-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Maybe not, but your government changes over time yes?
Surely it is not inconceivable that a future US government might consider tax breaks for clean fuel or to encourage alternative fuel research?
To dismiss the idea because "no government here would ever do it" seems somewhat asinine.
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skillian
Maybe not, but your government changes over time yes?
Surely it is not inconceivable that a future US government might consider tax breaks for clean fuel or to encourage alternative fuel research?
To dismiss the idea because "no government here would ever do it" seems somewhat asinine.
The discussion was over whether or not the intransigent government could, overnight, in effect, restructure it's regulatory nature and imperative to tax so as to immediately foster research into, and development of, alternative fuels...not whether an intransigent government could ever be expected to change in any way.
The distinction is not too subtle, I trust? :huh:
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
You should watch the 60 Minutes from 2 weeks ago.
It describes how those without health insurance get billed sometimes 10x more by a hospital than those with.
Thanks, but I didn't need to.
I am well aware their strategy is to force bankruptcy in order to wipe their books.
eh?
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
The discussion was over whether or not the intransigent government could, overnight, in effect, restructure it's regulatory nature and imperative to tax so as to immediately foster research into, and development of, alternative fuels...not whether an intransigent government could ever be expected to change in any way.
The distinction is not too subtle, I trust? :huh:
I was merely addressing your post (#32), and your later puzzlement at Rat Faced's reply. I was saying that a government could and should tax a "totally environmentally-friendly fuel" less heavily than petrol/gas.
Apologies if I didn't use the quote feature.
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skillian
I was saying that a government could and should tax a "totally environmentally-friendly fuel" less heavily than petrol/gas.
You can get a $2,000 writeoff on income taxes for buying a "green" vehicle.
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skillian
I was saying that a government could and should tax a "totally environmentally-friendly fuel" less heavily than petrol/gas.
You can get a $2,000 writeoff on income taxes for buying a "green" vehicle.
..and those same green vehicles can have an $8000 mark-up.
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot
You can get a $2,000 writeoff on income taxes for buying a "green" vehicle.
..and those same green vehicles can have an $8000 mark-up.
When was the last time you sent your income tax payment to a car dealership?!?!?
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
..and those same green vehicles can have an $8000 mark-up.
When was the last time you sent your income tax payment to a car dealership?!?!?
Eh?
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot
When was the last time you sent your income tax payment to a car dealership?!?!?
Eh?
r-e-a-d. skillian stated there should be tax breaks for green fuels. I stated there are tax breaks for green vehicles. you talk about dealership markups.
1. tax breaks
2. tax breaks
3. dealer markups
sing with me now, "one of these things is not like the other."
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Eh?
r-e-a-d. skillian stated there should be tax breaks for green fuels. I stated there are tax breaks for green vehicles. you talk about dealership markups.
1. tax breaks
2. tax breaks
3. dealer markups
sing with me now, "one of these things is not like the other."
Dealer markups FOR GREEN VEHICLES.
Cancels out tax breaks is all.
c-o-m-p-r-e-h-e-n-d
1. tax breaks for green fuels
2. tax breaks for green vehicles
3. dealer markups for green vehicles
sing with me now, "there was a correlation not to hard to figure out...for some."
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot
r-e-a-d. skillian stated there should be tax breaks for green fuels. I stated there are tax breaks for green vehicles. you talk about dealership markups.
1. tax breaks
2. tax breaks
3. dealer markups
sing with me now, "one of these things is not like the other."
Dealer markups FOR GREEN VEHICLES.
Cancels out tax breaks is all.
c-o-m-p-r-e-h-e-n-d
1. tax breaks for green fuels
2. tax breaks for green vehicles
3. dealer markups for green vehicles
sing with me now, "there was a correlation not to hard to figure out...for some."
c-o-m-p-r-e-h-e-n-d this, dealers mark up ALL vehicles. You are an idiot if you think they do not. Do you think they all had a pow-wow and decided that since the irs is giving a $2,000 tax break on these vehicles that they will raise the price on them? I highly doubt this, they don't care, they sell cars, they do not do taxes, they could care less. And if you would do a little research smart guy, you will see that the list of vehicles these breaks are available on, you will see that there are NO 2006 models on it yet. How many dealerships do you know that are trying to push 2003 model vehicles instead of 2006 models?
But wait, you probably already saw this on tv 2 weeks ago, right?
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Dealer markups FOR GREEN VEHICLES.
Cancels out tax breaks is all.
c-o-m-p-r-e-h-e-n-d
1. tax breaks for green fuels
2. tax breaks for green vehicles
3. dealer markups for green vehicles
sing with me now, "there was a correlation not to hard to figure out...for some."
c-o-m-p-r-e-h-e-n-d this, dealers mark up ALL vehicles. You are an idiot if you think they do not. Do you think they all had a pow-wow and decided that since the irs is giving a $2,000 tax break on these vehicles that they will raise the price on them? I highly doubt this, they don't care, they sell cars, they do not do taxes, they could care less. And if you would do a little research smart guy, you will see that the list of vehicles these breaks are available on, you will see that there are NO 2006 models on it yet. How many dealerships do you know that are trying to push 2003 model vehicles instead of 2006 models?
But wait, you probably already saw this on tv 2 weeks ago, right?
Wtf are you on about? I made a simple comment about the markup on green vehicles and you talk about shit from 2 weeks ago and whateverthefuck.
I should have clarified for idiotswithbugsuptheirassforsomereason. Hybrid vehicles have manufacturer and dealer markups that reduce tax breaks to small concession.
I'm probably on the low side with the $8000. Hopely you can figure out that this referring to a comparable vehicle without the greenness.
Is that too fucking hard for you to understand now?
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot
c-o-m-p-r-e-h-e-n-d this, dealers mark up ALL vehicles. You are an idiot if you think they do not. Do you think they all had a pow-wow and decided that since the irs is giving a $2,000 tax break on these vehicles that they will raise the price on them? I highly doubt this, they don't care, they sell cars, they do not do taxes, they could care less. And if you would do a little research smart guy, you will see that the list of vehicles these breaks are available on, you will see that there are NO 2006 models on it yet. How many dealerships do you know that are trying to push 2003 model vehicles instead of 2006 models?
But wait, you probably already saw this on tv 2 weeks ago, right?
Wtf are you on about? I made a simple comment about the markup on green vehicles and you talk about shit from 2 weeks ago and whateverthefuck.
I should have clarified for idiotswithbugsuptheirassforsomereason. Hybrid vehicles have manufacturer and dealer markups that reduce tax breaks to small concession.
I'm probably on the low side with the $8000. Hopely you can figure out that this referring to a comparable vehicle without the greenness.
Is that too fucking hard for you to understand now?
Is it to fucking hard for you to understand? Green vehicles are more expensive. If I buy one now, and I owe $4,000 in income tax, I will only have to pay $2,000 in income tax. If I buy a non-green vehicle, I would still have to pay $4,000 in income tax. It doesn't matter if I paid more for the vehicle or not. At tax time I would be saving $2,000. If you were not so busy thinking up "gems" like bugsuptheirass, you would see that is a 50% saving at tax time. I know it is hard for you little gangsta bitches to put 2 and 2 together but really, try harder. Let me make it easier for you. You want des' fresh fly new shoes fo' $300, you can go out an' sell $300 wo'f of yo crack, or you coo spend half da time an' sell $150 wo'f and buy dem shoes from yo g who stoled dem from da sto'.
Now STFU and go work on your little screenplay you little bitch you.
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Now good night. Use this time to count how many more food stamps you have left and how many more days till the welfare check shows up you little inner city dwelling drain on society.
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Wtf are you on about? I made a simple comment about the markup on green vehicles and you talk about shit from 2 weeks ago and whateverthefuck.
I should have clarified for idiotswithbugsuptheirassforsomereason. Hybrid vehicles have manufacturer and dealer markups that reduce tax breaks to small concession.
I'm probably on the low side with the $8000. Hopely you can figure out that this referring to a comparable vehicle without the greenness.
Is that too fucking hard for you to understand now?
Is it to fucking hard for you to understand? Green vehicles are more expensive. If I buy one now, and I owe $4,000 in income tax, I will only have to pay $2,000 in income tax. If I buy a non-green vehicle, I would still have to pay $4,000 in income tax. It doesn't matter if I paid more for the vehicle or not. At tax time I would be saving $2,000. If you were not so busy thinking up "gems" like bugsuptheirass, you would see that is a 50% saving at tax time. I know it is hard for you little gangsta bitches to put 2 and 2 together but really, try harder. Let me make it easier for you. You want des' fresh fly new shoes fo' $300, you can go out an' sell $300 wo'f of yo crack, or you coo spend half da time an' sell $150 wo'f and buy dem shoes from yo g who stoled dem from da sto'.
Now STFU and go work on your little screenplay you little bitch you.
Sighhhh I see my blue-eyed devil still doesn't get it.
Although you help save the environment and all that, your loss is more dumbshit.
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot
Now good night. Use this time to count how many more food stamps you have left and how many more days till the welfare check shows up you little inner city dwelling drain on society.
Eh?
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skillian
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
The discussion was over whether or not the intransigent government could, overnight, in effect, restructure it's regulatory nature and imperative to tax so as to immediately foster research into, and development of, alternative fuels...not whether an intransigent government could ever be expected to change in any way.
The distinction is not too subtle, I trust? :huh:
I was merely addressing your post (#32), and your later puzzlement at Rat Faced's reply. I was saying that a government could and should tax a "totally environmentally-friendly fuel" less heavily than petrol/gas.
Apologies if I didn't use the quote feature.
Much as I hate to force this back on topic, I felt Rat was (as so many do) taking inordinate pride in the amount of taxes he pays.
I hope to be forgiven for believing the only taxes I owe are for the common defense, blah, blah, blah.
The government (here, anyway) views any semi-substantial consumption of any goods whatsoever as an opportunity to enhance revenue, you see.
You apparently believe it is thoroughly correct for them to do so.
The government, faced with an alternative choice of fuels, would assume (for no reason other than a "felt" need) such should be subject to tax over-and-above regular sales-tax.
Why?
I think it is idiotic to buy the argument we owe the government what it says we do, no questions asked.
In the U.K., you believe in Socialism, which is nothing more than government capitalism as opposed to private capitalism, and government proves time and time again is hasn't the gifts that the private sector does for that particular game.
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapjb
I'd venture to say that 90% of businesses that made over $1 billion in the USA in 2005 won't pay any Federal taxes. And as for 2004 all defense companies that made over $1 billion paid zero in Federal taxes.
How is that punitive toward business?
OK I'm quoting myself from page 4. My slant on this topic is the US government no longer has the best interests of the American masses foremost. The US gov. is just about the elite.
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
J2
I think the UK (and EU) position is one of Mixed Economy rather than all out Socialism. The general view is that no one expects the Government to run the Supermarkets or the local ice cream shop. However, we do expect the Government to play a role in the broader infra-structure of the country. We have less extremes of wealth and poverty than say the US (or, bizarrely, Russia) and we do appreciate that some choices preclude others. However, on balance the society we have suits our culture.
I would not want my country run by World.Com or Enron. The private sector is a pretty mixed bag when it comes to best practice :)
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapjb
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapjb
I'd venture to say that 90% of businesses that made over $1 billion in the USA in 2005 won't pay any Federal taxes. And as for 2004 all defense companies that made over $1 billion paid zero in Federal taxes.
How is that punitive toward business?
OK I'm quoting myself from page 4. My slant on this topic is the US government no longer has the best interests of the American masses foremost. The US gov. is just about the elite.
That's an easy charge to make, but it is often freighted with misapprehension.
Who has the money?
The Elite.
Who creates jobs?
The Elite.
Who possesses venture capital?
The Elite.
Who occasionally need to be convinced to risk capital, in order to create jobs?
The Elite.
Who lives the capitalist dream of entrepeneurialism?
The Elite.
I think it's quite proper to say the government has a hand-in-glove relationship with the Elite.
What you conclude about that relationship is another story.
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapjb
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapjb
I'd venture to say that 90% of businesses that made over $1 billion in the USA in 2005 won't pay any Federal taxes. And as for 2004 all defense companies that made over $1 billion paid zero in Federal taxes.
How is that punitive toward business?
OK I'm quoting myself from page 4. My slant on this topic is the US government no longer has the best interests of the American masses foremost. The US gov. is just about the elite.
The elite help drive industry the most.
Even look at something miniscule as a new typa technology. The rich are the early adopters that buy it.
Thr rich help provide jobs as well. Now I don't believe in the recent tax cuts for them 'cause many would just as well pocket it but some use that as extra incentive for new ventures. Some of those provides jobs.
edit: I wish I had saw j2's post first.:(
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
J2
I think the UK (and EU) position is one of Mixed Economy rather than all out Socialism. The general view is that no one expects the Government to run the Supermarkets or the local ice cream shop. However, we do expect the Government to play a role in the broader infra-structure of the country. We have less extremes of wealth and poverty than say the US (or, bizarrely, Russia) and we do appreciate that some choices preclude others. However, on balance the society we have suits our culture.
I would not want my country run by World.Com or Enron. The private sector is a pretty mixed bag when it comes to best practice :)
True enough, and what you have works for you.
Private capitalism is inherently more efficient, though, because it abhors bureaucracy, for the most part.
I realize this advantage has been shown as spectacularly corruptible in a few instances (such as those you've noted) recently, but they are not the norm, no matter the picture painted by the media.
There is no single system to answer all the potential ills of free societies; that certain sensible co-mingling is ideologically verboten is unfortunate, wouldn't you say?
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapjb
OK I'm quoting myself from page 4. My slant on this topic is the US government no longer has the best interests of the American masses foremost. The US gov. is just about the elite.
The elite help drive industry the most.
Even look at something miniscule as a new typa technology. The rich are the early adopters that buy it.
Thr rich help provide jobs as well. Now I don't believe in the recent tax cuts for them 'cause many would just as well pocket it but some use that as extra incentive for new ventures. Some of those provides jobs.
Quit fucking with my credibility. :P
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
J2
I think the UK (and EU) position is one of Mixed Economy rather than all out Socialism. The general view is that no one expects the Government to run the Supermarkets or the local ice cream shop. However, we do expect the Government to play a role in the broader infra-structure of the country. We have less extremes of wealth and poverty than say the US (or, bizarrely, Russia) and we do appreciate that some choices preclude others. However, on balance the society we have suits our culture.
I would not want my country run by World.Com or Enron. The private sector is a pretty mixed bag when it comes to best practice :)
True enough, and what you have works for you.
Private capitalism is inherently more efficient, though, because it abhors bureaucracy, for the most part.
I realize this advantage has been shown as spectacularly corruptible in a few instances (such as those you've noted) recently, but they are not the norm, no matter the picture painted by the media.
There is no single system to answer all the potential ills of free societies; that certain sensible co-mingling is ideologically verboten is unfortunate, wouldn't you say?
I have always tended towards pragmatism rather than ideology...but am pragmatic enough to realise that it is not a position all can stomach :)
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Much as I hate to force this back on topic, I felt Rat was (as so many do) taking inordinate pride in the amount of taxes he pays.
I hope to be forgiven for believing the only taxes I owe are for the common defense, blah, blah, blah.
The government (here, anyway) views any semi-substantial consumption of any goods whatsoever as an opportunity to enhance revenue, you see.
Believe me, they do that here too :D
You apparently believe it is thoroughly correct for them to do so.
The government, faced with an alternative choice of fuels, would assume (for no reason other than a "felt" need) such should be subject to tax over-and-above regular sales-tax.
Why?
I think it is idiotic to buy the argument we owe the government what it says we do, no questions asked.
In the U.K., you believe in Socialism, which is nothing more than government capitalism as opposed to private capitalism, and government proves time and time again is hasn't the gifts that the private sector does for that particular game.
Fuel tax is different to other taxes tho - it could almost be considered like the extra duty on cigarettes and alcohol, in that it is a substance that we'd generally like people to use less of (or at least, that's the excuse).
Taxing it highly forces it to be expensive, and in the same vein taxing an "emissions-free" fuel much less makes it a more attractive purchase.
If these fuels were in competition today, and the petrol was cheaper to manufacture, the government could effectively force the cleaner fuel to become dominant. This is effectively breaking market forces, but I think it one of those times when it's right for a government to do so.
Since no such fuel exists the situation is obviously hypothetical, but the same applies to greener fuels and hybrid cars today, which is the point i was making earlier.
edit: Wow, there were a lot of posts since i started writing that.
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
nvm I did see this before. musta been late.
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skillian
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Much as I hate to force this back on topic, I felt Rat was (as so many do) taking inordinate pride in the amount of taxes he pays.
I hope to be forgiven for believing the only taxes I owe are for the common defense, blah, blah, blah.
The government (here, anyway) views any semi-substantial consumption of any goods whatsoever as an opportunity to enhance revenue, you see.
Believe me, they do that here too :D
You apparently believe it is thoroughly correct for them to do so.
The government, faced with an alternative choice of fuels, would assume (for no reason other than a "felt" need) such should be subject to tax over-and-above regular sales-tax.
Why?
I think it is idiotic to buy the argument we owe the government what it says we do, no questions asked.
In the U.K., you believe in Socialism, which is nothing more than government capitalism as opposed to private capitalism, and government proves time and time again is hasn't the gifts that the private sector does for that particular game.
Fuel tax is different to other taxes tho - it could almost be considered like the extra duty on cigarettes and alcohol, in that it is a substance that we'd generally like people to use less of (or at least, that's the excuse).
Taxing it highly forces it to be expensive, and in the same vein taxing an "emissions-free" fuel much less makes it a more attractive purchase.
If these fuels were in competition today, and the petrol was cheaper to manufacture, the government could effectively force the cleaner fuel to become dominant. This is effectively breaking market forces, but I think it one of those times when it's right for a government to do so.
Since no such fuel exists the situation is obviously hypothetical, but the same applies to greener fuels and hybrid cars today, which is the point i was making earlier.
edit: Wow, there were a lot of posts since i started writing that.
My point is (and has been) that a change-over of any consequence would result in a revenue loss which the government would not countenance.
They are, as I've noted, all about revenue enhancement, not revenue neutrality or (God forbid) loss.
The prospect of this depresses R & D.
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
The way most of the peoples opinions are here, you'd think they're making $250,000 a year or more. And think everybody else should if they just applied themselves.:sick:
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapjb
The way most of the peoples opinions are here, you'd think they're making $250,000 a year or more. And think everybody else should if they just applied themselves.:sick:
Don't quite follow you, there...
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapjb
The way most of the peoples opinions are here, you'd think they're making $250,000 a year or more. And think everybody else should if they just applied themselves.:sick:
Fame and/or fortune is a great incentive for one to apply himself. It helps drive innovation.
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
seems fiscal responsibilty is just a campaign soundbite...
Monday: Budget Restraint Emerges as G.O.P. Theme for 2008.
Wednesday: Senate G.O.P. Blocks Tight Budget Rule.
Quote:
Senate Republicans on Tuesday narrowly defeated an effort to impose budget rules that would make it harder to increase spending or cut taxes, a move that critics said that showed Republicans were posturing in their calls for greater fiscal restraint.
In the first of several politically charged budget and spending issues confronting Congress this week, the Senate rejected on a 50-to-50 tie a proposal to restore what are known as "pay-go" rules, a requirement that tax cuts and some new spending be approved by 60 votes or offset by budget savings or revenue increases.
Quote:
"For those who say they are fiscally responsible, here is your chance," said Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, senior Democrat on the Budget Committee. "You are going to be able to prove with one vote whether you are serious about doing something about these runaway debts and runaway deficits or whether it is all talk."
But Republicans said the push to add the rules to the budget was a back-door effort to make it harder to extend President Bush's tax cuts.
Five Republicans joined 44 Democrats and one independent in supporting the restoration of the budget rules. Lawmakers on both sides said they thought there was an opportunity to impose the rules, given increasing Republican alarm about the level of spending and the need to get serious about reining it in.
Quote:
"If everyone is concerned about deficits, then they should obviously embrace fiscal budgetary tools of enforcement like pay-go, which has traditionally been a Republican initiative," said Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, one of the five Republicans.
But other Republicans said opposition to restoring the pay-go provisions was driven by a desire to extend tax cuts.
-
Re: US government near to debt limit
