I still don't see EV's Replacing ICEs.

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

first why would I offshore it to somewhere that has higher labor costs?

Second raw materials (inputs) to me arent actually raw materials. lets say I need steel. Im paying 2% to the miners, 2+2 percent of 2 percent to the manufactures and 2 percent compounded again to the people that buy the raw steel and make it usable for me. Plus im not actually paying 2 percent at each step, im paying 2 percent marked up and compounded since youve raised their input costs.

Many inputs have a longer supply chain also. Apply that to every input I have and Im taking my manufacturing elsewhere.

Like many of your ideas or most modern political ideas they sound good and make you fell all warm and fuzzy but they dont do what you think they do.

That's where our air bags come from.  Our seat belts and some other items come from Germany.  Even China is no longer cheaper than some American labor. That's why China has opened 12 factories in Mexico  where labor is cheaper than America.  
     You really should pay attention to current world conditions.   
  Since the pandemic a lot of what was originally made in China has gone elsewhere   looking for cheaper labor costs.  Or returned to North America   To reduce shipping costs. 
   China's population is also aging.  Most of it is over 40 now due to China's one child law.   Thus the current birth rate is around .7 children per women. And since many girl baby's were "dropped down wells"  so a  family could try for a boy.  The female population is minuscule.  
     With regard to the 2% number.  
     That is the cheapest simplist way to collect taxes.  It returns the same. Amount as the current IRS  does but becomes totally voluntary.  Don't like paying taxes? Stop buying things. 
     Grow your own food,   raise chickens.  Etc. 

frenchyd said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to frenchyd :

You need to explain to yourself and your peers how debt works.  Your generation has been running Congress for the past 3 1/2 decades.  Your generation ran this debt "to the moon" and just passed a budget with no limits on additional debt.  Don't explain anything to me, the millenials or gen Z.  You are just expecting us to pick up the tab on your unlimited party debtapalooza.  The fact that you keep shilling for subsidies and more debt PROVES beyond any doubt that you don't get it and never will.  Your generation will go down in history as economically illiterate and selfish beyond all measure.  I'm going to help the millenials and Gen Z write it.  Stop trying to justify irresponsible spending.  Everyone on the planet knows you can't do it on a personal level.  Your entire economic philosphy is literally economically harming all future generations yet you try to justify it.  I've heard it described as economic slavery and that isn't far from the truth.  Adding to the debt to subsidize EVs is a horrible idea. 

So it's the baby boomers fault?   
  Remember we inherited the national debt from 2 world wars and a Great Depression.   Oh and a national highway system plus the cost of the space program and fighting the Cold War.  
           There has only been a tiny window in the History of America where debt wasn't carried over.   
       You should know this. If not please look it up.  
  Finally a tiny little incentive to achieve  the additional energy required for the coming demands on the power grid  is a good investment.  
   If you really want to cut the national debt look at the trillions we've spent on wars and the military with absolutely  no additional security or peace.  

Yes let's look up the date.  Your generation inherited the best economy the world has ever seen, world peace, and the best manufacturing and education systems in the world.  The debt was nothing compare to what it is now.  Yes it is the boomers fault.  Your lack of understanding of debt, inflation and subsidies just reinforces this.  Yes please go find a graph of US National debt from the time you turned 21 until today.  I dare you! And please don't forget to take credit for the no budget unlimited debt to Jan 2025 you just instituted.  

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

Dude where did that come from and what the fook does that have to do with this thread and why would you give credence to frenchyd's particular off on a tangent comment? 

Debt in 1970 $371 billion (35% of GDP).  This is a ridiculous amount of debt the boomers inherited but it was manageable.  
 

$371,000,000,000.00

Current debt is 31.8 trillion.  It's about 125% of the GDP.  
 

That's $31,800,000,000,000.  That's almost 100 times the inherited debt the boomers started with.  
 

I'm literally disgusted that anyone would chose to do this to future generations that cannot vote and are not even born yet.  It is one of the most selfish acts in the history of humanity.  It ensures continued struggles for the poor, overpriced education, commodities and housing.  
 

But let's subsidize EVs!  
 

The boomers had their turn and created this mess.  It's time to let the kids you made responsible for your fiscal irresponsibility in charge of making the decisions.  I will support them 100% because there is no way they could do worse.  I am far more interested in their ideas, because you made them responsible while turning a blind eye to the future.  You really want to help your granddaughter?  Stop supporting policies that harm her economically.  And yes you should help her all you can because everything you claim to support hurt her and future generations.  

In reply to frenchyd :

Frenchy you're not even disputing the point i made.

You chose places where 2 items are made, which is an infinitesimal part of our economy, because if you jump through a bunch of mental hoops, you can use it to try an illustrate American labor is cheaper on a global scale. First thats wrong. Second I didnt say I was making or even mention those items. Third, if American labor is so cheap already and we have such a good environment for manufacturing why did you say your proposed tax plan would incentivize businesses to bring manufacturing back, and how exactly would it do that if we are already so cheap? Fourth, if American manufacturing is so cheap how come we import so much?

Also your argument about manufacturing being so cheap in the US (which is wrong or at a minimum intellectually dishonest as it applies to this topic) is under the current system, when you change the environment (adding a tax to all transactions) your argument cant be based on the economic conditions prior to the change.

Essentially what youve said is If we raise the cost on everything it will lower the costs of manufacturing and bring it back to the US, but the US is already one of the cheaper places to manufacture goods and manufacturing has already returned to the US. 

I do pay attention to world conditions, my recommendation for you is that you stop, and maybe think about more basic things and try and get a grasp on them.

I think the current tax code is pretty dumb, but this is dumber. I cant even follow your logic, and you still havent disputed anything ive said.

PS Id like to see your source or math for this tax code.

In reply to frenchyd :

aircooled said:

Regarding CA: You said it yourself "it doesn't make economic sense".  CA is forcing green energy beyond what makes practical sense.  Replacing readily available (and rather clean) cheap natural gas plants with massive solar and wind farms in a heavily regulated state with very high land prices seems predictably impractical..  Throwing massive battery storage and grid changes / reorganizations, will only add to that.

It would be kind of like forcing people to buy electric cars before it makes economic / practical sense... oh wait...

I'm hearing ( on this subject ) that California isn't giving homeowners an incentive to add solar or wind.  
    Either others have lied on here  or someone in California hasn't looked at the big picture. 
 

Slow. Down. Your. Reading. 
 

Try to understand what you are responding to before you post a responses. 
 

There are two kinds of solar in CA. One is generated by the utilities, as a means electrical production for their customers. This method is more expensive than a gas fired power plant, and results in higher electrical rates for their customers. It is also less stable than a gas fired power plant, which is why expensive batteries are being added to the grid. Which also raises rates. Remember when I said profit margins are fixed on CA public utilities? Can you guess what happens to the rates when the cost of production side of the equation goes up? 
 

Now, since the rates are so high, payback on residential solar systems is relatively short. So there is no need for CA to offer additional incentives, not getting burned by the extraordinarily high rates is incentive enough. So much so that too much solar is being installed on the grid, and no more new solar applications are being accepted unless they include battery storage, at least in the PG&E area. Requiring the battery storage both slows down solar installs by making them more expensive with lower ROI, and mitigates the problem of future solar installs on the grid. 

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Frenchy you're not even disputing the point i made.

You chose places where 2 items are made, which is an infinitesimal part of our economy, because if you jump through a bunch of mental hoops, you can use it to try an illustrate American labor is cheaper on a global scale. First thats wrong. Second I didnt say I was making or even mention those items. Third, if American labor is so cheap already and we have such a good environment for manufacturing why did you say your proposed tax plan would incentivize businesses to bring manufacturing back, and how exactly would it do that if we are already so cheap? Fourth, if American manufacturing is so cheap how come we import so much?

Also your argument about manufacturing being so cheap in the US (which is wrong or at a minimum intellectually dishonest as it applies to this topic) is under the current system, when you change the environment (adding a tax to all transactions) your argument cant be based on the economic conditions prior to the change.

Essentially what youve said is If we raise the cost on everything it will lower the costs of manufacturing and bring it back to the US, but the US is already one of the cheaper places to manufacture goods and manufacturing has already returned to the US. 

I do pay attention to world conditions, my recommendation for you is that you stop, and maybe think about more basic things and try and get a grasp on them.

I think the current tax code is pretty dumb, but this is dumber. I cant even follow your logic, and you still havent disputed anything ive said.

PS Id like to see your source or math for this tax code.

Look for yourself.  Take the amount of GDP for last year and multiply  times .02  next look at the amount the IRS received from taxes become tax alone. 
 Remarkably close  isn't it?  If not exact, figure out what percentage of the GDP  is required to equal   The amount the Income tax generates.  
 Don't try to fix everything.  Frankly it's not enough to psy what is required but one thing at a time.  
 This isn't  perfect. And I'd be eager for any approach that really fixes the tax system. 

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Frenchy you're not even disputing the point i made.

You chose places where 2 items are made, which is an infinitesimal part of our economy, because if you jump through a bunch of mental hoops, you can use it to try an illustrate American labor is cheaper on a global scale. First thats wrong. Second I didnt say I was making or even mention those items. Third, if American labor is so cheap already and we have such a good environment for manufacturing why did you say your proposed tax plan would incentivize businesses to bring manufacturing back, and how exactly would it do that if we are already so cheap? Fourth, if American manufacturing is so cheap how come we import so much?

Also your argument about manufacturing being so cheap in the US (which is wrong or at a minimum intellectually dishonest as it applies to this topic) is under the current system, when you change the environment (adding a tax to all transactions) your argument cant be based on the economic conditions prior to the change.

Essentially what youve said is If we raise the cost on everything it will lower the costs of manufacturing and bring it back to the US, but the US is already one of the cheaper places to manufacture goods and manufacturing has already returned to the US. 

I do pay attention to world conditions, my recommendation for you is that you stop, and maybe think about more basic things and try and get a grasp on them.

I think the current tax code is pretty dumb, but this is dumber. I cant even follow your logic, and you still havent disputed anything ive said.

PS Id like to see your source or math for this tax code.

Please don't try to put words into what's I said.  I never said America was the cheapest.  Things are being reshored  into America because Chinese labor costs have risen so much that when other considerations are taken in it's a smarter move.  
  True America could send it to various countries.  But there are plenty of reasons not to do that.  

Woo hoo! 50 pages of what reads like drug induced discourse from our favorite. It's entertaining if not informative. 

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Frenchy you just contradicted yourself. You complain about administrations that lower taxes, and then you advocate for a 2% sales tax instead of income tax. last I looked the estimates for a sales tax to replace income tax is between 15 and 20 Percent. So are you advocating for lowering taxes?

Yes, as usual he's NOT even close to the numbers it would take. The calculations were all done more than a decade ago. Fairtax.org (which removes all payroll tax) pegs the number at 23% Federal sales tax, so that does not include any state/county/city sales tax. Based on national averages it ends up putting the sales tax on all goods purchased around 31-33%. 

Also things I learned on page 50, Volvo is a German company apparently. (Volvo is who designed the 3 point seat belt in 1959, then left the patent open so all other automakers could use it)

z31maniac said:

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Frenchy you just contradicted yourself. You complain about administrations that lower taxes, and then you advocate for a 2% sales tax instead of income tax. last I looked the estimates for a sales tax to replace income tax is between 15 and 20 Percent. So are you advocating for lowering taxes?

Yes, as usual he's NOT even close to the numbers it would take. The calculations were all done more than a decade ago. Fairtax.org (which removes all payroll tax) pegs the number at 23% Federal sales tax, so that does not include any state/county/city sales tax. Based on national averages it ends up putting the sales tax on all goods purchased around 31-33%. 

 

 

Reread that carefully. They leave many tax breaks in place.  For example there is no mention of charging a 2%  tax on buying stock!  Nor is there any tax on purchase of a  business. So company A can buy company B and Uncle Sam doesn't profit a dime. 
   The key to making any tax system work is it must be cheap, simple, and no exceptions.  
  A simple basic sales tax on EVERYTHING.  Requires no $1000/hr tax Lawyers to figure out how to game the system,  no forms to fill out.   No refunds for over payments,  enforcement amounts to checking if 2% tax was collected on everything sold. We eliminate the myth of a progressive tax system.  
    Most of all the 77,000+ pages of tax breaks  goes away.  Plus those tax lawyers can find honest work in the criminal system. Either on prosecution or defense side.  

In reply to frenchyd :

I've been trying to stay out of the tax discussion, as we have went over this in detail in another thread. But I'm curious, can you explain what you mean by this?...

 We eliminate the myth of a progressive tax system.  

Also, you do understand that all of the EV and solar tax credits that you have been pushing for the last 50 pages go away under your system, right? 

In reply to Tom1200 :

Simple.  I'm sick of pretending that uncontrolled unlimited debt and subsidies and or controls are good.  They are not.  They are products that are ultimately destructive.  Any attempts to ignore that only assure the economic destruction.  It doesn't have to happen.  Step one is to curtail it any way possible.
 

If one of your students is over driving and heading into a high speed turn too hot do you cheer them on (more debt and subsidies) or do you start yelling at them to apply some brakes (stop the impending financial doom)?  

That's where it comes from.   

frenchyd said:

z31maniac said:

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Frenchy you just contradicted yourself. You complain about administrations that lower taxes, and then you advocate for a 2% sales tax instead of income tax. last I looked the estimates for a sales tax to replace income tax is between 15 and 20 Percent. So are you advocating for lowering taxes?

Yes, as usual he's NOT even close to the numbers it would take. The calculations were all done more than a decade ago. Fairtax.org (which removes all payroll tax) pegs the number at 23% Federal sales tax, so that does not include any state/county/city sales tax. Based on national averages it ends up putting the sales tax on all goods purchased around 31-33%. 

 

 

Reread that carefully. They leave many tax breaks in place.  For example there is no mention of charging a 2%  tax on buying stock!  Nor is there any tax on purchase of a  business. So company A can buy company B and Uncle Sam doesn't profit a dime. 
   The key to making any tax system work is it must be cheap, simple, and no exceptions.  
  A simple basic sales tax on EVERYTHING.  Requires no $1000/hr tax Lawyers to figure out how to game the system,  no forms to fill out.   No refunds for over payments,  enforcement amounts to checking if 2% tax was collected on everything sold. We eliminate the myth of a progressive tax system.  
    Most of all the 77,000+ pages of tax breaks  goes away.  Plus those tax lawyers can find honest work in the criminal system. Either on prosecution or defense side.  

Read what carefully? It's amazing how you change the subject. You were talking about income/payroll tax. Then you bring up stock, buying business, etc. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Supposedly a progressive tax system means the ones who make the most money pay the most in taxes. 
    In America it just doesn't work that way. 
     As a percentage of my income when I was earning big money, my typical percentage was 2%. 
    Now as a school bus driver. It's often over 24%. 
      There are more tax breaks the more you earn so even though the IRS  has a progressive rate schedule.   You are taxed after deductions etc.  

Let me give you a simple example.   
  Let's say you own an apartment building and it appreciates $200,000 in value over a period of time.   
  You can now go to a bank and borrow that $200,000  and since borrowed money isn't income. You pay no taxes on it.  In fact you get to deduct the interest cost of the loan from any income you do earn.   
      
  

frenchyd said:

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

     As a percentage of my income when I was earning big money, my typical percentage was 2%. 
    Now as a school bus driver. It's often over 24%. 
      

I want to see proof of this or I'm calling BS.

If you can prove it, I want the name and phone number of your accountant. I will pay good money if they can back up the BS you are spouting. 

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Tom1200 :

Simple.  I'm sick of pretending that uncontrolled unlimited debt and subsidies and or controls are good.  They are not.  They are products that are ultimately destructive.  Any attempts to ignore that only assure the economic destruction.  It doesn't have to happen.  Step one is to curtail it any way possible.
 

If one of your students is over driving and heading into a high speed turn too hot do you cheer them on (more debt and subsidies) or do you start yelling at them to apply some brakes (stop the impending financial doom)?  

That's where it comes from.   

EVs being subsidized was one of the reasons I listed as to why I didn't see them taking over completely. The government cannot fully subsidize every car purchase.

The debt is every generations fault...........we vote for the same people year after year. Politics is Latin for "to pander". There is a great deal of pandering going on when it comes to politicians pushing EVs.

I've said it multiple times; I'm not anti EV, I just don't see them taking over.

Has anyone else had their mind changed. I no longer like electric cars. Or ICE cars, or cars, or people...... I'm getting a mule.  

In reply to Wally (Forum Supporter) :

I changed my mind on broken bones. I dont think anyone should get them. Oh and I don't like mules

In reply to frenchyd :

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Supposedly a progressive tax system means the ones who make the most money pay the most in taxes. 
    In America it just doesn't work that way. 
     As a percentage of my income when I was earning big money, my typical percentage was 2%. 
 

No, it wasn't, there is no way you were paying 2% when you were making "big money." It is possible that they were not withholding much if you were a full commission sales person- but you still owed your taxes on April 15th. As usual, you are ignoring the mountains of data out there and sticking you your own flawed single data point to reach your conclusion. 

    Now as a school bus driver. It's often over 24%. 

      There are more tax breaks the more you earn so even though the IRS  has a progressive rate schedule.   You are taxed after deductions etc.  Let me give you a simple example.   
  Let's say you own an apartment building and it appreciates $200,000 in value over a period of time.   
  You can now go to a bank and borrow that $200,000  and since borrowed money isn't income. You pay no taxes on it.  In fact you get to deduct the interest cost of the loan from any income you do earn.   

Why in the world would you count a loan as income? Do you not plan on paying it back? There are certain types of loans where interest is deductible. It's not because the government wants less money. It's because they want to drive those behaviors- home ownership, business investment and growth, 401k contribution, etc.. Taxes not only bring revenue to the government, they are a big method of exerting control.

Wally (Forum Supporter) said:

Has anyone else had their mind changed. I no longer like electric cars. Or ICE cars, or cars, or people...... I'm getting a mule.  

What kind of Mule? I'm not onboard with Government Mule but I'm Okay with the Missoura kind.

Toyman! said:

frenchyd said:

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

     As a percentage of my income when I was earning big money, my typical percentage was 2%. 
    Now as a school bus driver. It's often over 24%. 
      

I want to see proof of this or I'm calling BS.

If you can prove it, I want the name and phone number of your accountant. I will pay good money if they can back up the BS you are spouting. 

 

not only that but percentages are a slippery slope. 2% of 500k is a lot more than 24% of 20k. Zuckerberg makes $12Billion per year. 1% of that is way more than 24% of even $500k

Wally (Forum Supporter) said:

Has anyone else had their mind changed. I no longer like electric cars. Or ICE cars, or cars, or people...... I'm getting a mule.  

I like the old Tesla Roadsters. I like dogs better than most people. I don't really like mules.

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

Sled Dogs for everyone...................