Kolek planning to go pro
Flat tax is regressive, anything else?
So what???Is it unconstitutional?
To Brother Skatastrophy, the Chicago El runs on a dedicated line with a third rail that would fry anyone who touched it in seconds. Amtrak in the Northeast also runs on electricity between Boston and Washington. The cost of wiring up the nation's rail network would be astronomical though it would be far easier to do high-speed rail once you did. Electric accelerates faster and is more efficient than traditional diesel. And, you don't dump the pollutants along the railroad right-of-way.
So you admit you want to punish the poorest amount us
Hardly.The amount of taxes paid by the so-called "poorest among us" is almost nil. A flat tax rate isn't going to change that, especially if a standard deduction excludes the first X amount of a person's income. Most proposals I've seen would do that. The "poorest among us" would continue to pay a negligible amount of federal income tax regardless of the taxing approach.Ultimately, when it comes to the tax code, it is usually used to favor the interests of whichever party is in power at any given moment. In the case of electric vehicles, I'd rather see them gain market acceptance than bribing people to buy them through a $7,500 tax credit. Make them so desirable that people "have to have them." That in turn will stimulate demand, lower unit cost and broaden acceptance. It's the market economy and it's worked for most of our history.As a side note, Ms. Dgies and I had a discussion the other day about what to do when her mid-sized sport-ute's lease came due late this summer. One option I pitched after reading all the hooplah in here (and I do think some electric vehicles do make sense) is an all-electric comparable vehicle. She, despite being the liberal she is, vetoed that one so fast even my head spun. I was open to the idea and her comment was, "yeah, and it will take how long to get to Chicago?"
Hardly.The amount of taxes paid by the so-called "poorest among us" is almost nil.
Hardly.The amount of taxes paid by the so-called "poorest among us" is almost nil. A flat tax rate isn't going to change that, especially if a standard deduction excludes the first X amount of a person's income. Most proposals I've seen would do that. The "poorest among us" would continue to pay a negligible amount of federal income tax regardless of the taxing approach.
As a side note, Ms. Dgies and I had a discussion the other day about what to do when her mid-sized sport-ute's lease came due late this summer. One option I pitched after reading all the hooplah in here (and I do think some electric vehicles do make sense) is an all-electric comparable vehicle. She, despite being the liberal she is, vetoed that one so fast even my head spun. I was open to the idea and her comment was, "yeah, and it will take how long to get to Chicago?"
So you agree, we should eliminate oil industry subsidies to stimulate actual market demand for EVs.
Not opposed to elimination of direct subsidies for many industries as long as we do so across the board.
Much depends on what you define as subsidies.
And, while I agree that we pay more than federal taxes, the flat tax is for federal income taxes. In my case, I also live in a state where we don't have state income taxes, our property taxes are comparatively reasonable (especially compared to New York or Illinois) and the only "high" tax is sales tax and even that is negligible on food and pharmaceuticals -- the basics of life.
But you liberals hate us and want to burn our governor in effigy (only because you can't burn him at the stake in real life). I'll admit, at times our governor is just slightly smarter than a swamp creature's intuition but overall, he's been a good governor, especially when our state faces emergencies.
Switching to a consumption tax that excludes food, clothing, and the first ~$1000 of rent would solve most of this problem and discourage some consumption towards investment.
Sigh.Owning an EV is not political.And clearly neither of you have done solid research on EV use case or the actual time/requirements of an EV road trip.
Owning an EV shouldn't be political, but it's increasingly seen as such. And anything involving America's largest EV company almost has to be seen through a political lens right now, as the CEO of that company has decided it's a good business model to insult the very people he needs to buy his cars.As for the road-trip part of it, my daughter and SIL have driven from Seattle to Charlotte in their Tesla, and many other long road trips, too. They've never come close to running out of power. But it does take some planning, and some folks don't like having to do such a thing.
[...]To those of you who think the flat tax is "regressive," please explain how with a reasonable deduction for living expenses (right now it's about $28,000 give or take for a family)how the poor will get socked by this thing. Keep in mind that the "poorest" pay very little if any federal income tax. [...]
Brother T Smith: Maybe the answer isn't to be revenue neutral but to begin to ask the question of what we should be doing as a government? I know that's asking for the moon, given the power of K Street but we really need to begin the process of thinking through a base zero budget, where we burn the last year's budget to the ground and make agencies and administrations justify every cent they spend. Efficiency in government is possible, just not probable.
For us, as I pointed out, it was an economic decision. We're planning on spending between $40,000 and $50,000 to either buy out our lease on the Murano Platinum we own or buy a new/gently used car if Nissan won't negotiate on the lease.Since we have two other gasoline powered automobiles and since Nissan is discounting the hell out of the comparable EV to the Murano, I proposed the idea of thinking about an EV. Ultimately, our concern is, this room not withstanding, EVs are still an emerging technology and somewhat unproven over the long haul.My point in bringing up the politics is twofold. First, it's liberals that are pushing EVs on a still skeptical nation. To the credit of the libs, particularly in California, they're putting their money where their mouth is and they're buying EVs. Second, that on an anecdotal basis, there's still libs out there who have economic and performance reservations about EVs. And, yet, some of us Attila-like conservatives find the option at least worth considering.To those of you who think the flat tax is "regressive," please explain how with a reasonable deduction for living expenses (right now it's about $28,000 give or take for a family)how the poor will get socked by this thing. Keep in mind that the "poorest" pay very little if any federal income tax. My point in even bringing up Florida is that if you want a favorable tax structure, conservative ole Florida is it. We don't tax income here and tax very little in groceries and pharmaceuticals. Our property taxes are low. Our sales tax is less than what residents of C(r)ook County pay in Illinois.
For us, as I pointed out, it was an economic decision. We're planning on spending between $40,000 and $50,000 to either buy out our lease on the Murano Platinum we own or buy a new/gently used car if Nissan won't negotiate on the lease.Since we have two other gasoline powered automobiles and since Nissan is discounting the hell out of the comparable EV to the Murano, I proposed the idea of thinking about an EV. Ultimately, our concern is, this room not withstanding, EVs are still an emerging technology and somewhat unproven over the long haul.My point in bringing up the politics is twofold. First, it's liberals that are pushing EVs on a still skeptical nation. To the credit of the libs, particularly in California, they're putting their money where their mouth is and they're buying EVs. Second, that on an anecdotal basis, there's still libs out there who have economic and performance reservations about EVs. And, yet, some of us Attila-like conservatives find the option at least worth considering.