...