Tom Sabo writes,
>I think it is a good idea. Old cars of interest won't be turned
>in for scrap: lbcs, corvettes, etc... because people like them...
>On the other hand, old chevy novas & the like are likely to vanish.
>Eventually, the old uninteresting cars will be gone, and only the
>old interesting cars will be left... and the skies will be cleaner
>and happier. It sure beats levying a $500/year surcharge on old
>cars. I don't relish the thought of paying $1500/year more...
>- --toms.
I'm sure old chevy nova fans say the same thing only about those
revolting old british cars that nobody likes. It is extremely
naive to think that only "uninteresting cars will be gone" just
look at one of the recent isues of Hot Rod magazine to see the
neat cars that are going to the crusher. This sort of program
may be OK as long as it is kept absolutly voluntary but don`t
think that no "interesting" cars will be lost because they are
already.
Also I think the clean air angle heare is complete BS. The
programs run by the oil companies in LA allow these companies to
earn polution credits and avoid spending the bucks to clean up
their act. Also the percentage of these older cars on the road is
very low (compare post '72 to pre '72) and even though they no
doubt pollute more than new cars on a per car basis they are not
the dominant contributors to the automotive pollution problem.
Also "uninteresting" cars will continue to disappear naturally
as the years go by and the "problem" will take care of itself,
we don't need anyone enticing the automotive unsavy segment
of the population from destroying lots of potentially valuable cars.
One more thought on this subject, what makes you think that we won`t
all be paying a surcharge after all those "olds hulks" are off the
road anyway? Pollution really has nothing to do with this sort
of tax, they will do it when they think that they can get away
with it so get ready.
Frank Marrone at marrone@optilink.dsccc.com
|