backtop

Print 79 comment(s) - last by YashBudini.. on May 10 at 7:23 PM

EVs taking tax money from states needed for roads  (Source: Mitsubishi)
Obama administration says it does not support leaked bill

The Obama administration is big on pushing Americans to alternative energy and vehicles that get better fuel economy. Part of the plan to get drivers to buy hybrids and EVs were big tax incentives that were matched by some states. One such state is Hawaii where the buyer of a new Mitsubishi EV can get the federal $7,500 credit and a $4,500 rebate from the state.

A draft was leaked recently of a proposal for a new plan to raise more money to repair roads around the country. The bill outlines a plan to charge vehicles based on the number of miles they driven. The proposal is apparently a grab by the government to help states recover some of the lost funds due to the adoption of EVs and hybrids that burn less fuel and make less tax revenue for states.

The leaked plan was part of a 500-page draft and proposed a new office at the Federal Highway Administration called the Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office. According to the draft, this office would be "[Authorized to conduct a] study framework that defines the functionality of a mileage-based user fee system and other systems." 

Once the proposal leaked, lawmakers and others harshly criticized it. This strong backlash lead the Obama administration to disown the proposal. Transportation Department spokeswoman Olivia Alair said, "This was an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration. This is not a bill supported by the administration."

The draft also proposed a hike in the maximum penalties an automaker was subject to from $15 million to $300 million if they fail to issue a recall. The draft also included new grants to fund alcohol ignition interlocks for DWI convicted drivers. The bill also required dealers to repair any recalls on used cars before selling them.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
This is garbage.
By mdogs444 on 5/9/2011 7:27:54 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The bill outlines a plan to charge vehicles based on the number of miles they driven. The proposal is apparently a grab by the government to help states recover some of the lost funds due to the adoption of EVs and hybrids that burn less fuel and make less tax revenue for states.

I'm skeptical of all this. Are they going to bill you by the total miles driven - even though some of those miles may be driving on your own land (think farmers!), or private parking lots (not funded by any governments), etc? What other info will they start tracking - perhaps issuing speeding tickets based on miles driven and how fast you got from point A to point B?

quote:
The draft also included new grants to fund alcohol ignition interlocks for DWI convicted drivers.

Instead of taxing drivers to pay for stupid stuff like this for people who are breaking the law, why not just suspend their licenses for longer terms or indefinitely? You can't keep them from driving someone else's car, and you certainly shouldn't be taxing law abiding drivers to fund this. These DWI people should have to foot the bill themselves.




RE: This is garbage.
By FITCamaro on 5/9/2011 7:46:54 AM , Rating: 2
My brother had one of these put on his car as part of his deal to not go to jail when he was arrested for DUI.

He had to pay the costs of installing it as well as $100/month to rent the device.

So I don't know what that grant would be for. Maybe a common interface that all the devices would use between brands. But isn't that just what OBD2 is for?


RE: This is garbage.
By Hiawa23 on 5/9/2011 8:14:46 AM , Rating: 2
It says part of the plan is to get drivers to buy hybrids. What about those of us who have newer cars, that can't afford to buy anymore vehicles? I have a 1997 Honda Civic which gets about 30mpg, a 2006 Mitsu Lancer Ralliart, which gets somewhere in the 20s, & for the majority of Americans, our only option is gasoline, so as far as I am concerned our government officials should be seeking alternative sources but also finding ways to get our gas prices down right now, cause our cars only run on gas, & thanks to the economic downturn, aint buying any newer cars. Looks like alot of us are just screwed, & I blame our government who have had decades to atleast try to prduce more of our own oil, but blame fixes nothing, how the hell do you get gas prices down cause for most of us the higher prices are eating up what little extra money we had left over at the end of each month. I have started dipping into my 401k to makeup shortfalls I now have thanks to fuel increases & cost of life increases, but no pay increase, & have taken out a forbearance on my student loan. The job market is terrible right now even if you have a degree like alot of us.


RE: This is garbage.
By mdogs444 on 5/9/2011 8:26:00 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. The funny thing is that this whole plan came to fruition as a direct result of their policy promoting hybrid cars....another unintended boondoggle consequence of government regulation.

I drive an 09 Grand Cherokee. I don't get very good mileage, but I knew that going in when I bought it. Seeing as how it takes me more fuel to get to the same place as someone with a hyrbid, I'm already paying more in road taxes than they are - and I don't really buy the argument that a mid sized SUV does that much more damage to the roads than a mid sized car. It's not exactly a tractor/trailer.


RE: This is garbage.
By phantom505 on 5/9/11, Rating: 0
RE: This is garbage.
By Kiffberet on 5/9/11, Rating: 0
RE: This is garbage.
By Lord 666 on 5/9/2011 8:58:17 AM , Rating: 2
The proposal actually has vision since it assumes that EVs will become more popular in the near future. In order to offset the taxable income loss by petrol sales, taxing the mileage will only impact drivers.

This is in comparison to increasing electrical tax (fuel for EVs) when not everyone has an electric car nor wants to pay even more for electrical.

People are taxed usage of roads in NJ. We have a thing called tolls on our roads and have some of the lowest gas prices around.


RE: This is garbage.
By JediJeb on 5/9/2011 10:16:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
People are taxed usage of roads in NJ. We have a thing called tolls on our roads and have some of the lowest gas prices around.


But do you pay tolls for traveling through cities and suburbs and back country roads? All these roads need upkeep too.

A mileage tax would be the most fair tax to levy but finding a good way to do it is what is hard. We wouldn't want GPS tracking as that would be invasive to our privacy, and simple odometer readings can be faked if someone really tries at it, though it is getting harder as the cars become more computerized. The biggest problem though is that if they did use the mileage tax, they would also keep the fuel tax as well and everyone except EV users would be paying double taxes for road usage, because you know the government never removes a tax when it is no longer needed.


RE: This is garbage.
By mdogs444 on 5/9/2011 10:22:00 AM , Rating: 1
Not only that, but what about the miles driven that are not on roads maintained by local/state/federal governments? Your own driveway, parking lots, your own land (farmers), etc. These would all be included in the total mileage being taxed, but should not be.


RE: This is garbage.
By JonB on 5/9/2011 10:44:27 AM , Rating: 1
What about the miles you drive in your dreams? I'm sure it is more than you drive on "your own driveway."

Farm vehicles have farm plates and already get significant tax breaks.

Don't just make up scenarios.


RE: This is garbage.
By mdogs444 on 5/9/2011 10:48:26 AM , Rating: 1
Sounds like you're just making up excuses to get people to pay more money.


RE: This is garbage.
By JediJeb on 5/9/2011 2:24:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What about the miles you drive in your dreams? I'm sure it is more than you drive on "your own driveway."


My father's driveway is over a mile long, so driving to work every day would add two miles per day which would equal 520 miles per year, so that would be significant. And the restrictions on farm plates also mean that many farmers don't use them because legally you can not be more than 150 miles from your farm while using a farm plate(at least here in Ky).


RE: This is garbage.
By Netscorer on 5/9/2011 3:53:07 PM , Rating: 3
Well,

you farther already pays the tax on that 'local' mileage as his car needs gas to drive on it just like on any other road. So there will be no difference for your farther, won't it?

I think mileage tax is the most fare as it directly represents the taxation reason: to maintain roads. And the rate can be adjusted based on the type of the vehicle, so that 18-wheeler pays more then a motor bike and drivers in Hammers pay more then the ones in Prius.


RE: This is garbage.
By foolsgambit11 on 5/9/2011 6:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
Or, you could just increase the current per gallon gas tax - it requires no intrusion into people's lives to implement, and also takes into account the type of vehicle, since heavier vehicles generally use more gas than lighter ones. And unlike a mileage tax, which would hit you all at once when your mileage over a period of time (a month? a year?) was calculated, a gasoline tax allows people to pay as they go, and thus only buy what they know they can afford.

So what are the downsides to this, assuming we agree that the government needs to collect the money one way or another, and it is used exclusively for the maintenance and improvement of public roadways? Discuss.


RE: This is garbage.
By beerhound on 5/9/2011 9:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
The point of this is to be able to collect tax on vehicles that aren't running on gas or diesel at all or the hybrids that only burn them part time.

The recent stories of some Volt owners going 1000+ miles between fill ups come to mind. For me to go 1000 miles will take 3 fill ups. I am paying 3 times as much tax to maintain the roads as those Volt owners. Straight electric cars are paying no tax at all.

I don't see this being as convenient to collect. The gas tax is a "pay as you go" system with the tax collected each time you pump gas. The tax per mile system would probably be collected based on odometer readings each time you registered your car.


RE: This is garbage.
By foolsgambit11 on 5/10/2011 5:10:56 AM , Rating: 2
Good point. I hadn't thought that through. The quick solution is to use odometer readings only for cars that can be plugged in. But then, people will have to save receipts for gas to deduct that tax from their odometer tax, unless they want to get double-taxed on miles driven. So maybe a universal mileage tax is the best answer in the long run.

And doing the math, I guess the all-at-once bill wouldn't really be that much. Currently, gas taxes average around 50 cents a gallon (state and federal combined), and if we assume about 12,000 miles driven, which is the generally accepted average, with a 50 gallon equivalence set between electric and gas, that's a $120 tax all at once. And if the government incentivizes electric, and makes it a 100 gallon equivalence, that's only $60. And somebody who can afford an electric car can afford an extra $75 or $150 a year, most likely.

But then, since the government can't lose money, if they go to a universal odometer tax (exclusively), then they'll have to average about 50 cents per 22 miles driven, since that's the average MPG of cars and light trucks sold these days. And that puts the mean bill at about $273. And that could be a burden all at once to the lower classes. It's a tough call.


RE: This is garbage.
By Calin on 5/10/2011 3:07:14 AM , Rating: 2
Driving on toll roads? Driving simply over land, if you have a car/truck capable of it?


RE: This is garbage.
By Lord 666 on 5/9/2011 1:08:12 PM , Rating: 2
Non-NJ people have a common joke they ask us from NJ; "What exit?" The Garden State Parkway and the NJ Turnpike are cash cows that have been long paid off since they are highly traveled.

Sure, this doesn't account for non-highway usage, but its a start.

No, I am not suggesting adding another tax, but surprised that no one here has argued that the gas tax has not changed even though all petrol is now 10% ethanol and the possibility of 15%. Well, it's less fuel per volume producing worse fuel economy not to mention ethanol is highly subsidized by tax payer money. The tax should be on a sliding scale of efficiency with less tax on more efficient fuel/cars.

Disclaimer - I own a diesel so I am sort of biased.


RE: This is garbage.
By Hiawa23 on 5/9/2011 9:06:01 AM , Rating: 1
gas has been taxed, it's now $4, & cost me an extra $60-plus/month. That is a tax, especially with the increase in living, & pay hasn't adjusted to offset these higher costs, so it's panick mode for lot of families.


RE: This is garbage.
By mdogs444 on 5/9/2011 9:12:34 AM , Rating: 3
Just wait and see what happens when they start taxing trucking companies by the mile. Hello $10 box of cereal that only contains half the amount of product as before.


RE: This is garbage.
By Sael on 5/9/2011 10:35:25 AM , Rating: 5
Well let's think about this...

Oil's taxed when it comes into the country and eventually purchased by a company.

The company produces various products from said oil which are then taxed using various equipment that was taxed that aided in the production process.

The truckers that transport the gas/by products are taxed upon purchase and have to pay taxes on the gas they use to transport said by products.

The gas transported to stations is then taxed to consumers.

Now they wish for cars to be taxed based upon mileage since a portion of the country is attempting to go "green" and avoid using gas.

I'm seeing an obvious pattern here... maybe the problem isn't with lack of taxes, but lack of oversight on how said taxes are used. Are they being used properly? Doubtful.


RE: This is garbage.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/11, Rating: 0
RE: This is garbage.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2011 1:14:15 PM , Rating: 1
edit: GOING to pay for it, err.


RE: This is garbage.
By YashBudini on 5/9/2011 7:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
maybe the problem isn't with lack of taxes, but lack of oversight on how said taxes are used.

The first step is to see where the money lands. Is it sent to the Dept of Transportation or does it end up in the general (slush) fund?

I don't think you need 3 guesses to figure out the answer.


RE: This is garbage.
By Wolfpup on 5/10/2011 10:55:41 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the only issue is of course that the reason roads (and everything else) are having issues, are that we're no longer getting much revenue from businesses...and of course as much as libertarians pretend otherwise, their precious businesses could not function without the road system (and contract enforcement, and police, and...)


RE: This is garbage.
By Lord 666 on 5/9/2011 8:41:31 AM , Rating: 2
The new Cherokees are much nicer. But considering how fast you go through cars (where did that tahoe go?), won't be long before its gets swapped out.

New Durango?


RE: This is garbage.
By mdogs444 on 5/9/2011 9:02:24 AM , Rating: 2
Got rid of the Tahoe when I went through a nasty split with the ex. I am not a Chrysler fan by any means, but I bought this because I got such a great deal on it - about $14k under sticker new. I drive alot - I have 42k on it in 24 months. Its been quite reliable.

No plans to trade in or buy anything else right now. I've been bitten by the bug of buying up cheap foreclosed on properties and turning them into rental income, so thats where my disposable income goes lol.


RE: This is garbage.
By Lord 666 on 5/9/2011 9:23:20 AM , Rating: 2
Slumdogs444 ;)

Don't forget to get your own TV show like that Canadian


RE: This is garbage.
By mdogs444 on 5/9/2011 9:36:49 AM , Rating: 2
Which Canadian is that? Is it an HGTV show or something?


RE: This is garbage.
By michael67 on 5/9/11, Rating: 0
RE: This is garbage.
By mdogs444 on 5/9/2011 9:26:07 AM , Rating: 2
I'm all free market and don't like people who put down the rich in class warfare.

With that being said, I'm certain that anyone who drives $40k Lexus (and considers another Lexus a downgrade) while still having $80,000 sports cars doesn't really care about the cost of gasoline to begin with.

Therefore, you're advocating for it from a social perspective, not a real world perspective.


RE: This is garbage.
By michael67 on 5/10/2011 8:37:34 AM , Rating: 1
That's not what I am saying.

I am saying that as a government, if you want people to drive more efficient cars, the best way to do that, is to tax petrol more and more.

And if you say it has anything to do with class warfare, in my case you could be not further from the truth.

I work in the Oil&Gas as a piping supervisor, but believe that we should also preserve as mouths of the oil for later generations, as energy consumption all over the world is increasing as it will have two consequentness.
1. there will be more conflicts over energy every year.
2. later generations (my (grand)kids) will have less energy to use and will be in more conflicts then I was.
I all ready don't like the way the world is changing from when I was a kid, and more strain on resources will only accelerate that process more

So if me driving fuel efficient cars help in that way I am all up for it and if it also helps my wallet all the better.

And for those $80K cars, I paid for the both of them about $10K and a other +15K for spare parts, and far more then 500 hours in restoration time for the XJS, and about 300 for fixing the Skyline, as I both got them far from mint condition.


RE: This is garbage.
By VahnTitrio on 5/9/2011 10:57:55 AM , Rating: 2
Not only that, but this tax plan also works on the assumption that your Toyota Prius does as much damage to a road as a Ford F-350 towing a 5th wheeler (at least based on the logic they are using here in MN). And of course this completely omits the fact that the vast majority of road damage up here is due to the weather, not wear and tear from vehicle traffic.


RE: This is garbage.
By Samus on 5/9/2011 2:58:59 PM , Rating: 1
Although this type of bill will never pass (in our lifetime) as the invasive technology required to monitor mileage is constitutionally illegal (milage is not monitored for safety or environmental reasons) I do agree with the OP that tracking fair-use milage on roadways is impossible without accurate GPS tracking, which is also a violation of your constitutional rights (see Apple tracking lawsuit.)

For example, I drive a full MILE up and around my parking garage everytime I enter and leave my condo. 600 ft verticle, eight 400 ft stretches and two 800 ft stretches. I already pay $200 a month to park here to begin with, and there'd be no way to accurately detect how much milage I'm doing in the building anyway with GPS or GPRS.

Another example is the 75 miles I put on my car every other weekend autocrossing.


RE: This is garbage.
By drycrust3 on 5/9/2011 4:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are they going to bill you by the total miles driven - even though some of those miles may be driving on your own land (think farmers!), or private parking lots (not funded by any governments), etc?

Yes, that is correct, and if you are towing a trailer or two then they will probably be taxed separately as well, regardless of whether they are actually carrying a load or not.
We have this sort of thing in New Zealand (where I live) on all Heavy Transport vehicles. It is called a "hubometer" and is attached to one of the rear wheels (covers less distance) of a heavy vehicle (light vehicles are allowed to use their odometer). Trailers are considered a separate vehicle as well, at least as far as the tax people are concerned anyway, so a "tractor unit" towing two trailers is paying the government three times.
The units seem to fail somewhere between 300,000 km and just over 600,000 km depending upon the brand, so they have to be replaced regularly. For example, in a fleet of 100 urban buses (what I drive) you might need to replace one every week or two. For a large fleet of long haul vehicles the failure rate would be higher.
That is the downside. There is just one "upside" to all this, which is sometimes the need for accuracy tests on these things is forgotten in the rush for insuring vehicle safety. If, hypothetically, a mistake was made during installation, so, for example, the distance recorded was accidentally less than what was actually covered, then it may be quite a long time before anyone realises the government is getting less than what they should.


Minnesota
By therealnickdanger on 5/9/2011 7:34:47 AM , Rating: 2
We may be paying a mileage tax here very soon. Polling and studies show that most Minnesotans are in favor of it as long as the funds go to roads .

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/mileagebaseduserfee/ind...




RE: Minnesota
By Targon on 5/9/2011 8:14:39 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that "lawmakers" tend to be stupid about the way laws are implemented. We already pay taxes on gas, so in addition to that, they want us to pay an additional tax on how many miles we drive. If your job is 50 miles from where you live, you end up paying a lot just to commute to a job that may not even pay very well in the first place.

Then you have those who run their own businesses that actually go to the home, such as plumbers and electricians, contractors, and many other businesses that would suddenly need to either add a new fee, or eat that and lose income, which is already down due to the poor economy.

Unless they want to make those who are in business exempt from this, it's just a way to hurt the economy even more, at a time when the economy needs to be given a chance to recover. When gas costs $4.40+ per gallon for regular already, that is already causing problems since people are paying more for EVERYTHING as a result, and that increase in the cost of living is taking away from the available "disposable" income that people have.


RE: Minnesota
By chick0n on 5/9/2011 8:46:02 AM , Rating: 2
you think they(the lawmakers) seriously give a shit about you? you gotta pay extra? you can't feed your families? you can't afford more taxes? oh well, they will say SUCKS TO BE YOU! then he/she will just turn around and throw a party with the lobbying ppl and accept their "donations" :)


RE: Minnesota
By Hiawa23 on 5/9/2011 9:13:04 AM , Rating: 2
you think they(the lawmakers) seriously give a shit about you? you gotta pay extra? you can't feed your families? you can't afford more taxes? oh well, they will say SUCKS TO BE YOU! then he/she will just turn around and throw a party with the lobbying ppl and accept their "donations" :)

They sure don't give a rats ass about the struggle the working middle or poor class has.


RE: Minnesota
By Hiawa23 on 5/9/2011 9:10:27 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that "lawmakers" tend to be stupid about the way laws are implemented. We already pay taxes on gas, so in addition to that, they want us to pay an additional tax on how many miles we drive. If your job is 50 miles from where you live, you end up paying a lot just to commute to a job that may not even pay very well in the first place.

My round trip each day is 56miles, I think what many are trying to sya is you or anyone in a similiar situation is just screwed. No sense whining about it. There is no fix coming.


RE: Minnesota
By Dr of crap on 5/9/2011 8:44:53 AM , Rating: 1
Sorry, I live in MN, and I know of no study or know of no one that would be in favor of such a thing.

These reports about studies being done are always a bit shaky. Do you believe everything the DOT tells you?

And while I'm on the subject - HOW many lost gallons are we talking about? There are less than 1% hybrid and EV on the road right now. How can there possibly be any noticable loss of gas tax at this time!
Kind of jumping the gun aren't we? The sales figures for the LEaf and the Volt are not run away hits YET!


RE: Minnesota
By therealnickdanger on 5/9/2011 9:13:42 AM , Rating: 3
LOL

Did you even read the studies in the attached link? Like everything else in the world, they rely on random sampling phone surveys to gauge public perception. Put away your foil hat.


RE: Minnesota
By Dr of crap on 5/9/11, Rating: 0
Must be fair
By ctodd on 5/9/2011 8:06:34 AM , Rating: 2
I'm okay with p/mile as long as it is fair to all motorist and the cost doesn't far exceed what I'm already paying in fuel tax. Now if I am taxed higher than EV drivers and treated like a second class citizen then no, I am not okay with it.




RE: Must be fair
By mmatis on 5/9/2011 8:44:01 AM , Rating: 1
Oh, there is obviously NO chance that you will be "taxed higher than EV drivers and treated like a second class citizen."

I mean, this is FedGov that we are talking about.

What IS that stench? Sure smells like pig to me!


RE: Must be fair
By JediJeb on 5/9/2011 10:26:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now if I am taxed higher than EV drivers and treated like a second class citizen then no, I am not okay with it.


You will be since they most likely will also keep the fuel taxes in place so you will pay per mile and per gallon. Just the way the government works. I imagine that once everyone has changed over to electric and there are no more gasoline sales the gasoline tax won't be removed for another 50 years.


Bogus Taxation scheme
By randomly on 5/9/2011 8:46:21 AM , Rating: 4
This is just a bogus taxation money grab.

EV's are such a small percentage of vehicles, and will continue to be a small percentage of vehicles that they make no impact on overall gas consumption and thus taxes.
The only real reduction in gas consumption is coming from increased mileage of the entire light vehicle fleet.

If anything it would seem that just adjusting the gas taxes to match up road work expenses to gas consumption would be more effective overall. Any increase in gas prices will also have the economic tendency to push people toward more efficient vehicles, hybrids, and EVs. Which is exactly the transition that you really want to push (although not so fast that it damages the economy).

Taxing mileage is a disincentive to improving vehicle efficiency.




2 problems
By lowsidex2 on 5/9/2011 9:54:23 AM , Rating: 2
1. how do you do a pay as you go method like gas tax? Easiest thing for government is to get mileage when you re-register then you get a huge bill.

2. a mileage tax is fine if they eliminated the gas tax but we all know they won't. Once government has a money stream they won't give it up. Same issue is being fought in aviation. Government wants user fees but they won't give up the gas tax either.




By rika13 on 5/9/2011 10:24:14 AM , Rating: 2
1. get people to drive hybrids which get slightly better mileage, but are not competitive in any other respect

2. prevent any actual oil production (dems killed off drilling in ANWAR and offshore) to keep gas prices high

3. cut the gas like it's cocaine with ethanol when people complain about gas prices (which also raises food prices)

4. let states whine about not getting tax cash (so they want to tax the people)

5. tax the crap out of everyone, ESPECIALLY the poor (dems can't sell their socialist crap to people who don't need it)




User Tax?
By Shuxclams on 5/9/2011 11:30:58 AM , Rating: 2
From what I've read this was an idea floated to replace the current Tax levied against a gallon of gas in favor of a 'user tax'. Seems to me so many people want a fair tax system... user taxes and flat taxes make plenty of sense to me, but I guess people still like paying a percentage per a gallon of gas bought.




By YashBudini on 5/9/2011 6:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
Let's tax Chinese goods by the mile, so people can start taking local goods more seriously.

Meanwhile the good folks over at Road & Track can teach us how to drive our cars in reverse 50% of the time.

Not surprisingly "drive by wire" is ever increasingly becoming "colonoscopy by wire."




Rip-Off
By Raiders12 on 5/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: Rip-Off
By mdogs444 on 5/9/2011 8:10:54 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Tax sugar/fast food. Curb obesity, and make money off those who indulge in horrific eating habits.

You see it as killing two birds with one stone, however, I see it is theft and manipulation. Part of a free society, to some like me, believe that government should not use taxation as a method to control behavior and promote social agendas.

People should be free to make the good and bad choices in life on their own. They don't need the nanny state to corral them into cages in order to only be able to do certain things and keep them from others. Many will come out (in terms of your example) and say that fat people are driving up their health care costs because we make them get on the insurance plans. However, I would say that government regulation in the first place is the root cause - why should a company be forced to insure someone? It's like making banks give out home loans (yes, so that program that contributed to the current financial crisis) which resulted in banks loaning money to people they knew would not pay it back. Why should we be forced to give emergency room help to everyone regardless of ability to pay or legal status? Is it morally correct? Perhaps. But the governments job is not to instill morals into the people, but to protect the people. If we didn't allow people free access to ER's, would they be more likely to take better care of themselves? Or should we keep churning out social programs like an assembly line, and just increase taxes every time that we find out they cost 10x more than originally planned? Should we just keep extending welfare and unemployment checks opened ended out of good morals? If your answer is yes, then I assume you didnt notice how the unemployment rate went up from 8.8% to 9.0% even though we added 244,000 jobs. This is because NOW those people have to actually look for jobs instead of collecting a check.

Freedom does not mean giving things away for free and it does not mean you're free from consequences.

For every good intention, there are several unintended consequences that force more regulation...and the cycle keeps going.


RE: Rip-Off
By Hiawa23 on 5/9/2011 8:21:45 AM , Rating: 1
Tax sugar/fast food. Curb obesity, and make money off those who indulge in horrific eating habits.

You guys are hilarious. In one breath you say we have a free market, then you say something like tax fast food, or whatever. I thought in a free society you should be free to drink, eat, smoke you way into oblivion. Many say in a free society you should be free to make & take responsibility for your life, but what I find this means is you are free to do what you want but the government should tax or ban whatever bad behavior that the poster, government official is trying to argue against, like abortion. Freaking hypocrite is what most folks are. This is not a free society, especially how the oil game is rigged to screw over most of by the few. It's no wonder te middle class is getting poorer but the small top percentile continues to increase wealth.


RE: Rip-Off
By mdogs444 on 5/9/2011 8:38:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In one breath you say we have a free market, then you say something like tax fast food, or whatever. I thought in a free society you should be free to drink, eat, smoke you way into oblivion.

I assume you're referring to the OP, not me? I certainly wouldn't favor government regulation of hardly any kind.
quote:
This is not a free society, especially how the oil game is rigged to screw over most of by the few.

Thats exactly correct. But its not rigged by the oil companies as most would say. The real rigging is done at the US government level. They purposely put holds on drilling permits, use the EPA and all other government agencies to find ways against getting our oil, shale, and coal, and then use other methods like declaring wildlife sanctuaries and endangered species provisions to band them even further. We all know OPEC does not operate as a free market - they are a cartel and they know that they have the power to do as they wish.
quote:
It's no wonder te middle class is getting poorer but the small top percentile continues to increase wealth.
Well its not quite as simple as the way you put it. There are many reasons for it outside of a lop-sided amount of wealthy people. The ever decreasing high school graduation rate, the ever expanding number of people content on government assistance like welfare, long term unemployment, section 8 housing, free cell phones, food stamps, and the list goes on. What incentive are we giving people to WANT to get a better education and increase their own personal wealth if we're just coming up with more and more programs allowing them to "get by" with just doing the minimum?

I'm not rich by any means, neither is my family. In fact, my father and grandfathers were all blue collar guys - firemen and union carpenters. But they also worked hard, more than one job, and didn't spend money on frivolous items like drunken sailors. All these large corporations that now have large boards and shareholders have wealthy people running them who inherited much of their wealth. However, the person who started these companies and got rich had to put in lots of work and hardship - most likely wagering all the money had in their own pockets, borrowed money, and who knows what else - just to get off the ground. They took the risk, and should be awarded their rewards.

It really irks me when people complain about investors making money in the stock market like Warren Buffet - pointing to his tax rate that is lower than the combined tax rate of standard working class. However, what everyone always leaves out is the risk portion. What happens if those stocks crash or the company goes bankrupt? They lose their money with no reimbursement. If people want to complain about investors making money, then perhaps those same people should be willing to walk the line themselves by reimbursing for a percentage of said losses?


RE: Rip-Off
By Hiawa23 on 5/9/2011 8:45:38 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with everything you said, but for those with a degree or degrees, it's getting tough to move ahead. For those who drop out of school or don't pursue some sort of higher learning I think it's almost a given that the opportunity to increase wealth is less, especially if you don't have some sort of other skill. All the reasons you gave for reasons for the middle class going south, doesn't affect me since I don't use any of the nanny stuff, & the people I know are the people who goes to work everyday. The working poor is what I call this group. The group you mentioned to me is not the middle class, but the lower class. I also blame our government, we need to drill everywhere we can, while searching for alternatives.


RE: Rip-Off
By Lord 666 on 5/9/2011 8:46:35 AM , Rating: 1
You do know that board members are uncompensated, right?

Most boards actually require a fee to participate and/or to generate fundraisers of some sort. Not like bake sales, but through charitable events, donations, and political favors.

Going to assume we both agree that Warren is the man.


RE: Rip-Off
By mdogs444 on 5/9/2011 9:08:06 AM , Rating: 2
Of course, but I'm just making overly simplistic justifications. Board members, in my understanding, are usually high percentage share holders in the company - such as a founders relative who inherited much of the stock through the years.


RE: Rip-Off
By Krotchrot on 5/9/2011 9:50:45 AM , Rating: 2
In what world are the members of the Board of Directors not paid? They are paid very well.


RE: Rip-Off
By sorry dog on 5/10/2011 10:27:22 AM , Rating: 2
to add to th

being a board member is often a reward job or golden parachute as they are usually well compensated while few demands are placed on their time as board meetings are not an everyday or even weekly thing.

One of my professors in MBA school made a profession out of being a board member as he was usually on 5-8 boards at any given time with each one paying at least 40k a year depending on the size of the company. One paid him 200k.

And about the risk/reward and taxes thing with the shareholders/owners taking bigger risks.... well maybe that's the way it was or should be, but I think most would agree that that system is somewhat corrupted now as taxpayers are increasingly shouldering the risk component of corporations.

Maybe the bank bailout was a evil necessity but all stock issues should have been cancelled, and top managers shown the door once affairs where in order...not given taxpayer based bonuses for profits that didn't exist outside of paper it was printed on.


RE: Rip-Off
By Raiders12 on 5/9/2011 9:22:11 AM , Rating: 3
LOL, free society. Yes a free society where everyone elses rash and reckless habits affect you and me. Smokers and obese people purposefully lead unhealthy lives which directly jacks of medical insurance and medical prices for them perpetuating their unhealthy lifestyle. Once you start affecting everyone else, it becomes the Govts issue to maintain and correct. They are here to protect the rights of individuals, not allow people to be negligent and pass costs off to people who actually care.


RE: Rip-Off
By 91TTZ on 5/9/2011 10:08:36 AM , Rating: 2
You have a flawed viewpoint. While you're correct that other people's actions do indirectly affect you, you cannot use that as reason to directly control people and limit their freedoms.

I can prove that eating meat causes health problems. Does that mean that I should be able to prevent you from eating a steak? What about playing sports? They cause injuries. Should I prevent others from playing sports?


RE: Rip-Off
By Kurz on 5/9/2011 12:36:30 PM , Rating: 2
Well those unhealthy people should be forced to be pay higher premiums. Though the current laws don't allow that to happen.


RE: Rip-Off
By JediJeb on 5/9/2011 2:16:42 PM , Rating: 3
If everyone had to pay for their own health care then those who are living unhealthy lifestyles would then be paying their fair share. Government should only be there to make sure everyone has the right to access health care, not to grant it to them at others expenses.

Make health care more affordable for all by reducing the layers of complication that were added with Medicare, turning malpractice into a criminal instead of civil cases to eliminate the need for malpractice insurance and make hospitals non profit entities where all profits must be put into upgrading the hospital or funding indigent care. These steps alone would probably reduce the cost of health care 50%. Think about a simple doctor's office call cost. If a doctor can see 4 patients per hour and works eight hours a day that is 24 patients he will see each day. Now figure in he has to pay for his salary, a nurse's salary and a receptionist salary. The doctor makes $100,000 per year, the nurse makes $50,000 per year and the receptionist makes $25,000 per year. That means if working eight hours per day five days a week the doctor needs to make $385 per day to cover his salary, $192.50 to cover his nurse's salary and $96.25 to cover the receptionist. That is $673.75 per day just to cover the three salaries which comes down to $28.07 per patient if he sees 24 per day. Now add in two more administrative people to cover the Medicare paperwork and another to cover the insurance paperwork at the same salary as a receptionist and that raises the price per patient per day to $40.10, almost doubling the cost of doing business. Add in malpractice insurance, and all the other fees and hoops to jump through involving current insurance, Medicaid, working in a hospital that needs to turn a profit to make investors happy, ect and the cost skyrockets. Paying health insurance, social security, unemployment insurance, wage taxes and other taxes and fees required by the government and no wonder health care is unaffordable now.

If we had smaller less intrusive government then the cost of everything would fall and we would have little need for taking money from one group of people to pay for the things other groups need. Making everything cost less would be like giving everyone a raise, that alone would help the economy. But what is the government wanting to do now, expand its influence and control by adding even more layers of waste causing everything to cost more and essentially causing everyone to take pay cuts while our salaries remain the same.


RE: Rip-Off
By Kiffberet on 5/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: Rip-Off
By mdogs444 on 5/9/2011 8:49:26 AM , Rating: 3
Seeing as how we didn't have taxation when the founders created this wonderful government - I assume you'd refer to all of the signers of the Declaration and Bill of Rights as...."Anarchists".


RE: Rip-Off
By blueeyesm on 5/9/11, Rating: 0
RE: Rip-Off
By mdogs444 on 5/9/2011 9:32:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
why isn't the U.S. government providing bills (instead of tax breaks) insisting that the companies who own and/or operate and/or franchise out gas stations also add charging stations to their locations?

Forcing companies to spend ridiculous amounts of money to build charging stations that no one will use? And where will that money come from? Perhaps jacking up the prices of gasoline when actual gas stations only make a few pennies per gallon to begin with. I hope you understand that just because a station has a sign that reads BP, Shell, or Exxon that they are independently owned and the owner pays franchise fees. Furthermore, most gas stations have a very small foot print...so where are you going to put these stations so that cars can sit around and take up valuable parking space for hours on end? And people wonder why everything gets more expensive - because people like you advocate for private companies to have to spend money on frivolous items that the market does not support on its own.

quote:
why not have EV meters at peoples homes to bill them monthly for EV use?

Why not just allow the people who want to buy an EV car to pay for the meter themselves in their own home?


RE: Rip-Off
By 91TTZ on 5/9/2011 10:32:22 AM , Rating: 2
It sounds like you're willing to give the government a blank check as long as they're doing what you want. I don't detect much objectivity.


RE: Rip-Off
By phantom505 on 5/9/11, Rating: 0
RE: Rip-Off
By mdogs444 on 5/9/2011 8:57:03 AM , Rating: 3
Of course we would, don't be so obtuse. The real "fantasy world" is those who actually think that everybody wants to be in the "collective".

Libertarians actually believe the government should operate as it was created and intended, not as it has been distorted and changed. I'm not a full libertarian - as I believe that there are certain taxes that should be paid and benefit all people in this country - such as taxation to pay for the country's military, infrastructure, and defense. Not for welfare, social programs, entitlements, bridges to nowhere, green agendas, safety nets, etc. I'm a backer of states rights, not a statist. I believe that federal should be responsible for the national security of the country - not passing laws that limit what the states can do, which is exactly what the confederate stood for before history revisionists tried to brand it as some sort of racist ware.

Just think - if those parents who had children in the schools were forced to pay the full way for each child - would it force people to think twice about being responsible parents and think about how many children they are having? Obviously, the poor do not care as they don't pay for anything anyway - yes, the wonderful mindset of them instilled by the federal governments social safety net and entitlement programs. The mindset created by the things you advocate for.


RE: Rip-Off
By 91TTZ on 5/9/2011 10:42:26 AM , Rating: 2
That isn't what our government was made to be. Ours was never created to be a socialist nanny state that hands out entitlements.


RE: Rip-Off
By Solandri on 5/9/2011 12:03:41 PM , Rating: 4
I'm reluctant to post this since I pretty much agree with everything else you say. However, this is common misconception which warrants clearing up.

quote:
Part of a free society, to some like me, believe that government should not use taxation as a method to control behavior and promote social agendas.

Actually, that is exactly what a government is for. The libertarian viewpoint, that systems arrive at their most efficient solution when left to their own devices without outside interference, is true in most cases. But there are a handful of cases where it leads to the most inefficient solution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_common...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

Probably the simplest example is overfishing. Left to their own devices, each fisherman will seek to maximize his income by catching as many fish as he can. At some point the fishery becomes overfished, and begins to become depleted. To maintain catch numbers, the best course of action is to decrease the overall number of fish caught, so all the fisherman agree to limit their catch. But if everyone limits their catch, then the fisherman who exceeds his limit gains a financial advantage over all the others. Each of the individual fishermen realizes this, and thus each exceeds their catch, resulting in the fishery continuing to be depleted. You need an outside authority to set up and enforce the limits in order to maintain the fishery, and prevent everyone's natural behavior from destroying their own productivity.

Essentially, all reasons for forming government stem from trying to deal with these types of situations. Government's entire reason for existing is to use devices like taxation as a method to control behavior and promote specific social agendas - to steer people away from making the "wrong" choice in these types of situations.

The problem is, politics has become so polarized that this distinction is lost among many people. Some now believe that everything is better off with the government in charge. Some believe nothing is better off with the government involved. The reality is that some situations are better off without the government, while other situations are better off with the government.

For this particular case, moving people away from fossil fuels and towards alternatives is one of these cases where government intervention is needed. The benefits of fossil fuels are concentrated on the user while the negatives are shared by society overall. So some type of government intervention is necessary to create an artificial negative borne by the user proportional to the negative it causes for society. A fuel tax is a pretty good way to do this. However, pegging down the right amount of such a tax is rather difficult.


RE: Rip-Off
By YashBudini on 5/10/2011 7:23:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For every good intention, there are several unintended consequences that force more regulation...and the cycle keeps going.

You just described medicine in a nutshell, but we don't seem to be backing off that any.

quote:
it does not mean you're free from consequences.

Many a Harley Rider with no mufflers fails to comprehend that statement, and fight fiercy against it.


RE: Rip-Off
By marvdmartian on 5/9/2011 8:48:43 AM , Rating: 1
Not only do I have a problem with the government fining those who drive more efficient vehicles -- and that's EXACTLY what this is -- but what's next? If everyone stops driving so much, because they can't afford it, and the tax revenue goes down, will they just find another way to tax us, in order to keep the money rolling in?? Guess so, since that's easier than the government learning to live within their means!

Reminds me of my municipal water system. Last time we were in a drought, they harped and harped about conserving water. When everyone did, the town ended up jacking the water rates up, to make up for it! Why? Because when they issued bonds to upgrade the water & waste water systems, years earlier, they did so with the idea that they would make X amount of money selling water.....and when we cut back on the water consumption, they weren't making enough money to pay the bonds!

Face it, the Beatles said it best, when they sang about the Tax Man:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyu5sFzWLk8


RE: Rip-Off
By mdogs444 on 5/9/2011 9:05:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not only do I have a problem with the government fining those who drive more efficient vehicles -- and that's EXACTLY what this is -- but what's next?

Ahh you see, the wonderful government has you by the balls. They are not fining you for driving a more fuel efficient vehicle...they just said you won't buy as much gas...never said you won't pay as much tax.


RE: Rip-Off
By priusone on 5/9/2011 9:30:32 AM , Rating: 2
With an attitude like that mister, how do you expect the government to stay in business. What, do you think they shouldn't be allowed to tax EVERYTHING in life? Heck, they even have a death tax.


RE: Rip-Off
By mdogs444 on 5/9/2011 9:34:25 AM , Rating: 2
And are actively trying to pursue a "life tax", by taxing CO2, which affects every living thing.


"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki