I hate to say that Ed is a hypocrite, but...

Mrs_Vedder78 wrote:

"In 2003, the Bush administration proposed increasing the tax deduction to $75,000. Lawmakers responded by expanding it to a whopping $100,000 as part of the $350 million tax cut package. Yet Congress did not change the weight-based classification of the vehicles, creating a huge benefit for the largest, least efficient vehicles."

"In October 2004, after the House Ways and Means Committee approved a three-year extension of the $100,000 loophole, a House-Senate conference committee negotiated a roll back in the deduction to its original amount of $25,000 as part of the larger Corporate Tax Bill. While tightening this loophole is certainly noteworthy, it is by no means the end of significant tax breaks for gas-guzzling SUVs. According to an analysis in the Detroit News, besides the $25,000 basic equipment deduction, SUVs will still qualify for "bonus depreciation," an added write off of 30 percent of the purchase price above $25,000. Beyond that, additional costs can be deducted according to regular depreciation rules, or 20 percent in the first year. For example, a business owner purchasing a Hummer H1, with a sticker price of $106,185, would be able to deduct $60,722 in the first year under the revised rules: a $25,000 equipment deduction, $24,356 in bonus depreciation, and $11,366 in regular depreciation."

BUT

"In May 2002, the IRS declared gasoline-electric hybrids eligible for tax deductions as "clean fuel" vehicles under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (PL 103-486). The deduction ceiling began at $2,000, with the tax deduction set to end in 2006, with $500 less available each year as the deduction is phased out."

There is something wrong with this picture ....IMO

chromiam wrote:

You are comparing apples and oranges... the SUV tax breaks are for businesses, the hybrid breaks are for consumers. There is a big difference in the spending power and needs of those two groups.

Is there some inconsistency in these policies?? yes... but think about the owner of a construction company... why the hell would he need a tax break on hybrid vehicles??? there are no hybrid construction vehicles.

digster wrote:

I don't really understand this line of reasoning, to be honest...I don't see anyone here doubting Pearl Jam's committment to these issues and the steps they've taken to curtail their problematic footprint (from issues and initiatives, from my corner Stone really seems to have his hands involved in this issue and seem very committed), and this shows that there is no doubt that PJ has done very good work. However, wasted energy is wasted energy. As a complete hypothetical, let's say I donate 500 dollars in one month to an environmental awareness and climate change prevention program devoted to restoring tropical forests. Does that therefore mean that it's not a completely wasteful thing to run my air conditioner all day for a week, even if I'm not there most of the time? Of course not, wasted energy is wasted energy whether you a constant gas guzzler or not, and steps should be taken to prevent it.

Donating to tropical forest re-establishment and playing benefit concerts is great, but I would think that the best option of all is to not do the damage in the first place. Of course, this isn't limited to Eddie; we all have to commit to this, but that means he like everyone else is not immune from it either. Like someone said earlier, if a friend or acquaintance of mine was running their buses and vans all day needlessly, and if it was gas used in those buses, I would consider it a wasteful use of energy, no matter how much money they'd given away.

Mrs_Vedder78 wrote:

How can you guys have an opinion on this when you guys have no clue of the reasons behing the bus running?
Night.

chromiam wrote:

My question is why do they need "imminent need" in order to own an SUV???? This is a free society where people are free to make choices good and bad... who am I or anyone else to dictate why or how a person should choose???

Mrs_Vedder78 wrote:

So your suggestion will be stop touring then I assume? :rolleyes:

dunkman wrote:

didnt we just agree that people shouldnt make assumptions where oh where did i say he should stop touring

no my suggestion will be for Ed to sing songs and not try and convert or preach to people in between those songs... he's a funny guy.. he should tell more funny stories... a 1 minute 5 second rant about SUV's OR a version of Lukin?

hmmmm the choice is easy

rrivers wrote:

Every time I have seen them they have been running. I never gave it a second thought, but the original poster brings up a good point. Maybe Ed should look at himself before he bitches about cars on the road messing up his precious view.