1
   

Climate Change must be tackled NOW

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2003 08:56 am
On topic, I believe what he is referring to is that some SUV's have become so big that they now fall under certain guidlines that were once meant for large trucks. The new Chevy Tahoe, for example, now tips the scale at over 5000 pounds, which earlier would have been unheard of, but now is becoming typical. There is a loophole in the tax law for business vehicles weighing over 5000 lbs. as being deductible.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2003 09:09 am
McGentrix wrote:
I know what you mean, but I tend to regard Commondreams.org as an ULTRA left information site in the same vein many liberals see NewsMax as an ULTRA right information site.

Oh, I understand and agree with you, but I'd rather debate the validity of the information provided than the source. Many here like to complain about Fox News in general rather than dispute the accuracy of a specific citation offered from their Website. I find this tactic tends to end any useful discussion, and so try not to do it myself.

And on topic, my read of the information provided doesn't indicate that it has anything to do with vehicle weight or vehicles in the specific. My understanding is that this is a deduction for capital spent on equipment, including vehicles. If you have a source that indicates there's more to it than that, please share it. Thanks. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2003 09:20 am
I had heard it on a radio show. It is 6000lbs and here are some links...

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/specialreports/articles/100280/article.html?tid=edmunds.o.landing.features..2.*

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/2/prweb58413.php

http://www.selfemployedweb.com/november_2002.htm

http://www.insideoffice.com/insideoffice-20-20030523TheShockingTaxBenefitsOfSection179.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2003 09:44 am
We are talking about the struggle to reduce CO2 emissions aren't we? c.i.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2003 09:49 am
McG - Great information! Thanks for filling the holes in my knowledge on this one.

Okay, this is from the Edmunds link you provided (bold mine)...

Quote:
equipment purchased under the Section 179 deduction has to be employed over 50 percent of the time for business purposes. That means to deduct a Range Rover, the buyer has to prove that it's primarily a business asset; that the rich leather and wood interior, sophisticated suspension and four-wheel-drive system and elegant detailing are an integral part of doing business. That might be straightforward for, say, a developer whose various projects straddle a whole state and whose regular work includes transporting potential investors through the muck of construction sites. It would likely be tougher for the owner of a delicatessen. Especially since the IRS requires that the business use of any vehicle, including those not covered by the Section 179 deduction, be documented in writing.

And, of course, seeking a Section 179 deduction for a high-end luxury SUV could be just the sort of thing that attracts the IRS' attention to a tax return in the first place.

So, you are right that this deals with a specific provision for heavy vehicles which would technically now encompass these largest SUVs. What remains untrue is the implication within liberal reports that the intent was to give a tax break for these vehicles and the claim that such a deduction is either likely or easily had.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2003 09:49 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
We are talking about the struggle to reduce CO2 emissions aren't we? c.i.

I thought we were discussing whether or not we should be engaged in that struggle. :wink:
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2003 09:57 am
Okay, the 6000 lb ceiling has been in effect for a decade or more. A lighter vehicle becomes a luxury auto and falls under a differenct depreciation schedule. Those over 6000 are treated exactly like any other capital asset. In the case of vehicles, the depreciation period is 5 years. Post 9/11, there is a 30% bonus for new assets (not just vehicles, after which you apply normal depreciation schedules to the undepreciated amount (20% in the case of vehicles). This is a more rapid depreciation than normal. In no case will the depreciation be either more or less than the cost basis. Sheese.

Still can't visualize the business use of such vehicles. Pickups and vans, yes. SUVs, no.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2003 10:01 am
Oh, sorry. This is about climate change, not depreciation. Forgot myself here.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2003 10:01 am
roger wrote:
Still can't visualize the business use of such vehicles.

That doesn't mean that they don't have them.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2003 10:02 am
Scrat, The idea of introducing this 'tax cut" for huge vehicles was to show how diffficult it would be to even begin trying to tacke the emission problem - worldwide. It's one thing to say we are suffering from global warming, but yet another to implement any meaningful, universal reduction program. How and where do we begin - is the question. It's an uphill struggle not many governments or individuals are going to care to address. c.i.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2003 10:06 am
Start at home. Do what you can to influence people.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2003 10:25 am
McG, All fine and good; how many recruits can you get? c.i.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2003 10:26 am
I drive the new Civic hybrid. I get all kinds of questions about it. I am doing my part.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2003 10:55 am
And you probably represent one percent of the world population. You are doing your part, but I doubt you're going to influence the other 99 percent to your way of "saving the ecology." c.i.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2003 10:56 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Scrat, The idea of introducing this 'tax cut" for huge vehicles was to show how diffficult it would be to even begin trying to tacke the emission problem - worldwide. It's one thing to say we are suffering from global warming, but yet another to implement any meaningful, universal reduction program. How and where do we begin - is the question. It's an uphill struggle not many governments or individuals are going to care to address. c.i.

Again, I respectfully disagree with your claim that "How and where do we begin - is the question". The questions we need to continue asking and researching are:

1) What real trends in climate change are currently occurring and how accurately can we predict near and far future trends?

2) What measurable impact--if any--is man having on the global climate?

3) If man is negatively effecting global climate trends, what can we do about it and what are the real costs and statistical likelihood of success of any proposed solutions?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2003 10:57 am
McG, Have you ever heard of what has happened to the lumber industry in Peru? That's a microcosm of how humans will look at survival first and ecology second. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2003 11:06 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
McG, Have you ever heard of what has happened to the lumber industry in Peru? That's a microcosm of how humans will look at survival first and ecology second. c.i.

some humans
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2003 12:09 pm
No, Scrat, most humans. Ever wonder what one of the biggest problems are with the American people? It's being too fat. In other words, if people can't take care of themselves properly, how in the world are you going to change their outlook on the outside world? c.i.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2003 12:10 pm
I believe the latest statistics show that the majority of American children are over-weight. c.i.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2003 12:16 pm
Here's an interesting article I stole from another A2K forum. Even the Evironmentalists are saying it is counter-productive in reducing CO2. The last paragraph says it all. c.i.
**************************************
Mapleleaf wrote:
US, EU to Seek Carbon Dumps to Fight Climate Change

Quote:
Mon June 23, 2003 10:37 AM ET
By Robin Pomeroy
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The United States will join forces with the European Union and other countries this week to develop a new technique to fight global warming -- pumping carbon dioxide underground, EU sources said Monday.

The move will be another symbol of rapprochement between the EU and the United States on the climate change issue. They fell out in 2000 when Washington withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

"Carbon sequestration" is a way of keeping CO2 from fossil fuel use entering the atmosphere and adding to the greenhouse effect which prevents heat radiating back into space by injecting it into rock strata, mines or gas or oilfields.

On the sidelines of a EU-U.S. summit in Washington Wednesday, EU Energy Commissioner Loyola de Palacio will sign an international charter with the United States and other countries including Brazil, Canada, Russia and China creating a "carbon sequestration leadership forum."

"It is a new charter on cleaning up carbon," an EU source told Reuters.

In a similar move earlier this month the EU and the United States agreed to collaborate on researching hydrogen power, which could have less environmental impact than other fuels.

Some environmentalists are skeptical of both hydrogen and carbon sequestration, saying they will allow the continued use of fossil fuels coal, oil and gas rather than a switch to renewable energies like solar and wind and reducing energy use.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 03:26:24