U.S. Politics episode 4: A New Thread

1141517192043

Comments

  • There is some good stuff there though. The fact there even is a deduction for alimony is weird, like why levy taxes if you give someone that kind of deduction? Is divorce such a social good we need to pay people who've had one? If you're paying alimony you presumably make enough money to subsidize someone else's standard of living. I don't think we even do alimony in Washington so your ability to deduct it is a giveaway to residents of states that do it. 

    Electric car customers enjoy so many other subsidies, the fact tax grants were used to put in the charging infrastructure, they pay nothing practically for road work, they get to use the HOV lane with solo drivers. Like the 7500 dollar credit needs to go, that truly is welfare for the rich if you look at demographics of who buys these electric cars. If you buy a 60,000 dollar Tesla you have enough money that you don't need a tax grant. 

    The state and local tax deduction? Why subsidize states in their tax collections? Why should the federal government lose revenue because states collect their own? Silly silly. And especially because it's a giveaway to upper earners in blue states that levy more taxes. Which probably also why republicans want to target it, but nonetheless the idea of writing off your state taxes on federal taxes always seemed weird to me, like your state keeps all of it and the Feds take the hit. 

    the fact is, no tax plan will satisfy everyone. It's not even possible. 
    And in my case the plan as proposed would probably save me a lot of money, since the doubled standard deduction will exceed my current deductions. 

    You know not of much that you speak. There is alimony in Washington. It is deductible to the payer and taxable to the payee so it’s taxed. Child support is accounted for the other way where is is not deductible to the payer and so not taxable to the payee.

    Tesla is not the only electric car and the tax credit for it will phase out toward the end of 2018 in any case. You may not see renewable credits as encouraging a societal good (like mortgage interest deduction, charitable deduction, adoption credit, standard deduction, child credit, etc.), but many disagree and you aren’t in charge. Rich folks don’t buy a lot of Leafs.

    HOV lane stuff isn’t federal.

    More than the upper earners in high tax states incur tax.

    I get libertarianism, I used to be one and still have some positions that are in line, but just because you may believe that the tax system should not include carrots and sticks to encourage or discourage behavior, doesn’t mean that your belief is correct and there is nowhere near enough folks of like mind to change federal policy. That’s the great part about living in a constitutional republic.

    I can acknowledge the legitimacy of your beliefs while still disagreeing with them.
    FlukesPhoebes89Travisdarwinfeeshy
  • MrXMrX CO
    edited November 2017
    Electric car customers enjoy so many other subsidies, the fact tax grants were used to put in the charging infrastructure, they pay nothing practically for road work, they get to use the HOV lane with solo drivers. Like the 7500 dollar credit needs to go, that truly is welfare for the rich if you look at demographics of who buys these electric cars. If you buy a 60,000 dollar Tesla you have enough money that you don't need a tax grant. 
    Hey now, Jim is on the Tesla 3 wait list, the man has been known to throw some cash around at Chipotle, but he's not that rich. :wink:
    BrawnTravisSvcarlos7
  • LordBy said:
    There is some good stuff there though. The fact there even is a deduction for alimony is weird, like why levy taxes if you give someone that kind of deduction? Is divorce such a social good we need to pay people who've had one? If you're paying alimony you presumably make enough money to subsidize someone else's standard of living. I don't think we even do alimony in Washington so your ability to deduct it is a giveaway to residents of states that do it. 

    Electric car customers enjoy so many other subsidies, the fact tax grants were used to put in the charging infrastructure, they pay nothing practically for road work, they get to use the HOV lane with solo drivers. Like the 7500 dollar credit needs to go, that truly is welfare for the rich if you look at demographics of who buys these electric cars. If you buy a 60,000 dollar Tesla you have enough money that you don't need a tax grant. 

    The state and local tax deduction? Why subsidize states in their tax collections? Why should the federal government lose revenue because states collect their own? Silly silly. And especially because it's a giveaway to upper earners in blue states that levy more taxes. Which probably also why republicans want to target it, but nonetheless the idea of writing off your state taxes on federal taxes always seemed weird to me, like your state keeps all of it and the Feds take the hit. 

    the fact is, no tax plan will satisfy everyone. It's not even possible. 
    And in my case the plan as proposed would probably save me a lot of money, since the doubled standard deduction will exceed my current deductions. 

    You know not of much that you speak. There is alimony in Washington. It is deductible to the payer and taxable to the payee so it’s taxed. Child support is accounted for the other way where is is not deductible to the payer and so not taxable to the payee.

    Tesla is not the only electric car and the tax credit for it will phase out toward the end of 2018 in any case. You may not see renewable credits as encouraging a societal good (like mortgage interest deduction, charitable deduction, adoption credit, standard deduction, child credit, etc.), but many disagree and you aren’t in charge. Rich folks don’t buy a lot of Leafs.

    HOV lane stuff isn’t federal.

    More than the upper earners in high tax states incur tax.

    I get libertarianism, I used to be one and still have some positions that are in line, but just because you may believe that the tax system should not include carrots and sticks to encourage or discourage behavior, doesn’t mean that your belief is correct and there is nowhere near enough folks of like mind to change federal policy. That’s the great part about living in a constitutional republic.

    I can acknowledge the legitimacy of your beliefs while still disagreeing with them.
    @LordBy addressed most of what I would say in rebuttal, but I'll get at/clarify a thing or two:
    The alimony thing moreso surprised me than it offends me. To be honest, agreements before the bill's enactment would be grandfathered in and so everyone who makes agreements under the new rules will build it into their calculations, and dealing with alimony can be a real headache as a tax preparer. I will say though that not all people who pay alimony have a ton of money to where having it vanish would be of no consequence. There are a lot of people who pay 15-20% of their gross income to alimony (and I'm sure there are plenty of people who pay more than that), not including child support. This can be pretty crippling if you're not someone who earns a ton of money. I'm not saying that this is unfair (I'm sure in some cases it is and in some it isn't and this isn't an area that I am either particularly knowledgeable or interested) but I think that the income shift of it is also fair. It is income to the ex-spouse, is it not? We do make a habit of seeing one person's income as another's deduction in much of our system do we not? Like I said, people will simply adjust their calculations for future agreements and it will all even out in the end so it's no major alarm or anything, but I did find it to be quite surprising.

    I am someone who feels that state and local taxes should be deductible. Perhaps this matters more to me as our practice is in a high tax state, but the way I see it our state tax dollars go towards the betterment of a piece of our union. I certainly think that deduction of state and local taxes makes more sense than being able to deduct mortgage interest, which I am for just to not confuse the issue. I wish I had some long eloquent argument to make on the matter, but it's as simple as that. It is also a good equalizer, to use @LordBy's phrase a nice 'carrot' to offer people in high tax states to offset the burden a bit. I think it's more than fair.

    As for environmental credits, change is hard and expensive and if we are going to take the notion of doing things differently. As to the "this is just for rich people" of it all, you can find electric cars for seemingly $25-30k which is a pretty normal price for a somewhat nice new car these days. Like @LordBy said, the Leaf goes for about $30k. Not cheap, but far from a Tesla.
  • Trump's nominee to his Environmental Council doesn't have a grasp on elementary school science....watch the embedded video....

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/09/trumps-nominee-to-lead-his-environmental-council-isnt-sure-whether-water-expands-as-it-warms/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.33539b6775f1

    Self fulfilling the core GOP belief that all public efforts are doomed for failure and that public employees are incompetent. 
    CretanBull
  • Pretty amazing stuff from Michael Lewis on just how dysfunctional the Trump government is. I know that's Bannon's goal, to dismantle the "administrative state," but it's really gonna fuck us over in the long term if not remedied in 2020. For example, he makes a great point that it is crucial for government to fund science (agricultural research in this case) that will benefit us in 30-50 years, because the private sector just doesn't invest enough in time horizons that long.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/usda-food-stamps-school-lunch-trump-administration/amp

    Fresh Air interview:

    https://www.npr.org/2017/11/06/562246599/michael-lewis-many-trump-appointees-are-uninterested-in-the-agencies-they-head-u
  • MrX said:
    Pretty amazing stuff from Michael Lewis on just how dysfunctional the Trump government is. I know that's Bannon's goal, to dismantle the "administrative state," but it's really gonna fuck us over in the long term if not remedied in 2020. For example, he makes a great point that it is crucial for government to fund science (agricultural research in this case) that will benefit us in 30-50 years, because the private sector just doesn't invest enough in time horizons that long.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/usda-food-stamps-school-lunch-trump-administration/amp

    Fresh Air interview:

    https://www.npr.org/2017/11/06/562246599/michael-lewis-many-trump-appointees-are-uninterested-in-the-agencies-they-head-u
    That article on the USDA was incredible.  I can't wait to get home so that I can hear the interview that he did with Fresh Air!
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    MrX said:
    Electric car customers enjoy so many other subsidies, the fact tax grants were used to put in the charging infrastructure, they pay nothing practically for road work, they get to use the HOV lane with solo drivers. Like the 7500 dollar credit needs to go, that truly is welfare for the rich if you look at demographics of who buys these electric cars. If you buy a 60,000 dollar Tesla you have enough money that you don't need a tax grant. 
    Hey now, Jim is on the Tesla 3 wait list, the man has been known to throw some cash around at Chipotle, but he's not that rich. :wink:
    He should get his reservation fee refunded immediately, getting it back after Tesla bankruptcy will be more difficult. And Nissan offers a more practical electric car anyway 
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Travis said:
    LordBy said:
    There is some good stuff there though. The fact there even is a deduction for alimony is weird, like why levy taxes if you give someone that kind of deduction? Is divorce such a social good we need to pay people who've had one? If you're paying alimony you presumably make enough money to subsidize someone else's standard of living. I don't think we even do alimony in Washington so your ability to deduct it is a giveaway to residents of states that do it. 

    Electric car customers enjoy so many other subsidies, the fact tax grants were used to put in the charging infrastructure, they pay nothing practically for road work, they get to use the HOV lane with solo drivers. Like the 7500 dollar credit needs to go, that truly is welfare for the rich if you look at demographics of who buys these electric cars. If you buy a 60,000 dollar Tesla you have enough money that you don't need a tax grant. 

    The state and local tax deduction? Why subsidize states in their tax collections? Why should the federal government lose revenue because states collect their own? Silly silly. And especially because it's a giveaway to upper earners in blue states that levy more taxes. Which probably also why republicans want to target it, but nonetheless the idea of writing off your state taxes on federal taxes always seemed weird to me, like your state keeps all of it and the Feds take the hit. 

    the fact is, no tax plan will satisfy everyone. It's not even possible. 
    And in my case the plan as proposed would probably save me a lot of money, since the doubled standard deduction will exceed my current deductions. 

    You know not of much that you speak. There is alimony in Washington. It is deductible to the payer and taxable to the payee so it’s taxed. Child support is accounted for the other way where is is not deductible to the payer and so not taxable to the payee.

    Tesla is not the only electric car and the tax credit for it will phase out toward the end of 2018 in any case. You may not see renewable credits as encouraging a societal good (like mortgage interest deduction, charitable deduction, adoption credit, standard deduction, child credit, etc.), but many disagree and you aren’t in charge. Rich folks don’t buy a lot of Leafs.

    HOV lane stuff isn’t federal.

    More than the upper earners in high tax states incur tax.

    I get libertarianism, I used to be one and still have some positions that are in line, but just because you may believe that the tax system should not include carrots and sticks to encourage or discourage behavior, doesn’t mean that your belief is correct and there is nowhere near enough folks of like mind to change federal policy. That’s the great part about living in a constitutional republic.

    I can acknowledge the legitimacy of your beliefs while still disagreeing with them.
    @LordBy addressed most of what I would say in rebuttal, but I'll get at/clarify a thing or two:
    The alimony thing moreso surprised me than it offends me. To be honest, agreements before the bill's enactment would be grandfathered in and so everyone who makes agreements under the new rules will build it into their calculations, and dealing with alimony can be a real headache as a tax preparer. I will say though that not all people who pay alimony have a ton of money to where having it vanish would be of no consequence. There are a lot of people who pay 15-20% of their gross income to alimony (and I'm sure there are plenty of people who pay more than that), not including child support. This can be pretty crippling if you're not someone who earns a ton of money. I'm not saying that this is unfair (I'm sure in some cases it is and in some it isn't and this isn't an area that I am either particularly knowledgeable or interested) but I think that the income shift of it is also fair. It is income to the ex-spouse, is it not? We do make a habit of seeing one person's income as another's deduction in much of our system do we not? Like I said, people will simply adjust their calculations for future agreements and it will all even out in the end so it's no major alarm or anything, but I did find it to be quite surprising.

    I am someone who feels that state and local taxes should be deductible. Perhaps this matters more to me as our practice is in a high tax state, but the way I see it our state tax dollars go towards the betterment of a piece of our union. I certainly think that deduction of state and local taxes makes more sense than being able to deduct mortgage interest, which I am for just to not confuse the issue. I wish I had some long eloquent argument to make on the matter, but it's as simple as that. It is also a good equalizer, to use @LordBy's phrase a nice 'carrot' to offer people in high tax states to offset the burden a bit. I think it's more than fair.

    As for environmental credits, change is hard and expensive and if we are going to take the notion of doing things differently. As to the "this is just for rich people" of it all, you can find electric cars for seemingly $25-30k which is a pretty normal price for a somewhat nice new car these days. Like @LordBy said, the Leaf goes for about $30k. Not cheap, but far from a Tesla.
    But if you are going to buy an electric car because there's a 7500 hundred dollar credit then the electric car was probably never practical for you to start. Since no production electric vans or pickups are on the market in any serious numbers, chances are assuming 1:1 substitution (which I don't believe is the case, EV customers are likely buying their toy in addition to an existing gasoline vehicle instead of replacing one) these vehicles are replacing smaller vehicles which could be hybrids, high efficiency diesels, or small gasoline motors with good fuel mileage and so the actual environmental impact is likely very small in terms of carbon, and none existent in any other way. So it's a subsidy for an immmeasirablely small "good"

    as far as state and local taxes, that deduction only lowers a self imposed "burden" if you couldn't deduct California's tax burden you'd probably demand more fiscal responsibility and taxpayer protection from your assembly members. 


  • MrX said:
    Electric car customers enjoy so many other subsidies, the fact tax grants were used to put in the charging infrastructure, they pay nothing practically for road work, they get to use the HOV lane with solo drivers. Like the 7500 dollar credit needs to go, that truly is welfare for the rich if you look at demographics of who buys these electric cars. If you buy a 60,000 dollar Tesla you have enough money that you don't need a tax grant. 
    Hey now, Jim is on the Tesla 3 wait list, the man has been known to throw some cash around at Chipotle, but he's not that rich. :wink:
    He should get his reservation fee refunded immediately, getting it back after Tesla bankruptcy will be more difficult. And Nissan offers a more practical electric car anyway 
    First time I 100% agree with you!
  • You make a lot of assumptions about folks.

    First, the credit also applies to plug-in hybrids with batteries that hold a minimum amount of juice. It also doesn’t last into perpetuity, but only for the first 200,000 vehicles sold (a limit which GM and Tesla will reach next year).

    Second, folks utilizing the credit aren’t generally buying a “toy” in addition to a gasoline vehicle.

    Third, high efficiency diesel has largely been shown to be a scam perpetrated on the people by some unscrupulous automakers.

    And fourth, the “good” isn’t immeasurably small. You can measure the savings in gasoline and carbon production, and it isn’t huge though it’s cumulative. More importantly this represents a government incentive to develop the technology and manufacturing infrastructure for the future to the benefit of the US economy and industry. 50yrs from now this will be the dominant technology for transportation, and those with first-mover advantages will benefit. The US wants to benefit for this and other countries are competing.

    If you think solar power and EVs are just a fad and we’ll all be driving coal powered vehicles in the future so Trump can bring back the mining jobs, then have fun with that. In the real world solar and EVs are great industries in which to invest for future export opportunities and geopolitical advantage for the US.

    Disclaimer: I’ve owned a Chevy Volt since 2014 (as my only personal vehicle) and I own stock in Tesla (though I concede it’s a high-risk/high-reward investment).

    P.S. The high tax states are generally net-contributors to the federal budget while many of the low-tax states receive more than they pay, so the deductiblity of SALT isn’t some scam where the low tax states subsidize the high-tax states, it’s a partial offset to existing imbalance in the other direction.
    TravisPhoebes89darwinfeeshyDaveyMac
  • TravisTravis CA
    edited November 2017
    @LordBy Thank you for being smarter than me. I was trying to put a response together in vain of yours regarding the SALT deductions, but I could tell in attempting to write something up that it was more emotional than effective, and that the facts that I was going to try to trot out were based in something that I have a feeling about (mostly GDP based, and how CA and NY, the two states most effected make up more than 20% of the US economy from what I see), but don't truly understand and I'm not really capable of using it in the setting of a debate. I know stuff about the tax impact of stuff, but I don't know a ton about economics. Anyways, thank you for that.

    Also, I 100% agree about the giant leaps regarding electric cars. Just because there aren't a bunch of trucks and vans out on the road doesn't mean that commuters aren't using them as their main cars. That is a huge and bizarre assumption. Also, once again you laid all of it out WAY more effectively than I would have.
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    edited November 2017
    MrX said:
    Electric car customers enjoy so many other subsidies, the fact tax grants were used to put in the charging infrastructure, they pay nothing practically for road work, they get to use the HOV lane with solo drivers. Like the 7500 dollar credit needs to go, that truly is welfare for the rich if you look at demographics of who buys these electric cars. If you buy a 60,000 dollar Tesla you have enough money that you don't need a tax grant. 
    Hey now, Jim is on the Tesla 3 wait list, the man has been known to throw some cash around at Chipotle, but he's not that rich. :wink:
    He should get his reservation fee refunded immediately, getting it back after Tesla bankruptcy will be more difficult. And Nissan offers a more practical electric car anyway 
    Hahaha, by producing the world's ugliest electric car?  Tesla will take over the auto industry within a decade, easily.  Unlike the other poor American car companies that keep jacking up prices on mediocre cars, Tesla actually lowers their prices as their costs go down.  GM, BMW, Nissan, their electric cars are crazy ugly, low in performance, and their costs/efficiency isn't nearly as good as the Tesla 3.

    Conservatives love to bag on Musk because he does everything that they try to tell him he can't haha. 
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Thomas said:
    MrX said:
    Electric car customers enjoy so many other subsidies, the fact tax grants were used to put in the charging infrastructure, they pay nothing practically for road work, they get to use the HOV lane with solo drivers. Like the 7500 dollar credit needs to go, that truly is welfare for the rich if you look at demographics of who buys these electric cars. If you buy a 60,000 dollar Tesla you have enough money that you don't need a tax grant. 
    Hey now, Jim is on the Tesla 3 wait list, the man has been known to throw some cash around at Chipotle, but he's not that rich. :wink:
    He should get his reservation fee refunded immediately, getting it back after Tesla bankruptcy will be more difficult. And Nissan offers a more practical electric car anyway 
    Hahaha, by producing the world's ugliest electric car?  Tesla will take over the auto industry within a decade, easily.  Unlike the other poor American car companies that keep jacking up prices on mediocre cars, Tesla actually lowers their prices as their costs go down.  GM, BMW, Nissan, their electric cars are crazy ugly, low in performance, and their costs/efficiency isn't nearly as good as the Tesla 3.

    Conservatives love to bag on Musk because he does everything that they try to tell him he can't haha. 
    They're also heavily leveraged, totally dependent on subsidies, have never made a profit and have repeatedly lied to investors. Now a new revelation came out last week they'll need billions more in investment to reach half the production they said last year they already had to capital to do 
  • Here’s some hypocrisy: the right has had a major hard-on with the recent developement of underage molestation, sexual assault allegations, and other misconduct by liberal Hollywood actors and elites. The difference is that we’re actively cleaning up our mess. The right however? The elect them into office.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/11/09/alabama-state-official-defends-roy-moore-citing-joseph-and-mary-they-became-parents-of-jesus/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.778131296ffb
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    Thomas said:
    MrX said:
    Electric car customers enjoy so many other subsidies, the fact tax grants were used to put in the charging infrastructure, they pay nothing practically for road work, they get to use the HOV lane with solo drivers. Like the 7500 dollar credit needs to go, that truly is welfare for the rich if you look at demographics of who buys these electric cars. If you buy a 60,000 dollar Tesla you have enough money that you don't need a tax grant. 
    Hey now, Jim is on the Tesla 3 wait list, the man has been known to throw some cash around at Chipotle, but he's not that rich. :wink:
    He should get his reservation fee refunded immediately, getting it back after Tesla bankruptcy will be more difficult. And Nissan offers a more practical electric car anyway 
    Hahaha, by producing the world's ugliest electric car?  Tesla will take over the auto industry within a decade, easily.  Unlike the other poor American car companies that keep jacking up prices on mediocre cars, Tesla actually lowers their prices as their costs go down.  GM, BMW, Nissan, their electric cars are crazy ugly, low in performance, and their costs/efficiency isn't nearly as good as the Tesla 3.

    Conservatives love to bag on Musk because he does everything that they try to tell him he can't haha. 
    They're also heavily leveraged, totally dependent on subsidies, have never made a profit and have repeatedly lied to investors. Now a new revelation came out last week they'll need billions more in investment to reach half the production they said last year they already had to capital to do 
    Yet their stock price has doubled in the last 6 months.  You act like subsidies are a bad thing.  Should we abandon agriculture because farmers are heavily subsidized?  People like to talk bad about SpaceX because they're subsidized, but forget that we are paying Russia $18 million per astronaut to be launched into space, and SpaceX is relieving us of that burden.  Subsidies aren't always bad.
    CretanBulldarwinfeeshy
  • Thomas said:
    Thomas said:
    MrX said:
    Electric car customers enjoy so many other subsidies, the fact tax grants were used to put in the charging infrastructure, they pay nothing practically for road work, they get to use the HOV lane with solo drivers. Like the 7500 dollar credit needs to go, that truly is welfare for the rich if you look at demographics of who buys these electric cars. If you buy a 60,000 dollar Tesla you have enough money that you don't need a tax grant. 
    Hey now, Jim is on the Tesla 3 wait list, the man has been known to throw some cash around at Chipotle, but he's not that rich. :wink:
    He should get his reservation fee refunded immediately, getting it back after Tesla bankruptcy will be more difficult. And Nissan offers a more practical electric car anyway 
    Hahaha, by producing the world's ugliest electric car?  Tesla will take over the auto industry within a decade, easily.  Unlike the other poor American car companies that keep jacking up prices on mediocre cars, Tesla actually lowers their prices as their costs go down.  GM, BMW, Nissan, their electric cars are crazy ugly, low in performance, and their costs/efficiency isn't nearly as good as the Tesla 3.

    Conservatives love to bag on Musk because he does everything that they try to tell him he can't haha. 
    They're also heavily leveraged, totally dependent on subsidies, have never made a profit and have repeatedly lied to investors. Now a new revelation came out last week they'll need billions more in investment to reach half the production they said last year they already had to capital to do 
    Yet their stock price has doubled in the last 6 months.  You act like subsidies are a bad thing.  Should we abandon agriculture because farmers are heavily subsidized?  People like to talk bad about SpaceX because they're subsidized, but forget that we are paying Russia $18 million per astronaut to be launched into space, and SpaceX is relieving us of that burden.  Subsidies aren't always bad.
    Folks have been predicting the death of Tesla since they began. We’ll revisit the prediction of doom and bankruptcy in a year and see how things go. They are certainly a new successful manufacturing company that employs like 25,000 Americans in generally well-paying jobs so, despite their product being environmentally-friendly, its pretty nihilistic to gleefully hope they go out of business.

    We’re actually paying $70.7mil per seat to the Russians now (cost of their having a monopoly at the moment) so the SpaceX contract is chump change and a big savings once they are certified to carry astronauts. Cost is also embarrassingly-less than the ULA contract “subsidizing” Boeing and Lockheed for unmanned launches.
    Travis
  • Travis said:
    LordBy said:
    There is some good stuff there though. The fact there even is a deduction for alimony is weird, like why levy taxes if you give someone that kind of deduction? Is divorce such a social good we need to pay people who've had one? If you're paying alimony you presumably make enough money to subsidize someone else's standard of living. I don't think we even do alimony in Washington so your ability to deduct it is a giveaway to residents of states that do it. 

    Electric car customers enjoy so many other subsidies, the fact tax grants were used to put in the charging infrastructure, they pay nothing practically for road work, they get to use the HOV lane with solo drivers. Like the 7500 dollar credit needs to go, that truly is welfare for the rich if you look at demographics of who buys these electric cars. If you buy a 60,000 dollar Tesla you have enough money that you don't need a tax grant. 

    The state and local tax deduction? Why subsidize states in their tax collections? Why should the federal government lose revenue because states collect their own? Silly silly. And especially because it's a giveaway to upper earners in blue states that levy more taxes. Which probably also why republicans want to target it, but nonetheless the idea of writing off your state taxes on federal taxes always seemed weird to me, like your state keeps all of it and the Feds take the hit. 

    the fact is, no tax plan will satisfy everyone. It's not even possible. 
    And in my case the plan as proposed would probably save me a lot of money, since the doubled standard deduction will exceed my current deductions. 

    You know not of much that you speak. There is alimony in Washington. It is deductible to the payer and taxable to the payee so it’s taxed. Child support is accounted for the other way where is is not deductible to the payer and so not taxable to the payee.

    Tesla is not the only electric car and the tax credit for it will phase out toward the end of 2018 in any case. You may not see renewable credits as encouraging a societal good (like mortgage interest deduction, charitable deduction, adoption credit, standard deduction, child credit, etc.), but many disagree and you aren’t in charge. Rich folks don’t buy a lot of Leafs.

    HOV lane stuff isn’t federal.

    More than the upper earners in high tax states incur tax.

    I get libertarianism, I used to be one and still have some positions that are in line, but just because you may believe that the tax system should not include carrots and sticks to encourage or discourage behavior, doesn’t mean that your belief is correct and there is nowhere near enough folks of like mind to change federal policy. That’s the great part about living in a constitutional republic.

    I can acknowledge the legitimacy of your beliefs while still disagreeing with them.
    @LordBy addressed most of what I would say in rebuttal, but I'll get at/clarify a thing or two:
    The alimony thing moreso surprised me than it offends me. To be honest, agreements before the bill's enactment would be grandfathered in and so everyone who makes agreements under the new rules will build it into their calculations, and dealing with alimony can be a real headache as a tax preparer. I will say though that not all people who pay alimony have a ton of money to where having it vanish would be of no consequence. There are a lot of people who pay 15-20% of their gross income to alimony (and I'm sure there are plenty of people who pay more than that), not including child support. This can be pretty crippling if you're not someone who earns a ton of money. I'm not saying that this is unfair (I'm sure in some cases it is and in some it isn't and this isn't an area that I am either particularly knowledgeable or interested) but I think that the income shift of it is also fair. It is income to the ex-spouse, is it not? We do make a habit of seeing one person's income as another's deduction in much of our system do we not? Like I said, people will simply adjust their calculations for future agreements and it will all even out in the end so it's no major alarm or anything, but I did find it to be quite surprising.

    I am someone who feels that state and local taxes should be deductible. Perhaps this matters more to me as our practice is in a high tax state, but the way I see it our state tax dollars go towards the betterment of a piece of our union. I certainly think that deduction of state and local taxes makes more sense than being able to deduct mortgage interest, which I am for just to not confuse the issue. I wish I had some long eloquent argument to make on the matter, but it's as simple as that. It is also a good equalizer, to use @LordBy's phrase a nice 'carrot' to offer people in high tax states to offset the burden a bit. I think it's more than fair.

    As for environmental credits, change is hard and expensive and if we are going to take the notion of doing things differently. As to the "this is just for rich people" of it all, you can find electric cars for seemingly $25-30k which is a pretty normal price for a somewhat nice new car these days. Like @LordBy said, the Leaf goes for about $30k. Not cheap, but far from a Tesla.
    But if you are going to buy an electric car because there's a 7500 hundred dollar credit then the electric car was probably never practical for you to start. Since no production electric vans or pickups are on the market in any serious numbers, chances are assuming 1:1 substitution (which I don't believe is the case, EV customers are likely buying their toy in addition to an existing gasoline vehicle instead of replacing one) these vehicles are replacing smaller vehicles which could be hybrids, high efficiency diesels, or small gasoline motors with good fuel mileage and so the actual environmental impact is likely very small in terms of carbon, and none existent in any other way. So it's a subsidy for an immmeasirablely small "good"

    as far as state and local taxes, that deduction only lowers a self imposed "burden" if you couldn't deduct California's tax burden you'd probably demand more fiscal responsibility and taxpayer protection from your assembly members. 


    You sound like someone with a VHS collection trying to convince the world that Blu-rays are bad.  Progress requires bold thinking, risk and investment...tying ourselves to fossil fuel technology is a known dead-end.  Whether it's Tesla or some other company, electric or some other power source, we're moving away from oil and gas.
    BrawnThomas
  • cdrivecdrive Houston, TX
    edited November 2017
    So my sister, who I'm close with and adore, texted me about my aunt sharing this article:
    https://www.hermancain.com/yes-its-easy-to-explain-why-mass-shootings-are

    Yes pizza guy has a political site still apparently.   And the article is written by some wide-eyed weirdo.   Would anyone care to share along with me how fucking nuts this article is?  To me it's frightening that people go to bed with warm smiles thinking everything is perfectly explained after reading stuff like this.  It's written like....I can't even.... like some crazy person rambling on a street corner never getting to anything. 

    My sister responded - "So happy I broke free from religious ideology because this post is nuts. Bold share Aunt XXXXXX ...but can't agree with anything this article attempts to offer."

    I've erased 20 responses in an awkward attempt to mediate.  How do y'all deal with family that have become politically whack a doodle? 




    LordBy
  • Frakkin TFrakkin T Currently Offline
    cdrive said:
    So my sister, who I'm close with and adore, texted me about my aunt sharing this article:
    https://www.hermancain.com/yes-its-easy-to-explain-why-mass-shootings-are

    Yes pizza guy has a political site still apparently.   And the article is written by some wide-eyed weirdo.   Would anyone care to share along with me how fucking nuts this article is?  To me it's frightening that people go to bed with warm smiles thinking everything is perfectly explained after reading stuff like this.  It's written like....I can't even.... like some crazy person rambling on a street corner never getting to anything. 

    My sister responded - "So happy I broke free from religious ideology because this post is nuts. Bold share Aunt XXXXXX ...but can't agree with anything this article attempts to offer."

    I've erased 20 responses in an awkward attempt to mediate.  How do y'all deal with family that have become politically whack a doodle? 






    LordBy
  • Wow. And considering the source, triple-wow. 
    cdrive
  • Frakkin T said:
    cdrive said:
    So my sister, who I'm close with and adore, texted me about my aunt sharing this article:
    https://www.hermancain.com/yes-its-easy-to-explain-why-mass-shootings-are

    Yes pizza guy has a political site still apparently.   And the article is written by some wide-eyed weirdo.   Would anyone care to share along with me how fucking nuts this article is?  To me it's frightening that people go to bed with warm smiles thinking everything is perfectly explained after reading stuff like this.  It's written like....I can't even.... like some crazy person rambling on a street corner never getting to anything. 

    My sister responded - "So happy I broke free from religious ideology because this post is nuts. Bold share Aunt XXXXXX ...but can't agree with anything this article attempts to offer."

    I've erased 20 responses in an awkward attempt to mediate.  How do y'all deal with family that have become politically whack a doodle? 






    Just remember:

    9 - 9 - 9

    and everything will be clear.


    Frakkin Tcdrive
  • gguenot said:
    Here’s some hypocrisy: the right has had a major hard-on with the recent developement of underage molestation, sexual assault allegations, and other misconduct by liberal Hollywood actors and elites. The difference is that we’re actively cleaning up our mess. The right however? The elect them into office.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/11/09/alabama-state-official-defends-roy-moore-citing-joseph-and-mary-they-became-parents-of-jesus/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.778131296ffb
    And even "mainstream" Republicans are saying IF the allegations are true, he should step down.

    Meanwhile they all were quick to jump on Democrats for their association with alleged Hollywood sexual offenders.

    Do you believe the victims or not?? In the case of Weinstein, Spacey and Moore, you have on the record accounts corroborated by multiple people. What more do you want to not having that fucking IF before your statement?? It's amazing how scared shitless they still are of Steve Bannon.
    gguenot
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    edited November 2017
    You could be forgiven for thinking you're reading the Onion when you read the defence of Moore by Alabama Republicans. 

    The most remarkable pushback came from Alabama State Auditor Jim Zeigler, who dismissed the allegations by saying that there was also an age gap between the biblical Joseph and Mary. “Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus,” he told The Washington Examiner. “There’s just nothing immoral or illegal here. Maybe just a little bit unusual.”

    You know, except that the age of consent in Alabama is 16. Not illegal if you discount the alleged facts.

    "Yeah!" Covington County GOP Chairman William Blocker tells me he'd consider voting Moore even if hard proof of sexual abuse emerged.

    "There is NO option to support to support Doug Jones, the Democratic nominee. When you do that, you are supporting the entire Democrat party."

    I mean, voting for a rapist is bad, but not voting-for-a-Democrat bad. 

    (Edit: Source of quoted text: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/11/10/daily-202-as-roy-moore-declines-to-step-aside-a-tale-of-two-republican-parties-emerges/5a04e1dd30fb045a2e002f77/?utm_term=.abc71905a77e)

    CretanBull
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    I'm going to bring back to an issue I posted months ago, that a particular poster claimed I was being so wrong on, and today a report by the Government Accountability Office vindicates my position.

    for over a decade the US Forest Service has refused to hire the Boeing 747 Supertanker, a jumbo jet outfitted to fight massive wildfires with 19000 gallons of retardant. It flies faster, safer, and cheaper per gallon then any other platform out there. The planes baptism of fire was in Chile last winter fighting wildfires on the Andes foothills and on one documented occasion saved the lives of multiple Chilean "Bomberos" on the ground from being trapped. 

    The plane flew for CalFire in the Wine Country fires flying over a dozen missions in a separate deal because the forest service still wouldn't authorize the plane for federal contracts.

    today the Government Accountability office in a strong rebuke of the Forest Service wrote a scathing report finding no justification for the lack of contracts, that the Forest Service's contract rules prohibiting larger planes had "only anecdotal support" and sided with Global Supertanker services which brought a complaint against the FS. The Forest Service was ordered to pay Global Supertanker the cost of the bringing the complaint and to re-write their contract requirements to cover the massive supertanker plane. The Forest Service will not be appealing.

    https://www.google.com/amp/sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/09/global-supertanker-clears-hurdle-for-firefighting-outside-california/amp/

  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA



    You sound like someone with a VHS collection trying to convince the world that Blu-rays are bad.  Progress requires bold thinking, risk and investment...tying ourselves to fossil fuel technology is a known dead-end.  Whether it's Tesla or some other company, electric or some other power source, we're moving away from oil and gas.
    Not at all. Your example is bad because the government didn't need to subsidize DVDs or Blue Ray, that happened as a result of market demand.

    just like We moved from CRT monitors to LCD by market demand. 

    To say we are moving away from oil and gas is silly as well. its still the dominant technology. Whether or not it is in the future remains to be seen. If electric vehicles were so much better, as DVD is to VHS then there would be a massive market shift towards it, which although more EVs have been bought now then in the past, hasn't even cracked 1% of sales. And sales drop like a rock when tax incentives have been ended in other countries. So that's the difference. I'm not in any way opposed to people who want EVs buying and driving them. It's the market manipulation paid for by my tax dollars I don't like. 
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Thomas said:
    Thomas said:
    MrX said:
    Electric car customers enjoy so many other subsidies, the fact tax grants were used to put in the charging infrastructure, they pay nothing practically for road work, they get to use the HOV lane with solo drivers. Like the 7500 dollar credit needs to go, that truly is welfare for the rich if you look at demographics of who buys these electric cars. If you buy a 60,000 dollar Tesla you have enough money that you don't need a tax grant. 
    Hey now, Jim is on the Tesla 3 wait list, the man has been known to throw some cash around at Chipotle, but he's not that rich. :wink:
    He should get his reservation fee refunded immediately, getting it back after Tesla bankruptcy will be more difficult. And Nissan offers a more practical electric car anyway 
    Hahaha, by producing the world's ugliest electric car?  Tesla will take over the auto industry within a decade, easily.  Unlike the other poor American car companies that keep jacking up prices on mediocre cars, Tesla actually lowers their prices as their costs go down.  GM, BMW, Nissan, their electric cars are crazy ugly, low in performance, and their costs/efficiency isn't nearly as good as the Tesla 3.

    Conservatives love to bag on Musk because he does everything that they try to tell him he can't haha. 
    They're also heavily leveraged, totally dependent on subsidies, have never made a profit and have repeatedly lied to investors. Now a new revelation came out last week they'll need billions more in investment to reach half the production they said last year they already had to capital to do 
    Yet their stock price has doubled in the last 6 months.  You act like subsidies are a bad thing.  Should we abandon agriculture because farmers are heavily subsidized?  People like to talk bad about SpaceX because they're subsidized, but forget that we are paying Russia $18 million per astronaut to be launched into space, and SpaceX is relieving us of that burden.  Subsidies aren't always bad.
    Subsidies are not always bad, in some cases they're good. Like highways are a benefit to everyone. I'm an Amtrak Guest Rewards rider, in many cases that system serves underserved communities and generates economic benefit 

    electric car subsidies benefit a small group of people for really questionable levels of benefit.

    and if you want to discuss farm subsidies we will need an entire thread for me to vent that one, so many farm subsidies we have really serve to focus production on crops (corn really) that would not be market profitable without them. There is certainly a large amount of wasteful spending in the farm bill. 

    Actually I've talked with state legislators from Eastern Washington who feel they're really getting the short end of the stick from the Federal Government versus farmers in the Midwest who get all kinds of subs to grow corn 



  • You sound like someone with a VHS collection trying to convince the world that Blu-rays are bad.  Progress requires bold thinking, risk and investment...tying ourselves to fossil fuel technology is a known dead-end.  Whether it's Tesla or some other company, electric or some other power source, we're moving away from oil and gas.
    Not at all. Your example is bad because the government didn't need to subsidize DVDs or Blue Ray, that happened as a result of market demand.

    just like We moved from CRT monitors to LCD by market demand. 

    To say we are moving away from oil and gas is silly as well. its still the dominant technology. Whether or not it is in the future remains to be seen. If electric vehicles were so much better, as DVD is to VHS then there would be a massive market shift towards it, which although more EVs have been bought now then in the past, hasn't even cracked 1% of sales. And sales drop like a rock when tax incentives have been ended in other countries. So that's the difference. I'm not in any way opposed to people who want EVs buying and driving them. It's the market manipulation paid for by my tax dollars I don't like. 
    My "example" wasn't an example, it was an analogy...not meant to be analytically symmetrical but to draw a comparison to how silly it is to cling to outdated technology and the crazy rationalizations that people make to avoid inevitable progress.  Ironically, in trying to refute a point that I wasn't making, you again proved the one I was making.

    PS - you're CRT/LCD example is a bad one, tons of grants and tax breaks were given to companies to get LCD off the ground.  Two minutes on google showed that Samsung got grants to study the life span of LCD screens vs CRT screens, to study the eye strain from LCD screens and an educational tax credit (not exactly sure what that is or why it applies?) to promote LCD screens.
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    So subsidizing a company that is leading the world in electric car efficiency is a bad thing?  Like the billions we sent to GM and Chrysler weren't basically subsidies?

    Electric cars are going to take over, you will just have to accept that.  Farmers will start buying electric trucks when they are produced because they won't need to keep purchasing drums of diesel or driving to town.

    Fossil fuels have helped us in insanely good ways, but they are also killing the world and disrupting our way of life (just look at this years weather patterns).  I don't see anything wrong with the government subsidizing a company that is aiming to reduce our dependency on fossil fuel and cut our emissions.

    Plus, everyone who goes against Elon Musk loses.
This discussion has been closed.