Letters

0 Comments | Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Jul 29, 2003

TAXING SUVS Plan ignores some basic economic principles

While the issues of individual liberty and the role of government were paramount in the July 26 point-counterpoint columns by Jeffrey Anderson and Sean Paige, I wish to limit my comments to a couple of specific aspects of Anderson's proposal to simultaneously tax sport utility vehicles and subsidize station wagons ("Should feds influence auto-buying decisions? Yes: SUV tax would benefit society, drivers; " 'No: choices are best left to individuals").

Regardless of the merits of a plan to discourage SUV purchases, Anderson's taxsubsidy proposal is seriously flawed. If his suggested tax on SUVs is successful in discouraging consumers from purchasing SUVs, how would the government "pay for that subsidy 100 percent with a tax on SUVs," as Anderson maintains?

In fact, the more successful Anderson's "Inconsiderate Citizen" tax on SUVs, the fewer SUVs are purchased (his objective), and the less tax revenue is available to pay for all the station wagons presumably now being bought.

In the extreme, a tax so high as to discourage all SUV purchases generates absolutely zero tax revenue.

But Anderson also appears to have disregarded another basic principle that economists stress with their students - it is not the absolute price of SUVs (or any good) that is most important in this context, but it is the relative price, the price of SUVs compared with other substitute products.

If Anderson merely taxes SUVs, but does not simultaneously subsidize station wagons, then he might still achieve his main objective. Station wagons are now cheaper (relative to SUVs) than before the imposition of the SUV tax, because the price of SUVs has risen due to the tax, but the price of station wagons has not. Thus, consumers are likely to purchase fewer SUVs and more of the "friendly, long-discarded, 'Brady Bunch'-connected vehicle." (Of course, as the demand for station wagons rises, expect the price of wagons to rise a bit too.)

Similarly, Anderson could subsidize station wagon purchases without simultaneously imposing the SUV tax and achieve a similar change in relative prices.

John Brock, Director, Center for Economic Education, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs

How about an office to tax the inconsiderate?

While many will scoff at the proposal by Jeffrey Anderson to impose a tax on SUVs as just the ranting of another academic ninny, I applaud his idea. SUVs are simply not needed and they consume scarce resources. Imposition of governmental sanctions on such inconsiderate behavior is long overdue.

In fact, I would like to see such sanctions extended to other vehicular excesses. For example, some citizens have three (or more) cars for only two people. Some - particularly owners of sports cars and motorcycles - motor about aimlessly on weekends, wasting resources and occupying precious highway space. Some modify their vehicles, changing the height and sound making a mockery of standardization. Such inconsiderate behavior must be punished.

While I recognize that regulation is urgently needed, I also recognize that trying to codify all the possible violations is beyond the capability of lawmakers. Thus, I suggest we establish the cabinet level Office of Handicapper General, with powers to determine what constitutes inconsiderate behavior and tax those inconsiderate citizens who practice such.

I herewith submit my application for this position. I really want to get after that kid at the end of the street with the loud, tall truck.

And we haven't even begun to probe those whose homes are excessively large.

Jack Lundberg, Colorado Springs

SCHOOL FOLLIES Summer classes provide a way around hard work

The teachers union has fought hard to provide the best for our children's education, and now I know why they have expressed such frustration.

We recently sent our son to District 11 summer school to make up a biology class for which he had received a "D" during the regular school year. After attending the summer session, his D was replaced by an A (replaced, not averaged in with the D to get a B or C).

Take a look at the terrible working conditions our teachers had to deal with this past summer in summer school. Here is the typical schedule of a four-hour day at District 11 summer school biology class.

1 hour of class spent reviewing the chapter.

15 minutes of test on the review.

15-minute break.

2 1/2 hours of watching movies.

It appears we are asking teachers to instruct our kids for a mind- numbing 32 percent of the summer school session.

Here is a small list of the supposed biology films our frustrated teachers are having to deal with. These are actual films that were being used to educate our future doctors, scientists and researchers in District 11 this past summer session: "Medicine Man," obviously deals with medicine so it must be relevant; "Finding Forrester," probably deals with our ecosystem; "All the Pretty Horses," animal - biology, of course; "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," another animal film; "America's Sweethearts," obviously has something to do with the human cardio vascular system; "All about duct tape," a study of micro- organisms living in our heating systems, I assume.