Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 

View Poll Results: Will raising the gas tax encourage people to buy more efficient vehicles?
That will not deter auto makers from making inefficient cars, it will only hurt consumers wallets. 15 34.88%
Raising the gas tax will cause more people buy more efficient vehicles. 27 62.79%
I build my own electric cars from old gas cars and charge them with off-the-grid solar/wind power. 1 2.33%
Voters: 43. You may not vote on this poll

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-29-2009, 06:44 PM   #51 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cookeville, TN
Posts: 850
Thanks: 1
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
I've had 100 bucks in my checking and thats got to last me 3 months food, gas and my electric bill. With no income. I was in college at the time and I ate strictly rice.

I'm not saying low income folks ought to quit complaining. I'm just saying anyone who says that regressive taxes aren't fair. . .don't have to pay progressive taxes.

I'm all in favor of less taxes all the way around for less services. Take away all my social medicare, security, unemployment, and disability benefits and I'll just keep half my taxes(because 50% of government spending goes to those programs). I'd like to keep 66% of the money they take and do away with my contributions to other countries and delegations to states as well as my stake in paying IRS agents, legislators and executive officers. They can keep the 1/3 of my taxes that goes to fund defense. I've got no problems with that.

I've been on short term disability, unemployed and sick and never used any of them. I paid for private insurance and just sucked it up when no work was available.

If I can you can.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 05-30-2009, 12:07 AM   #52 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,205
Thanks: 225
Thanked 802 Times in 588 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdb View Post
Gas taxes hit poor people far, far, more than they hit rich people. They just do.
And so? Just about any tax hits poor people more than rich. But you miss the point: it's not about helping or hurting any particular group of people, it's about reducing gasoline consumption.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 12:21 AM   #53 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Funny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 408

Eco-Fit - '13 Honda Fit Base
90 day: 37.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 29
Thanked 18 Times in 18 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf View Post
And so? Just about any tax hits poor people more than rich. But you miss the point: it's not about helping or hurting any particular group of people, it's about reducing gasoline consumption.
Increasing the gas tax is not going to reduce gas consumption, it will cause people to buy more efficient vehicles, thereby freeing up gas for more vehicles to hit the road, and China and India to consume more.

People will still drive the same distance they used to, and spend the money that they saved on something else. The government will then squander the money that they get from the gas tax and line their pockets like they always do.

A flat tax of 3% with no possibility of deductions, as stated in a previous post, will effect the guy that makes $10,000 the same that a guy that makes $100,000 a year. The thing that people don't talk about is what the guy with the $100,000 a year job does with the $97,000 he has left... He hires two or three of the $10,000 dummies!
__________________
American by right
Ecomodder by choice
Hypermiler by necessity

  Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 07:58 AM   #54 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
metroschultz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norfolk, Va. USA
Posts: 869

CPT SLO - '93 GEO Metro plainjane
90 day: 53.91 mpg (US)

SilverHairBeauty - '01 Toyota Avalon XL
90 day: 24.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 14
Thanked 33 Times in 28 Posts
Send a message via AIM to metroschultz
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunchosen View Post
The Us autos are doomed you are right. Its because they got locked in on making cars they wanted(no ecoboxes, no basic boxes, no reliable boxes) and because they made friends with the wrong people(unions). Those two factors doomed them.
They never made friends with the unions, that is why the always argued with the unions.
The biggest argument being absurdly high pay for a very few select individuals.
If the big three cut the pay of the CEO down to 5 or 10 million a year they could have put the other 200 million into the plant and still be in business.

Robert Bosch (wealthy industrialist from Europe, now passed away) was asked once in an interview with a German magazine;
"Mr Bosch, you are one of the wealthiest men in the world, is this why you pay your workers so well?" (Bosch plants were the place to be in the 60's and 70's due to their high wages and benefits)
His response;
"No, I became a wealthy man because I took good care of my workers."

For the first 6 years of the operation of his car parts plant in Bohn, Mr Bosch only received a salary equal to the lowest paid worker on the floor.
__________________


When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.
Albert Einstein
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 09:56 AM   #55 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cookeville, TN
Posts: 850
Thanks: 1
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
James,

Just because something becomes more expensive doesn't mean people will always use less of it. If I have to drive to work. . .I have to drive to work. If its going to cost me more, well then its just going to cost me more.

Unless someone drives more than 100 miles a day every day changing vehicles in light of fuel expenses is never an economical decision. The difference in fuel savings per year between the worst gas guzzler and a 1 gen insight is only about 2000 dollars on a ridiculously high gas price. It takes a long time to pay off even buying a 10K insight in gas. Also, the 10K insight is going to have miles on it and is likely getting near the point something expensive goes bad(Its a Honda and I'm a Honda fan but after about 180K miles you do get random pieces that wear out abnormal from the pack).

A gas tax MIGHT decrease fuel consumption in the US over 10 years as people replace their old vehicles with new ones and at that point switching up in the mileage doesn't cost extra. . .but in that time span you have cost them thousands of dollars.

Do not make the mistake of saying its going to a good cause. Refer back to bureacratic waste and the fact that private sector firms put down more money for research on alt fuels and power than the firm with the most money(government before anyone makes any incorrect assumptions).

So yes you could over a decade consume slightly less fuel per person(but there will be slightly more people total) at the cost of thousands of dollars per person in fuel and at the cost of extra prices at the car lot because dealers know how to scalp cars.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 01:29 PM   #56 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,205
Thanks: 225
Thanked 802 Times in 588 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunchosen View Post
Just because something becomes more expensive doesn't mean people will always use less of it. If I have to drive to work. . .I have to drive to work. If its going to cost me more, well then its just going to cost me more.
Crap. You just have to look at what happened last year, whe gas hit $4. People started driving less, and stopped buying new gas-guzzlers.

There are plenty of ways, from carpooling to telecommuting to public transit, for the average person to use less gas immediately.

Besides the work driving, there's a whole lot of discretionary/recreational gasoline use that could be curtailed without hurting anyone. The RV that gets 5 mpg? Go camping in a tent instead. The oversized powerboat that you roar around the lake in (ruining the day for everyone else), and need that F450 pickup to haul? You can have just as much fun with kayaks, sailboards, and canoes, and haul them behind your ordinary car. Same with those ATVs & dirt bikes. Hike or ride a mountain bike instead. Just as much fun for you, lots nicer for the rest of us who don't have to listen to your loud pipes, and way easier on gas.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 03:45 PM   #57 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cookeville, TN
Posts: 850
Thanks: 1
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
I don't do any of those things. I occassionaly drive to the movies or caves. Thats it.

No one in my like 8 neighbors works where I work and none of them leave when I do. There is no mass transit from my house to work or from one job to the next. There is no one at either location that lives close enough that car pooling is worth it.

Try again?

Yeah I will admit alot of people can give up alot of driving, but for those who can't streamline our transportation anymore what about us?

Its entirely beside the point. Any vote for any taxis a vote for more wasted money. I can promise you any tax dollar spent is a tax dollar I could make go 3-4 times further. So every time you bump gas taxes and take 30-40 more cents from me the government wastes 35 cents uses 5 and then complains, whereas I would have achieved an equivalent 1.20$ effect that they did.

Until the notion that bureacratic waste is acceptable goes away and comparing private and public sector projects is not a joke, I will continue to complain. But while the government continues to spend millions on projects that private contractors could perform better, faster and for 1/3 the price I'm never going to support any government spending.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 03:45 PM   #58 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
JacobAziza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 397

Big Orange Work Truck - '83 Ford F-250
90 day: 27.54 mpg (US)

Jessica's - '04 Toyota Matrix
90 day: 41.21 mpg (US)

Ninjette - '01 Kawasaki Ninja EX250R
Thanks: 44
Thanked 65 Times in 42 Posts
Sorry this is so long. I only just found this thread, and so many comments need addressing!

Of course 80% oppose raising gas tax. Not because they think it won't work, but because they personally enjoy the luxury of driving an inefficient vehicle. It has nothing to do with the cost of a hybrid. Trucks vans and SUVs make up 1/2 of new car sales, and all of those buyers knew they were buying gas guzzlers.

Quote:
I am for the freedom of choices that we all have in this country. In my opinion, you cannot tell me what to do if I am not hurting anyone else.
1 You do have total choice if gas prices are raised. You can choose to buy whatever car you want. In fact, even if CAFE standards were raised you would still have choice, because they only refer to fleet average, not individual models. The only way anyone's freedom is restricted is if it became illegal to buy a car that got less than XX mpg.
2 Buying a big car DOES hurt others. In addition to the fact that they do far more damage in an accident, there is this little thing called "global warming" (to be honest, I am not 100% convinced, but it is undeniable that burning fuel does environmental and health damage to all living things, including ourselves.)

Quote:
I oppose all taxes. period.
Forget about social programs and libraries.
Government pays for things which are not profitable, and which the free market could not provide, or which are essential and the free market could not provide equitably. Things like roads, harbors, airports, bridges, military, police, fire services, courts. How long do you think it would take for private security to turn into mercenaries? If you want to go back to living in teepees, maybe, but giving up government in the real world means who ever has the biggest gun and most friends gets to do whatever they want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theunchosen View Post
(because 50% of government spending goes to those programs).
Last I checked, the top three uses of federal tax money was:
1 the military (we spend literally as much as the rest of the world combined)
2 payments made to private health care companies (contracted medicare and health care for government employees)
3 interest on the debt.
(Social security is basically a mandatory savings account. You get back more than you pay into it. It isn't counted as part of the federal budget; although unfortunately in order to pay for massive budget deficits the government has been illegally "borrowing" from it which is why the fund is in trouble)

Quote:
A government that rewards the lazy (welfare for fat slobs with no intention of getting a job, and pumping out children they are teaching that lifestyle is okay)
Welfare makes up about 1% of the budget.
Even before Clinton's welfare to work program, the average welfare recipient received benefits for less than 2 years. Currently, after 2 years, if you don't get some job - any job - you get cut off, even if they are in college at the time. So it encourages people to get minimum wage jobs instead of actually bettering themselves and getting a job which might actually support their family.
Look up some data, and turn down the Rush morning show.

I wonder how many of the people who propose alternate taxation schemes have actually crunched the numbers (or consulted a reliable unbiased source).
I haven't, so I won't say they are all impossible, but they mostly sound like fantasy to me.

Quote:
to say that you are for higher gas prices means you are not for a free and open market, which requires the gasoline and other products to set their own prices, via supply and demand.
When the US military is assigned to guard pipelines (which is a lot of what they do in both Iraq and Afghanistan), that is an oil company subsidy. 100s of billions of dollars of subsidy, which never get counted for what they really are on the oil companies bank sheets.
Our over-sized military budget is what allows our gas prices to be artificially low (several times lower than what any other net importing nation pays).

If you want to cut taxes, instead of cutting social safety net programs which are a insignificant amount of the budget, start with reducing the military budget to no more than 10% more than the next highest spending country.

Quote:
military is what keeps the enemies that want what we have away.
If we were not exploiting the 3rd world, we wouldn't have so many enemies in the first place. Scandinavia has a higher standard of living than the US but no one is invading there or blowing stuff up.

Next nationalize all health care. Believe it or not, most projections actually show the government would SAVE money by giving free health care to everyone. This is because, as it is health care is the governments 2nd highest expense, but much of that money goes to the shareholders of insurance companies, for-profit hospitals and drug companies, not to actually providing services to sick people.

Then balance the budget. This might mean *gasp* raising taxes! In the long run we have to pay for all those interest payments on our loans. It should go without saying that living on credit is unsustainable, but for decades conservatives have ignored that obvious truth by pretending that that "growth" would absorb the deficit. It didn't.

Quote:
Alright pal, why attack the wealthy? They are those that create wealth. Without wealthy people (not rich), there is no capital to create jobs and continue functioning as an effective entity on this planet.
You got it right about the rich inheriting their wealth, but the idea that the wealthy contribute their fair share is a stretch too. If you own a factory, you aren't creating the jobs. If that same factory was a coop, the jobs would still be there, the same work would get done, the only difference is you wouldn't be able to skim some of the profits off the top. If a few people didn't hoard most of the resources the same capital would exist, it would just be spread out a little more. If a landlord hadn't bought a particular house, the house would still be there for people to live in. They aren't actually providing anything. If someone invests in the stock market they have not actually produced anything of value. Anyone who uses money to make more money is a leech on society, just as much as welfare recipients. Only differences are they live alot better than any of us, and we glorify them.

Quote:
Government has 0 provisions for interfering in the market, and Adam Smith would tell you you're always worse off when they do.
"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.''
"The pretense that corporations are necessary for better government of the trade is without any foundation. "
-Adam Smith.
His argument against government was the EXACT OPPOSITE of modern libertarians. He was opposed to the corporation as something which interfered with the free market. To Smith the market consisted of INDIVIDUALS freely trading with one another, not companies, and certainly not corporations. He was opposed to government because of its tendency to protect and support corporations.

In the past 20 years GDP has grown steadily. Over that same period (accounting for inflation) median income has decreased. This disparity is because all of the increase has gone to a very small portion of society. The reason for the historic levels of inequality is a direct result of deregulation under our last 4 presidents, Regan and Jr. in particular.
Its the ideas that the wealthy must be more valuable to society and any increase in economic activity is inherently good which lead to the state we are in now.
The top 10% holds more wealth than the entire 90% added together.
Those 10% don't have to work, because they can invest instead.
The rich have not been working harder. US multinational corporations have just been able to consolidate and outsource at unprecedented levels.
This is the modern reality of the free market and deregulation.
It hurts American workers.
It hurts the middle and working classes (ie the vast majority of the population).
It hurts the federal budget.
It hurts 3rd world economies which are forced via predatory lending and threat of military action to open their markets.
It benefits one group, and one group only. Those who have the resources to live entirely off of stock dividends. They make us believe our interests coincide with their own by pointing out our 401k is in the stock market. However if not for their manipulation of the economy for their own benefit we could have higher wages and less inflation, less taxes and more stability.

Consider the Great Depression
Consider CA electricity market after deregulation (prices soared, service became terrible)
Consider Enron
Consider the recent bank bail out

Ford likes to ***** about the costs of union benefits, but they paid their CEO $21 million in a year they did terribly, lost money, begged the government for help. Meanwhile Toyota, which is doing far better in every way, paid their CEO less that 1 million. Follow that trend for the assistant CEO, the CFO, the president of the company, the president of the board, the lead project manager, etc.
The reality speaks for itself. The trickle down theory does not work.

Quote:
...gas is an essential...
Why do people, even here, keep claiming gas is a necessity?
Food, water, clean air, a place to live, shelter from weather extremes, these are necessities.
People in places with no cars survive.
Before cars were invented, people lived.
Cars are no more a necessity than cable TV.
This is a free country. Nobody forces you to live in the suburbs.
Actually, I lived in the suburbs for a year, in a place where it snowed all winter and rained all summer. I didn't have a car.

Quote:
For decades they've been preaching conservation, handing out rebates for "energy star" appliances and the like, and what has that gotten us? Double the household electricity use of 20 years ago?!?
As it happens, back 40-50 years ago utilities were literally giving away tank based water heaters just so that people would use more electricity and gas (solar and instant water heaters already existed back then) so they could sell more. The campaign was extremely successful.
Its only fairly recently that utilities haven't been able to keep up with demand and environmental concerns made people rethink the idea that maximizing consumption is inherently good, and began trying to persuade people to conserve.
However, even "energy star" rated appliances consistently use far more power than we have the technology for. Consider how often a fridge has its hot coils on the bottom, where the heat will just rise back into it, instead of on top. They do it cause it looks nicer.
Even so, individual appliances have been getting more efficient, but Americans have been upsizing everything for for the past 20 years. The average new home size is more than twice what it was 30 years ago. That means twice the area to heat and cool and light. TVs are bigger, sound systems louder, computers many times faster. If the technology is 2 times as efficient, but everyone uses 4 times more of it, you double your energy demand. Just like with cars. Engine technology is far better than it was back then, but car companies and consumer choose to use 100% of those gains to make cars faster and larger.


Quote:
I promise you what will happen is states that have strict emissions and specialty registrations will see a sizable exodus to states that have no such policies
uh... the car companies have been making CA specific models due to additional air quality restrictions for decades. Either that or they just make all of their cars to CA specifications to avoid having to make 2 versions. No one is exodus-ing away. Unless they are selling at a loss, companies aren't going to overlook any market.

Quote:
Still wanna trade?
Quote:
(progressive taxes heavily burden the rich)
If you tax someone with a $10,000 income 10%, he is left with $9,000
If you tax someone with a $100,000 income 80%, he is left with $20,000

Even at that rate, the person with the high income is doing far better, and is "burdened" less.
And of course in the real world the higher tax brackets are stepped and only apply to the income above the threshold, not the entire amount, (so a 80% income tax would only be 80% of the money above some amount, say 90k - the first 10k would still be taxed at the 10% rate. In other words, he would keep much more than just 20k at that rate)

Quote:
Unless someone drives more than 100 miles a day every day changing vehicles in light of fuel expenses is never an economical decision
No one has to go out and buy a new car tomorrow. Eventually people buy new cars. When they do, then they can buy a smaller one. They save money upfront AND save money in gas.
This could take some time, but the idea is to look long term at the big picture. If we act only for the moment we will regret it tomorrow. Individuals and corporations often can't see beyond instant gratification, and that's (hopefully and in theory) one of the useful things that large scale organization (ie government) can do.
__________________




Quote:
Originally Posted by Piwoslaw View Post
A few months ago I returned home just as my neighbor pulled into his driveway. It was cold (around freezing) with some rain and sleet, and he yells to me: You rode your bike? In this weather?!?

So the other day we both returned home at the same time again, only now the weather is warm, sunny, with no wind. And I yell to him: You took the car? In this weather?!?
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 04:29 PM   #59 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cookeville, TN
Posts: 850
Thanks: 1
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Jacob,

the number one expenditure of government is welfare spending, which you failed to mention completely. Military spending only makes up 1/3 of all government spending. With the expenditures lately. . .its not even remotely close to 1/3. New estimates put it at 1/9 of all government spending(yes this is both Iraq and Afghanistan and contributions to the UN to account for us soldiers on loan as UN peacekeepers).

Don't lie. If you are going to present an argument be very careful.

Ford never asked for any money. You lose all credence when you post overt fallacies.

Back to the top, you can throw all of those things the government provides away and allow for the private sector to pick them up. Bodyguards pick up where police forces are useless. If you were correct then being a bodyguard is not a viable career. I know 2 and they make 4 or 5 times the money I make.

Look at situations in which there is no military to speak of. Rich families in Mexico have their own para-military body guard service. They pack automatics body armor and bullet proof vehicles. They don't hold trials and they don't take prisoners.

A justice system that provides quick and immediate punishment to murders, thieves and what the CIA classifies as "abrasive" crimes or "assualt" crimes typically has fewer of them and it costs far less. I don't have to hold criminals in jail for months before trial feeding them and I don't have to put up with appeals and other issues. If someone breaks into my home there will not be a trial. I might have to go into a civil case with their surviving family but as I live in the south I know my local judges will throw it out and the appelate judges will also throw it out.

Adam Smith did not argue that the government was out to protect the poor from the rich. If you read your quote again he said that government is necessary to protect those who have(corporations) from those who dont(employees). At Smiths time the East India Trading company were a racketeering organization that stole from honest traders by imposing their own taxes on their goods so that they wouldn't be attacked by privateers. Smith was agains this practice. He obviously was not against a corporation in and of itself because he had his own.

Jacob do you honestly believe that taxing one person 80% is fair and one person 10%?

If you do I'm leaving Ecomodder. What you are saying is. . .because I work 2 full time jobs and 2 part time jobs I should only be allowed to have 2x as much as someone who works never and gets a welfare check? I put in 80 hours a week(2 full times) I mow for 6 hours a week and I work for a neighbor for about 5 hours a week. You are saying that some slackass that works 0 hours deserves the same amount of money I get when I work vastly more hours than he does(90 compared to 0 and he gets the same amount as me)?
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 05:31 PM   #60 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
JacobAziza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 397

Big Orange Work Truck - '83 Ford F-250
90 day: 27.54 mpg (US)

Jessica's - '04 Toyota Matrix
90 day: 41.21 mpg (US)

Ninjette - '01 Kawasaki Ninja EX250R
Thanks: 44
Thanked 65 Times in 42 Posts
Unchoosen:

Quote:
the number one expenditure of government is welfare spending, which you failed to mention completely.
Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2009

Define "Welfare"
If you choose to count SS as "welfare", maybe, but the benefits people get from it are directly proportional to what they paid in. Same goes for unemployment. If you don't work, you don't get social security or unemployment. These things are revolving funds which legally the government doesn't get to spend (although they do anyway). Part of the category of human services also includes education. Education is an investment that pays for itself by having an educated workforce. Veteran's benefits, which should properly be classified as military expense, are also lumped here.
Most of all, medical payments is counted under the same category, which I addressed earlier, and is by far the 2nd biggest sub-component after SS.
Yes, if you count all of those things as "welfare", then it adds up to more than the military.
But if you are looking only at direct AFDC payments to poor families, it is less than 1% of the budget.
If you have a source that says otherwise, please feel free to share it.

Quote:
Military spending only makes up 1/3 of all government spending. With the expenditures lately. . .its not even remotely close to 1/3.
If you remove SS (which is a trust fund, not a government handout) from the budget, "national defense" come to well over 1/3. Check the numbers at the link I provided above if you don't want to take my word for it.



Quote:
Ford never asked for any money. You lose all credence when you post overt fallacies.
Ford's bailout plea to include pledge for smaller cars

Ford CEO on bailout opposition: Past is past - CNN.com




Quote:
Back to the top, you can throw all of those things the government provides away and allow for the private sector to pick them up. Bodyguards pick up where police forces are useless.
So, in other words the wealthy should be protected, and no one else should. I didn't say it was unviable.
What I said was, in the absence of law, body guard = mercenary. Whoever has money can buy guns and take what ever they want from those who can't afford a mercenary force. I'm not saying it is impossible, I'm saying that isn't a world any of us want to live in.


Quote:
Look at situations in which there is no military to speak of. Rich families in Mexico have their own para-military body guard service. They pack automatics body armor and bullet proof vehicles. They don't hold trials and they don't take prisoners.
Yeah. Exactly. That's my point. Besides, there IS a military and police force in Mexico. The Federales carry sub machine guns and ride around in pickups with 6 guys in the back.



Quote:
A justice system that provides quick and immediate punishment to murders, thieves and what the CIA classifies as "abrasive" crimes or "assualt" crimes typically has fewer of them and it costs far less. I don't have to hold criminals in jail for months before trial feeding them and I don't have to put up with appeals and other issues. If someone breaks into my home there will not be a trial. I might have to go into a civil case with their surviving family but as I live in the south I know my local judges will throw it out and the appelate judges will also throw it out.
Sounds like someone hates America. There is this thing called the "constitution" - they put it there for a reason. Thing is, sometimes innocent people are accused accidentally. You do realize that, right? And sometimes people accuse the innocent on purpose, out of spite, or to draw attention away from themselves. Trials are not to coddle criminals. Trials are to determine the facts as best as possible so that the wrongly accused aren't punished.


Quote:
Adam Smith did not argue that the government was out to protect the poor from the rich. If you read your quote again he said that government is necessary to protect those who have(corporations) from those who dont(employees).
He didn't say it was "necessary". He said that's what actually happens. He was not suggesting it was a good thing.


Quote:
At Smiths time the East India Trading company were a racketeering organization that stole from honest traders by imposing their own taxes on their goods so that they wouldn't be attacked by privateers. Smith was against this practice.
Exactly. He further suggested that corporations only exist because governments create them, and that they are inherently anti competitve.


Quote:
He obviously was not against a corporation in and of itself because he had his own.
An individual can not have a corporation. Their is a difference between a corporation and a company.

I won't repeat all the points about how libertarians distort Smith's work, because someone has already done it for me:
The Betrayal of Adam Smith
SimpleUtahMormonPolitics.com: Adam Smith Hated Corporations


Quote:
Jacob do you honestly believe that taxing one person 80% is fair and one person 10%?
That was an example to show the numbers involved.


Quote:
If you do I'm leaving Ecomodder. What you are saying is. . .because I work 2 full time jobs and 2 part time jobs I should only be allowed to have 2x as much as someone who works never and gets a welfare check? I put in 80 hours a week(2 full times) I mow for 6 hours a week and I work for a neighbor for about 5 hours a week. You are saying that some slackass that works 0 hours deserves the same amount of money I get when I work vastly more hours than he does(90 compared to 0 and he gets the same amount as me)?

That's not what I am saying at all. First of all, someone who works 0 hours pays 0 taxes, no matter what the tax rate is. Someone who works 2 (or 4) jobs likely does not make that much per hour (or else why would they be working so much?) and so isn't going to be in a top tax braket no matter what.
What I am saying is NOONE earns a million dollars a year through working. It can't be done. You have to understand just how rich the rich are. There was a guy who owned a chain of casinos who made one million dollars an hour on average for a year. He didn't have to work. He added nothing of value to society. He didn't build the casinos. He didn't even pay to have most built, he bought them. So he didn't earn that money, which means he didn't "deserve" any of it. Bill Gates took open source (free) software, made a few minor changes, and patented it. He was not an innovator. He was a predatory businsess man who made exclusive deals with hardware manufacturers in order to form a monopoly. Now he pays other people to come up with (often inferior) software, and he gets to skim some of the profits. He is not creating jobs. If Microsoft weren't there, those same people would be working at smaller companies.

The market does not assign wages based on how valuable the work done is to society. Consider an ad company executive. The ad company has big clients which don't make the best or cheapest product, but have momnetum on their side. The ad companies job is to convince people to buy their products. This in no way betters society as a whole, but its valuable to the corporation that hired them. So they make big bucks. Meanwhile someone who does a job that actually creates something valuable, say the day laborer that builds a house, a auto plant assembly line guy, a public school teacher, makes a tiny fraction of what the ad guy makes.

Damn straight I think people who work hard for little pay should be taxed less than someone who makes their money on the stock market, or by being a landlord, or any other job where you make a lot of money without doing any actual work!
I think you should pay less taxes.
I think anyone who makes over 200k a year or has more than 2 million in assets should pay more taxes.

We are totally high jacking this thread.

I could get so much more into it, but maybe I'll just reference some of the stuff I wrote on the topic in the past:
The root of the problem - Bakari's Personal Blog - Powered by Doteasy.com

Black Friday - Bakari's Personal Blog - Powered by Doteasy.com

Anarchy VS Capitalism - Bakari's Personal Blog - Powered by Doteasy.com

Predictions - Bakari's Personal Blog - Powered by Doteasy.com

Global Warming vs. Fascism; or, why NASA wouldn’t have stopped Apophis - Bakari's Personal Blog - Powered by Doteasy.com

Free Market VS. Democracy : (1-0) - Bakari's Personal Blog - Powered by Doteasy.com)

In responce to my last entry - Bakari's Personal Blog - Powered by Doteasy.com

In Which a progressive writes an article about the economy: - Bakari's Personal Blog - Powered by Doteasy.com

29; My neigbor is a Republican (who lives in a tiny trailer) - Bakari's Personal Blog - Powered by Doteasy.com)

24; Taxes, and the contribution to society of the wealthy - Bakari's Personal Blog - Powered by Doteasy.com

22; Wealth should be taxed - Bakari's Personal Blog - Powered by Doteasy.com

__________________




Quote:
Originally Posted by Piwoslaw View Post
A few months ago I returned home just as my neighbor pulled into his driveway. It was cold (around freezing) with some rain and sleet, and he yells to me: You rode your bike? In this weather?!?

So the other day we both returned home at the same time again, only now the weather is warm, sunny, with no wind. And I yell to him: You took the car? In this weather?!?
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How do you eco-drive a diesel ? groar Hypermiling / EcoDriver's Ed 122 05-24-2014 09:05 PM
EcoModding for Beginners: Getting great gas mileage. SVOboy EcoModding Central 55 08-20-2012 11:34 PM
Article: Crude oil is getting cheaper — so why isn't gas? Frank Lee The Lounge 20 07-14-2010 01:06 AM
Hole in gas tank mrmad EcoModding Central 5 03-18-2009 04:33 PM
What's your best bet for an automatic? Crono EcoModding Central 16 10-22-2008 01:14 PM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com