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

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.   

We both agree that uncontrolled spending is bad.   
    You focus on little items. I focus on the big spending/waste items.  
      Wars and the military.   How many trillions of dollars have we wasted on wars that provide us with no better security, or peace?  
   Why do we spend more money then all our enemies combined  times 6?  
      Trillions and trillions of dollars?  
 Those super carriers That cost 22 billion to make that we have and no other nation has.  They cost millions of dollars per day to operate.  Back during the 1st Gulf war it was $5 million a day per carrier battle group.   
   How much has inflation increased since then? Is it 10-20 million dollars a day per carrier battle group? 
  Then how much does one of those B2 bombers cost?  2.2 billion each?    Plus maintenance and operating costs?   
 We could still use our B52's  that are faster and better than the propeller jobs the Russians have.  And China has nothing?    
      I'll make you a deal!   You stop building super carriers and mothball all but 2.   Put away the B1's and B2's. 
 Sell off 1/2 of our surplus combat hardware
In return I'll  forego the $7500 tax credit  for the EV I buy. 

Tom1200 said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

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

Because dog food is cheaper than gas or charging stations.

bobzilla said:

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

And that's not even how our tax system works, even though frenchy doesn't believe it. As too Zuckerberg, that's why the C-level people try to get most of their compensation in stock and other perks vs straight salary. Capital gains is way cheaper than most of your income being in the top bracket. 

You pay X % on the income in the 1st bracket. 
Y % on the next bracket up.
Z % on the next bracket up. 

So you may be in the 24% bracket, but you're not actually being taxed on 24% on all your income. 

In reply to z31maniac :

we understand that, but the guy that "understands the economics" doesn't

bobzilla said:

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

He's not going to answer. He never answers pointed questions without changing the subject. 

Much like, after 50+ pages we still don't know what EV he drives, what solar panels he has, if his batteries are wet cell, AGM, or LiFePo4, or even if his house has electricity. Maybe houses built with hand-hewn timbers don't have electricity. Maybe he uses a Dutch windmill to generate power?

I can't imagine after so many pages of condescending words about how EV and solar are the only way to go that he buys coal power from the grid like everyone else. 

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

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.  

 

 

Well you are off by a couple of years  but let's work with your numbers.  Debt to GDP was 35%.  Under Carter it went down to 22%.  Then Reagan brought it up to 74%  and inspite of raising taxes which cost him an election. Bush couldn't get it down. 
   Clinton not only was able to balance the budget for the first time since Eisenhower. But he got it down to 54%  then look at what happened to the debt under Bush JR.  
     In fact if you look there is a real pattern Debt goes up under one group and down under the other. 
Oh and Clinton was the last to balance the budget.  
        So next time someone promises to lower your taxes.  They are also telling you they will raise the Debt. 

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to frenchyd :

While I agree with what you said about 95%, don't deny your generation largely made this tax code.  Trust me I vote rascals out on both sides every chance I get.  The real problem is the average person that somehow doesn't view unlimited debt etc as a problem.  
 

And I don't care how much you paid.  No one has paid enough to keep the roads repaired due to misappropriation.  I remember a MN bridge collapsing into big muddy in my lifetime.  Is that a good example of road maintenance?

One more point.  My dad was part of the greatest generation.  Survived the depression, fought on the landing beach in France.  And when he came home. Everything was twice as expensive as  when he left.   Things got worse as I grew up. 
After I came back from Vietnam   Inflation got to something like 20%. 
  Then we went through a recession where us returning veterans couldn't find work.   I wound up working the night shift at a gas station. The station owner never paid my wages past the first 2 weeks.  And I was given regular promises for almost 6 weeks. 
 

I don't blame my fathers generation for that.  I just adapted to the situation and did the best I could.   I learned to use inflation to get ahead. 
   I always  voted for the ones I thought would do the most for the country.  I didn't always win.  But that's life.  Not someone else's fault.  

Toyman! said:

bobzilla said:

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

He's not going to answer. He never answers pointed questions without changing the subject. 

Much like, after 50+ pages we still don't know what EV he drives, what solar panels he has, if his batteries are wet cell, AGM, or LiFePo4, or even if his house has electricity. Maybe houses built with hand-hewn timbers don't have electricity. Maybe he uses a Dutch windmill to generate power?

I can't imagine after so many pages of condescending words about how EV and solar are the only way to go that he buys coal power from the grid like everyone else. 

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been closed. I guess we all just need to stop responding. 

In reply to Toyman! :

Bingo. Note the 2 responses already ignoring it?

In reply to z31maniac :

I was going to ask the Mods to lock the thread; it's off the rails, down a canyon and washed out to see.

In reply to Tom1200 :

Why lock it? Just don't click. It's entertaining at this point

Frenchyd youre crazy if you think think changing the tax code to "2% of every sale" would eliminate the incentive to use lawyers and expensive accountants to reduce tax burden.

The formula stays exactly the same. If potential savings are greater than the cost of such services they still get utilized.

You may think "2% of every sale" is iron clad, but it's not and it just shows you're ignorance of how the law works. There would be all kinds of legal cases arguing about what constitutes a sale. You'd have new business strategies of procuring things for resale created to intentionally not meet the criteria of a sale. The lawmakers would write very specific laws to try and close loopholes and in the process only create more (you can see this illustrated in the founding of the our legal system. Laws can't work on the fringes of cases, which is why we have jury trials in criminal cases. Judgement is required in justice. A law is explicit and has no judgement, people have judgement and many seem to have forgotten this today. its why so many laws and bills nowadays set out to be very specific and cover all the fringe cases and only create more ambiguity). In fact there is already a mechanism to skirt this. Have you heard of brokers and consignment? I didn't buy it from my supplier, I'm just the broker and the "mark up" is my commission.

The stakes are too high when it comes to taxes. No matter what your tax code is there will always be an incentive to spend vast amounts of money to exploit it.

In reply to frenchyd :

I'm trying to help you out here, let me know if you follow this...

You think wealthy people and companies should pay more of the tax share, correct? 
 

You think a flat tax- taxing every product along each step of the supply chain, will result in that, because the wealthy and large companies buy the most stuff. Are we good so far? 
 

Here is where it goes "wrong" if your goal is to shift tax burden farther up the ladder...

This will instantly increase taxes on almost all of the lower 50%, because they tend to spend all of their money and then some. 
 

Businesses don't pay taxes. No matter how you rearrange the numbers, they will pass the taxes onto the consumer. If you have five 2% steps in the supply chain, the consumer will pay the 10%. The ones that survive at least. Because most businesses take years to get off the ground, and would not survive your tax plan. Tying it back to the discussion- there would be no Tesla.  How long did it take Tesla to turn a profit? How many years of losses were they able to write off when they finally became profitable? Can you see how your plan would prohibit Tesla from coming into existence? 

Tom1200 said:

In reply to z31maniac :

I was going to ask the Mods to lock the thread; it's off the rails, down a canyon and washed out to see.

Don't lock it!

It's too entertaining to read. One slightly crazy old guy without a clue and a bunch of younger guys who might as well be shouting down a well. It has way too much entertainment factor to lock. 

Evil lurks in this thread.

frenchyd said:

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

You make a valid point about business passing on costs. 
 So what is the solution?   We aren't paying  enough taxes.  As others have said we are 31 Trillion in debt.  
  One party keeps cutting taxes which increases the debt  and the other party can't  offset the additional debt during its tenure in power.  Even though they raise the taxes. 
    Yes I know what a sacred  cow war and the military is.  But that's where real money. Is wasted.  We are supposed to get 3 new Ford class super carriers this decade at 22 billion dollars each. Plus they cost somewhere around 10-20 million per day to operate a carrier battle group. We spent a trillion dollars in Iraq  and more than a trillion in Afghanistan.  
  No other nation has even 1 super carrier and we have as many smaller carriers as the rest of the world combined. 
     Yes I know we spent billions bringing microchips back to America. And even more billions increasing power to the electrical grid. But we need the additional power. 
       
  But we are still 31 Trillion in debt.   It might not be as much as China. And we aren't in the Top 50 debt to GDP ratio  but it's still too much. 
       
   If taxing businesses or stock market traders  is a no go,  the very rich can avoid paying taxes.  Or very much taxes.  The poor are barely getting by paycheck to paycheck. 
     How much more can the working class stand?  

 

We pay PLENTY of taxes. The problem we have is SPENDING. 

And the government has no incentive to fix it. 

The last B-2 bomber was built 23 years ago. They aren't costing us 2.2 billion dollars anytime soon.

China has long range strategic bombers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_H-6

The TU-95 has a longer operational range than the B-52 and a similar top speed/cruising speed. 

Actual operating costs for the new carriers is reduced from the previous Nimitz class. ARound $5M per day for the entire carrier air group. The carrier itself with air wing is around $3M per day.

Ford class carriers are actually $12B in cost to manufacture not $22B

China has 2 new Super Carriers under construction and 2 smaller carriers based off the old Russian design but upgraded to actually work. They are planning to build 5 more. 

Russia is not our only threat, in fact it's being shown that other than their nuclear capabilities they are nothing but a paper tiger.

About the ONLY thing that you stated that was true was that the MIC is costing us trillions. 

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Evil lurks in this thread.

Nah, just stupidity.