^^To tke

Oh i totally agree with you


Solar energy is the way to go



[Edited on October 27, 2008 at 9:44 PM. Reason : asdf]

10/27/2008 9:44:11 PM

^^ To frog:

You have failed to elaborate on how this would be disastrous other than just saying that it would be. I felt like my posts on benefits/costs to society was fairly well thought out and you haven't really addressed that.

10/27/2008 9:46:30 PM

What do you call the entire thing I wrote about Mr. Joe Schmoe Kites for Power LLC?

You are calling for the government to pick winners and losers (by funding a select group of companies), which is patently disastrous. I know you're arguing for some kind of 'initial capital' which will allow the production cycle to pick up steam and then fly on it's own, if you will. I'm claiming that the free market will accomplish the same thing, and do so better and quicker if we can just assure there is a market (for wind power, batteries, etc) in so many years by having a clear policy of punishing polluting power sources.

10/27/2008 9:54:48 PM

Quote :

"I think it's supposed to debut in 2010, but I was referring more to increasing production. No model starts off at full production capacity right from the start. They debut it, take in some revenue, then expand the production capability. I was saying use subsidies to expand the production from the get-go."

Yes, it'll be out in 2010. What that means exactly I don't know b/c 2009 models started coming out months ago. As far as production, yes it'll take a little time to ramp up production but for expected large volume models its usually pretty high to start with unless there's some engineering hurdle in the way. When Toyota or Honda comes out with a new Camry or Accord its not in short supply. I realize its not an exact comparison, but you know what I mean.

10/27/2008 10:02:56 PM

Quote :

"What do you call the entire thing I wrote about Mr. Joe Schmoe Kites for Power LLC?"

I told you I had no idea what you were talking about in that post.

Quote :

"You are calling for the government to pick winners and losers (by funding a select group of companies), which is patently disastrous. I know you're arguing for some kind of 'initial capital' which will allow the production cycle to pick up steam and then fly on it's own, if you will. I'm claiming that the free market will accomplish the same thing, and do so better and quicker if we can just assure there is a market (for wind power, batteries, etc) in so many years by having a clear policy of punishing polluting power sources."

See, that's where you're wrong. Because if you were right, we'd be much further along by now. But because corporations are only looking out for themselves and not society as a whole, we have achieved very little in implementing alternative energy sources.

Punishing polluting power sources won't achieve the same things though. It's sticks and carrots and you're proposing using only sticks. Sticks create conditions to discourage certain actions. These can be used in order to punish polluters, but they create no positive benefits for performing certain actions. That's where the carrots come in in the form of subsidies. If you can subsidize the cost of production, you artificially speed up production that would otherwise take much longer. It does pick winners and losers, but we've been doing that for years anyway without "the entire failure of our economy" as you put it. Besides, any company that would receive a subsidy would have been in that industry anyway. The government would just be speeding things along.

^ Coming out in 2010 means it'll probably the 2011 model. There's a difference between production of a proven model (Camry, Accord) and a completely new model. Completely new models never start out being produced at their intended levels. Think Prius. It came out years ago, and people definitely buy them. But how many have you actually seen? That's because it takes Toyota a couple years to recoop the costs of R&D before production is increased. Giving them subsidies to cover the costs of R&D in order to allow maximum possible production lowers private costs and increases social benefits. So again I ask, why not do this?

[Edited on October 27, 2008 at 10:12 PM. Reason : ]

10/27/2008 10:07:54 PM

^What the hell are you talking about "sticks and carrots"? Thats not the point of taxes and subsidies at all. The point is to make a more efficient market. Carbon taxes aren't about punishing anyone, they are designed to reflect externalities. You are off in a little communist fantasy-land where everybody is supposed to be working for the common good.

Chevy expects to roll out 10,000 Volts in 2010, and increase production to 50-60,000 by 2011 depending on demand.

Obama has already proposed subsidizing their costs with a $7,500 tax credit on plug-in hybrids. Thats fine; no need to give direct subsidies to businesses, especially big businesses like GM. Hopefully they won't be bankrupt by 2010.


[Edited on October 27, 2008 at 10:16 PM. Reason : 2]

10/27/2008 10:09:46 PM

Thats good, but if that asshole tries to push legislation that taxes vehicles based on carbon emissions then fuck him.

10/27/2008 10:10:47 PM

^ That's essentially what the gas tax does.

10/27/2008 10:13:18 PM

^do you mean current gas tax? B/c I'm talking about European style CO2 emissions taxes, which are in addition to the already absurd gas taxes they pay.

10/27/2008 10:15:22 PM

I don't think that could ever work in America because public transportation is not the same and everyone uses a car.

And alright with the sticks and carrots thing. I was wrong on that. But it's the same concept despite my misuse of the term.

[Edited on October 27, 2008 at 10:17 PM. Reason : ]

10/27/2008 10:16:48 PM

Subsidies are OK in some cases, tax credits for energy-efficient processes, equipment and appliances are probably a good thing too.

But when the government starts "picking winners" and trying to promote one technology or the other as the answer, you open up a whole can of worms that you really don't want to get into.

10/27/2008 10:20:53 PM

^^you honestly don't think a democrat led government is going to push some sort of cost/tax on us directly related to CO2 (continuing to ride the AGW bandwagon)? Even if they don't come up with some tax, vehicle or otherwise on citizens you know they'll do it to companies, which will in turn just shirt the cost to us.

10/27/2008 10:24:01 PM

^^ The can of worms is already open. It's draining the country's wealth. Just because a policy isn't ideal doesn't mean that it shouldn't be implemented. The cost of doing nothing is far greater.

^ Any tax they would enact would simply reflect the true costs on society. In theory, we're already paying for anything they're doing. With a carbon tax, however, the government is able to raise revenue in an effort to negate any of these negative effects.

Also,

Quote :

"You are off in a little communist fantasy-land where everybody is supposed to be working for the common good."

Is working for the common good not a goal that society should strive for? Serious question.

[Edited on October 27, 2008 at 10:30 PM. Reason : ]

10/27/2008 10:25:09 PM

^negate what negative effects? While I agree foreign dependence on oil is a bad thing, punishing people that drive cars is hardly going to make a difference since the majority of oil is used in other forms.

10/27/2008 10:33:11 PM

I guess that only makes sense if you believe carbon emissions are pollution.

10/27/2008 10:35:34 PM

Indeed

10/27/2008 10:37:01 PM

Quote :

"Is working for the common good not a goal that society should strive for? Serious question."

No, I don't believe so. This would really derail the thread to go into it in depth, but a fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism is the belief in individual versus common good. Government should always look after the common good, but we cannot and should not expect businesses or individuals to. Likewise, our government dabbling in R&D should not be taken lightly, as it is a fundamental attack on the free market. You are proposing to use taxpayer dollars to fund certain select industries and technologies. That is an incredibly invasive and heavy-handed tactic that has been proven to have unintended consequences. Your premise is that the market has failed us by not developing alternatives to gasoline. I surmise that the government has failed us by keeping the price of gasoline artificially low for so long, and that this is not a problem that the government can or should try to solve with subsidies.

Yes, we've opened a can of worms by relying on foreign oil for so long. However, allowing bureaucrats to take taxpayer money and throw it at the pet project of their choice in order to "solve our energy problems" is a wholly different and nastier can of worms. The market has shown time and again that if one product becomes too expensive, scarce, dangerous, etc, another product will come along and take it's place. This will be true of energy as well. You just have to have the foresight to create an efficient market with pigovian taxes and faith that it will lead to alternatives rather than trying to intervene with a top-down management system of subsidies and taxes on profits that is proven to be inefficient and prone to corruption.


[Edited on October 27, 2008 at 11:09 PM. Reason : 2]

10/27/2008 11:03:27 PM

bump

more production cuts inc. Apparently they don't like the low gas prices.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/08/news/economy/opec.ap/index.htm

Quote :

"Reasonable prices should range "between $70 and $90 per barrel," said Khelil, who currently holds the rotating presidency of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Oil prices have traded at around $60 a barrel this week. On the New York Mercantile Exchange, light, sweet crude for December settled at $61.04 a barrel on Friday, but the contract dropped below $60 in overnight electronic trading for the first time in 19 months. That was down dramatically from record highs of more than $140 a barrel in July."

We are buying barrels for nearly 1/3rd of what we were buying 4 months ago in july.

11/9/2008 5:48:23 AM

I filled up for 1.97 yesterday in southern VA. I felt like taking a picture of it.


As for the tax, who is the NC official wanting to tax you on mileage? So every year at your inspection they would subtract your mileage from last year then tax it, bc revenues are down with the reduced gas consumption. Unbelievable.

11/9/2008 11:48:06 AM

What is unbelievable about it?

11/9/2008 11:57:03 AM

why should you be charged to use a product YOU own?

So you approve?

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2008 12:33:25 PM

Quote :

"why should you be charged to use a product YOU own?"

Like your house or your car, right?

Looks like you read/heard "democrat doing something" and decided to post about it without even having a position yet. I'm surprised you left the rolleyes out.

Seriously, make your case before waiting for me to give you something to try and pick apart. Waiting on why you think it is unbelievable.

11/9/2008 12:48:37 PM

Honestly hoss?

why should you be charged to use a product YOU own? (as ive just asked)

Then you bring up your HOUSE? Well you DONT get charged on how much you use your house. You get charged a property tax on it.. .just like your car. This wont do away with your car property tax, its ANOTHER tax on the usage of your car..WHICH YOU OWN. Lets say you drive CROSS COUNTRY several times a year.. now those miles wont all be in NC.. but ALL Your taxes will be bc of this stupid ass idea.

Ive explained myself and CLEARLY have a position on it. Honestly, you act like im sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for your opinion. Get over yourself.

Ok, if you support this bullshit bob, why not charge a usage tax on ipods. Ipods use energy too, so we could tax how much you use your ipods to cut down on usage and save energy. OH and the kicker is we all know people need ipods TO GET TO FUCKING WORK. Thats why its unbelievable BOB.

11/9/2008 12:57:43 PM

Quote :

"now those miles wont all be in NC.. but ALL Your taxes will be bc of this stupid ass idea."

This is exactly why I don't bother with guys like you. Simply put, go google about this, and come back with a more informed opinion.

11/9/2008 1:19:45 PM

you don't bother with people who have a better grasp on the topic than you do?

11/9/2008 1:35:06 PM

Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with eyedrb here that this is a terrible idea. And that never happens (me agreeing with eyedrb).

11/9/2008 2:27:19 PM

^^ Congrats, you've revealed you're just as retarded as he is.

For starters, as cars become more and more efficient and use less gas, we have to figure out a way to pay for the same roads that are being driven on. We should also probably figure out a way to tax heavier vehicles and vehicles that are actually using the infrastructure more in a way that is proportionate to their use.

Second, a mileage use tax is being studied through a trial program including 15 states.

Lastly, all the miles you put on your car will not be attributed back to your state as if you drove there. A simple search to see what this "use tax" was all about would have revealed this information. Something that was immediately clear this yoyo didn't do, and apparently not you either.

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 2:28 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2008 2:28:04 PM

The guys name is Nelson Cole, a dem from rockingham county.

And from what I read in the paper, nelson says everything needed is in place to act on this. When you get your car inspected they write down your mileage. the next year they subtract your current from the former and charge a tax on your mileage.

Can you share with me how they would know, from that plan, exactly how many miles were not used in the state of NC bob?

Also in the article good ole nelson said he wanted to raise property taxes to cover any additional funds that might be needed. geez

Here is a good response to the idea from the rock. paper.

"For example, the average family not commuting to work drives one car about 15,000 miles per year, and the VMT is two cents (.02) per mile. That family would have a tax of $300 for that one car. Just think that most families have two or three cars and both parents commute to work. The commuting families would drive about 30,000 miles each for a tax bill of $600 for each car."




http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/rockingham_letters/article/nelson_cole_and_the_vehicle_mileage_tax/7215/

Quote :

""

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 4:07 PM. Reason : ..]

11/9/2008 4:05:01 PM

Quote :

"The guys name is Nelson Cole, a dem from rockingham county. And from what I read in the paper, nelson says everything needed is in place to act on this. When you get your car inspected they write down your mileage. the next year they subtract your current from the former and charge a tax on your mileage. Can you share with me how they would know, from that plan, exactly how many miles were not used in the state of NC bob?"

It seems like Cole was speaking off the cuff without really thinking about the ramifications of what he was saying. There isn't any "plan" that he was speaking of. From what I've read, he just stated VMT and how it might work. For reasons you've already stated, just totaling the miles you've driven in a year and paying a tax on that number won't ever work. But the important point is there is no plan. If there were, don't you think you'd find more concrete info about it than an opinion piece at godanriver.com?

Like I said, if you'd google around you would have found this:
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/growth/traffic/story/1245637.html

I don't know if it will be easy to determine who is driving what miles and where other than a toll gate when entering a given highway system.

11/9/2008 4:26:26 PM

Any such plan would be a waste of time compared to the simplicity of increasing the gas tax. It would increase revenue, tax most heavily those that do the most damage, and it would not require yet another government intrusion into our lives.

11/9/2008 9:14:44 PM

^^WTF is wrong with you? Do you get off on giving the government your hard earned money?

So the government needs more money and is overspending. Here's an idea for the government: CUT YOUR SPENDING. Imagine that.

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 11:35 PM. Reason : ks]

11/9/2008 11:35:26 PM

Quote :

"So the government needs more money and is overspending. Here's an idea for the government: CUT YOUR SPENDING. Imagine that."

11/10/2008 12:03:52 AM

Quote :

"So the government needs more money and is overspending. Here's an idea for the government: CUT YOUR SPENDING. Imagine that. "

Says the guy that voted for a politician aligned with the party that handed, nearly free and clear, 1.5 trillion in tax payer money over to the banks to bail out their moral hazzard. GG buddy, you're internally consistent!

11/10/2008 6:59:14 AM

^ I don't see how your statement about the moral bankruptcy of a democrat controlled Congress should in any-way discredit an assertion that government should spend within its means.

11/10/2008 10:03:19 AM

Similar to how his statement said nothing to address the topic of a mileage tax. Costs can be cut and the topic of how to raise the revenue still needs to be addressed. Thanks for playing.

11/10/2008 10:19:34 AM

Not at all. If there is no need to raise more revenue then there is no need to discuss methods of raising revenue.

11/10/2008 10:27:54 AM

Except there is a need to raise revenue every year to maintain the infrastructure. I typically respect everything you have to say about economics, but are you being purposefully obtuse here or what? Every reasonable NC taxpayer realizes the DOT is pretty inefficient when it comes to allocating of funds and using of taxpayer money. But it stands to reason that if cars become increasingly more efficient and people drive less, the same winters and scrapers and heavy trucks will continue to do the same damage meaning the same revenue has to be raised. There is certainly the question that maybe the reduced driving reduces the damage, I don't know that answer, but I don't see anyone in here attempting to answer it either.

11/10/2008 10:39:57 AM

Gas below $2 a gallon at Raleigh station
Posted: Nov. 7, 2008

Quote :

"Raleigh, N.C. — Gas prices at one Raleigh fuel station dropped below $2 a gallon on Friday. At the BP gas station on Western Boulevard , across from Pullen Park ,gas was $1.99 a gallon Friday afternoon. In the morning gas was priced at $2.33 a gallon, but the price had gone down by the afternoon."

http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/3922664/

http://www.wral.com/traffic/fueltracker/

Looks like the doom-and-gloom "experts" were wrong again:

Sep 1, 2008 7:45 am US/Eastern
Gustav May Send Gas Prices Close To $5 Per Gallon
Industry Experts: Disrupted Offshore Energy Production Will Hit Americans Extremely Hard At The Pump

http://wcbstv.com/national/gas.prices.hurricane.2.807417.html

11/10/2008 10:58:46 AM

my reason to vote against came at

Quote :

"Computers mounted in volunteers' cars will use global positioning system tracking"

11/10/2008 11:24:14 AM

nattrngnabob, it is an argument I can follow. The government can respond any number of ways to lower gasoline tax income. It can increase the gasoline tax, it can introduce a new tax such as on mileage, it can increase other taxes such as the income tax or licensing fees, or it can make cuts.

Even if you are right and there are no new transportation projects to cut, which I find unlikely, cuts can be made to maintenance. While drivers hate potholes, they do not render a road unusable. But cuts can also be made elsewhere, maybe we can build fewer opera houses in the middle of nowhere. Maybe we can sell off some government property.

Finally, we can just borrow the shortfall.

It is not demonstrable which course of action is best. All we have is our own personal preferences; but what I do know is that proclaiming that someone elses ideological preference, such as spending cuts, would not address the problem of a budget shortfall is illogical. It would, it is simply not your idiological preference.

Now, if I had my choices, we would cut the opera houses, fire a bunch of state employees, eliminate tax breaks for companies locating in NC, eliminate the NC income tax, and then make up any shortfall with a higher gasoline tax. I would not start taxing mileage as it would incentivise North Carolinians to register their vehicles in other states and incentivise a heavier vehicle fleet as it would tax SUV miles the same as Prius miles.

11/10/2008 11:54:14 AM

Quote :

"It is not demonstrable which course of action is best. All we have is our own personal preferences; but what I do know is that proclaiming that someone elses ideological preference, such as spending cuts, would not address the problem of a budget shortfall is illogical. It would, it is simply not your idiological preference."

Ok, let's be clear first, my response to this statement

Quote :

"So the government needs more money and is overspending. Here's an idea for the government: CUT YOUR SPENDING. Imagine that."

was nothing more than a response with the same amount of effort as was given with this statement. The VMT isn't that the government is overspending any more than it was last year or the year before or the year before with regards to maintaining the infrastructure, it's that they are spending the same and the revenue has dropped by a ton. My comment to teg also has a lot to do with the fact that he has been an whiney cunt since McCain lost and has been scatter posting these sorts comments in every thread he posts in.

Quote :

"I would not start taxing mileage as it would incentivise North Carolinians to register their vehicles in other states and incentivise a heavier vehicle fleet as it would tax SUV miles the same as Prius miles."

No. Please go click the newsobserver link I included a few posts up. But since I like you, I'll save you some time

Quote :

"The tax rates are intended to generate about the same taxes on miles that the car pays in taxes on gallons of gas. The mileage tax would be higher for a heavy truck that burns a lot of gas, and lower for a fuel-thrifty hybrid."

Quote :

"The government can respond any number of ways to lower gasoline tax income. It can increase the gasoline tax, it can introduce a new tax such as on mileage, it can increase other taxes such as the income tax or licensing fees, or it can make cuts."

There are two pieces to this VMT puzzle. The bulk of it is indeed to ensure sufficient revenue to maintain the infrastructure. This is the "cut spending" piece of the debate. The other piece is an exploration of how we can change the system by which we collect the tax. That is the piece I am more interested in because regardless of how we collect the revenue, at the same time we still need to try and be as efficient as possible.

11/10/2008 12:03:49 PM

^will you please put down the crack pipe? Yes, I didn't vote for Obama and yes I've said negative things about his policies. But I've also said that I hope for the best, b/c obviously it will affect me. Does that make me a whiner? I've also shouted from the mountain tops in TSB that I DIDN'T LIKE McCain and that to me he was just the lesser of two evils.

Quote :

"But it stands to reason that if cars become increasingly more efficient and people drive less, the same winters and scrapers and heavy trucks will continue to do the same damage meaning the same revenue has to be raised. There is certainly the question that maybe the reduced driving reduces the damage, I don't know that answer, but I don't see anyone in here attempting to answer it either."

Heavy trucks damage roads FAR more than cars, despite cars outnumbering them by a lot. In comparison what wear cars cause on most roads is insignificant in comparison. If you want to raise taxes, which seems to be your modus operandi, then taxes should be raised on the prime offender, heavy trucks. And while I'm sure you'd argue that the cost will just be passed onto the average Joe, it should instead provide companies with an incentive to utilize the railway system to transport their goods. Rail transportation is far and away more efficient at transportation than trucking, both from a cost and energy standpoint. Over the years companies have used the rails less and less b/c of the low price of fuel. They need to (and I suspect many are) go back to the rails.

11/10/2008 12:38:29 PM

double post

[Edited on November 10, 2008 at 12:41 PM. Reason : fucking internet connection]

11/10/2008 12:40:25 PM

Quote :

"the average Joe, it should instead provide companies with an incentive to utilize the railway system to transport their goods"

i definitely agree. we might want to save this thread since it seems to be the only subject where most people who typically engage in vigorous debate can actually agree.

that being said, we should probably just focus on the department getting more efficient. there is a lot of waste in the DoT budget, and it needs to be streamlined, no doubt.

****anecdotal evidence****

i have a buddy who does road construction and has for some time. i asked a while back why does it seem that some times you all are working on roads which have no issues and other times seem like you all aren't doing anything at all. his answer was short, "because thats what is happening"

they have a certain budget and each year they need to spend it to ensure that they get the same amount (or more) the next year. in order to spend it they often times do projects that are not needed or will take a job that is needed and put excessive overhead on it by having more people on the project than needed. the way their pay is done is also over the top and could probably use a little oversight, as well. they get pay increases for each task they know how to do. e.g. an additional .75/hour for knowing how to use one tool (regardless if they'll have to or not) and a dollar something for knowing how to operate a piece of equipment such as a bull dozer. in many situations they actually do not know how to use the equipment but have had someone sign off saying that they do and often times end up with pay that is more than double their base pay based on all the skill sets they "have"

if we could work that system out a little bit better i bet we could find some money.

11/10/2008 1:44:00 PM

Quote :

"The tax rates are intended to generate about the same taxes on miles that the car pays in taxes on gallons of gas. The mileage tax would be higher for a heavy truck that burns a lot of gas, and lower for a fuel-thrifty hybrid."

Ok, nattrngnabob, if we assume they do a perfect job and the VMT is identical to an increase in the gasoline tax then there is only one potentially positive benefit over merely increasing the existing gas tax: those living near the border will not avoid the tax by filling up in SC or VA. However, the tax will not tax seasonal residents with out-of-state plates or those with residences or family in other states which allow them to get out-of-state plates.

So, which method of tax avoidance is greater? The only way to know would be to try it, but just in my life everyone I know has the opportunity to obtain out-of-state vehicle registrations as everyone I know has immediate family in another state, but none of us live close enough to the border to avoid the fuel tax on a daily basis.

11/10/2008 1:52:05 PM

how much lower is it gonna go? i thought 40 was where it was gonna hover for a while but down to 35 now

12/24/2008 2:12:53 PM

$37 actually

12/24/2008 2:16:41 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081224/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices

says near 35 here

13 minutes ago

12/24/2008 2:18:18 PM

what price will the oil have to fall to in order for us to see .99 cent gas?

12/24/2008 5:01:01 PM

I am sure OPEC has no problem when Oil is "too high"; which was caused mostly by a snow-ball effect of speculators during the commodities bubble.

The bubble burst and I laugh as the Arabs who spend $billions on credit to build their new cities on the assumption that oil prices would remain high.

12/24/2008 5:11:28 PM