MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: WarhawkWarrior on February 02, 2015, 06:56:55 PM
-
Just read the fine print. The President's budget proposes eliminating the deduction expense associated with donations required as part of sporting event tickets. Hope it's dead on arrival.
Edit: politics
-
This is going to go well...
-
Meh. Last week he tried to take money from my daughter's college account so he could give money for other kids to go to the University of Phoenix. This has about as much a chance of going into effect.
-
Take this crap to The Superbar.
Politics aside, it is very relevant to MU basketball. Timing would suck given how the team has performed the last two years, might get more folks to jump ship. Though I'd get to move up in the pecking order which would be great
-
Politics aside, it is very relevant to MU basketball. Timing would suck given how the team has performed the last two years, might get more folks to jump ship. Though I'd get to move up in the pecking order which would be great
I wonder what it'd do. All schools would be affected equally. I have to imagine those first-row donations will have to drop a bit.
-
WOW. This is a deduction? No wonder our country is f'ed up.
And you people actually take the time to deduct it from your taxes?
Unbelievable.
No wonder we have 500,000 loopholes that aren't going anywhere.
-
WOW. This is a deduction? No wonder our country is f'ed up.
And you people actually take the time to deduct it from your taxes?
Unbelievable.
No wonder we have 500,000 loopholes that aren't going anywhere.
You can deduct 80% of the required donation to buy tickets. You can't deduct the cost of the tickets.
-
You can deduct 80% of the required donation to buy tickets. You can't deduct the cost of the tickets.
So stupid. Wow.
-
So stupid. Wow.
What is stupid? The fact that you can deduct 80%? You can't deduct 20%? Or just the entire thing?
Because if you think this is a goofy loophole, you haven't seen anything yet.
-
So stupid. Wow.
Please, tell us why it is stupid. You do realize what that 80% goes for....right?
I look forward to hearing why this is stupid....especially since you've been paying taxes for at least 30 years I'll bet (heavy sarcasm).
-
Naturally, the guy who makes his living off of entertainment thinks that entertainment expenses should be tax deductible.
-
Naturally, the guy who makes his living off of entertainment thinks that entertainment expenses should be tax deductible.
Here's your chance to show us why it is stupid....this particular deduction. Again, here is your chance......
-
I guess my answer was too subtle for you. Entertainment should not be tax deductible.
On which issues exactly are you conservative?
-
I guess my answer was too subtle for you. Entertainment should not be tax deductible.
On which issues exactly are you conservative?
The cost of the tickets = entertainment and not deductible.
The optional donations made to the scholarship fund = 80% deductible.
-
I guess my answer was too subtle for you. Entertainment should not be tax deductible.
On which issues exactly are you conservative?
It is clear by your answer you do not comprehend what is deductible and what isn't. Not surprising, but I did give you two chances. I think you may want to go back and try again.
On what issues am I conservative....I don't believe in abortion. I believe in national sovereignty. Meritocracy. Strong military. States rights. Empowering the individual. But it's not that simple or that black and white, there are nuances with all of those issues. I have liberal beliefs on some issues (stem cells, euthanasia in some cases, etc) and a number of libertarian beliefs (privacy, war on terror, etc).
-
WOW. This is a deduction? No wonder our country is f'ed up.
And you people actually take the time to deduct it from your taxes?
Unbelievable.
No wonder we have 500,000 loopholes that aren't going anywhere.
It appears what we have here is a guy that 1) Deosnt buy season tickets; 2) doesn't make charitable contributions; and 3) doesn't pay taxes, as he clearly doesn't understand how any of this works, yet believes it is "stupid."
-
It appears what we have here is a guy that 1) Deosnt buy season tickets; 2) doesn't make charitable contributions; and 3) doesn't pay taxes, as he clearly doesn't understand how any of this works, yet believes it is "stupid."
+1
Also- IN BEFORE THE LOCK
-
The payments you make above and beyond your actual sticker prices for your season tickets, in the form of "optional" donations, absolutely should not be tax deductible. Just pathetic that anyone would argue to the contrary.
-
The payments you make above and beyond your actual sticker prices for your season tickets, in the form of "optional" donations, absolutely should not be tax deductible. Just pathetic that anyone would argue to the contrary.
Should charitable contributions be tax deductible? How is an optional donation any different?
The doors closing, get the response in quick!!!!
-
Again, money you are paying to enhance your seating at the Bradley Center is not going to a charity. It's going towards your personal entertainment dollars. This isn't hard.
-
It took Obama six plus years, but he finally has me agreeing with him on something.
The only way we're going to get our federal budget in line is eliminating the ridiculous deductions like these, even if it causes some heartburn among the sweater vests on Scoop.
I hope he comes after your mortgage interest deduction next.
-
Again, money you are paying to enhance your seating at the Bradley Center is not going to a charity. It's going towards your personal entertainment dollars. This isn't hard.
http://www.gomarquette.com/bluegold-fund/about-bgf-goals.html
Your donation is going towards the funding of athletic scholarships. That's a charitable contribution.
-
It took Obama six plus years, but he finally has me agreeing with him on something.
The only way we're going to get our federal budget in line is eliminating the ridiculous deductions like these, even if it causes some heartburn among the sweater vests on Scoop.
I hope he comes after your mortgage interest deduction next.
Didn't realize federal budget was a single variable equation.....
-
Again, money you are paying to enhance your seating at the Bradley Center is not going to a charity. It's going towards your personal entertainment dollars. This isn't hard.
I think the Blue and Gold Fund would disagree with your characterization of it as "not a charity"
-
You're playing semantics. The reason that people make a donation is to get better seating at the Bradley Center. Your seating selection is not a charity.
-
I hope he comes after your mortgage interest deduction next.
Yes, let's remove tax-based incentives for behavior that virtually everyone agrees is a net positive for society! Disincentivize home ownership! The proletariat rents!
-
Yes, let's remove tax-based incentives for behavior that virtually everyone agrees is a net positive for society! Disincentivize home ownership! The proletariat rents!
The home building market cheers your comment.
-
You're playing semantics. The reason that people make a donation is to get better seating at the Bradley Center. Your seating selection is not a charity.
But the fact remains it's a donation. It's going to a charitable fund. That is above the face value of the ticket. That is tax deductible.
The IRS limits charitable deductions in certain circumstances, including:
Donation for which you got something in return. Say you bought theater tickets at a charity auction. You can deduct only the amount you paid over the tickets’ face value.
-
The home building market cheers your comment.
The housing rental industry cheers yours.
-
You're playing semantics. The reason that people make a donation is to get better seating at the Bradley Center. Your seating selection is not a charity.
People make donations for all sorts of reasons. The point of the charitable deduction on income taxes isn't to address the motivation of the donors, but because society as a whole wants to encourage support for charity.
The money that is donated does not go for entertainment expenses. It goes to support scholarships for student athletes to attend Marquette. They came up with the 80% rule because donors did receive a tangible personal benefit in return. (The ability to purchase upgraded seats.)
Again if you think this tax rule is screwed up, I can't wait until you own a house, have kids in college, run a side business, have rental property, etc. This rule will seem logical and straightforward in comparison.
-
Great. Let's sever the ties between the Scholarship Fund and your season tickets. Spike the season ticket prices by a comparable price. And then lets see how many pretend do-gooders still make donations.
-
The housing rental industry cheers yours.
Ok? So why exactly do you think the government should be in the business of subsidizing the housing market? Because you own a house?
-
Great. Let's sever the ties between the Scholarship Fund and your season tickets. Spike the season ticket prices by a comparable price. And then lets see how many pretend do-gooders still make donations.
Why would you want the money going somewhere else other than athletic scholarships?
-
Guys .. it's pretty clear that C_i is not interested in understanding the subject, just wants to dig his hole deeper.
Give up, move on.
-
Again, money you are paying to enhance your seating at the Bradley Center is not going to a charity. It's going towards your personal entertainment dollars. This isn't hard.
And there we have it.....the cherry on top that you absolutely do not understand what you are talking about. Apparently, for you, it is hard. Those dollars ARE going to charity.
-
Everybody agrees the tax code is a mess - until it comes to their own precious deductions. Blow it up. No deductions, low, flat rate. Fair, transparent.
-
It took Obama six plus years, but he finally has me agreeing with him on something.
The only way we're going to get our federal budget in line is eliminating the ridiculous deductions like these, even if it causes some heartburn among the sweater vests on Scoop.
I hope he comes after your mortgage interest deduction next.
I'm fine with getting rid of the mortgage deduction....flat tax. EVERYONE pays. Solved. No more deductions. No more handouts. No more special cutouts. Solved.
Now, back to your inability in the current tax structure to understand this is a donation. You are buying the seats, the rest goes to charity. Does it entice you to pay more to get better seats? Absolutely. That does NOT change the fact the $$$$ is going to charity.
This isn't hard.
-
Guys .. it's pretty clear that C_i is not interested in understanding the subject, just wants to dig his hole deeper.
Give up, move on.
+1
Thanks.
It might be interesting to discuss if the MU model (ticket price plus required BG donation) is now the standard for high major football and basketball programs across the country. I haven't researched but I suspect it is. No doubt that eliminating the deduction for the charitable portion materially increases the cost and would lower demand across the board. Simple micro economics.
-
Great. Let's sever the ties between the Scholarship Fund and your season tickets. Spike the season ticket prices by a comparable price. And then lets see how many pretend do-gooders still make donations.
Why are you throwing out phrases like "pretend do-gooders?" Why do you care about someone's motivations for making a charitable gift?
Now, back to your inability in the current tax structure to understand this is a donation. You are buying the seats, the rest goes to charity. Does it entice you to pay more to get better seats? Absolutely. That does NOT change the fact the $$$$ is going to charity.
This isn't hard.
Exactly.
-
Great. Let's sever the ties between the Scholarship Fund and your season tickets. Spike the season ticket prices by a comparable price. And then lets see how many pretend do-gooders still make donations.
You are mixing your arguments. Not everyone is buying tickets to help student athletes. There are some on this very board that could give two craps about women's sports, have a just win baby attitude, don't care if they go to class, think this is basically a minor professional league. Guess what, their money is green also and if they want better seats it goes to scholarships. Not everyone is in it to do "good". Some are. Some need the enticement.
Your argument could be made across the board in most charitable donations, be it goods or services. Why donate a used car to Kars for Kids when I could sell it? Tax writeoff.
-
+1
Thanks.
It might be interesting to discuss if the MU model (ticket price plus required BG donation) is now the standard for high major football and basketball programs across the country. I haven't researched but I suspect it is. No doubt that eliminating the deduction for the charitable portion materially increases the cost and would lower demand across the board. Simple micro economics.
It is the standard virtually across the board.
I doubt this deduction gets eliminated, but this is one of those subtle changes that upsets the apple cart with regards to college athletics and the money train.
<none of the following is an endorsement of a position, simply laying out the probable scenario as I see it>
If the donation gets eliminated, it will have a chilling effect on overall ticket sales, decreasing revenue generated by revenue sports. This decrease will mostly hit the non-revenue sports as that is how they are funded. This will be coupled with the new total cost of attendance arms race that will escalate the cost side at the same time the revenue side decreases. Some schools with rabid, monied fan bases will be able to ride through but less significant schools will have very tough decisions to make. As a consequence all sports suffer and we have a very tiered college sports scene with maybe 30-50 schools being the top tier and everyone else below. TV revenue then follows that trend, with the gap widening further. Whole thing could collapse as well depending on the TV revenue bubble thats going to pop at some point, and/or anti-trust litigation.
This is chaos theory in practice....this tax change is one of many "butterflies" that could flap their wings altering the entire system.
Again, I'm not saying whether this is a good or bad idea, but it is an idea with potentially profound impact that should be assessed before changing willy nilly.
-
Ok? So why exactly do you think the government should be in the business of subsidizing the housing market? Because you own a house?
I rent.
-
I'm fine with getting rid of the mortgage deduction....flat tax. EVERYONE pays. Solved. No more deductions. No more handouts. No more special cutouts. Solved.
...
If C_i doesn't like tax code-based incentives for behaviors like charitable giving (or at least charitable giving to causes, funds, or in ways he doesn't agree with), then this is certainly an option that might appeal to him.
-
Is C_i's objection to the deduction that the season ticket holder gets something in return? i.e. donation for better seats? Do you have the same objection to going to to a charity dinner for cancer research and being able to write off the donation/cost of doing so because you got a piece of steak and a glass of cab out of the deal?
-
It is the standard virtually across the board.
I doubt this deduction gets eliminated, but this is one of those subtle changes that upsets the apple cart with regards to college athletics and the money train.
<none of the following is an endorsement of a position, simply laying out the probable scenario as I see it>
If the donation gets eliminated, it will have a chilling effect on overall ticket sales, decreasing revenue generated by revenue sports. This decrease will mostly hit the non-revenue sports as that is how they are funded. This will be coupled with the new total cost of attendance arms race that will escalate the cost side at the same time the revenue side decreases. Some schools with rabid, monied fan bases will be able to ride through but less significant schools will have very tough decisions to make. As a consequence all sports suffer and we have a very tiered college sports scene with maybe 30-50 schools being the top tier and everyone else below. TV revenue then follows that trend, with the gap widening further. Whole thing could collapse as well depending on the TV revenue bubble thats going to pop at some point, and/or anti-trust litigation.
This is chaos theory in practice....this tax change is one of many "butterflies" that could flap their wings altering the entire system.
Again, I'm not saying whether this is a good or bad idea, but it is an idea with potentially profound impact that should be assessed before changing willy nilly.
Who said you engineers couldn't think like businessmen? ;D
-
Well, honestly this isn't that big of deal. While I'd love to see sweeping tax changes like a flat tax, that's not likely.
Instead, MU (and other schools) will no longer have the required (not optional as some have stated) donation for better seats -- but seating will be even more closely tied to a point system that is heavily weighted to current year (or prior year) donations.
i.e. - a higher number of "current year" B&G points will enable seating in better seats. It's just that that number won't be a set amount. Heck, without the amount being stated, B&G might even rake in more money each year.
-
From the little bit of reading I have done regarding this budget, it appears that it is basically a gigantic F.U. to the Republican Congress. It has tons of stuff The President knows will never get through on both the spending and the revenue sides.
My favorite part is that it is $3.99 trillion. Why not make it an even 4? I guess a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you are talking about real money.
-
Well, honestly this isn't that big of deal. While I'd love to see sweeping tax changes like a flat tax, that's not likely.
Instead, MU (and other schools) will no longer have the required (not optional as some have stated) donation for better seats -- but seating will be even more closely tied to a point system that is heavily weighted to current year (or prior year) donations.
i.e. - a higher number of "current year" B&G points will enable seating in better seats. It's just that that number won't be a set amount. Heck, without the amount being stated, B&G might even rake in more money each year.
That may be true rocky but you must account for the real cost of a season ticket. What's being proposed alters that significantly. It is not simply a scoring system. Tax consequences of any purchase/sale transaction are real and are absolutely taken into account by rational parties.
-
Is C_i's objection to the deduction that the season ticket holder gets something in return?
Yes. And that "something in return" is clearly a substitution for paying higher tickets, which are non-tax deductible.
-
Everybody agrees the tax code is a mess - until it comes to their own precious deductions. Blow it up. No deductions, low, flat rate. Fair, transparent.
I actually agree with this concept, as do most logical people across the political spectrum.
The only people who will disagree with this are the uber-rich 1% (on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, to be sure), as they currently pay far and away the lowest effective tax rate, and have the least incentive to support this change. Unfortunately, these are the people who hold the marionette strings of our politicians.
-
I rent.
I'm still waiting to hear why it's the government's job to subsidize the housing market. The housing market can't do well enough on it's own? How many times do I have to ask this?
-
From the little bit of reading I have done regarding this budget, it appears that it is basically a gigantic F.U. to the Republican Congress. It has tons of stuff The President knows will never get through on both the spending and the revenue sides.
My favorite part is that it is $3.99 trillion. Why not make it an even 4? I guess a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you are talking about real money.
Free college, free health care, free money for sick workers, free beer...coalition building 101.
-
The only people who will disagree with this are the uber-rich 1% (on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, to be sure), as they far and away pay the lowest effective tax rate.
Are you kidding me? Cite your source, or just admit that you are simply repeating class-envy talking points.
-
I actually agree with this concept, as do most logical people across the political spectrum.
The only people who will disagree with this are the uber-rich 1% (on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, to be sure), as they currently far and away pay the lowest effective tax rate, and have the least incentive to support this change. Unfortunately, these are the people who hold the marionette strings of our politicians.
Agree. And it will never happen. Look at the squealing on this thread for proof.
-
Are you kidding me? Cite your source, or just admit that you are simply repeating class-envy talking points.
Pretty simple. While the top tax bracket for income is 35%, over 40% of the top 1% incomes comes from capital gains, interest and dividends (edit, which is taxed @ 15%). Added to that, payroll tax is only on the first $110K, so they reap a huge benefit there too.
-
Are you kidding me? Cite your source, or just admit that you are simply repeating class-envy talking points.
Nope, not kidding.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2013/03/06/as-stock-market-recovered-rich-took-bigger-share-of-nations-income-and-paid-lower-tax-rate/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/
http://www.ibtimes.com/poor-families-pay-double-state-local-tax-rate-rich-study-1782956
I probably misspoke when I said 1%, its more like the .1%, but these people don't have to pay payroll taxes on >90% of their income, pay a low capital gains tax rate on their income, and have access to instruments such as offshore accounts to shield their wealth from the taxman that average Americans simply don't have access to.
-
So, is the proposed tax change just on the required donations for certain tickets, or is it any type of seating-related benefit for donations?
If it is only the former, I would think that they would just manipulate the priority points system in a way that the end result would be about the same.
-
I'm still waiting to hear why it's the government's job to subsidize the housing market. The housing market can't do well enough on it's own? How many times do I have to ask this?
As I've previously stated, I prefer a simple flat tax plan with no deductions. That said, the answer to your question is simple. Governments subsidize behavior they want to encourage. Home ownership is one such behavior. Why? People who own homes are stakeholders. Stakeholders defend the system which leads to a more stable society. More order, less chaos.
-
Nope, not kidding.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2013/03/06/as-stock-market-recovered-rich-took-bigger-share-of-nations-income-and-paid-lower-tax-rate/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/
Read the articles. There is a big difference between "paying a lower effective rate than they did before" and "having the lowest effective tax rate". There are tens of millions of people who pay no income taxes whatsoever.
-
Read the articles. There is a big difference between "paying a lower effective rate than they did before" and "having the lowest effective tax rate". There are tens of millions of people who pay no income taxes whatsoever.
While technically true, the the majority of these folks pay a big share in Medicare taxes, SS taxes, state income taxes, the gas tax, sales tax and so on and so on. A very small % of Americans pay NO taxes, as many have claimed over the years. Of those who do not, the vast majority are low income elderly who have little to no income, and just get SS.
-
As I've previously stated, I prefer a simple flat tax plan with no deductions. That said, the answer to your question is simple. Governments subsidize behavior they want to encourage. Home ownership is one such behavior. Why? People who own homes are stakeholders. Stakeholders defend the system which leads to a more stable society. More order, less chaos.
That's the key. I'm not going to defend any particular policy but I will say that abrupt change is generally a poor idea.
-
I'm still waiting to hear why it's the government's job to subsidize the housing market. The housing market can't do well enough on it's own? How many times do I have to ask this?
Because society feels that having a broad base of home ownership is a good idea, and therefore provides tax incentives for that to occur.
Really is it that hard to figure out?
-
Taxes and fees from government entities serve two purposes: revenue generation and driving societal behavior. Changing a tax structure changes the incentive for society.
Take the housing deduction. If you remove the tax deduction, more people will want to rent(short term) because it will be "cheaper" than owning....but you know who else won't want to own? People who own rental properties because they won't get the incentive either. The relative gain for a rental property would go down, so to obtain the same profit(needed to justify being in that "job") the owner would have to increase rent. That increased rent would make the rental less attractive or make the tenant less invested in the property as a stakeholder since it's not a good deal. This doesn't even count the impact on market pricing and the financial market as you would see housing in the hands of fewer people, larger conglomerates which everyone complains about.
Again, I'm not making an argument either way, but ignoring behavior implications of the change proposed is just dumb. Government impacts how it's citizen's behave whether we like it or not, otherwise we could obsolete government.
-
Agree. And it will never happen. Look at the squealing on this thread for proof.
The "squealing" comes from the reaction to your pot shots at random deductions that didn't really demonstrate any understanding of the concepts at hand.
If you're pro getting rid of ALL deductions, just say that. Don't say the deduction on donations from season ticket sales is stupid because _______. Say it's stupid because you think all deductions are stupid.
-
I'm still waiting to hear why it's the government's job to subsidize the housing market. The housing market can't do well enough on it's own? How many times do I have to ask this?
See my last post. Or think of the gas tax. Government has decided two things A) it wants revenue generated from gas sales B) they want to tax gas to increase cost to decrease the demand for gas, encouraging citizens to take different forms of transportation that likely have a smaller impact on infrastructure and/or environment.
Who made that the governments business?
Goverments are created to form a stable environment for the general growth and prosperity of all (assuming a non-totalitarianistic government). The governments role is to establish and maintain this stable environment. You can argue about how they achieve that, but you can't argue with that it is exactly what a government is suppose to do.
Changing the seat deduction changes behavior, the question is, is that new behavior good or bad for the stable environment currently in place.
-
While technically true, the the majority of these folks pay a big share in Medicare taxes, SS taxes, state income taxes, the gas tax, sales tax and so on and so on. A very small % of Americans pay NO taxes, as many have claimed over the years. Of those who do not, the vast majority are low income elderly who have little to no income, and just get SS.
This conversation was about the Federal budget. The Federal government has no say over state and local taxes. I agree that in many places, state and local taxes (especially sales taxes) are horribly regressive. Secondly, I believe it is intellectually dishonest to lump Social Security taxes in with other taxes in terms of fairness. One could argue that it is the most equitable tax there is. One could also argue that you really shouldn't even call it a tax. If it works the way it was designed (a completely different conversation, but let's stick to the topic on hand), you get out what you put in. There is a limit to the amount of annual benefits, which is why there is a limit to the contribution.
-
I actually agree with this concept, as do most logical people across the political spectrum.
The only people who will disagree with this are the uber-rich 1% (on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, to be sure), as they currently pay far and away the lowest effective tax rate, and have the least incentive to support this change. Unfortunately, these are the people who hold the marionette strings of our politicians.
That's not true. A true flat tax is opposed by many on the lower level because today they don't pay a dime and now would. A true flat tax means everyone pays.
Now, if you want to argue a flat tax for only the 53% that pay now, that's a different story and fits more of your situation.
-
I started this thread and I gladly pay more for my seats because of the Blue & Gold cause -- benefiting student athletes, not just those who play in the BC. I never attend other MU sporting events but do know that B&G funds many scholarships and partial scholarships across the sports spectrum at MU. Would I just write a check to the B&G if I didn't have my 6 season tickets. Maybe but it would be quite a bit smaller due to the non-deductibility of the payment. Most major universities tie the donation to the ticket. Good marketing.
I think I can understand why someone takes a socialistic view of society but without wealth building and incentives for wealth giving we would have few Arts, Museums, National Parks and tens of thousands of charities. Unfortunately the left continues to pursue a model that has proven to fail in every country that has tried it.
-
Are you kidding me? Cite your source, or just admit that you are simply repeating class-envy talking points.
They do. It's called capital gains, which is where the rich actually make their money.
-
See my last post. Or think of the gas tax. Government has decided two things A) it wants revenue generated from gas sales B) they want to tax gas to increase cost to decrease the demand for gas, encouraging citizens to take different forms of transportation that likely have a smaller impact on infrastructure and/or environment.
Who made that the governments business?
Dude, the gas tax is used to pay for our create/update our driving infrastructure and desperately needs to be raised.
-
did some one mention free beer?
-
I actually agree with this concept, as do most logical people across the political spectrum.
The only people who will disagree with this are the uber-rich 1% (on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, to be sure), as they currently pay far and away the lowest effective tax rate, and have the least incentive to support this change. Unfortunately, these are the people who hold the marionette strings of our politicians.
No. A flat tax is not logical (not saying the current one is) and nor do most people across the political spectrum agree with it.
-
Dude, the gas tax is used to pay for our create/update our driving infrastructure and desperately needs to be raised.
You missed my point, and what you are talking about is the revenue generation side(create monies to pay for infrastructure). There is also a behavioral component.
Same exact reason we have a subsidy on ethanol.
-
You missed my point, and what you are talking about is the revenue generation side(create monies to pay for infrastructure). There is also a behavioral component.
Same exact reason we have a subsidy on ethanol.
That I agree with. But come on. The amount of the gas tax is no way shape or form high enough to be a deterrent to driving (maybe at some point 25 years ago it was). Americans complaining about gas prices is freaking hilarious. We need to raise it because our transportation infrastructure is falling apart.
-
You missed my point, and what you are talking about is the revenue generation side(create monies to pay for infrastructure). There is also a behavioral component.
Same exact reason we have a subsidy on ethanol.
The reason we have a subsidy on ethanol is because for some unknown reason the country has gifted Iowa with the first primary in the presidential primary race and thus an outsized impact on our national politics. Want to be president or lay the groundwork to receive support from those corn farmers? Get your bribes ready, e.g. massive ethanol subsidies that make no sense to accomplish anything besides paying off Iowans.
-
That I agree with. But come on. The amount of the gas tax is no way shape or form high enough to be a deterrent to driving (maybe at some point 25 years ago it was). Americans complaining about gas prices is freaking hilarious. We need to raise it because our transportation infrastructure is falling apart.
For the sake of the thread I'm not going down this discussion path, but your discussion of if the gas tax is high enough is exactly my point.
Government needs to determine what the gas tax should be to create revenue to cover expense of providing as well as the behavior it wants to dictate.
-
For the sake of the thread I'm not going down this discussion path, but your discussion of if the gas tax is high enough is exactly my point.
Government needs to determine what the gas tax should be to create revenue to cover expense of providing as well as the behavior it wants to dictate.
Yikes, I misread your posts as though you were against the idea of behavioral motivations, instead of just talking about it. My bad. Also, too bad that view is too logical to actually accomplish anything in DC these days.
-
No. A flat tax is not logical (not saying the current one is) and nor do most people across the political spectrum agree with it.
I agree with the latter part of your statement. The number of folks that don't support it on the left and right is long.
I do not agree with you saying it isn't logical. It's the most fair tax out there, but maybe that's what makes it illogical for too many.
Everyone should pay.
On the gas tax, the problem I have with your argument is that they are going to jack up the gas tax, then gas prices are going to rebound anyway and that is really going to cripple many people. I was happy to see you say taxes DETER activity.....quite an admission and so very true. ;) I'm not sure why we want to DETER driving. Let's not forget that a gas tax impacts all kinds of things like the cost of food, etc.
Do people just throw out "crumbling infrastructure" every day for pity points? There's always going to be holes in the road, a random bridge collapsing, etc. I don't care if you have $10 trillion to spend
-
You're playing semantics. The reason that people make a donation is to get better seating at the Bradley Center. Your seating selection is not a charity.
How narrow is your view of reality.
-
While technically true, the the majority of these folks pay a big share in Medicare taxes, SS taxes, state income taxes, the gas tax, sales tax and so on and so on. A very small % of Americans pay NO taxes, as many have claimed over the years. Of those who do not, the vast majority are low income elderly who have little to no income, and just get SS.
I would correct one thing.
Rather than a small % who pay no taxes, the actual number is 0.00%
-
I would correct one thing.
Rather than a small % who pay no taxes, the actual number is 0.00%
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/2017054/zero-point-zero-o.gif)
-
I do not agree with you saying it isn't logical. It's the most fair tax out there, but maybe that's what makes it illogical for too many.
It has little to do with logic. It is because people have different definitions of the word "fair."
-
President Obama’s '16 budget "calls for ending a long-standing and sometimes mocked tax break for buying college football tickets," according to Brian Faler of POLITICO. Under an '88 law that is "still on the books, taxpayers are allowed to take a deduction for the charitable contributions colleges sometimes require as a prerequisite for buying pricey season football tickets." The administration "estimates its plan would raise" $2.5B (POLITICO.com, 2/2).
BLOOMBERG NEWS' Collins & Rubin note college sports fans currently "can deduct" 80% of the cost of such donations. The budget plan also would "end the use of tax-exempt bonds to build professional sports facilities." Debt to finance stadiums and arenas "would be taxable" if more than 10% of the location "is used for private-business use." Repealing such financing "would save" $542M from '16-25. Marcum LLP Senior Tax & Business Services Partner Robert Spielman, whose firm advises high-net-worth clients, said that while some alumni and fans "would give money to schools regardless of tax benefits, ending the deduction would hurt revenue at some sports programs." Collins & Rubin note the separate proposal in the budget to "eliminate the use of tax-exempt debt for sports facilities would affect states and municipalities that are working with professional teams to finance new or improved stadiums and arenas" (BLOOMBERG NEWS, 2/3).
However, REUTERS' Kevin Drawbaugh wrote Obama's plan is "not likely to become law soon." Republicans, who now control the House and the Senate, were "sharply critical of the plan within hours of its unveiling." But the budget and its proposals "draw a lot of attention each year." The NCAA "declined to comment on the priority seating tax-break proposal" (REUTERS, 2/2).
-
That's not true. A true flat tax is opposed by many on the lower level because today they don't pay a dime and now would. A true flat tax means everyone pays.
Now, if you want to argue a flat tax for only the 53% that pay now, that's a different story and fits more of your situation.
I'd argue for a flat tax of all income above the poverty line. Its pretty simple.
Everyone gets a standard deduction for the amount of income at the poverty line, according to their legal family situation. For me, that's $11,670. You then find the right rate to tax across the board for all income over the poverty line to get to a balanced budget. I'm not sure what that is. 10%? 15%? 20%? 25%? Would need someone to do the math to get to the right number. No other deductions. Capital gains are taxed at the same rate. Everyone can do the simple math.
Persons in
Family Unit 48 Contiguous States
and D.C. Alaska Hawaii
1 $11,670 $14,580 $13,420
2 $15,730 $19,660 $18,090
3 $19,790 $24,730 $22,760
4 $23,850 $29,820 $27,430
5 $27,910 $34,900 $32,100
6 $31,970 $39,980 $36,770
7 $36,030 $45,060 $41,440
8 $40,090 $50,140 $46,110
Each additional
person adds $4,060 $5,080 $4,670
-
The "squealing" comes from the reaction to your pot shots at random deductions that didn't really demonstrate any understanding of the concepts at hand.
If you're pro getting rid of ALL deductions, just say that. Don't say the deduction on donations from season ticket sales is stupid because _______. Say it's stupid because you think all deductions are stupid.
I would get rid of all deductions except those made to a true charity. I'm sorry, but your basketball seats aren't included in my mind.
If you sweater vests want to make donations that have nothing to do with where you are seating, feel free.
-
I would get rid of all deductions except those made to a true charity. I'm sorry, but your basketball seats aren't included 80 my mind.
OK, so you are deciding to simply be ignorant. (The Marquette B&G Fund is a charity.)
-
Come to think of it, I would probably get rid of all deductions entirely.
-
did some one mention free beer?
It's an "investment" in our citizenry's well being.
-
I'd argue for a flat tax of all income above the poverty line. Its pretty simple.
Everyone gets a standard deduction for the amount of income at the poverty line, according to their legal family situation. For me, that's $11,670. You then find the right rate to tax across the board for all income over the poverty line to get to a balanced budget. I'm not sure what that is. 10%? 15%? 20%? 25%? Would need someone to do the math to get to the right number. No other deductions. Capital gains are taxed at the same rate. Everyone can do the simple math.
Persons in
Family Unit 48 Contiguous States
and D.C. Alaska Hawaii
1 $11,670 $14,580 $13,420
2 $15,730 $19,660 $18,090
3 $19,790 $24,730 $22,760
4 $23,850 $29,820 $27,430
5 $27,910 $34,900 $32,100
6 $31,970 $39,980 $36,770
7 $36,030 $45,060 $41,440
8 $40,090 $50,140 $46,110
Each additional
person adds $4,060 $5,080 $4,670
Poverty line floats and do you mark it to a region or national poverty line. Poverty in Chicago or LA calculates a lot different than poverty in say Baraboo Wi or the pan handle of Texas
-
Poverty line floats and do you mark it to a region or national poverty line. Poverty in Chicago or LA calculates a lot different than poverty in say Baraboo Wi or the pan handle of Texas
Its a valid point. I'm not sure how it would be localized, if at all. I'm not a policy-maker :-)
-
Its a valid point. I'm not sure how it would be localized, if at all. I'm not a policy-maker :-)
Mechanically, it's probably better to collect from all and then based on your income level at the end of the year distribute a subsidy to obtain a "standard of living" level.
FYI, even at minimum wage, working 40 hrs a week for 50 weeks a year....You would achieve an income above the poverty line (assuming no dependents, but that's a whole other thing)
-
Part of the problem is there are too many people who don't have any skin in the game. Everyone who has income of any kind (and basically everyone does, if you include entitlements) should pay something, even if it is $1 a week, and even if you have to initially increase entitlements by the amount they would have to pay in taxes.
It's easy to say, "Yeah, tax the crap out of those people!" when it doesn't affect your pocketbook. If everyone paid income taxes, the conversation would be more along the lines of "Raise taxes? Aw, hell, no! I can't afford what I am paying now!"
-
Part of the problem is there are too many people who don't have any skin in the game. Everyone who has income of any kind (and basically everyone does, if you include entitlements) should pay something, even if it is $1 a week, and even if you have to initially increase entitlements by the amount they would have to pay in taxes.
It's easy to say, "Yeah, tax the crap out of those people!" when it doesn't affect your pocketbook. If everyone paid income taxes, the conversation would be more along the lines of "Raise taxes? Aw, hell, no! I can't afford what I am paying now!"
I think you are dreaming if you think that just because someone pays "$1 per week" that they aren't going to want richer people to pay more.
-
I would get rid of all deductions except those made to a true charity. I'm sorry, but your basketball seats aren't included in my mind.
If you sweater vests want to make donations that have nothing to do with where you are seating, feel free.
I donated to a wildlife preservation fund recently. They sent me an adorable stuffed elephant. If I had donated at a lesser tier, I would have only received a postcard; at a higher tier, I would have also gotten a framed portrait and tickets to a park. My donation will be used to support wildlife preservation efforts. Should that donation be tax deductible, or is it nullified because I was given something in return?
Same thing would go for the Blue & Gold Fund. Someone donates at a higher tier, they receive better seating as a return. Their donation is used to fund athletic scholarships for student athletes. Is funding athletic scholarships not a charity (even if those scholarships are for non-revenue generating sports), but wildlife preservation is?
-
I think you are dreaming if you think that just because someone pays "$1 per week" that they aren't going to want richer people to pay more.
Of course they would. But at least they would be more likely to pay attention to the tax situation in general.
-
I donated to a wildlife preservation fund recently. They sent me an adorable stuffed elephant. If I had donated at a lesser tier, I would have only received a postcard; at a higher tier, I would have also gotten a framed portrait and tickets to a park. My donation will be used to support wildlife preservation efforts. Should that donation be tax deductible, or is it nullified because I was given something in return?
Same thing would go for the Blue & Gold Fund. Someone donates at a higher tier, they receive better seating as a return. Their donation is used to fund athletic scholarships for student athletes. Is funding athletic scholarships not a charity (even if those scholarships are for non-revenue generating sports), but wildlife preservation is?
Technically, you should deduct the value of the adorable stuffed elephant from your donation when you declare it on your taxes. However, because its value is de minimus, I doubt the IRS is going to be sending you an audit notice over it. Good seats for a Marquette game, however, do have real value.
-
OK, so you are deciding to simply be ignorant. (The Marquette B&G Fund is a charity.)
Maybe C_I is just referring more generally to abuses with people/companies getting Sports/Entertainment tax breaks and picked a bad example to make his point.
Having been the recipient of numerous visits to Brewers/Bucks luxury boxes and Lambeau Field with tickets from corporate vendors, I've often thought this is kind of a gray area. I've done a lot of eating, drinking, and partying on their dime for which they are receiving breaks, but conducting business was rarely a part of things.
I always thought they were getting a lot from the gov't simply for a meet 'n greet. When there was actual business to conduct, their reps would be on-site to get things accomplished.
-
Of course they would. But at least they would be more likely to pay attention to the tax situation in general.
I'm sorry, but I simply don't agree. This is a talking point IMO that has no basis in reality.
-
I would get rid of all deductions except those made to a true charity.
When you become King you can have that prerogative. Until then, the guidelines that define what a "true charity" is won't be governed by your whims. Fair enough?
-
My father in law is retired and pays a minimal income tax every year. He is AOK with his income tax.
He b*tches to high heaven when his property tax bill comes.
Everyone complains about taxes. Mostly, the ones that they actually pay.
-
Technically, you should deduct the value of the adorable stuffed elephant from your donation when you declare it on your taxes. However, because its value is de minimus, I doubt the IRS is going to be sending you an audit notice over it. Good seats for a Marquette game, however, do have real value.
kind of like when buying items on the Channel 10/36 Auction? If you win on an "Overbid" the amount of the overbid is deductible.
-
My father in law is retired and pays a minimal income tax every year. He is AOK with his income tax.
He b*tches to high heaven when his property tax bill comes.
Everyone complains about taxes. Mostly, the ones that they actually pay.
Just as we all take advantage of the tax breaks that we get and complain about those that others receive.
-
Come to think of it, I would probably get rid of all deductions entirely.
Says the person who likely has nothing to deduct.
-
kind of like when buying items on the Channel 10/36 Auction? If you win on an "Overbid" the amount of the overbid is deductible.
Exactly.
Another fun fact: Money you spend on charity raffle tickets isn't deductible, even if you don't win anything. It's surprising how few people know that.
-
Exactly.
Another fun fact: Money you spend on charity raffle tickets isn't deductible, even if you don't win anything. It's surprising how few people know that.
Put it this way. If you get a receipt from the charity for the gift, it is deductible. If you received anything of value for the gift, it would be disclosed on the receipt along with its value. (Both are IRS requirements upon the charity.)
-
All hail C_i, the only person qualified to opine what charities are "true." Verilly, C_i will warn us away from the profligate "false" charities whose practices and purposes do not meet his exacting truth standards.
Hail.
-
All hail C_i, the only person qualified to opine what charities are "true." Verilly, C_i will warn us away from the profligate "false" charities whose practices and purposes do not meet his exacting truth standards.
Hail.
I, for one, welcome our new overlord C_i
(http://media1.giphy.com/media/mRBIGFD13Dcju/200.gif)
-
Mechanically, it's probably better to collect from all and then based on your income level at the end of the year distribute a subsidy to obtain a "standard of living" level.
FYI, even at minimum wage, working 40 hrs a week for 50 weeks a year....You would achieve an income above the poverty line (assuming no dependents, but that's a whole other thing)
Correct, but in my plan you'd only pay taxes on your income after you've surpassed the poverty threshold, which would be a small minority of your income if you were only making minimum wage
Vote Bleuteaux!
-
Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos.
-
I, for one, welcome our new overlord C_i
(http://media1.giphy.com/media/mRBIGFD13Dcju/200.gif)
I don't see how Macarena Shark could do any worse than any current elected official.
-
Says the person who likely has nothing to deduct.
So you think that since C_I has an opinion that differs from you (and most everyone here) that he lives in a van down by the river?
A tad arrogant.
-
Maybe C_I is just referring more generally to abuses with people/companies getting Sports/Entertainment tax breaks and picked a bad example to make his point.
Having been the recipient of numerous visits to Brewers/Bucks luxury boxes and Lambeau Field with tickets from corporate vendors, I've often thought this is kind of a gray area. I've done a lot of eating, drinking, and partying on their dime for which they are receiving breaks, but conducting business was rarely a part of things.
I always thought they were getting a lot from the gov't simply for a meet 'n greet. When there was actual business to conduct, their reps would be on-site to get things accomplished.
Could you further explain this? I'm trying to understand how the corporate vendor would be getting a break on this. I'm assuming this is not a charitable contribution here since they are conducting business with you. The only type of "break" that the corporate vendor would be receiving from a tax standpoint, is the offset of profit from the cost of those tickets * the corporate tax rate.
Example: Your football ticket cost $100, food and beverage $50, corporate tax rate is 33%, the only tax "savings" that would occur, would be $50. But then from an expense standpoint, they still spent $150, so they in essence spent $100 for your ticket and food. And then that $50 of "tax saving" would be filtered down to the shareholders of the company. So depending on what type of business you are dealing with, I'm just assuming a somewhat decently sized company, the "tax savings" that an individual would see would be immaterial.
I'm oversimplifying this, but I just want to drive the point that corporations don't necessarily receive tax breaks for entertaining clients, which is what I understand you are saying here.
-
Exactly.
Another fun fact: Money you spend on charity raffle tickets isn't deductible, even if you don't win anything. It's surprising how few people know that.
Also on that note: donated services are not tax deductible either. For example, if a hair salon was to give away free haircuts for some charitable purpose, the retail value of those haircuts would not be tax deductible, even though they were done for a charitable purpose. However, if that hair salon were to give away $20 giftcards for charity, and those were then used for free haircuts, those giftcards would be tax deductible.
-
Could you further explain this? I'm trying to understand how the corporate vendor would be getting a break on this. I'm assuming this is not a charitable contribution here since they are conducting business with you. The only type of "break" that the corporate vendor would be receiving from a tax standpoint, is the offset of profit from the cost of those tickets * the corporate tax rate.
Example: Your football ticket cost $100, food and beverage $50, corporate tax rate is 33%, the only tax "savings" that would occur, would be $50. But then from an expense standpoint, they still spent $150, so they in essence spent $100 for your ticket and food. And then that $50 of "tax saving" would be filtered down to the shareholders of the company. So depending on what type of business you are dealing with, I'm just assuming a somewhat decently sized company, the "tax savings" that an individual would see would be immaterial.
I'm oversimplifying this, but I just want to drive the point that corporations don't necessarily receive tax breaks for entertaining clients, which is what I understand you are saying here.
I suspect he's talking about companies getting luxury boxes, then deducting the cost of the box and food/drink as business expenses because they entertain clients there. And yes, I agree with you that the tax savings would be minimal...but there would be savings nevertheless.
-
I suspect he's talking about companies getting luxury boxes, then deducting the cost of the box and food/drink as business expenses because they entertain clients there. And yes, I agree with you that the tax savings would be minimal...but there would be savings nevertheless.
Thank you, Gooo.
Like I said, I've eaten and drank more than I should, but never actually talked business.
-
I suspect he's talking about companies getting luxury boxes, then deducting the cost of the box and food/drink as business expenses because they entertain clients there. And yes, I agree with you that the tax savings would be minimal...but there would be savings nevertheless.
The funnier part to me if I read the quoted part of his post was to suggest no business was being done. Yes it is. The fact he knows what company paid for the luxury box alone is part of business. Call it marketing, call it what you will, but I get this notion by some people that a deal has to be talked about at some of these functions. Hardly. Be it brand awareness, marketing, just thanking clients, or trying to sell wives and husbands on how big their company's schlong is because they have a box is part of business. Someone has to be naive to think it isn't.
-
It has little to do with logic. It is because people have different definitions of the word "fair."
Correct. I was being sarcastic. I agree with you 100%. The definition of fair is wildly different....take the notion of taxes at all and who pays, who doesn't....I find it unbelievably unfair that 47% pay no federal tax at all. Everyone should have to pay something. To understand that gov't programs cost real money and there is no free ride. Others disagree and call that wildly unfair. Just one of many examples.
-
I'd argue for a flat tax of all income above the poverty line. Its pretty simple.
Everyone gets a standard deduction for the amount of income at the poverty line, according to their legal family situation. For me, that's $11,670. You then find the right rate to tax across the board for all income over the poverty line to get to a balanced budget. I'm not sure what that is. 10%? 15%? 20%? 25%? Would need someone to do the math to get to the right number. No other deductions. Capital gains are taxed at the same rate. Everyone can do the simple math.
Persons in
Family Unit 48 Contiguous States
and D.C. Alaska Hawaii
1 $11,670 $14,580 $13,420
2 $15,730 $19,660 $18,090
3 $19,790 $24,730 $22,760
4 $23,850 $29,820 $27,430
5 $27,910 $34,900 $32,100
6 $31,970 $39,980 $36,770
7 $36,030 $45,060 $41,440
8 $40,090 $50,140 $46,110
Each additional
person adds $4,060 $5,080 $4,670
I wouldn't oppose to that as a compromise....as long as everyone above that line is paying so they understand the true costs of programs, etc, we would eliminate tremendous waste in this country. It's easy to say "YES YES YES" and vote for programs and politicians when it doesn't cost that person a damn thing. Now, when it does, when those precious dollars are being taken by Uncle Sammy, now people get religion and actually give a damn about some of the wasteful programs and what is truly needed. All of a sudden, it matters. All of a sudden, fraud matters too....because when you are paying taxes it matters but when you aren't, fraud doesn't mean a hill of beans because the next actual taxpayer is going to pick up the check.
-
Part of the problem is there are too many people who don't have any skin in the game. Everyone who has income of any kind (and basically everyone does, if you include entitlements) should pay something, even if it is $1 a week, and even if you have to initially increase entitlements by the amount they would have to pay in taxes.
It's easy to say, "Yeah, tax the crap out of those people!" when it doesn't affect your pocketbook. If everyone paid income taxes, the conversation would be more along the lines of "Raise taxes? Aw, hell, no! I can't afford what I am paying now!"
BBBBBB
IIIIIII
NNNNN
GGGGG
OOOOO
No skin in the game means people not paying don't give a chit, all programs are cool, waste doesn't matter, spend all you want, tax all you want because it isn't going to impact that dude one bit....well except more goodies and more goodies = more votes.
-
BBBBBB
IIIIIII
NNNNN
GGGGG
OOOOO
No skin in the game means people not paying don't give a chit, all programs are cool, waste doesn't matter, spend all you want, tax all you want because it isn't going to impact that dude one bit....well except more goodies and more goodies = more votes.
Just want to make sure I have this clear. Your big idea, is to ensure the 47% who pay no federal taxes, have some skin in the game? So we have the elderly (about a quarter of this group) and the working poor, folks with kids who make under 25K a year is your grand idea to fix America's fiscal problems. If a politician proposed say a 5% minimum federal tax, to get your skin in the game, but with the trade off of a 5% increase in the capital gains, who say you? DEAD ON ARRIVAL!
Lastly, you gush about the good old days of the 50s and 60s, any chance you want to revert back to the federal taxes rates of that time?
-
Despite some bumps here and there, this debate about how the government spends are money has been relatively civil. Relative, that is, to debates on Derrick Wilson's playing time.
The conclusion to draw, of course, is to hope and pray that Derrick Wilson never goes into politics.
-
If you want any more evidence that nothing will be done about our ridiculous, rent-seeking tax laws, look no further than Chicos posts.
The guy is exercised because poor people don't pay much taxes, but thinks that donations to athletic departments and extravagant business entertainment budgets are perfectly acceptable deductions.
As others have said in this thread, everyone complains about the system until it benefits them.
By the way, I used to believe big business could do no wrong, ala Chicos. But, really, the ridiculousness of complaining about poor people when you're manipulating the tax code yourself is just too much.
-
BBBBBB
IIIIIII
NNNNN
GGGGG
OOOOO
No skin in the game means people not paying don't give a chit, all programs are cool, waste doesn't matter, spend all you want, tax all you want because it isn't going to impact that dude one bit....well except more goodies and more goodies = more votes.
LOL. Right wing talking point with no basis in reality.
Seriously how patronizing. "Even though you make LESS THAN $20,000 we are going to tax you so you fully understand how the tax system works."
Doesn't surprise me that Chicos actually thinks this is a good idea.
-
I suspect he's talking about companies getting luxury boxes, then deducting the cost of the box and food/drink as business expenses because they entertain clients there. And yes, I agree with you that the tax savings would be minimal...but there would be savings nevertheless.
Yes there would be tax savings, but ultimately for the company there would not be savings, as they are taking on more expense. I don't know why we would pick this out as working around the tax code. Then we should also bring up buying a flat screen TV for the company break room, or taking the team out for drinks and bowling for a social event. Those would all be business expenses, that when offsetting revenues would result in "tax savings".
-
The funnier part to me if I read the quoted part of his post was to suggest no business was being done. Yes it is. The fact he knows what company paid for the luxury box alone is part of business. Call it marketing, call it what you will, but I get this notion by some people that a deal has to be talked about at some of these functions. Hardly. Be it brand awareness, marketing, just thanking clients, or trying to sell wives and husbands on how big their company's schlong is because they have a box is part of business. Someone has to be naive to think it isn't.
This, and its not just about building brand awareness, but also about building relationships and networking. There is much more to entertaining potential/existing clients than just talking business at these events.
-
LOL. Right wing talking point with no basis in reality.
Seriously how patronizing. "Even though you make LESS THAN $20,000 we are going to tax you so you fully understand how the tax system works."
Doesn't surprise me that Chicos actually thinks this is a good idea.
Sultan, the top 10% of earners pay 68% of all the taxes when they earn only 45% of all income. I am not an advocate of taxing the bottom 50% as they only earn 12% of all income, but come on......the top 10% pay enough.
-
anyhoo, back to the topic of deducting B&G fund donations re: seats - if this deduction went away and supposing MU raises the actual ticket prices to compensate for the lost revenue, would MU have to report that as income if it isn't a charitable contribution?
-
anyhoo, back to the topic of deducting B&G fund donations re: seats - if this deduction went away and supposing MU raises the actual ticket prices to compensate for the lost revenue, would MU have to report that as income if it isn't a charitable contribution?
If that is what occurred, then for sure that would be taxable income.
-
i am really concerned that some here seem to there is something inherently wrong with the notion of trying to keep more of the money YOU/WE EARN. the problem is, when one finds legitimate ways to KEEP some of their own hard earned money, they usually spend it somewhere, i.e. donations, luxury boxes, etc. many of these expenditures lead to other areas that still benefit the government-buying goods and services that provide jobs which in turn generate many other taxes-sales, gas, income etc. i am a believer that we, the people can spend our money better and more efficient than the gubmint-that of course is a whole notha subject that would shirley get the "lock down" real quick-I have a toothache so fellas?
-
anyhoo, back to the topic of deducting B&G fund donations re: seats - if this deduction went away and supposing MU raises the actual ticket prices to compensate for the lost revenue, would MU have to report that as income if it isn't a charitable contribution?
I don't think MU would be obligated to change their pricing structure at all. The contribution would just no longer be deductible for those buying the tix.
-
I don't think MU would be obligated to change their pricing structure at all. The contribution would just no longer be deductible for those buying the tix.
True, but I think MK's point was that if the deduction no longer exists, less people would then be willing to make that contribution for those tickets, and thus MU would be losing those contributions to fund their scholarships. If MU needed to offset that, maybe an increase in the ticket price would occur, and that difference would help fund those scholarships.
-
True, but I think MK's point was that if the deduction no longer exists, less people would then be willing to make that contribution for those tickets, and thus MU would be losing those contributions to fund their scholarships. If MU needed to offset that, maybe an increase in the ticket price would occur, and that difference would help fund those scholarships.
I wonder how noticeably the ticket sales would change if that deduction was removed. I would assume not very much. A noticeable change would imply that people are valuing the tax deduction more than the tickets themselves, which I would be very surprised if that was the case.
-
I don't think MU would be obligated to change their pricing structure at all. The contribution would just no longer be deductible for those buying the tix.
MU wouldn't be obligated to do anything. But if the real cost of my season ticket went up by 25% (the aforementioned allowed deduction), I would by definition be less inclined to purchase.
-
I wonder how noticeably the ticket sales would change if that deduction was removed. I would assume not very much. I noticeable change would imply that people are valuing the tax deduction more than the tickets themselves, which I would be very surprised if that was the case.
Therein lies the real question. How elastic or inelastic is demand for MU tickets?
-
LOL. Right wing talking point with no basis in reality.
Seriously how patronizing. "Even though you make LESS THAN $20,000 we are going to tax you so you fully understand how the tax system works."
Doesn't surprise me that Chicos actually thinks this is a good idea.
LOL. Yes, JFK...that right winger. Sam Nunn...that right winger. Etc, etc
Define fully, because that's not what I am saying. If people don't understand the cost of something because it is free, then there is no true valuation tied to them that is linked. This is Econ 101 \ public policy 101, not some talking point. I think a flat tax is the fairest form of taxation, I also know it isn't going to happen.
My solution would be EVERYONE pays something, the problem today is 47% pay NOTHING in federal taxes. NOTHING. Not one red cent. That is a major problem. So you can run along and say I want them taxed fully...define fully? No, what I want that I think is practical is that they pay SOMETHING....not the current NOTHING they pay today. If you don't pay for something and it's always there, one has no idea what it costs and you're fine just keeping it going. That's great for that person, not so great for everyone else that has to pay for it.
I always find it amusing one side keeps calling for tax increases....well, here's a tax increase that apparently that side doesn't like....ironic.
-
If that is what occurred, then for sure that would be taxable income.
Unless I am mistaken, (I am an accountant, but not a tax expert) Marquette and its athletic programs are IRS-recognized Not For Profits, so the income would not be taxable to Marquette. I don't think that Marquette is really affected by whether or not the required donations are tax-deductible by the ticketholder, other than any impact it would have on demand.
-
Sultan, the top 10% of earners pay 68% of all the taxes when they earn only 45% of all income. I am not an advocate of taxing the bottom 50% as they only earn 12% of all income, but come on......the top 10% pay enough.
I don't think you heard me state otherwise. I just have a problem with the condescending attitude.
-
LOL. Yes, JFK...that right winger. Sam Nunn...that right winger. Etc, etc
Define fully, because that's not what I am saying. If people don't understand the cost of something because it is free, then there is no true valuation tied to them that is linked. This is Econ 101 \ public policy 101, not some talking point. I think a flat tax is the fairest form of taxation, I also know it isn't going to happen.
My solution would be EVERYONE pays something, the problem today is 47% pay NOTHING in federal taxes. NOTHING. Not one red cent. That is a major problem. So you can run along and say I want them taxed fully...define fully? No, what I want that I think is practical is that they pay SOMETHING....not the current NOTHING they pay today. If you don't pay for something and it's always there, one has no idea what it costs and you're fine just keeping it going. That's great for that person, not so great for everyone else that has to pay for it.
I always find it amusing one side keeps calling for tax increases....well, here's a tax increase that apparently that side doesn't like....ironic.
I have not argued for tax increases. I have not argued that the tax system should be more "progressive."
I have argued that "THEY HAVE TO PAY SOMETHING!!!" attitude is condescending and patronizing. But that's really who you are....so...I am not surprised.
-
Unless I am mistaken, (I am an accountant, but not a tax expert) Marquette and its athletic programs are IRS-recognized Not For Profits, so the income would not be taxable to Marquette. I don't think that Marquette is really affected by whether or not the required donations are tax-deductible by the ticketholder, other than any impact it would have on demand.
Ahhh, you are correct. I had mistakenly forgot that Marquette and the athletic programs are Not For Profits. So yes, it would not be taxable income.
-
Ahhh, you are correct. I had mistakenly forgot that Marquette and the athletic programs are Not For Profits. So yes, it would not be taxable income.
Not yet, anyways. :P
-
Ahhh, you are correct. I had mistakenly forgot that Marquette and the athletic programs are Not For Profits. So yes, it would not be taxable income.
Non-profits *can* have unrelated business income that is considered taxable if it is outside the intended purpose of the organization. For instance, if Marquette decided to open a few bars around the City to generate some money, the net income from those would be considered taxable because the income isn't related to the charitable purpose of the organization.
The fear that Marquette (and others) have to live with is that right now athletic income (tickets, TV rights, donations) are considered "related income." If Congress decides that athletic income is "unrelated," and therefore taxable, that is when the sh*t hits the fan.
-
Example: You purchase two preferred seats with a recommended $3,600 Blue & Gold Fund donation each. The tax deduction will be the $7,200 Blue & Gold Fund donation minus the cost of the parking pass ($340) multiplied by 80%. You would be allowed $5,488 in tax deductions.
Recommended Preferred Blue & Gold Fund Seat Donation $7,200
Less: Cost of Parking ($340)
Total Donation Less Benefits Received $6,860
20 % IRS Discount x .80
IRS Tax Deduction $5,488
In this case where a premium seat buyer of two premium seats, they would lose the $5488 deduction or if we assume a 35% tax bracket (fed + state) they would lose $1,920 out of their pocket. Crazy! It will drive people to less expensive seats and the B&G will be stressed.
Tax reform is needed but lets quit proposing silly measures in the mean time. The code needs to look wholistic at what societal actions need to be addressed, not simply try to be robinhood.
This attitude of a "zero sum game" needs to stop. Free enterprise drives better behavior, the fortunes of all participants can increase and everyone can prosper. Personally I believe everyone needs to pay some income tax, even if its 1%. Everyone who drives over a bridge should feel like they helped build it. There is a pretty significant incentive to do nothing. BP couldn't even hire locals at $15 an hour for the Gulf oil spill.
They ended up housing people from as far away as New York.
-
Example: You purchase two preferred seats with a recommended $3,600 Blue & Gold Fund donation each. The tax deduction will be the $7,200 Blue & Gold Fund donation minus the cost of the parking pass ($340) multiplied by 80%. You would be allowed $5,488 in tax deductions.
Recommended Preferred Blue & Gold Fund Seat Donation $7,200
Less: Cost of Parking ($340)
Total Donation Less Benefits Received $6,860
20 % IRS Discount x .80
IRS Tax Deduction $5,488
In this case where a premium seat buyer of two premium seats, they would lose the $5488 deduction or if we assume a 35% tax bracket (fed + state) they would lose $1,920 out of their pocket. Crazy! It will drive people to less expensive seats and the B&G will be stressed.
Tax reform is needed but lets quit proposing silly measures in the mean time. The code needs to look wholistic at what societal actions need to be addressed, not simply try to be robinhood.
This attitude of a "zero sum game" needs to stop. Free enterprise drives better behavior, the fortunes of all participants can increase and everyone can prosper. Personally I believe everyone needs to pay some income tax, even if its 1%. Everyone who drives over a bridge should feel like they helped build it. There is a pretty significant incentive to do nothing. BP couldn't even hire locals at $15 an hour for the Gulf oil spill.
They ended up housing people from as far away as New York.
So poor people and the elderly don't have to pay the gas tax?
-
Example: You purchase two preferred seats with a recommended $3,600 Blue & Gold Fund donation each. The tax deduction will be the $7,200 Blue & Gold Fund donation minus the cost of the parking pass ($340) multiplied by 80%. You would be allowed $5,488 in tax deductions.
Recommended Preferred Blue & Gold Fund Seat Donation $7,200
Less: Cost of Parking ($340)
Total Donation Less Benefits Received $6,860
20 % IRS Discount x .80
IRS Tax Deduction $5,488
In this case where a premium seat buyer of two premium seats, they would lose the $5488 deduction or if we assume a 35% tax bracket (fed + state) they would lose $1,920 out of their pocket. Crazy! It will drive people to less expensive seats and the B&G will be stressed.
Tax reform is needed but lets quit proposing silly measures in the mean time. The code needs to look wholistic at what societal actions need to be addressed, not simply try to be robinhood.
This attitude of a "zero sum game" needs to stop. Free enterprise drives better behavior, the fortunes of all participants can increase and everyone can prosper. Personally I believe everyone needs to pay some income tax, even if its 1%. Everyone who drives over a bridge should feel like they helped build it. There is a pretty significant incentive to do nothing. BP couldn't even hire locals at $15 an hour for the Gulf oil spill.
They ended up housing people from as far away as New York.
If they have purchased their own gasoline, everyone who has driven over a bridge has helped build it. As far as I know, the government does not give poor people gasoline.
-
Tax reform is needed but lets quit proposing silly measures in the mean time. The code needs to look wholistic at what societal actions need to be addressed, not simply try to be robinhood.
This attitude of a "zero sum game" needs to stop. Free enterprise drives better behavior, the fortunes of all participants can increase and everyone can prosper. Personally I believe everyone needs to pay some income tax, even if its 1%. Everyone who drives over a bridge should feel like they helped build it.
Wow. You say some good things here. But.... the bolded sentence? In the real world? Com'n, man.
-
i am really concerned that some here seem to there is something inherently wrong with the notion of trying to keep more of the money YOU/WE EARN. the problem is, when one finds legitimate ways to KEEP some of their own hard earned money, they usually spend it somewhere, i.e. donations, luxury boxes, etc. many of these expenditures lead to other areas that still benefit the government-buying goods and services that provide jobs which in turn generate many other taxes-sales, gas, income etc. i am a believer that we, the people can spend our money better and more efficient than the gubmint-that of course is a whole notha subject that would shirley get the "lock down" real quick-I have a toothache so fellas?
Trickle-down economics has been shown as ineffective
I agree with the flat tax as a percentage of income for EVERYONE. Caveats being that capital gains tax, estate/inheritance tax and poverty line also be raised.
-
Trickle-down economics has been shown as ineffective
I agree with the flat tax as a percentage of income for EVERYONE. Caveats being that capital gains tax, estate/inheritance tax and poverty line also be raised.
The estate tax is the most B.S. tax there is. That wealth has already been taxed at least once as income. Why should dying be a taxable event? If some geezer blows his savings on booze and whores, the government wouldn't see a penny of it. But if he lives beneath his means so he can leave something (especially something like a family business) to his loved ones, the government swoops in and takes a huge cut off of the top.
-
I just notice the "no politics" rule on this board. I believe tax code changes affecting our student athletes by impacting donations is absurd but I apologize that it has gone the usual route of libs vs libertarians.
-
I just notice the "no politics" rule on this board. I believe tax code changes affecting our student athletes by impacting donations is absurd but I apologize that it has gone the usual route of libs vs libertarians.
I've been letting this one slide for the most part. But try to keep if on the topic of ticket deductions (I know, there have already been several that were not....)
-
Though I don't want a bunch of mostly-political threads filling the 'bar, this has been more civil than the average Buzz / Crean debate thread, I'll give it that. We should have a giant religious debate next.
-
Though I don't want a bunch of mostly-political threads filling the 'bar, this has been more civil than the average Buzz / Crean debate thread, I'll give it that.
That's because Crean sucks.
-
So poor people and the elderly don't have to pay the gas tax?
That's one of the debates out here with the new proposed GPS gas tax whereby you will pay based on how much you drive Orwellian concept that has been cooked up. Track your GPS, which goes back to the gov't...they charge you $X.XX per mile driven and there you go. Of course, many poor people have been driven away from where the jobs are because of real estate prices, thus they have to drive a long way to get to the job. So that is now being debated in terms of what kind of credit will be offered to those folks.
I just love the idea that the gov't will be strapping on a device (yes, pun intended) to our cars and "of course" will not use any of that data except to calculate this gas tax. What could possibly go wrong? How could this data ever get out to people that shouldn't get it....we know confidential medical data, people's grades, tax data never does.
I can't wait to speculate and buy stocks of these GPS tech companies.....wonder who in gov't they will be related to.
-
That's one of the debates out here with the new proposed GPS gas tax whereby you will pay based on how much you drive Orwellian concept that has been cooked up. Track your GPS, which goes back to the gov't...they charge you $X.XX per mile driven and there you go. Of course, many poor people have been driven away from where the jobs are because of real estate prices, thus they have to drive a long way to get to the job. So that is now being debated in terms of what kind of credit will be offered to those folks.
I just love the idea that the gov't will be strapping on a device (yes, pun intended) to our cars and "of course" will not use any of that data except to calculate this gas tax. What could possibly go wrong? How could this data ever get out to people that shouldn't get it....we know confidential medical data, people's grades, tax data never does.
I can't wait to speculate and buy stocks of these GPS tech companies.....wonder who in gov't they will be related to.
I don't see how this is materially more equitable than the .xx per gallon tax we have now (other than the aforementioned gather of Big Brother data). You drive more, you buy more gas. Plus the current tax has the added benefit of rewarding drivers with more fuel-efficient cars. Perhaps they are thinking ahead to the near future, when we will all be driving electric vehicles.
-
I don't see how this is materially more equitable than the .xx per gallon tax we have now (other than the aforementioned gather of Big Brother data). You drive more, you buy more gas. Plus the current tax has the added benefit of rewarding drivers with more fuel-efficient cars. Perhaps they are thinking ahead to the near future, when we will all be driving electric vehicles.
Honestly don't know why you put that in teal, that is probably the rationale indeed. Especially in California, where Tesla's charger network is quite built up. The state doesn't want to lose gas tax revenue, and a GPS system is the only way to assess based on usage of the roads.
In 10 years, I would say a majority of all new cars will be electric plugins. Government will have to adjust because the gas tax won't cut it anymore.
-
In 10 years, I would say a majority of all new cars will be electric plugins.
I'd take that bet. The technology and infrastructure just isn't there for that change to happen in a decade. In order for most new cars to be plugins, they need to be able to make one for under $20,000 (without government subsidies), and people have to be confident that there will a place to plug in anywhere they drive.
-
OK back to the ticket situation, I tried to put a scenario together to illustrate the potential impact. This is an extreme simplification because I don't have access to all the data but it should suffice.
Let's pretend Lets also assume 5000 people in B&G seats and 5000 people in non-B&G (the rest are walk-ups and mini-plans so not relevant for this simple example). So here is what the revenue streams look like for B&G ticket revenue, B&G donations, and non-B&G ticket revenue:
B&G Ticket Rev $3,000,000
B&G Donation Rev $3,500,000
Non Ticket Rev $2,250,000
OK, lets assume this change takes place eliminating the donation charity and MU does not otherwise change pricing. For this discussion I'm assuming 20% of the donors stop donating. Personally I think this is low but it's illustrative only. Here are what the revenue streams look like:
B&G Ticket Rev $3,000,000
B&G Donation Rev $2,800,000
Non Ticket Rev $2,250,000
B&G Ticket Shortfall $0
B&G Don Shortfall ($700,000)
Non Ticket Shortfall $0
Total Shortfall ($700,000)
So the B&G loses $700k and has to make that up somewhere. MU has multiple revenue streams to choose from, likeliest is from season ticket holders. Let's MU decides to increase the average ticket price on B&G seats only from $600 to $650. As a result the 20% that stopped donating but had B&G seats move to non-B&G seats and 12.5% of remaining B&G seats eliminate their donation to make-up for increased ticket prices:
B&G Ticket Rev $2,600,000
B&G Donation Rev $2,450,000
Non Ticket Rev $2,700,000
B&G Ticket Shortfall ($400,000)
B&G Don Shortfall ($1,050,000)
Non Ticket Shortfall $450,000
Total Shortfall ($1,000,000)
OK, well now they have a bigger revenue shortfall, so ticket prices increase again on B&G seats($650 to $700) and on non-B&G as well ($450 to $550). This moves 500 B&G to non-B&G, but the donations remain the same. Additionally, the overall increase drives 1500 non-B$&G out all together so total tickets goes from 10,000 to 8,500. Here's what the revenues look like.
B&G Ticket Rev $2,450,000
B&G Donation Rev $2,450,000
Non Ticket Rev $2,750,000
B&G Ticket Shortfall ($550,000)
B&G Don Shortfall ($350,000)
Non Ticket Shortfall $500,000
Total Shortfall ($400,000)
So they are continuously losing money or looking for additional revenue streams. Is this what would happen? Couldn't say for sure, but it seems a likely scenario. That's why changes like this need to be understood.
Side note, this would be true of all high major basketball and football programs. If this scenario plays out you are talking about removing billions of dollars of revenue from NCAA sports and the whole model becomes unsustainable. Worst case scenario, but definitely possible.
-
I'd take that bet. The technology and infrastructure just isn't there for that change to happen in a decade. In order for most new cars to be plugins, they need to be able to make one for under $20,000 (without government subsidies), and people have to be confident that there will a place to plug in anywhere they drive.
I think 10 years is too quick, so you'll probably win that bet.
However, the cost of producing electronics usually plummets in the second or 3rd generation.
While an electric car is a very large electronic product, it is still essentially an oversized blender. Electric motor technology is not new, and it's HIGHLY dependable. Once they figure out how to power these things efficiently, the cost will like come down very quickly. Maybe even cheaper than internal combustion.
-
Honestly don't know why you put that in teal, that is probably the rationale indeed. Especially in California, where Tesla's charger network is quite built up. The state doesn't want to lose gas tax revenue, and a GPS system is the only way to assess based on usage of the roads.
In 10 years, I would say a majority of all new cars will be electric plugins. Government will have to adjust because the gas tax won't cut it anymore.
You are completely ignoring the fact that cars have to plug into something and that energy has to be generated some how. This is my current field of employment and "expertise". The current grid and generation model wouldn't support the energy requirement for an electric transportation on the scale you are predicting. Even if you go to a distributed generation model where you localize the generation(Edison wins in the end!) to the fuel stations you have to build that generation and it's not feasible for that all to be alternative generation. A good portion of it is going to have to be at least natural gas and some will have to be coal or gas fired.
So your decade plan isn't even achievable in say 20 years barring a technological paradigm shift along the lines of desktop fusion. The environmental impact improvement would be moderate, not a game changer.
Note, I'm completely in favor of the above model and think we need to move to it.....but lets be realistic about it and understand what is and isn't possible.
-
I think 10 years is too quick, so you'll probably win that bet.
However, the cost of producing electronics usually plummets in the second or 3rd generation.
While an electric car is a very large electronic product, it is still essentially an oversized blender. Electric motor technology is not new, and it's HIGHLY dependable. Once they figure out how to power these things efficiently, the cost will like come down very quickly. Maybe even cheaper than internal combustion.
One issue that will require significant investment and cost reduction is the energy storage method. Currently the most efficient batteries are very costly and EXTREMELY unfriendly to the environment. By-product of their production is similar to spent nuclear fuel rods from a nuclear reactor (has to be stored, can't be "disposed of"). So we can get there, but the battery is a technology that is unique to this application and is the real expense of the whole thing.
I'm all for this but there is a lot of work, time and money needed to get it to a scalable model. We'll get there, just a question of when.
-
I think 10 years is too quick, so you'll probably win that bet.
However, the cost of producing electronics usually plummets in the second or 3rd generation.
While an electric car is a very large electronic product, it is still essentially an oversized blender. Electric motor technology is not new, and it's HIGHLY dependable. Once they figure out how to power these things efficiently, the cost will like come down very quickly. Maybe even cheaper than internal combustion.
A quick summary of some of the pollution/energy issues with batteries that's pretty agnostic.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/does-hybrid-car-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits1.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/does-hybrid-car-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits1.htm)
-
That's one of the debates out here with the new proposed GPS gas tax whereby you will pay based on how much you drive Orwellian concept that has been cooked up. Track your GPS, which goes back to the gov't...they charge you $X.XX per mile driven and there you go.
The primary reason for a mileage based tax is because of fuel efficiency gains. The Highway Trust Fund is the source of all federal $ for infrastructure. Everything from roads to bridges to river locks and ports on the coasts. The fund has been underfunded for several years now because of 2 issues.
1) the federal gas tax has not increased and efforts to tie it to a cost of living increase etc. have failed in Congress
2) more fuel efficient cars
-
One issue that will require significant investment and cost reduction is the energy storage method. Currently the most efficient batteries are very costly and EXTREMELY unfriendly to the environment. By-product of their production is similar to spent nuclear fuel rods from a nuclear reactor (has to be stored, can't be "disposed of"). So we can get there, but the battery is a technology that is unique to this application and is the real expense of the whole thing.
I'm all for this but there is a lot of work, time and money needed to get it to a scalable model. We'll get there, just a question of when.
The answer is 'not in my lifetime'.
-
I'd take that bet. The technology and infrastructure just isn't there for that change to happen in a decade. In order for most new cars to be plugins, they need to be able to make one for under $20,000 (without government subsidies), and people have to be confident that there will a place to plug in anywhere they drive.
By 2025, both of those conditions will easily be met.
-
You are completely ignoring the fact that cars have to plug into something and that energy has to be generated some how. This is my current field of employment and "expertise". The current grid and generation model wouldn't support the energy requirement for an electric transportation on the scale you are predicting. Even if you go to a distributed generation model where you localize the generation(Edison wins in the end!) to the fuel stations you have to build that generation and it's not feasible for that all to be alternative generation. A good portion of it is going to have to be at least natural gas and some will have to be coal or gas fired.
So your decade plan isn't even achievable in say 20 years barring a technological paradigm shift along the lines of desktop fusion. The environmental impact improvement would be moderate, not a game changer.
Note, I'm completely in favor of the above model and think we need to move to it.....but lets be realistic about it and understand what is and isn't possible.
Disagree. We shall see. If Scoop hasn't burned down in 10 years, we can revisit. I'm sticking by my 50% of new car sales (not cars on the road) by 2025 will have an electric plug in, even if they still have a gas tank to extend range, like the Chevy Volt.
-
Disagree. We shall see. If Scoop hasn't burned down in 10 years, we can revisit. I'm sticking by my 50% of new car sales (not cars on the road) by 2025 will have an electric plug in, even if they still have a gas tank to extend range, like the Chevy Volt.
I'm just curious. The percentage today is?
-
I'm just curious. The percentage today is?
About 1%
About 10% in California though, where there is actually decent charging infrastructure.
-
About 1%
About 10% in California though, where there is actually decent charging infrastructure.
Then I'll stick with my 'not in my lifetime' bet.
Look, I'm not opposed. I think electric has application especially in big city environments. LA being the perfect test market.
-
Then I'll stick with my 'not in my lifetime' bet.
How old are you again? ;)
-
In 10 years, I would say a majority of all new cars will be electric plugins. Government will have to adjust because the gas tax won't cut it anymore.
I doubt that......we love our fossil fuels.
-
About 1%
About 10% in California though, where there is actually decent charging infrastructure.
Really? That seems wildly high. I've seen less than 50 electric cars in my lifetime (admittedly Milwaukee-Chicago is not the hotbed of electric cars that CA is)
-
Disagree. We shall see. If Scoop hasn't burned down in 10 years, we can revisit. I'm sticking by my 50% of new car sales (not cars on the road) by 2025 will have an electric plug in, even if they still have a gas tank to extend range, like the Chevy Volt.
Agree to disagree. Like I said, I'm in this space and very familiar with the consumption model as well as the generation capabilities and needs....infrastructure just ain't gonna happen fast enough.
I'd love for it to happen but there is not nearly enough investment to make it happen in 20 years let alone 10. I'd love to be wrong.
-
One issue that will require significant investment and cost reduction is the energy storage method. Currently the most efficient batteries are very costly and EXTREMELY unfriendly to the environment. By-product of their production is similar to spent nuclear fuel rods from a nuclear reactor (has to be stored, can't be "disposed of"). So we can get there, but the battery is a technology that is unique to this application and is the real expense of the whole thing.
I'm all for this but there is a lot of work, time and money needed to get it to a scalable model. We'll get there, just a question of when.
Totally fair. I honestly don't know that much about battery tech.
I'm just speaking from a big picture perspective. The electric motor and the infrastructure are well established... those are a given (in my mind).
The last hurdle is battery technology, and I think in the next 15-20 years, that will be solved. I don't know what kind of voodoo we will be using, but battery tech. has come a long way in the past 15 years, so I assume it will go a long way in the next 15 years. If there is good profit to be made selling large scale car batteries, I assume somebody is going to figure it out.
Also, just for clarification, I don't think or expect electric automobiles to solve EVERY automotive need we have. But, for the majority of commuter cars, sedans, small SUVs, etc., it's going to be widely adopted.
-
Agree to disagree. Like I said, I'm in this space and very familiar with the consumption model as well as the generation capabilities and needs....infrastructure just ain't gonna happen fast enough.
I'd love for it to happen but there is not nearly enough investment to make it happen in 20 years let alone 10. I'd love to be wrong.
What infrastructure issues would we have?
In theory, I could charge my car at home every evening, right? Maybe I could even charge at work if they offered it.
Where else would I need to charge it?
Is the infrastructure all 220V, and thus everybody would have to upgrade their homes/garages to accommodate?
-
Good analysis by mu03eng but we are stuck off topic on the gas tax.
Alright, roads are heavily subsidized, why aren't railroads?
-
What infrastructure issues would we have?
In theory, I could charge my car at home every evening, right? Maybe I could even charge at work if they offered it.
Where else would I need to charge it?
Is the infrastructure all 220V, and thus everybody would have to upgrade their homes/garages to accommodate?
The infrastructure issue is the grid(which carries the power) is aging(kind of like our roads) and the generational capacity would not be sufficient to meet demand. We're working off a grid largely built in the 50s and designed to last 30 years....do the math :)
We did a test in my office, it costs about $1.50 to "fill" a Chevy Volt, which gets you about 40 miles per charge. OK that's great, but to get a comparable range to a gas car that would be 10x. So from a cost perspective thats $15 a tank....great. Fill up about once a week you are looking at roughly 40 -50 charging cycles per month which is about $60-$75 a month. Again from a cost perspective that's great, but its electricity, compare it to your electric bill. That amount a month is going to be an extra 50-70% on your monthly utility bill depending on the season.
So what's my point? The utility has to generate 50-70% more electricity per household to provide this capability(real rough calculation). I could describe it in kWh and kW and be much more precise but that gets really complicated for those not familiar with the concepts. So the utilities need to generate 50-70% more power and the grid needs to support the transmission of 50-70% more power. We currently don't have that kind of generation base.
Now look at the generation we currently have. It varies depending on who counts and how you count, but a good estimate of the current generation type is 90% "dirty" source and 10% "clean". So even if we had enough capacity to handle the new demand, the vast majority of it would come from dirty sources meaning the overall pollution level doesn't really change just where it is created does. And not polluting is the whole point of going electric.
One of the work arounds would be to create charging stations (distributed generation) that generate and store energy based on local alternative sourcing. Two issues, alternative sources are inconsistent (sun doesn't always shine, wind doesn't always blow, etc) and how do you size the local generation to meet demand in a timely fashion (who's going to wait 2 hours to "fill up" their car). Plus you have the time and expense of building up all those charging stations and generation. California is like a utopia for this type of stuff given the consistent weather, but it's not scalable to the US as a whole with current or next generation technology.
Now, you want to solve this problem....figure out how to transmit energy from space.
99% of the suns energy is reflected back into space or absorbed by the atmosphere. Want a truly sustainable, reliable, predictable and pollution free(barring manufacturing by-products) energy source? Solar energy collectors in space, essentially satellite solar panels/energy collectors. We could probably create the right satellites to collect enough energy for the worlds needs within ten years if we wanted to. The problem is how do you get all the stored energy from the satellites to here on earth? Figure that out and you'll be a trillionaire and the world will be 95% pollutant free
-
Just case I'm on a roll, here's the issue with the generation side.
There are two components to generation: the amount you use(consumption) and the rate you use it(demand). Think of filling a swimming pool with water. How much water you need is the consumption but how fast you fill it is the demand. If I want to fill 10 pools that is a fixed amount of consumption. What can change is how fast I fill them up....all 10 in an hour versus 10 pools in 10 hours. I have to have enough water on hand for the first scenario even though I might actually deal with the second scenario.
Same goes for electricity, the amount needed might be relatively fixed, even in the new scenario we are discussing, but when that energy is demanded will change dramatically so a utility would have to have enough generation to meet demand. Some of this could be mitigated if you found a way to store energy efficiently so you could create energy when there is limited demand to be ready for when demand spikes.....but storage in that volumes is very dangerous and wildly inefficient.
I agree with everyone that all of these things can be overcome, and I'd love to be the person leading the charge. The reality though is the investment currently being made vs what is needed isn't anywhere close to the 10 year time line.
-
One issue that will require significant investment and cost reduction is the energy storage method. Currently the most efficient batteries are very costly and EXTREMELY unfriendly to the environment. By-product of their production is similar to spent nuclear fuel rods from a nuclear reactor (has to be stored, can't be "disposed of"). So we can get there, but the battery is a technology that is unique to this application and is the real expense of the whole thing.
I'm all for this but there is a lot of work, time and money needed to get it to a scalable model. We'll get there, just a question of when.
From your opinion (someone actually working in the field), what are your thoughts on Elon Musk's vision on revamping this obstacle?
-
I doubt that......we love our fossil fuels.
"We" don't love our fossil fuels. Fossil fuel companies (who wield amazing lobbying power both domestically and internationally) love their fossil fuels.
-
This is fantastic info you are providing on this mu03. Much appreciated. At least I've learned something while procrastinating at work, haha
-
MU03, I saw you mention the grid but did not go into detail other than its old. There are actually "5" grids and its very difficult to carry power through any one of the grids because of age and because it was built in random sometimes different bits and pieces. I'm on my phone now but tomorrow I'll find the very good National Geographic article from 5 years ago or so on it.
-
Really? That seems wildly high. I've seen less than 50 electric cars in my lifetime (admittedly Milwaukee-Chicago is not the hotbed of electric cars that CA is)
I see at least one a day on my (admittedly very long) Chicago commute
Concerning California: http://www.electric-vehiclenews.com/2014/11/electric-vehicles-account-for-almost-10.html
-
More games like this and the existence of a tax deduction won't matter, hey?
-
From your opinion (someone actually working in the field), what are your thoughts on Elon Musk's vision on revamping this obstacle?
Musk's vision is very interesting. I met him once(not trying to be Chico's :) ) and the dude is amazing. I'm never awestruck but after a 5 minute conversation I was almost speechless. I think he's got the technical capability of Tesla with the salesmanship of Don Draper, pretty amazing and I would murder someone to work for him.
I say that so you know when I say I think he's wrong/too early, I mean it. The battery is the key, and it is too bloody damn expensive and very dirty. They take far more energy to manufacture then they save. So how do you eliminate some of that? You have to scale, you have to make it very large production. That will help reduce cost and drive energy efficiency. The problem is that it takes a lot of money to scale and you have to hope demand catches up with the product because the cost hits the sweet spot(if it does).
To make this happen Musk is having to bleed a bunch of venture capital and government subsidies to scale up big enough. It is a huge gamble(with a limited amount of money on his part). They are so far in the red to be nearly unsustainable.
I think it's too soon, the supporting infrastructure like I talked about previously isn't in place to support the type of demand needed to make this all work. I would have waited one more technology iteration for the batteries to be more efficient. Also would have given time for infrastructure to build out.
This doesn't even count the geopolitical issues. The batteries are cheaper than they should be because the lithium used to produce is relatively cheap. It's cheap because China is corning the market on lithium production to drive competitors out. Assuming they are successful, they become the sole source of rare earth metals like lithium and then they no longer are cheap, ergo battery costs go up.
It absolutely could work, but there is no way on this planet I'm investing any of my or my families money in it. Love for it to happen. Musk is either going to be our generations Rockfeller/Carnagie or he is going to be a snake oil salesman of the century. There will be no in between.
China has invested heavily in our debt and rare earth metals that make future technology go....they have us by the short hairs in the long game but thats a whole other story.
-
MU03, I saw you mention the grid but did not go into detail other than its old. There are actually "5" grids and its very difficult to carry power through any one of the grids because of age and because it was built in random sometimes different bits and pieces. I'm on my phone now but tomorrow I'll find the very good National Geographic article from 5 years ago or so on it.
Yep, you're right....didn't want to go full nerd on everyone. That article is great.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/07/power-grid/achenbach-text (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/07/power-grid/achenbach-text)
If we want to win the 21st century....replace the electric grid and universal broadband internet access....Life will be amazing. It will be expensive as hell, but it will be the difference.
Not to mention the current grid wastes something like 20% of the generated energy transmitted. Between old lines, substations, switch gear, etc it is so wasteful. I've been in manufacturing plants at the end of a transmission line where their incoming voltage would be 700 volts first thing in the morning and down to 510 volts in the afternoon before coming back up at night. So much waste.
-
Yep, you're right....didn't want to go full nerd on everyone. That article is great.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/07/power-grid/achenbach-text (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/07/power-grid/achenbach-text)
If we want to win the 21st century....replace the electric grid and universal broadband internet access....Life will be amazing. It will be expensive as hell, but it will be the difference.
Not to mention the current grid wastes something like 20% of the generated energy transmitted. Between old lines, substations, switch gear, etc it is so wasteful. I've been in manufacturing plants at the end of a transmission line where their incoming voltage would be 700 volts first thing in the morning and down to 510 volts in the afternoon before coming back up at night. So much waste.
Thanks for finding!
-
Totally fair. I honestly don't know that much about battery tech.
I'm just speaking from a big picture perspective. The electric motor and the infrastructure are well established... those are a given (in my mind).
The last hurdle is battery technology, and I think in the next 15-20 years, that will be solved. I don't know what kind of voodoo we will be using, but battery tech. has come a long way in the past 15 years, so I assume it will go a long way in the next 15 years. If there is good profit to be made selling large scale car batteries, I assume somebody is going to figure it out.
Also, just for clarification, I don't think or expect electric automobiles to solve EVERY automotive need we have. But, for the majority of commuter cars, sedans, small SUVs, etc., it's going to be widely adopted.
Concerns about battery technology-rare earth metals. They are, well, rare. The process to gather these metals-mining. There are many influential groups that get really excited when a shovel is put into the ground or land is disturbed to harvest materials needed for energy- just throwing that out there. Then of course, as I believe it has been mentioned, the disposal of used batteries. I'm sure as these pile up, someone will take advantage of this negative and turn it into an industry in and of itself-recycling, etc
-
Now, you want to solve this problem....figure out how to transmit energy from space.
99% of the suns energy is reflected back into space or absorbed by the atmosphere. Want a truly sustainable, reliable, predictable and pollution free(barring manufacturing by-products) energy source? Solar energy collectors in space, essentially satellite solar panels/energy collectors. We could probably create the right satellites to collect enough energy for the worlds needs within ten years if we wanted to. The problem is how do you get all the stored energy from the satellites to here on earth? Figure that out and you'll be a trillionaire and the world will be 95% pollutant free
Very long extension cords? (Says the Bus Ad. alum) ;D
-
Yep, you're right....didn't want to go full nerd on everyone. That article is great.
Umm. Too late my friend. ;)
Seriously. Thanks. It's been very informative.
-
Umm. Too late my friend. ;)
Seriously. Thanks. It's been very informative.
Come on, I didn't even mention my meticulously cared for Star Wars action figures. ;)
-
Come on, I didn't even mention my meticulously cared for Star Wars action figures. ;)
;D
-
Come on, I didn't even mention my meticulously cared for Star Wars action figures. ;)
Star Wars nerd! You must not know anything about basketball then ;)
-
Star Wars nerd! You must not know anything about basketball then ;)
Psssst, don't tell Ners
-
Psssst, don't tell Ners
Chewbacca would be awesome at the post.
-
Thanks MUENG03 for the education. Very insightful stuff.
Maybe energy production will eventually become more localized to reduce the need of a "Grid"?
-
I thought Hydrogen fuel cells were supposed to solve everything
-
Musk's vision is very interesting. I met him once(not trying to be Chico's :) ) and the dude is amazing. I'm never awestruck but after a 5 minute conversation I was almost speechless. I think he's got the technical capability of Tesla with the salesmanship of Don Draper, pretty amazing and I would murder someone to work for him.
I say that so you know when I say I think he's wrong/too early, I mean it. The battery is the key, and it is too bloody damn expensive and very dirty. They take far more energy to manufacture then they save. So how do you eliminate some of that? You have to scale, you have to make it very large production. That will help reduce cost and drive energy efficiency. The problem is that it takes a lot of money to scale and you have to hope demand catches up with the product because the cost hits the sweet spot(if it does).
To make this happen Musk is having to bleed a bunch of venture capital and government subsidies to scale up big enough. It is a huge gamble(with a limited amount of money on his part). They are so far in the red to be nearly unsustainable.
I think it's too soon, the supporting infrastructure like I talked about previously isn't in place to support the type of demand needed to make this all work. I would have waited one more technology iteration for the batteries to be more efficient. Also would have given time for infrastructure to build out.
This doesn't even count the geopolitical issues. The batteries are cheaper than they should be because the lithium used to produce is relatively cheap. It's cheap because China is corning the market on lithium production to drive competitors out. Assuming they are successful, they become the sole source of rare earth metals like lithium and then they no longer are cheap, ergo battery costs go up.
It absolutely could work, but there is no way on this planet I'm investing any of my or my families money in it. Love for it to happen. Musk is either going to be our generations Rockfeller/Carnagie or he is going to be a snake oil salesman of the century. There will be no in between.
China has invested heavily in our debt and rare earth metals that make future technology go....they have us by the short hairs in the long game but thats a whole other story.
Seriously, Eng... you've got to see for yourself what's going on in Reno. Even for someone in the commercial development industry, what Elon is doing right now in the north NV desert is amazing... what's mind-blowing is what else he might be doing there.
The sheer size of the plant aside, word on the street is that the gigafactory (or at least certain portions of it) is going to have security not ever before seen outside a government operation... one person described it as "Groom Lake without a halo." I'm sure paranoia is playing a role here, but I've heard some speculation that Musk has his own Manhattan Project going that isn't just going to turn the automotive industry on its head, he's going to deadlift, spin around his head a few times, and body slam the entire energy production industry. He's had 24/7 security at the site for several years (before they even had permits to do anything) doing nothing more than watching dirt, literally.
A bit of background is important here: consider that China's identified lithium resources (5.4M tons) are fifth behind Bolivia (9.0M), Chile (7.5M), Argentina (6.5M) and the US (5.5M). Even though identified world resources total less than 40M tons, China has a ways to go before it acquires enough Li overseas to corner the market, and even still, amongst the US, our BFF Chile, and Argentina (who happens to answer every time we drunk dial her), the three of us control roughly half of the known Li resources (key word being known; more on that in a second). But here's the kicker... annual production of Li is only around 30,000 tons/year, worldwide; at that rate, worldwide Li resources are enough to keep production going for well into the next millenium.
We know Musk is already planning a direct rail line to Silver Peak (largest active Li deposit in US), and the worst kept secret in Reno is that Tesla decided on the Reno site years ago despite only making the "official" announcement this past summer (publicly, SV, New Mexico, Phoenix, Tucson, and Texas were also being "considered") because of it's proximity to the Rock Springs Uplift. If not familiar... think about what happens to the mom & pop retailers in a small town when Wal-Mart moves in... RSU's effect on the global lithium supply is essentially Walmart on steroids, novacaine, Nyquil, Darvon, some sort of fish paralyzer, and several cocktails. Estimates vary, but a U of Wyoming researcher estimates as much as 18 million tons... now there may be enough for two millenia of production.
In 2003, 15.6M vehicles were sold in the US (six-year high), of which, about 0.65% were plug-in electric vehicles (PEV). At 9-10 lbs. of Li per PEV on average, that would require increasing annual Li production by 34,000-38,000 tons annually, or just more than twice the current production, if the PEV goal is half of total cars being sold. Bearing in mind that Li can be recycled an unlimited number of times, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that even if Elon doesn't have something up his sleeve, the Li supply is not the issue... the cost is the issue. And that's the primary purpose of the gigafactory... to mass-produce the batteries and drive down the cost of the Tesla.
But if Elon is on to something and the secondary purpose here goes beyond simply growing Tesla's market share of vehicle sales, we're talking about one guy who could potentially piss off the Russians, Saudis, and the Chinese simultaneously (not even Hitler, Bin Laden or our last two PsOTUS were able to pull off that trifecta). Irrespective of the conjecture, I am one person who is very thankful that Musk - despite his outside demeanor - is a person on the side of advancement, not the status quo.
-
But if Elon is on to something and the secondary purpose here goes beyond simply growing Tesla's market share of vehicle sales, we're talking about one guy who could potentially piss off the Russians, Saudis, and the Chinese simultaneously (not even Hitler, Bin Laden or our last two PsOTUS were able to pull off that trifecta). Irrespective of the conjecture, I am one person who is very thankful that Musk - despite his outside demeanor - is a person on the side of advancement, not the status quo.
Not only the international enemies... I'd have to think that he'd make several domestic enemies as well seeing as how he'd take a large chunk of the automotive and fossil fuel market as well.
-
Not only the international enemies... I'd have to think that he'd make several domestic enemies as well seeing as how he'd take a large chunk of the automotive and fossil fuel market as well.
Very true, but at least the C-level guys over at GM and Texaco don't have access to weapons-grade plutonium.
-
Didn't someone find a buttload of Lithium in Wyoming?
-
Didn't someone find a buttload of Lithium in Wyoming?
Nirvana was from Washington state..............
-
Seriously, Eng... you've got to see for yourself what's going on in Reno. Even for someone in the commercial development industry, what Elon is doing right now in the north NV desert is amazing... what's mind-blowing is what else he might be doing there.
The sheer size of the plant aside, word on the street is that the gigafactory (or at least certain portions of it) is going to have security not ever before seen outside a government operation... one person described it as "Groom Lake without a halo." I'm sure paranoia is playing a role here, but I've heard some speculation that Musk has his own Manhattan Project going that isn't just going to turn the automotive industry on its head, he's going to deadlift, spin around his head a few times, and body slam the entire energy production industry. He's had 24/7 security at the site for several years (before they even had permits to do anything) doing nothing more than watching dirt, literally.
A bit of background is important here: consider that China's identified lithium resources (5.4M tons) are fifth behind Bolivia (9.0M), Chile (7.5M), Argentina (6.5M) and the US (5.5M). Even though identified world resources total less than 40M tons, China has a ways to go before it acquires enough Li overseas to corner the market, and even still, amongst the US, our BFF Chile, and Argentina (who happens to answer every time we drunk dial her), the three of us control roughly half of the known Li resources (key word being known; more on that in a second). But here's the kicker... annual production of Li is only around 30,000 tons/year, worldwide; at that rate, worldwide Li resources are enough to keep production going for well into the next millenium.
We know Musk is already planning a direct rail line to Silver Peak (largest active Li deposit in US), and the worst kept secret in Reno is that Tesla decided on the Reno site years ago despite only making the "official" announcement this past summer (publicly, SV, New Mexico, Phoenix, Tucson, and Texas were also being "considered") because of it's proximity to the Rock Springs Uplift. If not familiar... think about what happens to the mom & pop retailers in a small town when Wal-Mart moves in... RSU's effect on the global lithium supply is essentially Walmart on steroids, novacaine, Nyquil, Darvon, some sort of fish paralyzer, and several cocktails. Estimates vary, but a U of Wyoming researcher estimates as much as 18 million tons... now there may be enough for two millenia of production.
In 2003, 15.6M vehicles were sold in the US (six-year high), of which, about 0.65% were plug-in electric vehicles (PEV). At 9-10 lbs. of Li per PEV on average, that would require increasing annual Li production by 34,000-38,000 tons annually, or just more than twice the current production, if the PEV goal is half of total cars being sold. Bearing in mind that Li can be recycled an unlimited number of times, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that even if Elon doesn't have something up his sleeve, the Li supply is not the issue... the cost is the issue. And that's the primary purpose of the gigafactory... to mass-produce the batteries and drive down the cost of the Tesla.
But if Elon is on to something and the secondary purpose here goes beyond simply growing Tesla's market share of vehicle sales, we're talking about one guy who could potentially piss off the Russians, Saudis, and the Chinese simultaneously (not even Hitler, Bin Laden or our last two PsOTUS were able to pull off that trifecta). Irrespective of the conjecture, I am one person who is very thankful that Musk - despite his outside demeanor - is a person on the side of advancement, not the status quo.
I get it, and I'm ultimately for it....but beware of too much sizzle and not enough steak. Musk does a lot of things for appearance sake and the marketing value. He very well may have something super secret going on....or he wants people to think he has something going on to generate interest. He doesn't do things, IMO, for completely altruistic reasons, he is trying to get an edge. I think his heart is in the right place but there is a very competitive nature to him.
-
One issue that will require significant investment and cost reduction is the energy storage method. Currently the most efficient batteries are very costly and EXTREMELY unfriendly to the environment. By-product of their production is similar to spent nuclear fuel rods from a nuclear reactor (has to be stored, can't be "disposed of"). So we can get there, but the battery is a technology that is unique to this application and is the real expense of the whole thing.
I'm all for this but there is a lot of work, time and money needed to get it to a scalable model. We'll get there, just a question of when.
Exactly right....electric cars are as unfriendly to the environment in the long run as a gas car, but people don't want to hear it. They don't want to know what it takes to generate the electricity or how the batteries are "disposed" of....as long as they don't see a tailpipe they think it's green. LOL.
-
"We" don't love our fossil fuels. Fossil fuel companies (who wield amazing lobbying power both domestically and internationally) love their fossil fuels.
I love my fossil fuels. Every bit as much as my solar panels. My trees love my fossil fuels....so did my dad who was petroleum geologist \ geophysicist.
Those fossil fuels have raised the standard of living for humanity X fold like nothing else in history. Be it from heating, to making travel around the world or across town, medicines, textiles, plastics, etc.
Yes, I LOVE MY FOSSIL FUELS and what they have done for humanity.
-
Honestly don't know why you put that in teal, that is probably the rationale indeed. Especially in California, where Tesla's charger network is quite built up. The state doesn't want to lose gas tax revenue, and a GPS system is the only way to assess based on usage of the roads.
In 10 years, I would say a majority of all new cars will be electric plugins. Government will have to adjust because the gas tax won't cut it anymore.
Maybe, but let's not forget it was only 4 short years ago that POTUS wanted 1 million electric cars on the road by the start of 2015. We hit 280,000. Dreadful.
As for the charger network out here....meh. There are probably 25 Tesla's in the parking structure at work....I stick with my pickup truck....there are 5 charging stations. At first the folks were getting that for free, but people bitched (as they should have) and now they must pay for them. Sure there are chargers around. In our town we have 2 charging stations for a total of 4 cars at one time, but they are still few and far between. No doubt things will ramp up, but the dirty secret about how dirty these cars really are will ultimately get the ire of the environmentalists and that will raise the price of those cars even more for the "solution" they come up with. In the meantime, oil production is absolutely knocking it out of the park and reserves have been found putting the "peak oil" nonsense out of it's misery for the next 1,000 years.
-
The primary reason for a mileage based tax is because of fuel efficiency gains. The Highway Trust Fund is the source of all federal $ for infrastructure. Everything from roads to bridges to river locks and ports on the coasts. The fund has been underfunded for several years now because of 2 issues.
1) the federal gas tax has not increased and efforts to tie it to a cost of living increase etc. have failed in Congress
2) more fuel efficient cars
Yup....they mandated higher CAFE standards, and got them. Unintended consequences led to less trips to the pump, so now they need their hands in the cookie jar again, and this is how they plan on doing it. Of course, it has tremendous privacy implications which many of us are hoping ultimately kills the bitch in it's tracks.
Examples like Anthems security breach is just one of many that people are highly suspicious of the data and what gov't or companies will do with it or how well they can protect it.
-
Maybe, but let's not forget it was only 4 short years ago that POTUS wanted 1 million electric cars on the road by the start of 2015. We hit 280,000. Dreadful.
As for the charger network out here....meh. There are probably 25 Tesla's in the parking structure at work....I stick with my pickup truck....there are 5 charging stations. At first the folks were getting that for free, but people bitched (as they should have) and now they must pay for them. Sure there are chargers around. In our town we have 2 charging stations for a total of 4 cars at one time, but they are still few and far between. No doubt things will ramp up, but the dirty secret about how dirty these cars really are will ultimately get the ire of the environmentalists and that will raise the price of those cars even more for the "solution" they come up with. In the meantime, oil production is absolutely knocking it out of the park and reserves have been found putting the "peak oil" nonsense out of it's misery for the next 1,000 years.
So you're saying that it's dreadful that we ONLY have 280,000 electric cars out there that are really bad for the environment....
Gotcha
-
So you're saying that it's dreadful that we ONLY have 280,000 electric cars out there that are really bad for the environment....
Gotcha
It's dreadful that we have 280K when the goal was 1 million....but gov't types have never been very good at goals, predictions, or numbers. Or accountability.
Tell you what, can we dispose of all of these electric car batteries in the south side of Chicago? Or maybe finally we can get Yucca Mountain opened up.....there's a problem with these things, but no one wants to talk about it.
-
It's dreadful that we have 280K when the goal was 1 million....but gov't types have never been very good at goals, predictions, or numbers. Or accountability.
Tell you what, can we dispose of all of these electric car batteries in the south side of Chicago? Or maybe finally we can get Yucca Mountain opened up.....there's a problem with these things, but no one wants to talk about it.
Again, you admit that these batteries are horrible for the environment but fault the government for not having more of them.
And trust me, my office is in the heart of ChiRAQ. Disposing the batteries in that area can only improve it 8-)
-
Yup....they mandated higher CAFE standards, and got them. Unintended consequences led to less trips to the pump, so now they need their hands in the cookie jar again, and this is how they plan on doing it. Of course, it has tremendous privacy implications which many of us are hoping ultimately kills the bitch in it's tracks.
Examples like Anthems security breach is just one of many that people are highly suspicious of the data and what gov't or companies will do with it or how well they can protect it.
so how should we fund the Highway Trust fund? You rip the mileage tax as an option but what do you propose instead? Something needs to be done to fix that, we can't keep ignoring our infrastructure.
Traffic congestion is a huge cost to industry thus to each and every one of us, other countries not ignoring infrastructure have huge advantages over the US as a result
-
Again, you admit that these batteries are horrible for the environment but fault the government for not having more of them.
And trust me, my office is in the heart of ChiRAQ. Disposing the batteries in that area can only improve it 8-)
I think the points he was making were separate from each other. Correct me if I'm wrong Chico's, but I think he is faulting the government for making such a bold statement that we are going to have 1 million, and yet they barely reached 25% of that. This is regardless of how harmful he thinks the batteries are.
-
so how should we fund the Highway Trust fund? You rip the mileage tax as an option but what do you propose instead? Something needs to be done to fix that, we can't keep ignoring our infrastructure.
Traffic congestion is a huge cost to industry thus to each and every one of us, other countries not ignoring infrastructure have huge advantages over the US as a result
I'm not sure what the solution would be to fund that. I don't see how the mileage tax would get done. Especially considering how the government has had a TON of privacy issues over the last couple of years with the NSA monitoring.
On top of that, there would have to be some considerable costs undertaken to implement this. We are talking there would need to be some type of device that tracks miles driven. This device would need to be secure enough from a data standpoint to control where this mileage info goes. And how would this info be communicated? Wirelessly? On top of that, it would need to be regulated by some government party to ensure this is all being done accurately. And there would have to be some way to ensure individuals are not tampering with the device to falsely report how many miles they drive.
And would this be on all vehicles? Motorcycles as well? Scooters and mo-peds?
-
I'm not sure what the solution would be to fund that. I don't see how the mileage tax would get done. Especially considering how the government has had a TON of privacy issues over the last couple of years with the NSA monitoring.
On top of that, there would have to be some considerable costs undertaken to implement this. We are talking there would need to be some type of device that tracks miles driven. This device would need to be secure enough from a data standpoint to control where this mileage info goes. And how would this info be communicated? Wirelessly? On top of that, it would need to be regulated by some government party to ensure this is all being done accurately. And there would have to be some way to ensure individuals are not tampering with the device to falsely report how many miles they drive.
And would this be on all vehicles? Motorcycles as well? Scooters and mo-peds?
The method tested by Oregon is plugging a small unit into the OBD2 box in cars. Many insurance companies already offer discounts if you plug their modules in there. Insurance companies can wirelessly monitor your driving habits via those modules. for a tax it would track mileage and report wirelessly. I get the privacy concerns, I have plenty of those as well and wish it were easy to live life without disclosing my SS # to every company.
-
Exactly right....electric cars are as unfriendly to the environment in the long run as a gas car, but people don't want to hear it. They don't want to know what it takes to generate the electricity or how the batteries are "disposed" of....as long as they don't see a tailpipe they think it's green. LOL.
You're mixing together a couple of things into a political talking point. Don't do that.
Break it down:
#1 Nobody in this thread has said that the electric car is going to save the planet or is the greenest option available.
#2 Electricity is dirty to make and batteries take a good amount of natural resources to create and dispose of.
So, knowing that, I still think the electric car is a superior solution. Electric motors are far more efficient, effective and dependable than an internal combustion engine could ever be.
Now, solving the power storage dilemma is a big challenge. Musk is taking it on and thinks he can figure it out. Now, even if we solve the battery dilemma, how are we doing to create and distribute clean electricity? It's not easy as MUENG correctly pointed out.
BUT... that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, or that we should be afraid of the evolution.
-
Didn't someone find a buttload of Lithium in Wyoming?
That's the Rock Springs Uplift I alluded to.
-
The method tested by Oregon is plugging a small unit into the OBD2 box in cars. Many insurance companies already offer discounts if you plug their modules in there. Insurance companies can wirelessly monitor your driving habits via those modules. for a tax it would track mileage and report wirelessly. I get the privacy concerns, I have plenty of those as well and wish it were easy to live life without disclosing my SS # to every company.
I do this on my phone already, I have an OBD unit plug into my car and then the app Dash to track my data. Great tool for understanding performance and dissecting the idiot lights.
-
You're mixing together a couple of things into a political talking point. Don't do that.
Break it down:
#1 Nobody in this thread has said that the electric car is going to save the planet or is the greenest option available.
#2 Electricity is dirty to make and batteries take a good amount of natural resources to create and dispose of.
So, knowing that, I still think the electric car is a superior solution. Electric motors are far more efficient, effective and dependable than an internal combustion engine could ever be.
Now, solving the power storage dilemma is a big challenge. Musk is taking it on and thinks he can figure it out. Now, even if we solve the battery dilemma, how are we doing to create and distribute clean electricity? It's not easy as MUENG correctly pointed out.
BUT... that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, or that we should be afraid of the evolution.
My God! How dare you suggest progress?
-
so how should we fund the Highway Trust fund? You rip the mileage tax as an option but what do you propose instead? Something needs to be done to fix that, we can't keep ignoring our infrastructure.
Traffic congestion is a huge cost to industry thus to each and every one of us, other countries not ignoring infrastructure have huge advantages over the US as a result
Cut defense.
Considering we have the largest air force (Air Force) in the world, why do we also need to have the 2nd largest air force (US Navy) in the world?
-
Cut defense.
Considering we have the largest air force (Air Force) in the world, why do we also need to have the 2nd largest air force (US Navy) in the world?
Why DO YOU HATE AMERICA??!?!??
(https://fusiondotnet.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/murica-1.gif?h=300&w=400)
-
Cut defense.
Considering we have the largest air force (Air Force) in the world, why do we also need to have the 2nd largest air force (US Navy) in the world?
(http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/53eb8f0f6bb3f76f44056f56-1200-2322/bi_graphics_globalfirepower.png)
-
So if China and Russia can build a big ass secret bridge we are effed?
-
Cut defense.
Considering we have the largest air force (Air Force) in the world, why do we also need to have the 2nd largest air force (US Navy) in the world?
Projection of power and being able to sustain it. The Air Force can operate from the US but it's not sustainable so you have to have localized air bases. A lot of places we can't get an air base in range so Navy has to do the job.
World has decided we are the police(whether they admit it or not) so we have to have the power to project globally.
-
North Korea may have more submarines than anyone else, but they're not very intimidating.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GsYH46juV18/UNtL5q3AhRI/AAAAAAAAKU0/WK8xSI1G4g4/s1600/Chinesesub.jpg)
-
So if China and Russia can build a big ass secret bridge we are effed?
Unlikely... publicly, they have enough trust to be trade partners, but privately, they hate each other. That's not to say that they wouldn't get into bed with each other, but it would be an S&M marathon so ugly that someone's walking out of that room with misshapen genitals.
-
Projection of power and being able to sustain it. The Air Force can operate from the US but it's not sustainable so you have to have localized air bases. A lot of places we can't get an air base in range so Navy has to do the job.
World has decided we are the police(whether they admit it or not) so we have to have the power to project globally.
Actually, I think WE decided we are the world's police.
I was being slightly facetious when posting about both air forces. I realize the difference in what they each do, but with a little cooperation rather than competition between the branches, there are hundreds of Billions to be saved.
-
Actually, I think WE decided we are the world's police.
I was being slightly facetious when posting about both air forces. I realize the difference in what they each do, but with a little cooperation rather than competition between the branches, there are hundreds of Billions to be saved.
I'll agree to disagree on the first part.
As to the second part.....the JSF begs to differ
-
I'll agree to disagree on the first part.
I won't. You know those stickers we used to put on phones that said "In Case of Emergency, Dial 911"... evidently the chiefs of state around the world still have them, only instead of 911, it says '202.'
Immediately after the Charlie Hedbo attacks, guess who Hollande was on the phone with:
"Hello. Operateur.... vite! Donner-moi le nombre pour deux-zero-deux?"
-
I'll agree to disagree on the first part.
As to the second part.....the JSF begs to differ
The JSF is a nightmare. My company makes parts for it. It was supposed to be the model for developing new aircraft and that didn't happen. See last months article from The Atlantic on it. I knew some things then read that.
-
The JSF is a nightmare. My company makes parts for it. It was supposed to be the model for developing new aircraft and that didn't happen. See last months article from The Atlantic on it. I knew some things then read that.
It's completely insane and what's worse, completely predictable. Anybody that knew anything about the Aardvark boondoggle could see this coming from a mile away.
BOHICA
-
Projection of power and being able to sustain it. The Air Force can operate from the US but it's not sustainable so you have to have localized air bases. A lot of places we can't get an air base in range so Navy has to do the job.
World has decided we are the police(whether they admit it or not) so we have to have the power to project globally.
Imagine....a lib wanting to cut the military....keep quoting brand....is brings me laughter.
-
Interesting today
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
-
Interesting today
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
That's the problem with the whole global warming thing... The people getting paid to study global warming are only being paid to study global warming if the globe is actually warming. If these guys came back and said, "nope, everything looks natural and cyclical," guess what happens to their grant money.
-
Interesting today
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/02/10/global_warming_adjusting_temperature_measurements.html?wpisrc=burger_bar
-
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/02/10/global_warming_adjusting_temperature_measurements.html?wpisrc=burger_bar
The premise of his claims I don't understand. The claim isn't that things are warming, the claim is that the data has been restated to make it appear worse than it is. So his second claim in the article is odd. I love the claim he makes about "independent" Berkeley Earth....but whatever.
The issue is they are making adjustments to some data points going back to the early 1900's to adjust for what they believe are anomolies, etc. That begs the questions of how much of a change, why the change, who decides the change and impact? This gets back to my argument about sharing the data, the models and the transparency within....which is completely lacking.
On a side note, we have a temperature station in our town that is used to collect data. It is literally right next to the sidewalk and about 8 feet from a major 4 lane (each way) road. The amount of heat that comes off the asphalt and concrete is amazing....when they resurface the streets around here, it is truly amazing. These are the kinds of things that cause a lot of people pause about the collection, potential manipulation, etc. Climate is complex as hell.
-
http://www.theindychannel.com/newsy/noted-climate-change-skeptic-took-corporate-payouts
-
http://www.theindychannel.com/newsy/noted-climate-change-skeptic-took-corporate-payouts
OMG. Noted scientists get grants to continue research all the time, from far left wing groups. Goes both ways. Not surprising at all. Money money money money.