EPA to reject Obama fuel efficiency standards early next week

[oil pan 4]

The states can keep their standards.
I don't see why the fed needs to help people by electric cars that are otherwise unaffordable.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The states can keep their standards.
I don't see why the fed needs to help people by electric cars that are otherwise unaffordable.

I'm on the same page. Let the states decide what they want to do, and let the citizens vote or leave if they don't like it. Many of the big ticket federal subsidies are anti-progressive, meaning only relatively wealthy people get to take advantage of them.

• $8,000 first time homebuyer credit - wealthy people buy houses
• $4,500 Cash for Clunkers - wealthy people buy new cars
• $7,500 EV tax credit - only wealthy people have $7,500 in tax liability
• 30% Solar/wind credit -only wealthy people can front the money to install these expensive systems.

Do you see a pattern here? Taxpayers paying for wealthy people to get new toys that reduce their energy costs, and boosting those wealthy peoples "holier than thou" factor.

[RedDevil]

Redemption.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/08/trum...epa-chief.html

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Redemption.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/08/trum...epa-chief.html

Article says his successor was a coal lobbyist. Don't expect any good to come about by swapping scoundrels.

While the Paris agreement is nonsense, so is dismissing AGW. EPA should be primarily concerned with environmental protection, not energy protection. There is another dept whose responsibility is to energy security.

[jjackstone]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The states can keep their standards.
I don't see why the fed needs to help people by electric cars that are otherwise unaffordable.

While I generally agree with this statement I also believe that if the government is going to subsidize corporations then they can go ahead and subsidize the general population on higher dollar items too. Almost every major US corporation has at one time or another received subsidies from the government in one form or another. Might be tax breaks, flat handouts(grants), backroom deals or whatever. I would imagine that if it weren't for the electric car and solar panel subsidies in whatever form, that we would still be ten years away from where we are now in those two industries.

What I'm saying is level the playing field. Either subsidize everyone or no one. Personally I prefer no one.
JJ

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm on the same page. Let the states decide what they want to do, and let the citizens vote or leave if they don't like it. Many of the big ticket federal subsidies are anti-progressive, meaning only relatively wealthy people get to take advantage of them.

• $8,000 first time homebuyer credit - wealthy people buy houses
• $4,500 Cash for Clunkers - wealthy people buy new cars
• $7,500 EV tax credit - only wealthy people have $7,500 in tax liability
• 30% Solar/wind credit -only wealthy people can front the money to install these expensive systems.

Do you see a pattern here? Taxpayers paying for wealthy people to get new toys that reduce their energy costs, and boosting those wealthy peoples "holier than thou" factor.

I do. Apparently I'm wealthy.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by jjackstone

While I generally agree with this statement I also believe that if the government is going to subsidize corporations then they can go ahead and subsidize the general population on higher dollar items too. Almost every major US corporation has at one time or another received subsidies from the government in one form or another. Might be tax breaks, flat handouts(grants), backroom deals or whatever. I would imagine that if it weren't for the electric car and solar panel subsidies in whatever form, that we would still be ten years away from where we are now in those two industries.

What I'm saying is level the playing field. Either subsidize everyone or no one. Personally I prefer no one.
JJ

I'm with you on eliminating most every subsidy, as those are a tool of scoundrels who act on behalf of special interests.

People/corporations who do not need handouts should not receive them. Wealthy people buy new cars, and therefore an EV tax credit is an anti-progressive tax on citizens to subsidize the few wealthy people buying a particular new car.

The government should not be involved in picking technology winners and losers, and should be manipulating markets as little as possible. Instead we allow scoundrels to "represent" our interests who instead cater to special interests while lining their own pockets in the process.

The goal isn't to see EVs become the dominant form of transportation; rather it's to reduce foreign dependence on oil and minimize environmental harm. This might involve transitioning to EVs, but the proper role of government is to act at a very high level to enact laws, rather than at a granular level by promoting EVs.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I do. Apparently I'm wealthy.

I bought a $217k house (and got the $8k credit) on a $40k income due to not having purchased any of those other things on the list and being frugal. I put 20% down in cash too. I consider $40k to be an extravagant income for a single guy with no obligations. It's enough to comfortably raise a family too. I'm making a lot more now, and so is my wife, but I still live as though I make $40k. No new vehicles for me. I'd like to retire with money to travel.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Wealthy people buy new cars, and therefore an EV tax credit is an anti-progressive tax on citizens to subsidize the few wealthy people buying a particular new car.

If "wealthy" people don't buy new EVs, then how are us less wealthy (or not so spendthrift) people supposed to buy cheaper used EVs a few years later?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

If "wealthy" people don't buy new EVs, then how are us less wealthy (or not so spendthrift) people supposed to buy cheaper used EVs a few years later?

That's like asking how less wealthy people are supposed to buy used Rolexes if wealthy people aren't buying them.

It isn't clear that EVs are necessary, and therefore it is foolish for the government to specifically subsidize them, especially since the benefit is only accessible to the wealthy (initially).

As I've said elsewhere, if pollution is outside of acceptable limits, then it is the role of government to create laws to limit pollution to meet the acceptable limits. Likewise, if we are too dependant on foreign oil and it poses an unacceptable national security risk, then it is the role of government to make laws related to the acceptable amount of imported energy.

It is far outside the scope of law to choose which technologies shall win, however. From a high level, set the limits of pollution and imported energy and let the market figure out how to achieve those goals. Micromanaging the goal is certain to have unintended bad outcomes. Also, setting limits directly addresses the problem, rather than roundabout addressing it.

By setting laws at a high level, you vastly reduce the ability of scoundrels (politicians) to cater to special interests in the guise of protecting citizens.

My solution to the pollution/imported energy problem more directly achieves the objective while giving the market as much freedom to adapt as possible. My proposal is to slowly increase the taxes collected on petrol. State and federal taxes are already collected at the pump, so the infrastructure to collect these taxes are already in place and doesn't require additional administrative overhead. By slowly increasing taxes at a rate schedule that is published, it gives consumers and the market time to plan ahead and adjust their strategies, minimizing disruption and maximizing creativity on how to reduce fuel consumption.

We don't need more complex tax code; we need a tax code overhaul to simplify it so the average person can figure it out, the loopholes are closed, and the administrative overhead is made as small as possible. My proposal in this area is to replace income tax with a federal sales tax. To make it progressive, make the first $500(or some figure) of rent/mortgage tax free. Make certain healthy staple food items tax free. No other deductions.

[gone-ot]

Gobberment of "..the (wealthy) people.." by & for "..the (wealthy) people..."

When was the first/last time we had ANY "poor/poverty" congressional representatives-- EVER?