'Super' SUV [Hummer-H1] Tax Break Could Reach $75,000.00-Fuel Economy Alert!

Detroit Auto News Insider ^ | January 21, 2003 SGT | Jeff Plungis

[ewing]

Presdient George W. Bush's economic growth plan could triple the size of a little known tax loophole that some small business owners are using to finance purchases of large SUV's.

One of President Bushs proposed tax cuts would raise from $25,000.00 to $75.000.00 the amount small business owners can write off when buying an SUV for business purposes.

Since the SUV loophole was first reported by the Detroit News last month, several consumer groups and lawmakers have raised concerns about the fairness of the provision.

[ewing]

At 106K you should at least get an XM Satellite radio!

[wasp69]

A "big trucks for working people" bump!

[ewing]

Dont worry, the market will come back in no time.

[dogbyte12]

How do you figure that YOU are paying for part of this?

Unless they are planning on cutting government spending any soon, I am paying for it. Interest on the debt accrued from people taking this tax break is paid off by all of us taxpayers. If these folks take a $88,000 deduction, and pay $33,000 less in taxes. My share of the added debt is increased relatively speaking. 100,000 people take advantage of this loop hole, and the cost is $3.3 billion to everybody else who doesn't qualify.

[StriperSniper]

But timing being everything in markets(when you don't have lots of 'staying power'{capital}), no time, could be too long. :(

O.K. - I'll cheer up. :)

[clintonh8r]

The new Range Rover is getting closer and closer....to my garage!

[coloradan]

I'm really disgusted by the way in which "loophole" has been redefined by the liberals to include everything they want to illegalize. As far as I'm concerned, we should start calling it the "UN weapons inspection LOOPHOLE" that allows Iraq to continue stalling the day of (w)reckoning.

[Clinging Bitterly]

Yep saw it. There's a poll there, too, and some, uh, interesting comments.

[ewing]

Why Nevada?

[ewing]

Good for you!

[B Knotts]

That's the same logic the Democrats use.

You should be happy to see anyone pay less taxes anytime.

[ewing]

This is going to drive the Dims beserko!

H1-Hummers compliant with new fuel standards getting 26 MPG with dielsel fuel running them over in their VW buggies

[isthisnickcool]

Interest on the debt accrued from people taking this tax break is paid off by all of us taxpayers.

Well, that's a good enough reason to me to chuck the system and go to a flat tax or sales tax. Or, better yet, just take the tax burden then divide it by the population and send everyone a bill:)

BTW, if you consider this money out of "your pocket" then you are getting hit from all sorts of areas. Whenever there is a deduction you can't take advantage of. If I agree with your premise then so am I. And I don't agree with your premise since when someone takes advantage of this deduction YOUR taxes don't increase because of that. I don't see where someone says "isthisnickcool just purchased another huge box on wheels! Call dogbyte12 and tell him/her their tax bill is going up".

But I do get your point and I'll agree with it long enough to take the time to thank you for my new wheels. Just kidding:)

[ewing]

I honestly think Rove puts this stuff in there to antagonize the Dims, while they are fighting this..ANWAR slides through the Senate in March.

[daviddennis]

The IRS gets cranky if your "business" doesn't make a profit after three years or so. Loopholes like this are best left for people who run profitable businesses.

I don't like SUVs, so I wish this applied to cars. If my income goes up significantly, it might make me consider the new Range Rover, which Car magazine (UK) raves about.

If you're audited, I think you have to keep some kind of records to verify that you're using the vehicle only for business. You're a lot less likely to be audited, from what I understand, if you also mention that you have a separate vehicle for personal use.

However, this is just the same tax deduction that lets me write off my PowerBook and other computer purchases. I'm glad it's getting bigger, because that means I can protect more of my income from the 'rats.

Like any other tax cut, this program simply ensures that government has less money to spend, which quite frankly is the only way we're going to get spending down. As a result, I reject the argument saying that we are collectively paying for it. That would only be true if government spending could not be reduced.

It's also not entirely a zero sum game, since each hummer purchased ensures additional employment at the Hummer factory, and higher profits for GM.

D

[isthisnickcool]

At 106K you should at least get an XM Satellite radio!

The H1's don't come with XM radio but it can be added.

[Still Thinking]

I'm really disgusted by the way in which "loophole" has been redefined by the liberals to include everything they want to illegalize.

That chaps my hide as well. I've decided to fight back by defining a "loophole" as any provision in the tax code which results in some portion of my income being taxable and Uncle Sam getting his grubby hands on it!

[templar]

If they earn the money, fine... spend it. Don't make me pay for it as a person who isn't in that category though.

Exactly how are you paying for it? I didn't see that they just buy a luxury SUV and the government pays for it. They still have to earn the money (as you point out) and then pay for the vehicle. And you can be self employed as easily as can I (I am). The reason I don't rush out to buy one of these "free" Suv's is that I would still have to cough up the 100,000 or so dallars for it out of my gross earnings.

[templar]

Unless they are planning on cutting government spending any soon, I am paying for it.

By that logic, I am paying for your children, the food you feed them, your medical care, the charitible and church contributioins you make, etc. So ... HEY GUY ... You're the one taking my money.

[dogbyte12]

I think there is a difference here.

If this tax break was for just vehicles for business, I would have no problem. But basically, subsidizing almost the entire amount of luxury vehicles is a joke. If you name me a lawyer an accountant, or what have you, who needs a Super Hummer in order to fill out their paperwork, and therefore it must be subsidized to such an extent, I am all ears. There should be a baseline here. Not the price of a yugo mind you, but a medium range $35k car should be about it. Joe Lawyer wants to drive in something nicer, he has to pay for it.