Loopholes Big Enough To Drive Through
I realize that it will come as no surprise to those who have been reading TPRS for awhile, but I am most decidedly pro-SUV (yes, I DID want that Hummer H2 for Christmas, honey...). I know that this is an inherently un-Liberal position, but this is America. Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot drive? If I can afford to buy, maintain, and drive something the size of a road grader, should I not have the right to do so? I've always believed so. What I DON'T support is a tax loophole that makes it even easier for the rich to buy uber-SUVs.
Try to wrap your mind around this: Dad tells Junior he shouldn't eat so much sugar, yet offers to increase his allowance if he buys more sweets. Think Junior's going to buy apples – or Twix bars?
Such is the logic of the recently increased "SUV tax loophole."
The story goes like this: In the midst of the Reagan presidency, back before SUVs were the rage, the IRS began to allow small business owners a tax deduction for purchases of vehicles over 6,000 pounds. The idea was that businesses could then afford important new equipment while the economy would receive a boost through increased sales.
Unforeseen, however, was the exponential rise in the popularity of sport utility vehicles over the subsequent two decades. The rub, the infamous "loophole," is that the law makes no distinction between an accountant commuting in a Hummer and a contractor updating a fleet of pickups.
The deduction, up to $25,000 until May, was raised to $100,000 as a part of President Bush's recent "economic stimulus package." This 300 percent increase passed despite widespread criticism that the loophole clearly encourages the purchase of unnecessary gas-guzzling SUVs like the rugged Lincoln Navigator and that trusty workhorse, the Mercedes ML-55.
The results have become apparent across the nation, as accountants and auto-dealers alike push SUVs as a way to cut taxes. One Texas dealer, reported the Washington Post, ran a radio ad, that, if less tasteful than most, was far from exceptional: "It's a loophole, and this weekend, we can show you how to make that loophole big enough to drive a fleet of trucks and sport utility vehicles through it!"
Look, If you can afford an uber-SUV, more power to you. Drive responsibly and have fun. It's simple supply-and-demand market forces at work. Even so, I do not want my tax dollars helping to make your down payment.
In the final analysis, of course, it's all about the money. Politics always is. Anyone who doubts this truism really ought to remove their anterior from their posterior. Money ultimately means votes, and you can bet that uber-SUV owners are going to be one appreciative crowd come Election Day.
Of course, getting rid of an entitlement is always significantly more difficult than putting into place. Now that this loophole is here, it's not going to go quietly.
Senator Barbara Boxer had already introduced the "SUV Business Tax Loophole Closure Act," and critics from columnist Arianna Huffington to Taxpayers for Common Sense had been publicizing it for at least two years. The government's own Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that well over $1 billion would be saved over 10 years by closing the loophole – so why does it still exist?
According to Huffington, the rationale is simple; just follow the money.
"The numbers tell the story," she wrote in a column earlier this year. "The auto industry spent close to $37 million on lobbying in 2000. And you can bet that money wasn't spent trying to convince Congress to designate a 'Windshield Wiper Appreciation Week.' Although I'm sure Congress would have been glad to oblige if its deep-pocket pals in Detroit had only asked. After all, the industry has donated over $77 million to federal candidates and the political parties since the 1990 election – with $12.5 million doled out during the 2002 election cycle."
Hey, you know...Susan and I have an as-yet-small eBay business that we run on the side. I wonder if.... Damn, one of those Hummers WOULD look awfully nice in my driveway. All I need now is a way to convince Susan of that. Anyone have any ideas???
