EV's

[dgies9156]

I find the discussion on government picking winners and losers interesting. 99.999999 percent of all Congressional actions are focused on using appropriations or tax code to pick winners and losers. That's the reason for K Street and the surrounding neighborhoods. The Iowa Primary exists in no small measure so politicians don't forget agricultural subsidies when they get back to Washington.

Full disclosure: I'm a modified flat tax guy with a strong belief in few deductions and very few tax credits. That has about as much chance of passing in Washington as a Dodo Bird does of walking down Park Avenue in New York this afternoon.

The government has an obligation to protect us. Part of that protection is to ensure that our environment is safe for us. That means law and regulations that arise from the law have to be focused on keeping our air clean and water pure. Encouraging electric automobiles is part of that responsibility, so long as one can prove the use of electricity as a motor vehicle fuel on an all-in basis, is a less ecologically threatening option for personal transport. The liberals in this room notwithstanding, I'm not sure the ecological benefits have been proven once electric powered automobiles become very widely used.

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.

Maybe part of the answer with electric vehicles is to imbed power sources in trunk roadways that can be accessed by contact or by magnetic fields. There's a new tollway in Florida that's doing something like that but to do that universally would be cost prohibitive. It's also dangerous.

[Hards Alumni]

Flat tax is regressive, anything else?

[dgies9156]

Flat tax is regressive, anything else?

So what???

Is it unconstitutional?

[Pakuni]

So what???

Is it unconstitutional?

No, just a bad idea.

[jesmu84]

So what???

Is it unconstitutional?

So you admit you want to punish the poorest amount us

[Skatastrophy]

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.

Expensive, but valuable to have in teh long run like you mentioned.

And with improved battery technology we're moving towards electric train engines, so we can skip the 3rd rail - https://chicago.suntimes.com/transportation/2024/02/21/metra-battery-train-zero-emission-stadler

Moving masses of people and product via electric on rail would be a wonderful national project to undertake, and it would benefit both the urban folks that can use commuter rail as well as people driving by car getting more trucks off the road.

There's a use for EV technology, but consumer cars and trucks are the least exciting of those uses.

[Hards Alumni]

So what???

Is it unconstitutional?

As Pak said, no, it isn't.  It's just a terrible idea.  Regressive taxes punish poorer people because have a smaller share of additional wealth.  Meaning if they don't have as much money and basically everything they buy is a necessity, the amount of their money that goes to taxes is higher than a more wealthy person.  You can see why this might be a problem for funding or upward financial mobility, right?

Flat tax is for people who haven't actually thought about the subject or have the illusion that it is somehow the most fair.

[dgies9156]

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?"

[Hards Alumni]

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?"

So you agree, we should eliminate oil industry subsidies to stimulate actual market demand for EVs.

[Pakuni]

Hardly.

The amount of taxes paid by the so-called "poorest among us" is almost nil.

Here's your periodic reminder that people are taxed in more ways than the federal income tax.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

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.

Frequently it is the very wealthiest individuals--people like Steve Forbes come to mind--that are in favor of a flat tax. I don't think that is because they are advocating that they pay more.   

And if the wealthiest are paying less, then who pays more just to get us back to revenue neutral?

[jesmu84]

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?"

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.

[dgies9156]

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.

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.

In Florida, for example, I believe we have about 900,000 more residents than New York State. Our state government spends about half of what New York State spends in a year. Our education system is ranked about average for a large state, our transportation system works and our social service network is reasonable. Oh, and we're building a tollway that will have some sort of electric vehicle capacity embedded in it and our new private passenger rail system shows considerable promise!

Finally, Brother Jesmu, no, it's not a political decision, though I'll betcha anything the vast majority of EV operators share my wife's political views. In our case, it was a convenience and need issue and neither of us are fully convinced that the EV design and infrastructure is to the point where we want to sink $45,000+ into one. The vehicle I was interested in had an eight-year, 100,000 mile battery life guarantee.

You can tell me all you want to about EVs on long trips and, down here, maybe it's true. But a year ago, I had a Tesla rental in Chicago and the recharge time in cold weather was absurd, even on a high speed rapid charger. 

[Hards Alumni]

Not opposed to elimination of direct subsidies for many industries as long as we do so across the board.

Why would this be a good idea?

Much depends on what you define as subsidies.

Money that the government spends on the oil and gas industry to keep prices artificially low on oil and gas.  You know what a subsidy is.

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.

It's regressive and a terrible idea that keeps poor people poor.  Refute that please.

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.

I'm not a liberal, and I don't care about your governor.  His actions affect me as much as a butterfly in the Arizona desert.  But if you want to insert him into this conversation without a reason why, I guess that is up to you.

[PBRme]

Flat tax is regressive, anything else?

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.

[Hards Alumni]

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.

So unflatten the flat tax? 

[MU82]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

So, if I buy a Tesla, am I a liberal tree-hugger or do I support a right-wing, authoritarian oligarchy?

[tower912]

Yes.

[dgies9156]

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.

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.

[jficke13]

[...]
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.
[...]

Sorry, because I left college and dalliances with Randian fantasies behind a long time ago, I haven't kept up on what the current flat tax proposals actually are.

Are you saying that the way it would work is there's a consumption/sales/VAT (whatever you want to call it) levied at X%, but then when people file their taxes they're given a "deduction" of about $28k? How does that work? I submit my receipts to my tax return and get reimbursed dollar for dollar on all the tax I've paid up to $28k? The IRS just flatly mail a $28k reimbursement check to everyone? Would a "deduction" in this tax regime become the equivalent of a "credit" in the current one (i.e. a dollar-for-dollar offset rather than an offset against AGI that is subsequently taxed)?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

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.

Understood that you are advocating for lower Federal spending overall, but that doesn't really answer the question. If the very wealthy are paying lower taxes, who is paying more?

Even advocating for a lower overall spend, a flat tax simply shifts a higher percentage of total taxes away from the highest earners while the poorest pay a higher percentage of total taxes collected.

If that is your policy preference you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but a flat tax isn't "fairer", it is just shifting tax policy to allow the richest to pay less.

[Hards Alumni]

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.

My FIL is conservative and has owned two EVs, I am not and I have owned zero. 

A flat tax is regressive even if you deduct for living expenses.  You're just telling me you don't understand what a regressive tax is. 

Also, as stated earlier, it overburdens the low and middle class and limits upward financial mobility.  There are literally a dozen easily accessible websites that can explain it better than I can in one sentence.

Using Florida as an example of how a tax system should be run is inherently stupid as hell since Florida's economy is largely dependent on tourism and the sales tax that tourists pay.  In addition, Florida gas tax is 38.5 cents per gallon... and goes even higher depending on which county you buy it.  Try that in Nebraska and see how much money is available.

[MU82]

Word is, DeSantis' state gets $2 for every book it burns.