I hear the leather there is high quality and low priced!

Tom W

I respect your position on this issue.

But, consider that the U.S. wastes millions of gallons of gasoline for no good reason other than to shuttle one 150 lb. a-hole to and from his job in a 6,000 lb. behemoth. It's wanton waste of a precious resource. If the resource costs $10.00 per gallon, which it will eventually cost in the not too distant future, the $hitboxes would evaporate.

I'd simply prefer if the government caused it to happen sooner..........and maintained a stable oil price for other more important uses of the fuel.............uses that are vital to the economy..........and would cause crippling shortages if the price climbs to $10.00.

Why? Since Ernesto was from Cuba, he might be able to suggest some hot spots. :D

Understand this. The govt starts out with a nice idea. In the end, it becomes something perverted. Look at every bill out there. Starts out with a nice simple idea and later gets tacked with all sorts of pork. Say we have a bill to give schools 200 mil. Sound good so far? Well, they tack all sorts of stuff on it. Now it becomes a hostage situation. Either vote for it or against it. If you vote against, you become the scumbag that didn't want to spend on schools for kids.

Not sure it will make a significant difference to Detroit.

Which is why you really don't want the government doing anything because they just screw stuff up; let the market work it out. When and if oil is ever depleted, mankind will come up with another solution as a means of propulsion.

Hence, I have always said that giving the govt a mandate to do something and thus a reason to hit us in the wallet is like giving the crack addict keys to the pharmacy. Both bad ideas. However, it seems like we don't learn from the supernatural themes of movies. The kids summon the devil to do their bidding and they are surprised when the devil comes for his dues which are far more than if the kids had done the work themselves. I prefer a govt that does only the bare necessary stuff.

Whistle, whistle.....:D ... so is the competition! High quality, low price....;)

Best and cheapest would be in Argentina

I wonder how many are leased?

Well their is a gas guzzler tax. Its just on $250k Ferrari's that get driven like 3k miles a year.:rolleyes:

Thats just a petty tax the rich ploy.

I think that tax is on any car that does not get at least 20 mpg combined...

When I looked at the S63 AMG V-12 BiTurbo it had some extra fees in the window sticker.. one was Gas Guzzler Tax.. and this one was listed for IIRC 125k

and comes with a humidor filled with Romeo and Julietta's.....

A lot.

So who get's the tax credit? If you live in Virginia we have that personal property tax you have to pay every year based on the value of your automobile. Mine last year was 12.00. Stickin it to the man- drive older cars...

No one! There is NO tax C-R-E-D-I-T (meaning money from the Treasury). Brian and a few others have already spelled out the difference between a credit and a deduction.

All this SUV and light truck 25,000 issue is about is the TIMING of the depreciation deductions in general and the interplay of Sec. 179 in particular.

Congress' favorite pastime is to play with the Internal Revenue Code. Sec. 179 was introduced awile ago to stimulate manufacturing by permitting taxpayers to expense a fixed amount of $$ up front and then depreciate the balance of the basis under lives and annual %'s as spelled out in the code. Sec. 179 was introduced sometime in the 90's. IIRC it started out at something like 10,000 per year..for most depreciable personal property placed in service. Note that the property need not be new ( originally placed in service) to be eligible. Eligible property includes most business tangible personal property, including motor vehicles from golf carts to Peterbilts.

The first year deduction gradually increased up to 25,000. Then, in 2001 the 179 limit went up to 125,000 to spur economic recovery. (It went up to 150,000 in a bill passed earlier this year). The 179 deduction for light trucks, vans and SUV's with a GVWR over 6000 lbs was frozen in 2004 at the 25,000 level.

Without the 179 election, depreciation on these type of vehicles, regardless of their cost is within a range of approx. 3,260 to 5,500 to 1,875 per year over a period of 6 years.
So, without the 179 option, the landscaper who buys an F-250 powerstoke diesel for ? 50K? would only be able to recover in deductions less than half his outlay. After 5 years, the vehicle is probably worn out. The 179 expense election (25,000 in yr 1 as opposed to 3,300) gets him most, but still not all of his 50K back.

As noted earlier, the smart business man makes the decision first based upon business needs (economic), with the tax implications interwoven, but still secondary.

Leasing a vehicle avoids all this. You get no 25,000 write off, and at the lease end, you have no truck, but for business property, it is an attractive alternative.

BTW, MB's in play with a GWVR are the G500, G55AMG SUV,ML350SUV and ML500SUV.

Note: Some of the newer unibody chasis may not qualify:R63,R320,ML63,ML320. There is uncertainty whether the IRS will consider these unibody (auto) chassis vehicles SUV's or cars, since they are build on a car chasis. Cars are not, of course allowed the 179 deduction. (They must be on a truck chassis)

But, hey, I don't write the music. I just sing the song....
And long after I'm dead and gone, there will be an Internal Revenue Code to deal with.

Happy July 4th.

Post Script. And just when you thought it was all clear, I forgot to mention a key point: the 179 deduction is not permitted for the purposes of the dreaded Alternative Minimum Tax. All depreciation is recalculated under different rules for AMT purposes.:dizzy2::book: