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.
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.
