Costco Removes E.V. Chargers

[Hot Mega]

Incentivizing the purchase of high MPG vehicles may not be the worst thing our government is wasting our taxes and money borrowed from China on, but it is still one of them, and is contributing to our country's mounting debt because we don't have the money to pay for all these subsidies and everything else we're spending money on that we don't need. Which is why I said that if someone wants the thing, they should use their own money, and I would have no problem with them doing so.

For a moment ban I thought you were joking..but now I fear you are dead serious with that line.

And for the record and so we're clear, I think we've been spending way too much for many, many years, going back decades, so this isn't just an Obama thing. He's just the most recent in a long line of Presidents (and Congresses) that have overseen our country's escalating debt and mounting financial problems since WWII.

Okay.

 

[ban-one]

Outside of the safety, emissions and fuel mileage requirements mandated by the government, how have your choices been limited in any way? You can buy a Prius, a Porsche 911 Turbo or you can buy seven F350 Diesel pickups (one for every day of the week). I've been a "car guy" since I was big enough to crawl. I love cars. But after working in automotive related industries since the mid 90's, I have seen no evidence of what you claim. If you want an SUV that gets 14 mpg, buy one. If you want a sports car that gets about 18 mpg and tops 155 mph, buy one (I have one going up for sale before Labor Day - call me). And if you want a Prius or a Volt, you can buy one of those too.

While you are correct that you can buy what you want from what's out there now, there are incentives to get you to buy what the government deems to be the better option, and adds taxes to the ones they don't. Also, the government mandates fleet MPG averages, CAFE standards, and as those averages go up, as is coming (http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20085539-48/new-cafe-rules-nearly-double-fuel-economy-by-2025/), manufactures will no longer be able to produce and we will no longer be able to buy the larger and less fuel-efficient vehicles we want or need. So if you want a 911 Turbo or the F350, you better buy it now, but who's to say they won't just add more taxes to your tag to get you to move to the vehicle they want you in?

 

[squallumz]

dont they have gas stations?

im pretty sure they do, and a lot of people like em.

 

[ban-one]

For a moment ban I thought you were joking..but now I fear you are dead serious with that line.

You don't think it's contributing?

It may just be a drop in a very large bucket (maybe more like a sea or ocean), but every little bit counts, and all those little things over decades added up to trillions of dollars of debt.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Is there any reason they TRY to make electric/hybrid vehicles the most hoagley (spelling, I know) things on the face of the earth? It's like they go out of their way to make the things unappealing. I haven't seen a decent looking electric/hybrid on the road yet.

I have to say I like the newer Chevy trucks that use that new technology which basically it switches to 4 cylinder in overdrive (freeway/highway) and stays a V8 in the city. I would love to own one soon.

 

[ban-one]

Is there any reason they TRY to make electric/hybrid vehicles the most hoagley (spelling, I know) things on the face of the earth? It's like they go out of their way to make the things unappealing. I haven't seen a decent looking electric/hybrid on the road yet.

I think part of it is aerodynamics, and the rest is to fit as many batteries as they can to give it as long a range as possible.

The only ones I've seen that are even half decent are the Tesla Roadster, and it's body is from a Lotus Elise, and the Tesla Model S that looks like an Aston Martin Rapide.

 

[VampDude]

The future of electric cars begins with the hybrid models, which can later improve as they continue.

Two things I would add to the vehicle for added charging:

(1) Solar paneled roof.
(2) Wind turbine type technology (small scale) to absorb any type of airflow from the engine.

 

[ban-one]

The future of electric cars begins with the hybrid models, which can later improve as they continue.

Two things I would add to the vehicle for added charging:

(1) Solar paneled roof.
(2) Wind turbine type technology (small scale) to absorb any type of airflow from the engine.

You mean like a turbocharger, but uses the energy to produce electricity instead of boost?

And actually, hybrid technology has been around for decades. You know those big diesel locomotives? They're hybrids. The diesel engines don't move the train, they just basically idle and spin a generator that powers the electric motors that do move the train. Really, that would be the way to go, because in a car or truck, you can have a small gas or diesel engine that has just enough power to spin the generator, and then you use that power to drive the electric motor, and use a tiny amount of fuel. Just don't do what UK Top Gear did when they made theirs, or you'll die from the exhaust like the Stig's vegetarian cousin.

 

[ban-one]

Anybody see the UK Top Gear where they tested the Tesla? (And yes I know Tesla is disputing Top Gear's claims, but they are trying to protect their product.)

UK Top Gear pitted a Prius against a BMW M3, and at 55 mph, the M3 gets better millage.

Just don't do what UK Top Gear did when they made theirs, or you'll die from the exhaust like the Stig's vegetarian cousin.

Can you tell that I've been watching the Top Gear marathon on BBCAmerica?

 

[Rey C.]

While you are correct that you can buy what you want from what's out there now, there are incentives to get you to buy what the government deems to be the better option, and adds taxes to the ones they don't. Also, the government mandates fleet MPG averages, CAFE standards, and as those averages go up, as is coming (http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20085539-48/new-cafe-rules-nearly-double-fuel-economy-by-2025/), manufactures will no longer be able to produce and we will no longer be able to buy the larger and less fuel-efficient vehicles we want or need. So if you want a 911 Turbo or the F350, you better buy it now, but who's to say they won't just add more taxes to your tag to get you to move to the vehicle they want you in?

For the people who can afford a 911 Turbo now (at about $150K), added taxes aren't going to slow them down from buying another one. The same is true of the luxury F-350 (in Harley Davidson trim). Insurance costs have affected my past purchases a LOT more than taxes or fuel economy, and I'm sure the same is true of many other people who enjoy high performance cars. Only since I've entered middle age have I been able to get decent rates on cars that I would have had more fun with when I was younger.

All I'm saying is it comes down to supply & demand. With a "do as you please" attitude, Americans and American manufacturers could hang on to their 16 mpg vehicles for as long as they could afford to pay $6-$10/gallon for gas. With lower mpg vehicles, demand would go up, supply is rather static (at best) and so the price per gallon would necessarily go up. At least with this, cars will be produced (for those who choose to buy them) which will get higher mpg's, and that should at least stem the demand pull that would drive up fuel prices. But as I said, you can buy what you choose. No one is telling anyone what they can or cannot buy.

I used to go to a lot of ALMS races. And what has always amazed me about that series is the variety of fuel types and the variety of engine types. F1 is making better use of KERS (kinetic energy recovery system) and from what I understand, that same or similar type of hybrid technology should soon be making it to the ALMS... and then hopefully, the street. The V8 gas engine is soon to be yesterday's news. We're quickly moving toward bio-diesel, hybrids and maybe even cellulosic ethanol soon enough. Natural gas is already here. So if the manufacturers move away from gasoline, it will be because that is what the market demands. Rather than supply push, the OEM's (even the domestics) have finally learned to adopt demand pull. If customers don't buy it, don't build it.

P.S. I understand your point about the tax credits. That's a valid point. But an even bigger cost to the taxpayers is the tax breaks that go to a select few big oil companies. If the free market dictates what we buy, then (IMO) the free market should dictate whether or not they drill here, there or anywhere.

 

[ban-one]

For the people who can afford a 911 Turbo now (at about $150K), added taxes aren't going to slow them down from buying another one. The same is true of the luxury F-350 (in Harley Davidson trim). Insurance costs have affected my past purchases a LOT more than taxes or fuel economy, and I'm sure the same is true of many other people who enjoy high performance cars. Only since I've entered middle age have I been able to get decent rates on cars that I would have had more fun with when I was younger.

P.S. I understand your point about the tax credits. That's a valid point. But an even bigger cost to the taxpayers is the tax breaks that go to a select few big oil companies. If the free market dictates what we buy, then (IMO) the free market should dictate whether or not they drill here, there or anywhere.

Five things:

1 - You did read the story about CAFE standards going up right? Meaning manufactures must make and sell more fuel-efficient vehicles and so even if you could afford said vehicle, you won't be able to get one because it's not being made.

2 - Most pickups are used for work and for agriculture, and are not luxury trucks. And while someone who buys a luxury pickup may not be affected by the taxes, those who buy them for work sure are because it's adding to their expense to do business or farm.

3 - How do tax breaks cost us taxpayers money, when its our damn money to begin with? It doesn't even cost the government money, it in fact produces higher revenues because more people pay, either by people using that money to expand and hire others for jobs or spend it on other things that pays other people, or by not seeing the need to hide their taxable income. Ever heard of the Laffer Curve? (The tax breaks that cost the government and other taxpayers money are the ones that make it so people pay NO taxes or worse, pay NO taxes and GET money from the government. Everyone who makes an income should pay taxes, and paying taxes should be a prerequisite for voting, because then everyone has skin in the game and you don't have people voting to continue their government gravy train, which is a large contributor to why our county is in the financial shape it's in. But that's a different discussion.)

4 - The big oil companies pay the same taxes and get the same corporate tax breaks as any other corporation (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2008/db2008051_596535.htm & http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...reap-tax-breaks.-Is-picking-on-Big-Oil-unfair), except for companies like GE who have gamed the system and pay NO taxes, and in fact made money from taxes, our taxes. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=1

5 - And you're right The free market should dictate what is bought and sold, and what is done where and by who, and not by government incentives of any kind.

 

[Rey C.]

Five things:

1 - You did read the story about CAFE standards going up right? Meaning manufactures must make and sell more fuel-efficient vehicles and so even if you could afford said vehicle, you won't be able to get one because it's not being made.

As I've worked on the corporate side of automotive since the mid '90's, yes, you could say I'm fairly familiar with CAFE standards. But the standards won't affect vehicle types as much as building materials, engine/propulsion types, the associated electronics and fuel systems. You will still be able to buy Corvettes, Porsche 911's and even Ford F-350's. As you know, "CAFE" stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Fleet vehicles will be affected the most = grocery getters. What is fairly certain is that you will not see more use of steel, but rather more use of aluminum and composite materials in body and chassis production. You will see more use of electronics, lubricants and drivetrains that are more efficient. Do you have any idea just how inefficient the drivetrain on the average current automobile is? After putting it on a dyno, we found that the parasitic loss of my (high performance AWD) vehicle is around 30%! Roughly 1/3 of the power my engine generates is wasted! Do you have a basic understanding of what parasitic power loss is? But no, it would not be necessary to discontinue the vehicle in order to address that inefficiency.

Look, I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the 2025 proposals (or that they are entirely realistic). But I am saying, based on past knowledge and data, that we can attain much higher fuel economy than what we have now, and without breaking the bank or killing off Corvettes, Jags and Porsches. But if you want an H3-T Hummer truck, you can't buy one. Because of something the government did? No, because it was an underpowered piece of junk that got horrible fuel mileage, was of poor build quality, served little/no purpose (outside of being a limp phallic symbol for middle class men AND women)... and the market rejected it, so production has ceased.

2 - Most pickups are used for work and for agriculture, and are not luxury trucks. And while someone who buys a luxury pickup may not be affected by the taxes, those who buy them for work sure are because it's adding to their expense to do business or farm.

I don't know about "most", as I would have to see the data. But yes, many are. Though a significant portion are personal use vehicles bought by people who are not engaged in these activities. But that's beside the point. Just as with current business use vehicles, it would not be at all difficult to exempt (actual) or credit business use vehicles. But if you want a Harley F-350, you may have to pay. I don't know.

3 - How do tax breaks cost us taxpayers money, when its our damn money to begin with? It doesn't even cost the government money, it in fact produces higher revenues because more people pay, either by people using that money to expand and hire others for jobs or spend it on other things that pays other people, or by not seeing the need to hide their taxable income. Ever heard of the Laffer Curve? (The tax breaks that cost the government and other taxpayers money are the ones that make it so people pay NO taxes or worse, pay NO taxes and GET money from the government. Everyone who makes an income should pay taxes, and paying taxes should be a prerequisite for voting, because then everyone has skin in the game and you don't have people voting to continue their government gravy train, which is a large contributor to why our county is in the financial shape it's in. But that's a different discussion.)

Yes, being that I received my Economics degree in the 80's, and was taught by a series of conservative professors, one of whom went on to work for the Reagan administration, I am vaguely familiar with the Laffer Curve and Supply Side Theory.

Just like the Phillips Curve (dealing with inflation vs. unemployment), the Laffer Curve is based on theory, not mathematical law. The only given is that at a 100% tax rate, no one would seek income, as there would be no benefit. So government would receive no tax revenues. At a 0% rate, there would be increased economic activity, but government would receive no tax revenues. Those are the only (accepted) givens. At any rate in between, theory and assumptions take over.

Where the theory has the most problems is it doesn't take into account another economic reality: fiscal policy lag. No fiscal policy has an immediate effect. So even when it works (and yes, Supply Side can work), there will be a loss of tax revenue, at the very least, in the short term. Also, in the case of Supply Side theory, it is not $ for $. Even Laffer admitted that Bush's (incremental) tax cuts were not big enough to spur additional economic activity - they only added to the deficit. If you decrease tax revenues, and there is not enough of a pick up in economic activity to increase GDP by an amount which produces at least as much tax revenue as was lost by the tax cut, then (net/net) you've "lost" money with this policy. As we've seen with Bush's cuts, this can lead to deficit spending. Even if spending had been kept in line, W. Bush would have faced deficits.

4 - The big oil companies pay the same taxes and get the same corporate tax breaks as any other corporation (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2008/db2008051_596535.htm & http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...reap-tax-breaks.-Is-picking-on-Big-Oil-unfair), except for companies like GE who have gamed the system and pay NO taxes, and in fact made money from taxes, our taxes. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=1

No, they do not. The Section 199 Deduction only applies to "domestic manufacturers". It started at 3% of net income and has risen to 9% as of 2010. In addition to (certain) other domestic activities, it applies to oil and movie production but not food production (retail). It is another of these targeted tax breaks that result from heavy lobbying.

5 - And you're right The free market should dictate what is bought and sold, and what is done where and by who, and not by government incentives of any kind.

Then why would we have targeted tax breaks which only apply to certain activities and businesses?

I have no issue with certain, targeted tax breaks. But I do have an issue with providing tax breaks to industries that are more than healthy enough to walk on their own. And I know full well that many/most of these breaks come about because of groups like ALEC and other associated lobbyists. Given the opportunity, I would wipe out most farm subsidies with the swipe of a pen tomorrow. And I'd have my AK-47 by my side when I did it, because I know there would be a massive shit storm to follow.

 

[Not Sure]

There were always shopping cars or some fucking SUV in the charger lots whenever I would go to the Costcos that had them. I imagine if I had a car capable of being charged I would be pretty pissed if I rolled up on that.

 

[titsrock]

2 - Most pickups are used for work and for agriculture, and are not luxury trucks.

You're joking, right?

3 - How do tax breaks cost us taxpayers money, when its our damn money to begin with? It doesn't even cost the government money, it in fact produces higher revenues because more people pay, either by people using that money to expand and hire others for jobs or spend it on other things that pays other people, or by not seeing the need to hide their taxable income. Ever heard of the Laffer Curve? (The tax breaks that cost the government and other taxpayers money are the ones that make it so people pay NO taxes or worse, pay NO taxes and GET money from the government. Everyone who makes an income should pay taxes, and paying taxes should be a prerequisite for voting, because then everyone has skin in the game and you don't have people voting to continue their government gravy train, which is a large contributor to why our county is in the financial shape it's in. But that's a different discussion.)

Nobody other then wingnut fringe "think tanks" like The Heritage Group give Art Laffer any credibility. Cutting corporate taxes does nothing to create jobs. We've pretty much got -- I dunno 50 recent years of history backing that up. You've conflated so many issues into this section that it basically makes no sense. Tying peoples' ability to vote with their ability to pay is something that the ol' South tried to do to keep certain people from voting. If you remove the Christian influence from the Govt maybe you'd have a chance at putting an end to "the Gravy train" -- good luck with that!

4 - The big oil companies pay the same taxes and get the same corporate tax breaks as any other corporation (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2008/db2008051_596535.htm & http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...reap-tax-breaks.-Is-picking-on-Big-Oil-unfair), except for companies like GE who have gamed the system and pay NO taxes, and in fact made money from taxes, our taxes. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=1

We should not just start and stop with Big Oil. We should go after all corporate subsidies and loopholes. But it's always Conservative-minded Congressional reps who don't want to end corporate subsidies. Why is that anyway? Big Oil is an attractive target to raise taxes and cut loopholes because it doesn't take a genius to see how much absurd profit every Big Oil company has made every quarter for the last decade. Absurd, ridiculous profits. The Gov't should extract a lot more tax revenue from Big Oil before the oil truly runs dry. It's not like Big Oil will be the AltFuel savior....

Everyone preaching the glories of the Free Market is all fine and dandy but let's look at one feature of the Free Market. Why are corporations and Execs so easily able to avoid persecution and jail time in a "free market"? I'm still waiting for BP execs and many, many Financial Services Execs to end up in jail for all the destruction those two specific business sectors have wreaked on the national economy.

No regulation in business means many more blunders and wreckless decision-making with no real consequences attached to wreckless decision-making and gross profiteering. No regulation simply shifts the burden of mistakes and consequences onto the backs of the consumers....

 

[Hot Mega]

Cutting corporate taxes does nothing to create jobs. We've pretty much got -- I dunno 50 recent years of history backing that up. You've conflated so many issues into this section that it basically makes no sense.

Yeah...people in business are in business to make money, not create jobs.

Anyone who's ever bumped up against the notion of starting a business knows this.

While it may help to have cash on hand (if you're even prone to use your earned profits for this) if you need to create jobs, any business owner or group knows they don't need a dime of cash on hand to create jobs if the business is there supported by a capable plan.

If I make a ton of extra money as a corporation...all that means is I can pay better dividends to my investors, generate more revenue as my stock price increases and stuff more dollars or pounds in my mattress.

Re: Pick up trucks, I don't know what the ratio is but there are a 2 ton full of people who just drive them because they like that style of vehicle. Anyone can just tell by the wheels and tires they have on them...

Like, the guy tooling around up and down the 405 fwy with 26 in chrome wheels on his Hummer H2 is really taking it out to hunt Mountain Goat.:dunno:

 

[emceeemcee]

You're joking, right?


Nobody other then wingnut fringe "think tanks" like The Heritage Group give Art Laffer any credibility. Cutting corporate taxes does nothing to create jobs. We've pretty much got -- I dunno 50 recent years of history backing that up. You've conflated so many issues into this section that it basically makes no sense. Tying peoples' ability to vote with their ability to pay is something that the ol' South tried to do to keep certain people from voting. If you remove the Christian influence from the Govt maybe you'd have a chance at putting an end to "the Gravy train" -- good luck with that!


We should not just start and stop with Big Oil. We should go after all corporate subsidies and loopholes. But it's always Conservative-minded Congressional reps who don't want to end corporate subsidies. Why is that anyway? Big Oil is an attractive target to raise taxes and cut loopholes because it doesn't take a genius to see how much absurd profit every Big Oil company has made every quarter for the last decade. Absurd, ridiculous profits. The Gov't should extract a lot more tax revenue from Big Oil before the oil truly runs dry. It's not like Big Oil will be the AltFuel savior....

Everyone preaching the glories of the Free Market is all fine and dandy but let's look at one feature of the Free Market. Why are corporations and Execs so easily able to avoid persecution and jail time in a "free market"? I'm still waiting for BP execs and many, many Financial Services Execs to end up in jail for all the destruction those two specific business sectors have wreaked on the national economy.

No regulation in business means many more blunders and wreckless decision-making with no real consequences attached to wreckless decision-making and gross profiteering. No regulation simply shifts the burden of mistakes and consequences onto the backs of the consumers....

post reported from it's anti-americanism

 

[titsrock]

^
Do you think our present Legal system is capable of enforcing a "Free Market" when there must be consequences to bear by somebody?

Our present legal system really does a dandy job today, I can only imagine how much worse life would be in an unregulated America.....yikes....

 

[Hot Mega]

post reported from it's anti-americanism

Don't forget t/r's implicit confession of having a large cock tucked in between the lines there.

We all know you must be a long pole if you have the self confidence to drive a smallish, fossil fuel conserving bitch car..:o

 

[ban-one]

As I've worked on the corporate side of automotive since the mid '90's, yes, you could say I'm fairly familiar with CAFE standards. But the standards won't affect vehicle types as much as building materials, engine/propulsion types, the associated electronics and fuel systems. You will still be able to buy Corvettes, Porsche 911's and even Ford F-350's. As you know, "CAFE" stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Fleet vehicles will be affected the most = grocery getters. What is fairly certain is that you will not see more use of steel, but rather more use of aluminum and composite materials in body and chassis production. You will see more use of electronics, lubricants and drivetrains that are more efficient. Do you have any idea just how inefficient the drivetrain on the average current automobile is? After putting it on a dyno, we found that the parasitic loss of my (high performance AWD) vehicle is around 30%! Roughly 1/3 of the power my engine generates is wasted! Do you have a basic understanding of what parasitic power loss is? But no, it would not be necessary to discontinue the vehicle in order to address that inefficiency.

I do know about parasitical power loss, running your A/C is a good way to pull power from the engine. And while you're right, they will use many things to make the fleet average on target so they can still sell the lower MPG vehicles, if at some point if the CAFE standards go too high, they won't be able to continue production of the less fuel-efficient vehicles.

Look, I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the 2025 proposals (or that they are entirely realistic). But I am saying, based on past knowledge and data, that we can attain much higher fuel economy than what we have now, and without breaking the bank or killing off Corvettes, Jags and Porsches. But if you want an H3-T Hummer truck, you can't buy one. Because of something the government did? No, because it was an underpowered piece of junk that got horrible fuel mileage, was of poor build quality, served little/no purpose (outside of being a limp phallic symbol for middle class men AND women)... and the market rejected it, so production has ceased.

I know we can get better MPGs too. The Germans have been getting high-power and high efficiency for years, and so have the American companies selling vehicles in Europe, so obviously they know how. And yes, the 'Hummer' was awful. (I say 'Hummer' with quotes because they were really just regular GM SUVs with a Hummer-like body, unlike the original. But it too had bad MPG and was overly large, even here on our wide American streets.)

I don't know about "most", as I would have to see the data. But yes, many are. Though a significant portion are personal use vehicles bought by people who are not engaged in these activities. But that's beside the point. Just as with current business use vehicles, it would not be at all difficult to exempt (actual) or credit business use vehicles. But if you want a Harley F-350, you may have to pay. I don't know.

I probably should have said 'many' and not 'most,' as yes, a large portion are bought by people who don't need them for work, however, some of them require a larger vehicle because they are a larger person, either in height or weight, and will not fit comfortably in a smaller vehicle. And while yes you can claim business use for your vehicle (any vehicle) on your taxes, you have to be very meticulous with your records of if was for business or personal, if you don't wanna be audited. So, people decide it's not worth the effort, and just eat the taxes.

Yes, being that I received my Economics degree in the 80's, and was taught by a series of conservative professors, one of whom went on to work for the Reagan administration, I am vaguely familiar with the Laffer Curve and Supply Side Theory.

Just like the Phillips Curve (dealing with inflation vs. unemployment), the Laffer Curve is based on theory, not mathematical law. The only given is that at a 100% tax rate, no one would seek income, as there would be no benefit. So government would receive no tax revenues. At a 0% rate, there would be increased economic activity, but government would receive no tax revenues. Those are the only (accepted) givens. At any rate in between, theory and assumptions take over.

Where the theory has the most problems is it doesn't take into account another economic reality: fiscal policy lag. No fiscal policy has an immediate effect. So even when it works (and yes, Supply Side can work), there will be a loss of tax revenue, at the very least, in the short term. Also, in the case of Supply Side theory, it is not $ for $. Even Laffer admitted that Bush's (incremental) tax cuts were not big enough to spur additional economic activity - they only added to the deficit. If you decrease tax revenues, and there is not enough of a pick up in economic activity to increase GDP by an amount which produces at least as much tax revenue as was lost by the tax cut, then (net/net) you've "lost" money with this policy. As we've seen with Bush's cuts, this can lead to deficit spending. Even if spending had been kept in line, W. Bush would have faced deficits.

I know the Laffer Curve, like most economic ideas out there, is just a theory, but you can see it working in your own life. You pay less taxes, you have more money you can spend on what you want to spend it on. You pay more taxes, you have less money you can spend on what you want to spend it on.

I have no issue with certain, targeted tax breaks. But I do have an issue with providing tax breaks to industries that are more than healthy enough to walk on their own. And I know full well that many/most of these breaks come about because of groups like ALEC and other associated lobbyists. Given the opportunity, I would wipe out most farm subsidies with the swipe of a pen tomorrow. And I'd have my AK-47 by my side when I did it, because I know there would be a massive shit storm to follow.

Yes, there would be 'a massive shit storm to follow,' but most of the farm subsidies, and others, should be wiped out. If they can't stand on their own, we shouldn't be propping them up. And as for the tax breaks, I don't like it that the companies that can afford lobbyists to get them special deals do it either.

 

[ban-one]

You're joking, right?

No, I'm not. Around here, yes, most trucks are used for work and agriculture, and aren't luxury vehicles. Don't know about where you live.

Nobody other then wingnut fringe "think tanks" like The Heritage Group give Art Laffer any credibility. Cutting corporate taxes does nothing to create jobs. We've pretty much got -- I dunno 50 recent years of history backing that up. You've conflated so many issues into this section that it basically makes no sense. Tying peoples' ability to vote with their ability to pay is something that the ol' South tried to do to keep certain people from voting. If you remove the Christian influence from the Govt maybe you'd have a chance at putting an end to "the Gravy train" -- good luck with that!

First of all, I would assume from this statement that you are on the left. In which case, neither one of us is gonna change the other's mind. However, I can't just let you get away with it unchallenged.

As to your assertions that "Nobody other then wingnut fringe 'think tanks' like The Heritage Group give Art Laffer any credibility," I could come back at you with the same thing with several of the think tanks and their ideas on your side. So, that's just our points of view from opposites sides of the spectrum.

Cutting corporate taxes does nothing to create jobs? If the government takes the corporation's money, how do you think they can afford to expand or hire more people? You let them keep more of their own money, they can afford to expand and hire, creating jobs.

The prerequisite to pay taxes in order to vote goes back further than that. I believe that was the case all the way back to Ancient Rome, and in more modern times, you had to own land, meaning you pay taxes, to vote here in America, and it wasn't just rich white men either. Plenty of blacks and women owned land, payed taxes, and voted, all the way back to the late 1700s. But good luck finding that in the history books. Also, the reasoning behind this thought, needing to pay taxes in order to vote, still applies today. You have millions of people of all races who are voting solely to continue their way of life. Not doing anything, and getting government checks, money taken from those who actually work. And as for the Christian influence being responsible for the gravy train, those programs are largely Democrat programs (many started by FDR and Johnson), and the Christian influence would have them done away with in favor of charities.

We should not just start and stop with Big Oil. We should go after all corporate subsidies and loopholes. But it's always Conservative-minded Congressional reps who don't want to end corporate subsidies. Why is that anyway? Big Oil is an attractive target to raise taxes and cut loopholes because it doesn't take a genius to see how much absurd profit every Big Oil company has made every quarter for the last decade. Absurd, ridiculous profits. The Gov't should extract a lot more tax revenue from Big Oil before the oil truly runs dry. It's not like Big Oil will be the AltFuel savior....

You're right about the subsidies and loopholes. As to the Reps who don't want to end corporate subsidies, they're just as corrupt as most politicians because they're getting kick backs for favors and wanna bring home the bacon to their district to get re-elected. As to squeezing Big Oil for more taxes, they do still provide the oil that becomes fuel for cars, trucks, buses, ships, planes, etc, and also the oil that goes into the production of other things, like plastics, tires, and medicine.

Everyone preaching the glories of the Free Market is all fine and dandy but let's look at one feature of the Free Market. Why are corporations and Execs so easily able to avoid persecution and jail time in a "free market"? I'm still waiting for BP execs and many, many Financial Services Execs to end up in jail for all the destruction those two specific business sectors have wreaked on the national economy.

Firstly, because they have good lawyers. Secondly, I would argue, and you'll probably disagree, that we're not operating in a truly free market, and haven't for a while, as evidenced by all the ways governments interfere in the market. To the BP execs, they may or may not need to go to jail for what happened, and that's for a court to decide, but as for the banking execs, didn't the federal government force the banks to give loans to people they shouldn't have?

No regulation in business means many more blunders and wreckless decision-making with no real consequences attached to wreckless decision-making and gross profiteering. No regulation simply shifts the burden of mistakes and consequences onto the backs of the consumers....

First, I haven't heard any one argue for no regulation what so ever. And even if they did run completely unregulated, yes, actually, they would face consequences from their actions. It's called going out of business if they don't do right by their customers.