For planned obsolescence to work, you’ve got to keep the conveyor belt rolling. And most of all, prevent anyone from getting off.
It is a problem if people “cling” to their old cars instead of regularly trading them in – ideally, to be crushed – for new ones – hopefully, heavily financed.
But how to get rid of the old cars when people decline to get rid of them voluntarily?
Democratic politicians in Oregon have just the thing.
It is House Bill 2877 and – if it becomes law – it will impose heavy taxes on cars 20 years old or more to the tune of $1,000 payable every five years, in perpetuity – unless the owner obtains Antique Vehicle registration and tags for the vehicle.
Why are the most advertised Gold and Silver coins NOT the best way to invest?
The Antique tags, of course, cost extra – and once registered as an Antique, the vehicle may no longer be legally driven regularly but only occasionally, to “parades” and “shows” and so on. It’s one step away from drilling holes in the engine block and turning the car into a static display.
The legislation would make older cars either functionally useless – or usuriously expensive to drive . . . if you insist on clinging.
A grand every five years. So, two every ten. Four every twenty. In exchange for the privilege of being allowed to keep “your” car.
And that’s in addition to all the other assorted fees, such as annual registration dunning-for-nothing (unless you consider a little government-issued sticker getting something in return for your money) and the mandatory “safety” and emissions rigmarole.
Old car collectors might be able to afford it – though that’s a pretty twisted standard when you think about it: Punishment applied based on the victim’s ability to absorb the blow. Don’t kick the old lady; sucker punch the young guy instead! He can take it.
This is, of course, the operating principle behind what is called “progressive” taxation, of which this is a sub-species.
And it is a punishment that we’re dealing with here.
The Bill reeks of how dare you own an old car. Its language is victim-blaming, describing the punitive taxes as “impact fees,” as if the state were merely recouping money for costs imposed.
But what is this “impact,” exactly?
It is not specified in the Bill itself (PDF here, if you’d like to read the thing) but whenever that term is used in the context of cars you should always assume they mean environmental impact.
The magic words.
Older cars are not as “clean” as new ones – which is true, as far as it goes.
But it doesn’t go very far.
New cars are slightly cleaner than circa 1990s-era cars.
Slightly meaning a percentage or two; maybe three – that’s it. Really. People don’t grok this, in part because it is never explained to them.
