watson.t.hamster: The solar energy available to someone in Phoenix and that available to someone in the far north is not the same. Just like a major river that drops rapidly in elevation and a nice little babble brook both represent hydro electric energy sources, just not on the same scale.



Like nearly everything else in this thread, this is a gross exaggeration. The northern reaches of the continental US get about 60% of the sunlight that Phoenix gets, and 80% of the sunlight that Miami gets. You're mischaracterizing it as "major river vs. babble brook" to fit your Luddite preconceptions.

wolvernova: You think subsidies bring the prices down??? Go find me one example where that has ever happened.

It was before the terminology arose, but as the level of taxation on the importation of precious metals from America to Spain fell, the rent afforded to the landlords rose to an adequate enough level that they could afford to accept increase production, bringing additional silver and gold to market. This increased the amount of these metals brought overseas per shipment, greatly reducing the cost of moving the goods from one place to another and increasing availability of raw metal for use in coinage which thereby increased in circulation. This reduced the cost of a great many goods, not in terms of real value but in terms of relative value to those goods which had been determined to scale the values of all others in Europe at the time.

This was considered by many in the upper circles of European merchants and nobility of the time (17th to 18th century) to be an unacceptable giveaway of state revenue. It led directly to many other fluctuations in prices over the subsequent century, including the practicality of the Union between England and Scotland, which allowed Scotland to rise from a rather rude state of production to prominence in the space of 50 - 75 years.

The aristocrats.

Kazan: i have a better idea.... let's adjust everyone's wages to reflect the gains in worker productivity over the last 30 years.

You could probably get WalMart to subsidized mass transit before they increase worker's wages.

I like the idea though. Wages should reflect what you produce, not be kept low so someone can gain an extra dollar on a stock transaction.

When profits can only be made at the expense of worker's wages, you might have a problem with your business and economic model.

balloot: watson.t.hamster:

Think of all the oil we use to run cars. Now pretend instead that that equivalent energy had to come from somewhere else (with the associated waste due to transmission and inefficiency). That is a simply massive amount of new energy that has to come from somewhere. And even the most enthusiastic greens acknowledge that this increase cannot come from solar to any significant degree.

-------------

Why does the power for EVs need to be solar? Even the oldest, dirtiest coal power plant in the US is FAR more efficient and clean than a combustion engine using gasoline. Replacing a combustion engine with solar power is awesome, but replacing it with other sources is still very good.

If we were pushing an expansion of our energy grid in the form of cheap and clean coal that would be different.

But currently those are not our priorities.

It will happen if we ever shift over to EVs on a large scale. It will have to after voters get fed up with the constant brown-outs due to an inadequate supply.

But I'd rather we get to work expanding the grid first, then start building things that rely on it rather than the other way around.

We currently cancel more MW in coal energy production than we ever put on line. And it's been this way for a while. The coal industry isn't growing and that's what it would have to do if EVs are to become a real competitor to the IC cars currently on the market. Link

Also this entirely ignore the environmental and political costs associated with making them.

Currently it would put us in a horribly dependent relationship on china if we want to actually put batteries in cars. Spending billions to put us in even greater thrall to china so they can absolutely rape the earth building batteries for us strikes me as less desirable than simply investing more in public transportation.

watson.t.hamster: So in response to my cited evidence your retort is "nu uh!".

Yep. Your article's premise is bullshait. Is the bar so low that any article cited must be taken as truth without critical analysis? If so, I can prove that Justin Bieber is the greatest singer in the world, and anyone who disagrees with my source is just saying "nu uh" to a CITED argument.

Link (new window)

hurdboy:
No argument, here. But make the same one to the loan officer at your local credit union, and see how far it gets you towards getting the loan for it. Let me know how it works. Same goes for that 1500 ft2 Green McMansion that costs as much as a house 5x its size.

Your analogy is wrong, because the US government does not have the same motives as a bank. The bank is trying to make a profit, and has zero regard for society outside of the bank and its profits.

The US government makes loans primarily with society in mind, with much less regard to profit. If the loan was a profitable one, then a bank or a VC would have made it already.

pdee: Ill just leave this here:

GM has estimated they've sold 6,000 Volts so far. That would mean each of the 6,000 Volts sold would be subsidized between $50,000 and $250,000, depending on how many government subsidy milestones are realized. (new window)

At some point in history, GM had sold 1 Volt, and then it makes for a really scary number per car. We've also given subsidies to automobile technologies that haven't made it to the commercial market, which means they cost INFINITY dollars per unit!

This is how economies of scale work in the engineering world. The first few cost a ton. If this surprises you, it says more about you than it does about GM.

hurdboy: No argument, here. But make the same one to the loan officer at your local credit union, and see how far it gets you towards getting the loan for it. Let me know how it works. Same goes for that 1500 ft2 Green McMansion that costs as much as a house 5x its size.

Oh, you seriously think people can't get $35k loans. Maybe it's because where I live (NJ), but it seems here everyone drives a good vehicle. I see a ton of BMW, Audi, Porsche and MB on the road and every once a while a Bentley, Maserati, Lambo, Aston Martin etc. I probably see one of the 'exotics' about once a week because I won't count the bentley I see every day on my commute.

Will 35k cars be accesible to everyone, no, but people will trade them in, sell them privately etc, and will then be a used vehicle which is what the majority of Americans drive now.

watson.t.hamster: Solar and wind are pretty much the only two referenced right now for saving the earth and getting us off oil. Hydro is great, but we've about tapped our resources on that.

Bullshait. Those are the only ones you have heard of but that's because you are a small thinker, and have never dug deep into the subject. Hydro wind and solar are the only ones you have heard of because that's what is in the popular news right now.

Hydro, of course, is the most mature renewable technology, and has been mature for over 50 years. Wind has been mature for a decade. Solar is just now becoming mature. But the future renewable grid will consist of a huge basket of stuff you haven't thought of. Offshore wind. Wave energy. Geothermal (with deep drilling and EGS, geothermal can be deployed a lot more places than you think). Salinity gradient power (ever heard of that?). Algae biofuel. Solar Thermal. Etc. Each one of these has its own limitations. But when you combine them all together, you can achieve a renewable grid. And just as significant will be decreases in energy needs from better green building practices and improvements to electrical generation transmission and distribution technology.

watson.t.hamster: We currently cancel more MW in coal energy production than we ever put on line. And it's been this way for a while. The coal industry isn't growing and that's what it would have to do if EVs are to become a real competitor to the IC cars currently on the market. Link

According to your link, we built 7 GW worth of coal plants in 2010 and retired 2 GW. We built 17 GW in 1973, so I think the technology is there. We're not building 17 GW of coal plants every year because coal is a crappy, outdated technology that carries painful externalities. For example, we added 5 GW of wind power in the United States in 2010, which means we added it at the same (net) rate as coal capacity.

watson.t.hamster: Solar may well be a supplement to our grid. Perhaps even a significant one over time. Wind as well (and hydro is already doing a pretty good job). But an entirely green grid, particularly one to cover hundreds of millions of new electric cars (we like our cars and few efforts are made towards public transit) is just not possible. We'll need to build new nuclear plants, or coal, or natural gas to cover it.

Huh. That's funny, because from the link you posted, I learned that we're already adding wind as fast as we're adding coal, and that we're moving to a lot more wind and a lot less coal as time goes forward.

watson.t.hamster: If we were pushing an expansion of our energy grid in the form of cheap and clean coal that would be different.

Hee hee. You believe in clean coal.

Hollie Maea: wolvernova: You think subsidies bring the prices down??? Go find me one example where that has ever happened.

Add subsidy -> increase aggregate demand -> higher prices -> add more subsidies

Hey look, another person who has never heard of economies of scale. Let me guess: you don't understand externalities either.

Go take a highschool level microeconomics class.

No need for condescension as your HS-level sophistication has me in awe.

1) Externalities - a word that's overused by policy wonks (w/ a pathetic understanding of economics), never used in graduate-level econ, conveys "effect", taught in macro econ intro courses, and useful (as a concept) of the basic impact of things such as govt-imposed quotas/floors/ceilings one company/industry, or corporations polluting the environment, etc. What they didn't teach you in the intro course - in fact what I just LITERALLY pointed out - is that subsidies are themselves an impetus for negative externalities. Increased total cost for the govt & public; decreased efficiency; new barriers of entry into the market.

2) Please explain economies of scale, because I do not understand.* Economics for Public Policy Wonks teaches that "govt needs to bribe companies/industries to get past arbitrary barriers of entry". Statists and ideologues of all political stripes see anecdotal examples where that is true as the casus belli for govt waste, to consume vast resources inhibiting the advancement within an industry or field wherever it sees fit. If it weren't hurtful, it would still be immoral, arrogant, and contemptible.

You want to talk EoS? Show me one example where subsidies like these don't create new barriers to entry into the market. What the f*ck chance does a fuel-efficient alternative have to a car that's getting a multi-$k "discount" from the govt? Oh, I know, just create more tax loopholes for new technololgies, right? Why not just set up another new agency/dept to dictate which efficient technology will thrive or die?

Suppose that hybrids or electric cars are not the inevitable green car of the future, and for reasons that have made lithium cell technology so difficult and expensive to advance today. Say the market inevitably reaches the point that we drive purely ethanol-based cars which are fed essentially by grass. Every effort to subsidize hybrids and fuel cell cars has directly set back this more efficient energy source because some assholes in govt think it's their job or within their purview to create "solutions". Personal and professional experience has taught me that these efforts and tax loopholes will inevitably rob the public blind, perpetuate a retarded/indiscretionary populist consumerism, and create a host of larger legal obstacles down the road.

Increasing the aggregate demand via anti-competitive subsidies will always increase the bottom line costs to society (and DUH, who pays the farking taxes?); at the same time inhibiting/disincentivizing efficiency and product/price improvement. You really think that Apple products like the iPad or iPhone would be better or cheaper today if five years ago the govt gave every purchaser a $200 subsidy?? You think Android models would be selling as much if that were the case?



*Sarcasm. I'd love for you so explain to me and my "limited" graduate-level education [in transportation network models, economic optimization, actuarial risk-modeling, and quantitative cost-modeling] about you think you understand understand about EoS. Little me can only define, calculate, and model risk/break-even investment thresholds. You sound like a "solutions" person.

Kazan: dlp211: ...

i saw plenty of $35k cars and trucks driving around Iowa before i moved away.

I saw the same when I lived in Al/Ga too. I also saw a ton of junkers that would be immediately impounded in NJ for the amount of violations the vehicles had.

People really just don't think things through. Tesla has gone from a 100k+ 2 seater to a 57k+ 5+2 seater and has increased the range between the two. Tesla will do the same thing over the next 5-7 years, which is their business plan, and will bring a 30k 600 mile 5+2 seater.

Kazan: chimp_ninja:

[blog.preservationnation.org image 640x494]

let's pair that with the wind resources map:

[www1.eere.energy.gov image 553x494]

I'll raise you a waste biomass resources map:



And a link to a geothermal map, because the file is too big.

I'm sure watson t hamster will be along shortly to explain how modern society cannot possibly run on anything except good, clean whale oil. Who would light their lanterns with anything lesser?

Shaggy_C: Elvis_Bogart: Electric vehicles? Toys for the 1%...buy your own damn Tesla or Fisker.

Yep, how dare they try to bring the price point down via subsidy so that the smelly, lazy middle class might have a chance at owning one of those vehicles. Back to your horse and buggy, prole.

Did you know you could get the credit on golf carts?

Hollie Maea: The current gas tax needs to be eliminated and replaced by a per mile usage tax, used to maintain and upgrade roads.

It's funny that many people advocating this are savagely opposed to toll roads.

DeathByGeekSquad: Did you know you could get the credit on golf carts?

There's an entire subdivision of vehicles known as Neighborhood Electric Vehicles, which typically can only legally drive on surface streets due to their 30 mph top speeds. They won't work too great out in the country but I could definitely see them getting some major use in the cities and especially the exurbs where just getting to get to the entrance of a neighborhood could be a mile from any particular house. They're cheap (in the 15k and less price point) and yes are eligible for the tax breaks.

GoldSpider: Hollie Maea: The current gas tax needs to be eliminated and replaced by a per mile usage tax, used to maintain and upgrade roads.

It's funny that many people advocating this are savagely opposed to toll roads.

Toll roads are fine as long as they are not disruptive, which means radio transceivers that don't require slowing down. Of course that is a no go for the Ron Paul "The government cares about tracking me because they want to fark me up personally" crowd.

chimp_ninja: Kazan: chimp_ninja:

[blog.preservationnation.org image 640x494]

let's pair that with the wind resources map:

[www1.eere.energy.gov image 553x494]

I'll raise you a waste biomass resources map:

[geolocation.kmz.me image 420x325]

And a link to a geothermal map, because the file is too big.

I'm sure watson t hamster will be along shortly to explain how modern society cannot possibly run on anything except good, clean whale oil. Who would light their lanterns with anything lesser?

Shouldn't we be returning biomass that is "crop residues" to the fields to rebuild the soil so we don't have to rely on as much Haber Process fertilizer?

Although I suppose that anaerobic composting that with cow shiat will produce a good amount of methane to burn, and have something that can be put back into the soil when it is done.

//Very excited about a biogas facility a little north of me. Generates enough power for 300 homes.

hurdboy: dlp211: Oh, you seriously think people can't get $35k loans. Maybe it's because where I live (NJ), but it seems here everyone drives a good vehicle. I see a ton of BMW, Audi, Porsche and MB on the road and every once a while a Bentley, Maserati, Lambo, Aston Martin etc. I probably see one of the 'exotics' about once a week because I won't count the bentley I see every day on my commute.

Oh, there's an offer from my bank for more than that every time I log on to look at my accounts. I do earn considerably more than the regional median salary, but my wife doesn't work. Could I afford a $35K auto? Absolutely. But I don't have kids to feed, or a mortgage that's $100K underwater, either.

dlp211: Will 35k cars be accesible to everyone, no, but people will trade them in, sell them privately etc, and will then be a used vehicle which is what the majority of Americans drive now.

There's major automakers advertising here who don't even bother to advertise anything other than lease prices. Did Nissan that coming? Hyundai's that happening?

And if you hit the used lots, it's a heck of a lot of off-lease vehicles. Some less than a year old. That $199/mo. lease was just too much to keep up with.

And your point? The vehicles are getting on the road one way or another.

Masso: Uh...Examples are easy to come by. Subsidies do bring the price down and make business sustainable during the start up. It get phased out all the times.

Easy to come by, but far and few between. Crony corporatism usually prevents their removal due to the perpetual cycle of money, power, market dominance, and lobbying. Call me cynical, but I would prefer the cheaper and freer solution over that any day of the week.

Hollie Maea: wolvernova: WUT? I don't think you realize that there's hardly any - let alone a significant - difference between. It's like saying that a 50% off sale is significantly different from a $100 rebate on purchases of $200 or more; it's the exact same farking thing.

If you don't have enough deductions to itemize, then it is a HUGE difference.

No it isn't, and not having "enough" just means that one might opt for the standard deduction instead. You'd be surprised how many people do not do this; it draws less attention when you file consistently, so someone using deductions as a tool of tax fraud are less likely to be audited. I've worked on the IRS EFDS and it's utterly depressing to see the effect of our terrible our tax code. Credits and deductions are a sham, not worth the cost to society even when the "desired" economic/investment outcomes are achieved. Just my opinion, but the people who push for (or protect) these provisions are utterly corrupt and/or stupid.

chimp_ninja: Granted, I only have a GED in TurboTax, but:

$100 Tax credit: Reduces the amount you owe to the IRS by $100.
$100 Tax deduction: Reduces your taxable income by $100, which reduces the amount you owe to the IRS by $10-$35, depending on your bracket. If you're taking the standard deduction instead of itemizing (i.e., you're probably poor or lower middle class) this doesn't help you at all.

If you're poor or lower class, you're probably getting paid out by the tax system. There are two sides of the socio-economic spectrum that benefit from these loopholes; the super-wealthy who essentially dodge their tax obligations, and the millions of lower-middle income folks who get handouts from the govt. Neither are defensible and it's a large part of what's killing the "middle class" IMO.

People do LOTS of things that aren't helpful. It's not uncommon for someone to refinance a home loan and maximize the interest portion of payments (after they are a good way through the amortization schedule) to fuel the monthly cash flow. Tax and financial advisers even recommend this, but usually for the purpose of "consolidating their debts", a form of fraud in itself since the interest in (say) $50k in credit card and auto debt is specifically not tax deductible.

But I was speaking about credits/deductions in a more general sense. They cost the govt and taxpayers an ungodly amount of money. They are also the biggest cause and tool of corporate/individual tax fraud, they influence/manipulate investments (IMO inefficiently), and they are an instrument of social engineering. Not enough debates center on this absurdity. If govt actually cared about revenue, balanced budgets, or "fairness", they would take this garbage out of our tax code.

Hollie Maea: Toll roads are fine as long as they are not disruptive, which means radio transceivers that don't require slowing down. Of course that is a no go for the Ron Paul "The government cares about tracking me because they want to fark me up personally" crowd.

You have to love the inflated sense of self-worth that is necessary to think that the federal government gives a crap about when you used a bridge. And if they did give a crap, I'm sure they can figure out the new-fangled "camera" technology required to record your license plate while you're idling during a cash transaction.

As a compromise, if there's one of those 10+ lane toll plazas, we can reserve one lane on the far right so that mouth-breathing retards can pay with silver dimes and gold nuggets, or barter beaver pelts and muskets, or offer moonshine, or whatever the hell RON PAUL people consider 'real' currency these days.

Hollie Maea: A Leaf in Fall: Yeah, but that's a LOT of lost revenue in gas taxes!!

The current system of gas taxes needs to change dramatically--it is beginning to cause massive problems to have fuel efficiency be in opposition to the source of funding for infrastructure improvements. The current gas tax needs to be eliminated and replaced by a per mile usage tax, used to maintain and upgrade roads. At the same time, a tax at least as big as the current gas tax needs to be added on in order to discourage the usage of gasoline and encourage fuel economy. That tax must be used ONLY for subsidizing research and production of green transportation options (EVs, bicycle sharing plans, light rail, etc) so that when gasoline usage drops and the revenue disappears, the income won't be needed anymore anyway.

Hi! Your an moron, thanks for playing! I don't think you could come up with a more stupid idea no matter how hard you tried. Think the economy is bad now? Wait until you see what would happen if they enacted such an idiotic idea.
That's not even unintended consequences, that's blatantly obvious consequences. The cost of everything would go up and would make this recession look like glory days.

wolvernova: No it isn't, and not having "enough" just means that one might opt for the standard deduction instead. You'd be surprised how many people do not do this; it draws less attention when you file consistently, so someone using deductions as a tool of tax fraud are less likely to be audited. I've worked on the IRS EFDS and it's utterly depressing to see the effect of our terrible our tax code. Credits and deductions are a sham, not worth the cost to society even when the "desired" economic/investment outcomes are achieved. Just my opinion, but the people who push for (or protect) these provisions are utterly corrupt and/or stupid.

The original point is that the tax rebate is something you get regardless of what your tax burden is or whether or not you itemize deductions. The original ... poster was implying that the tax rebate was worthless to him since he doesn't itemize deductions, which is irrelevant when dealing with a tax rebate.

watson.t.hamster: A power source that only works in unpredictable spurts is a bit of a problem.

Yeah, you just NEVER KNOW when that sun will pop up...


As for the argument about "where does the energy come from?" ...

The US Department of Energy, which claims the overall efficiency of petroleum production is 83% (PDF warning, see page 5 middle of 3rd column). Since a gallon of gasoline contains 36.6kWh of energy that means to get that 36.6kWh you need to put in 44.1kWh.

At a very conservative 3 miles/kWh for electric vehicles and a very generous 30mpg for gasoline engine vehicles, a little math shows you will need just 23% as much energy to run an EV for the same driven distance. We can significantly reduce our petroleum consumption by skipping the refining and distribution step for gasoline and burning the crude oil to make electricity for driving electric vehicles instead.

Where does the energy come from? Where does it come from now?


watson.t.hamster: Like a battery? Sure. What are those made out of? Pixie dust and unicorn bones of course.\

Batteries, sure... or pumped hydro, or flywheels, or capacitors, or molten salt, or compressed air, or hydrogen, or superconductor energy storage, or ice, or cryogenic gasses, or steam tanks... whatever is appropriate for the amount of energy to be stored, what type of energy needs to be stored and where you are geographically.
=Smidge=

FubarBDilligaf: The cost of everything would go up

Yeah, it would. This country has lived in a fantasy world for the past fifty years, in which we have not spent any significant amount of money on infrastructure. If we want to continue to have a functioning infrastructure, then yes, we are going to have to put some money and effort into it. Perhaps you think that crumbling bridges, roads full of potholes, broken water and sewer mains and insufficient aging and obsolete electrical equipment will be "good for the economy".

Good on the ethanol subsidies, sucks ass about the electric car credit though.

Shaggy_C: Yep, how dare they try to bring the price point down via subsidy so that the smelly, lazy middle class might have a chance at owning one of those vehicles. Back to your horse and buggy, prole.

Every $7,500 tax credit given for the purchase of a volt is $7,500 away form a taxpayer and whatever other businesses he would have otherwise supported. People tend to ignore the consequences of the rainbow and puppydog fantasies that come with government spending.

theknuckler_33: Holy shiat. Sorry, I didn't realize you were mentally challenged.

Am I? I must be on the "gifted" side of the retarded spectrum since I understand how supply/demand work:

theknuckler_33: wolvernova: Add subsidy -> increase aggregate demand -> higher prices -> add more subsidies

so, the subsidy causes the rules of economics to work in reverse? I mean, increased demand caused the prices of cell phones, computers, flat screen TVs and pretty much every other new product to come down. If the demand of these cars increases, production will increase which will lower the per unit cost which will lower the retail cost.

Increased demand didn't drive "down" those prices. Demand w/ limited products will usually drive up prices. That leads to profitability and spurs competition, investment, innovation, efficiency of production/distribution, and lower marginal costs. Those phenomena are what cause lower prices and the consumption of cheaper-yet-superior goods, but over a long period of time. Product/technology life cycles are not the same thing as a caeteris-paribus-supply-demand model.

Given that explicit distinction, try to understand this concept:

Manufacturers will be able to sell at higher prices when consumers are bribed/subsidized to buy their cars. Forget about supply/demand models for a minute and think about it from a competitive/monopolistic perspective. It absolutely disincentivizes the producers' motives for optimization, improvement, and cost-minimization. They have far less incentive for increasing demand through better/greener/cheaper vehicles because they have (say) an $8k advantage per product than does the competition. Their incentive won't come until or unless any remaining competitors who aren't subsidized and are still in business can catch up to them.

The subsidies will always be an impediment (rather than a driver) for product improvement/affordability/efficiency so long as they exist. It's great if the "desired" outcome prevails, but it's often despite the subsidies than as a result, mostly because the policy wonks who implement them have no education in engineering, energy, or quantitative economic-financial systems. The arrogance of their manipulation alone ought be enough for the public to reject this nonsense.

Hollie Maea: FubarBDilligaf: The cost of everything would go up

Yeah, it would. This country has lived in a fantasy world for the past fifty years, in which we have not spent any significant amount of money on infrastructure. If we want to continue to have a functioning infrastructure, then yes, we are going to have to put some money and effort into it. Perhaps you think that crumbling bridges, roads full of potholes, broken water and sewer mains and insufficient aging and obsolete electrical equipment will be "good for the economy".

You're a fine one to talk about "fantasy worlds". What fantasy world do you live in where you think our economy can afford what that would do? You do realize that just about literally everything you buy has some portion of it's costs due to transportation or fuel costs? And that if you increase gas taxes that you'll drive up the prices on just about every single thing out there? How many families barely get along as is will this push under? How much more do we have to subsidize those already not making it to counter the idiotic increases you're calling for?

It's absolutely the dumbest idea I've ever seen on Fark, and it always comes from some idiot wanting to ignore the glaringly obvious drawbacks because they think it will serve some greater good. Great, we improve infrastructure, of course, we remove that use of infrastructure for some people because they simply won't be able to afford it, but hey! we can just raise the gas taxes some more to subsidize them so they won't be harmed right? And when that drives the prices up again, well, we'll raise the taxes again! It'll all work out, right?

But then, perhaps you think driving even more of the country into poverty and reducing income levels for everyone is the way to "fix" the economy. Like I said, you be hard pressed to come up with a single idea more guaranteed to TRASH the economy than increased gas taxes.

As had been said repeatedly, the problem isn't a lack of revenue, it's all the places we're spending money we shouldn't. Fark subsidizing green energy, that's a gamble. Offer a reward for the company that comes up with something that WORKS. It'd be cheaper and there'd be more than enough willing to risk their own money to get that reward that it would happen. Look up the Ortieg prize and the result you get for not funding speculative efforts, but rewarding successful efforts.

Giltric: Has the worker increased their productivity or has the industry?

Not only can a robot make the product on an assembly line it can also follow magnetic lines on the floor and do picking packing and shipping dutiies.

You seriously think you're going to get an honest answer by using facts?

Kazan: but wages have been stagnant

Stagnant wages wouldn't have anything to do with the 30,000,000 illegal and first-generation immigrants that are here with more coming every day would it? the fact that nearly all the people emigrating to this country are on the bottom of the economic scale skews the curve a bit.

Close the border, and wait 50 years after a couple generations pass over language, property and education and I bet your "stagnant wage" argument falls flat.

king_nacho: These credits are designed to help good ideas overcome the high start up price for early adopters, if the product doesn't take off, or proves unsustainable for any reason, should tax dollars continue funding it, or should that money be redirected at the next idea?

Why does it ever have to be profitably self-sustaining? Plenty of government programmes exist because they have to be funded by tax dollars as there is market failure that would not let them exist otherwise. Just look at food stamps, for instance. We don't pull the plug on them because they don't turn a profit.

Hollie Maea: The original point is that the tax rebate is something you get regardless of what your tax burden is or whether or not you itemize deductions. The original ... poster was implying that the tax rebate was worthless to him since he doesn't itemize deductions, which is irrelevant when dealing with a tax rebate.

I should have read his post more slowly, but your point is valid. My desire for no more credits/deductions is probably over-stated for a single thread, but I usually don't distinguish much between the two. Deductions are permanent and cause severe long-term economic malaise; credits are sometimes limited in duration, but a giveaway to people and corporations.

Both are an explicit transfer of wealth for whom very few benefit, at least in the end. Tax rates are significantly higher than they would be (were govt not playing these games), but most people support credits/deductions and would revolt if they were taken away. This is very effective social engineering, but it's also frightening and perplexing at the same time.

People are id-driven populist animals but will completely undermine their selfishness to one-up their peers via tax games. Bad analogy, but the populace is like a puppy that performs stupid tricks for an abusive owner in return for "treats".

FubarBDilligaf: You're a fine one to talk about "fantasy worlds". What fantasy world do you live in where you think our economy can afford what that would do? You do realize that just about literally everything you buy has some portion of it's costs due to transportation or fuel costs? And that if you increase gas taxes that you'll drive up the prices on just about every single thing out there? How many families barely get along as is will this push under? How much more do we have to subsidize those already not making it to counter the idiotic increases you're calling for?

No one has damaged the economy more in the last 3 years than the "We can't afford this" crowd.

wolvernova: WUT? I don't think you realize that there's hardly any - let alone a significant - difference between. It's like saying that a 50% off sale is significantly different from a $100 rebate on purchases of $200 or more; it's the exact same farking thing.

Your example is really stupid. You pay sales tax on the purchase price of an item. This means that the sales tax would be double for the item with a rebate than the item for 50% off. Almost every rebate requires the UPC code, which means the item can no longer be returned or exchanged. It also requires you to spend out time filling out forms. You take the risk of even having filled out the forms correctly that the check arrives and didn't get lost in the mail. Not only that, you are going to be without $100 for a minimum of a month. Your example really sucks.