PDA

View Full Version : Congressman Paul Introduces Bill for Fuel Efficient Cars




Feenix566
05-12-2009, 03:23 PM
Congressman Paul Introduces Bill for Fuel Efficient Cars

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Ron Paul is urging his colleagues in congress to cosponsor his legislation HR 1768 the Energy Efficient and Environmentally Friendly Automobile Tax Credit Act.

This legislation would help Americans spend less on gas and reduce pollution by providing a tax credit of up to $2,000 when they sell or trade in a car and obtain a vehicle that has at least 20% higher average fuel economy than their previous vehicle. It also creates a federal tax deduction for any state or local taxes paid on the purchase or the more fuel-efficient automobile, and makes interest on loans to purchase the more fuel-efficient vehicle tax deductible.

“Providing tax deductions and tax credits to make it easier for Americans to purchase fuel-efficient automobiles is a win for American consumers, a win for the environment, and a win for those of us who favor free market solutions to pollution and high gas prices,” Congressman Paul stated in a letter to his congressional colleagues.

Congressman Paul has frequently made the case for the free market and private property rights in protecting the environment, and has signed the Americans for Prosperity’s “No Climate Tax” Pledge. This pledge states that “climate change legislation should not be used as a guise to fund a massive increase in the size and scope of government…” and reaffirms Congressman Paul’s promise to vote against any legislation related to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.


http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx14_paul/efficientcars.shtml

Umm.... wtf?

It's inappropriate to use the tax code as a means of influencing people.

torchbearer
05-12-2009, 03:25 PM
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx14_paul/efficientcars.shtml

Umm.... wtf?

It's inappropriate to use the tax code as a means of influencing people.

If you can't get rid of the income tax, at least find ways to give people there money back.
This seems like a bill the dems will support.
If Paul gets two bills on the floor for a successful vote, he ascends from pariah to nirvana.

0zzy
05-12-2009, 03:36 PM
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx14_paul/efficientcars.shtml

Umm.... wtf?

It's inappropriate to use the tax code as a means of influencing people.

Is it? The tax code itself is bad, but to make a system work to its best potential?

Feenix566
05-12-2009, 03:36 PM
If you can't get rid of the income tax, at least find ways to give people there money back.
This seems like a bill the dems will support.
If Paul gets two bills on the floor for a successful vote, he ascends from pariah to nirvana.

This sounds like some crap a Dem would write. That's not why I support Ron Paul.

Cutting taxes without a corresponding cut in spending is pointless. Every single dollar the government spends gets paid for by the American people, one way or another. Some people think you can reduce the size of government by "starving the beast", but that clearly doesn't work. The budget deficit is already $1.8 trillion. The beast cannot be starved. They'll just keep borrowing and printing.

Plus, using the tax code to provide incentives for people to do things that they wouldn't otherwise do flies in the face of free market economics. If people want more fuel efficiency, they'll buy more fuel efficiency. If the government induces us to spend more money on fuel efficiency than we otherwise would, then we're not spending that money somewhere else. Somebody else is NOT getting a job because we're spending money on something that we wouldn't have otherwise bought.

Kotin
05-12-2009, 03:51 PM
This sounds like some crap a Dem would write. That's not why I support Ron Paul.

Cutting taxes without a corresponding cut in spending is pointless. Every single dollar the government spends gets paid for by the American people, one way or another. Some people think you can reduce the size of government by "starving the beast", but that clearly doesn't work. The budget deficit is already $1.8 trillion. The beast cannot be starved. They'll just keep borrowing and printing.

Plus, using the tax code to provide incentives for people to do things that they wouldn't otherwise do flies in the face of free market economics. If people want more fuel efficiency, they'll buy more fuel efficiency. If the government induces us to spend more money on fuel efficiency than we otherwise would, then we're not spending that money somewhere else. Somebody else is NOT getting a job because we're spending money on something that we wouldn't have otherwise bought.


hello..... we all know this.


you miss the point.


beause we cannot change the system overnight.. we must work within it anyway we can.. there is nothing but good things that come out of this bill..

if you want to be a purist, then go ahead and give up right now.

steph3n
05-12-2009, 03:55 PM
hello..... we all know this.


you miss the point.


beause we cannot change the system overnight.. we must work within it anyway we can.. there is nothing but good things that come out of this bill..

if you want to be a purist, then go ahead and give up right now.

you are exactly right, and this is showing that Ron Paul knows you can't do massive changes literally overnight, which is leadership.


Some people on this forum would prefer to cut off their nose than take steps toward liberty in an environment that is increasingly hostile to it at the govt levels

silverhawks
05-12-2009, 04:01 PM
beause we cannot change the system overnight.. we must work within it anyway we can.. there is nothing but good things that come out of this bill.

if you want to be a purist, then go ahead and give up right now.

You are aware that President Obama is actively supporting flex-fuel vehicles, in particular the Chevy Volt? And that to achieve an American "oil independence", Obama is supporting similar action to Brazil - which has devastated the Amazon Rainforest through mass burning and deforestation in order to plant biofuel crops. Organic farming in the US will suffer as even more farmers are handed subsidies to grow GM biocrops instead of food crops (which also causes pollution of the water table through constant use of pesticides and fertilizers; google "dead zone" + "gulf of mexico"), and likely companies like Monsanto will profit at the same time as members of Congress owning stocks in bio-corps line their pockets.

So no, this has some VERY bad outcomes.

And doesn't this just get people more used to "tax credits" instead of looking for more wide-ranging reform and abolishment of taxes altogether?

Doesn't even read like one of his bills...this isn't a "free market solution" to pollution, this is a government handout, that plays right into the Administration's plans to run the auto industry and encourages people to go into debt through getting a loan on a new car (tax deductible or not).

If this was written by Dr Paul, this is a gross error in judgment on his part.

gls
05-12-2009, 04:14 PM
You are aware that President Obama is actively supporting flex-fuel vehicles, in particular the Chevy Volt? And that to achieve an American "oil independence", Obama is supporting similar action to Brazil - which has devastated the Amazon Rainforest through mass burning and deforestation in order to plant biofuel crops. Organic farming in the US will suffer as even more farmers are handed subsidies to grow GM biocrops instead of food crops (which also causes pollution of the water table through constant use of pesticides and fertilizers; google "dead zone" + "gulf of mexico"), and likely companies like Monsanto will profit at the same time as members of Congress owning stocks in bio-corps line their pockets.

So no, this has some VERY bad outcomes.

It's a bill to provide tax breaks to those who buy fuel-efficient vehicles. It's a tax cut that might actually be passed by a democratic majority. It's not advocating a centrally planned national energy policy as far as I can tell.



And doesn't this just get people more used to "tax credits" instead of looking for more wide-ranging reform and abolishment of taxes altogether?

Doesn't even read like one of his bills...this isn't a "free market solution" to pollution, [B]this is a government handout.


How is it a government handout? It is allowing certain people to have the government steal a little less from them. You talk like you have a right to other people's money.

paulitics
05-12-2009, 04:22 PM
I'm going to reserve judgement until I hear his explanation. I'm sure this is simply strategic since it sounds contrary to free market phiolosophy that Paul promotes. I'm not against this type of thing necessarely depending on the context and details. Sure enough, it sounds like massive climate change bullshit will be rammed down our throats with higher taxes and regulation. Perhaps this is a strategic maneuver to make the socialists look bad with their middle class destroying plan. This will also beat the RHINOs to the punch, when they offer a socialist lite proposal to the democrats. At the very least, I can see this as being a pretty shrewd political move on his part to expose the congress as radical socialist/fascists in bed with Monsanto.

Old Ducker
05-12-2009, 04:23 PM
Does the bill (I didn't read it) define what source is used to determine it's fuel usage? I can understand if there is a source from the manufacturer, but if I was to trade in, say, a 1965 Dodge Dart for a Prius, I don't believe there is any "objective" source as to it's fuel consumption rate...especially if it's been modified from stock over the years.

Generally I hate laws such as this...all they do is render the Tax Code even more inscrutable. I am somewhat shocked that Paul would attach his name to it. My guess is that he's either trying to head off even uglier legislation, or "broaden" his appeal by providing he is more than "Dr. No."

So...while I do not support this bill, it won't cost Paul my support; if he were perfect, he wouldn't be a member of the criminal conspiracy otherwise known as the federal government.

dannno
05-12-2009, 04:24 PM
Hah, lowering taxes is bad now? What??


Look, with all of the environmental bills going through congress right now, Ron Paul is simply putting up a better option... they are about to pass a cap and trade scheme that is going to screw us all.


I'm sure he still votes against the spending :rolleyes: so he isn't being hypocritical.

dannno
05-12-2009, 04:30 PM
this is a government handout

No it is most certainly not.. getting my taxes back is not a hand out... and as far as the spending goes, he's still voting against the spending. You can't blame him for that.

qh4dotcom
05-12-2009, 04:32 PM
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx14_paul/efficientcars.shtml

Umm.... wtf?

It's inappropriate to use the tax code as a means of influencing people.

RP has said before that he votes for all tax credits no matter how silly they may seem...it's all about giving people back the money that has been stolen from them on April 15th.

silverhawks
05-12-2009, 04:37 PM
..
It's a bill to provide tax breaks to those who buy fuel-efficient vehicles. It's a tax cut that might actually be passed by a democratic majority. It's not advocating a centrally planned national energy policy as far as I can tell.

Tax cuts are better than tax credits. Tax credits are better than nothing.

How is it a government handout? It is allowing certain people to have the government steal a little less from them. You talk like you have a right to other people's money.

How exactly did ANY of what I posted translate into talking like I have a right to other people's money???

I don't want ANY taxes, barring the ones advocated by the Founding Fathers. My money is my money, and your money is your money. Tax credits are form of state benefit, a way for the government to manipulate and encourage spending. This one is no different. And there's nothing in this bill that prevents this tax cut being a public subsidy in disguise, with the difference in lost tax revenue being made up somewhere else.

I certainly don't want legislation that encourages the masses to go out and get a loan to buy a new car if they cannot afford it. This bill is encouraging people to go out and spend during a recession.

Based on what we've seen of the American consumer base, how many people (especially Obama supporters) do you think are going to flock to buy a $30,000 hybrid with a $2000 tax credit? Especially when one in particular is coming with a Presidential endorsement, at a time the mass media is saying that the economy is improving, and the government has been hinting at guaranteeing car loans?

And we already HAVE a centrally planned national energy policy. Go out and research the latest issues and imminent changes to that policy that I described that President Obama himself has been talking about recently.

Feenix566
05-12-2009, 04:40 PM
Hah, lowering taxes is bad now? What??


When our government is already $11 trillion in debt, it is. When the projected budget deficit is already $1.8 trillion per year, it is. When the tax code is being used to control people, it is.

When the government borrows money, it does so by issuing treasury notes. These treasury notes compete with the bond market for investment capital. The bond market is the means by which corporations borrow money so they can hire more people and create jobs. If no treasury notes were issued, all the investment capital would go straight into the economy. In other words, every single dollar that the government borrows directly hurts the economy.

So anyone who says this will have no bad effects is incorrect. It will further unbalance the federal budget, which will further slow down the economy.

Also, as I mentioned before, it will encourage people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles that they would not have otherwise bought. As a result of that, they won't buy whatever else they would have bought instead. So this bill will cause the economy to restructure itself in a less efficient way than it otherwise would have.

As is the case with every government economic intervention, the downside lies in the things that don't happen.

brandon
05-12-2009, 04:42 PM
You don't just simply get your taxes back though.

You only get some of our tax money back if you purchase products the government tells you to purchase. That is a fine example of corporatism.

Furthermore, people who paid less than $2000 in federal taxes are still eligible to get the $2000 credit.


This bill is a piece of garbage and I'm highly disappointed with Paul.

brandon
05-12-2009, 04:43 PM
This place really seems like the Church of Paul sometimes.

dannno
05-12-2009, 04:46 PM
You don't just simply get your taxes back though.

You only get some of our tax money back if you purchase products the government tells you to purchase. That is a fine example of corporatism.

It's not corporatism if you are simply favoring the companies that make the most efficient product :rolleyes:




Furthermore, people who paid less than $2000 in federal taxes are still eligible to get the $2000 credit.

Proof??




This bill is a piece of garbage and I'm highly disappointed with Paul.

Maybe you should get your facts straight first and listen to an explanation from Paul himself? I've heard a lot of Ron Paul supporters get mad at him for the earmarks thing, until they realized they were not educated on the issue.

dannno
05-12-2009, 04:48 PM
Cars cause toxic pollution, and polluting goes against the principle of property rights.

Tax credits for cars that pollute less and tax hikes for polluting are both things that Ron Paul has determined to be constitutional, as they help to protect property rights. Are you against property rights?

brandon
05-12-2009, 04:49 PM
It's not corporatism if you are simply favoring the companies that make the most efficient product :rolleyes:


Who is doing the favoring? The government. The government favoring companies is pretty much the definition of corporatism. If these companies really had the most efficient product they would not need the government to provide incentives for people to buy it.


I don't need to hear Paul explain it. I'm fully capable of thinking for myself.

dannno
05-12-2009, 04:51 PM
When our government is already $11 trillion in debt, it is. When the projected budget deficit is already $1.8 trillion per year, it is.

Again, he didn't vote for the spending. It can't be blamed on him. He always votes for tax breaks and never votes for spending increases. That is precisely what he has always said. Ron Paul is still being principled whether you think so or not.



When the tax code is being used to control people, it is.

Giving people the option to LOWER their taxes is NOT controlling people. Raising taxes is controlling people.

The Paul haters in this thread need to sit back and think about this thing for a minute, because I am hearing a ridiculous amount of irrationality.




As is the case with every government economic intervention, the downside lies in the things that don't happen.

Ya, like people polluting my fucking air.

LibForestPaul
05-12-2009, 04:54 PM
This is a horrible bill. I certainly will make Dr Paul aware of my pov. However, it is up to his district to lean on him.

dannno
05-12-2009, 04:54 PM
Who is doing the favoring? The government. The government favoring companies is pretty much the definition of corporatism. If these companies really had the most efficient product they would not need the government to provide incentives for people to buy it.

No, you're wrong, the government is currently subsidizing OIL both directly and through our foreign policy (1 Trillion/Year) which is why people are not buying more efficient cars!!! This is a tax break to offset the government's recklessness.




I don't need to hear Paul explain it. I'm fully capable of thinking for myself.

Try thinking harder ;)

dannno
05-12-2009, 04:55 PM
This is a horrible bill. I certainly will make Dr Paul aware of my pov. However, it is up to his district to lean on him.

How is giving people tax breaks bad??? He isn't increasing spending, he has never advocated it..

Will somebody please explain their position against Paul logically?? Please??

brandon
05-12-2009, 04:57 PM
We might as well have the government give tax credits for all the other things that politicians deem to be "good" as well.

Like newer computers. Everyone can benefit from a new more powerful computer. Maybe the government should offer $500 tax credits to everyone who upgrades to a new computer.

And bicycles too. $100 to everyone who gets a new bike.

Might as well have the government pay us to recycle our aluminum cans too. I'm sure the fedgov can afford to give every American 1 cent for each soda can they recycle. They have the money, right?

Then we will have all these great things all thanks to the government@!!!

axiomata
05-12-2009, 04:59 PM
He uses the same logic to justify this as he does earmarks to his district.

brandon
05-12-2009, 05:00 PM
//

torchbearer
05-12-2009, 05:05 PM
This sounds like some crap a Dem would write. That's not why I support Ron Paul.

Cutting taxes without a corresponding cut in spending is pointless. Every single dollar the government spends gets paid for by the American people, one way or another. Some people think you can reduce the size of government by "starving the beast", but that clearly doesn't work. The budget deficit is already $1.8 trillion. The beast cannot be starved. They'll just keep borrowing and printing.

Plus, using the tax code to provide incentives for people to do things that they wouldn't otherwise do flies in the face of free market economics. If people want more fuel efficiency, they'll buy more fuel efficiency. If the government induces us to spend more money on fuel efficiency than we otherwise would, then we're not spending that money somewhere else. Somebody else is NOT getting a job because we're spending money on something that we wouldn't have otherwise bought.

Ron Paul even had a bill to exclude a server's tips from being included in income taxes. Does this make him a sell-out to the message because the bill wasn't to eliminate all taxes?

dannno
05-12-2009, 05:06 PM
We might as well have the government give tax credits for all the other things that politicians deem to be "good" as well.

Like newer computers. Everyone can benefit from a new more powerful computer. Maybe the government should offer $500 tax credits to everyone who upgrades to a new computer.

Um, you don't "get" the environment, do you?

Did you actually watch the Reagan debates where Paul explained his position on property rights and the environment? Have you heard him say he thinks that oil could be taxed because it is a form of pollution that goes against property rights??



And bicycles too. $100 to everyone who gets a new bike.

Sounds GREAT as long as it is a tax break and not a subsidy!! Why the hell should bicycles be taxed?? Are you getting it yet??




Might as well have the government pay us to recycle our aluminum cans too. I'm sure the fedgov can afford to give every American 1 cent for each soda can they recycle. They have the money, right?

Then we will have all these great things all thanks to the government@!!!

If it's a tax break, then yes, I agree wholeheartedly.




This is the most amazingly backwards thread in RPF history. People arguing FOR taxes!! I never thought I would see the day :rolleyes:

brandon
05-12-2009, 05:08 PM
No one is arguing for taxes or against property rights. Not sure where you're getting that from.

dannno
05-12-2009, 05:19 PM
No one is arguing for taxes or against property rights. Not sure where you're getting that from.

Your response a few posts above indicated that you thought this was a subsidy when it was in fact a tax break. Big difference. Ron Paul advocates tax breaks, and fights STRONGLY against subsidies and spending. There is a reason for this.

Ron Paul also says that the Federal Government can intervene in cases where property rights are being threatened, therefore they can take action against polluters by taxing pollution. In this case, he is giving tax breaks to people who pollute less, similar net effect and still principled Ron Paul.

Corporatism existed back in the 1800s when industrial companies colluded with the government so that they could pollute. The government protected them from being sued by putting up lax regulations. Ron Paul said that at the Reagan debates as well.

What it comes down to is that everything he is doing is principled based upon has past speeches and writings. If you aren't familiar with his speeches and writings, then I would imagine you might be surprised by these actions.

Danke
05-12-2009, 05:22 PM
Too bad Ron Paul really doesn't understand the Income Tax. He is trying to attack it on a practical sense, but could do so much more good if he went to the fundamentals.

The Income Tax is an excise tax. If you are not involved it the activity, you are not liable for the tax. It is a tax for the privileged of doing business with the government. ex. tips from work at a private businesses are not taxable. That is just misreading the code by Ron Paul.

Since we currently have legal tender laws, the more deductions and credits, just adds to the burden of those who receive our pay in FRNs, and have investments and savings denominated in FRNs.

It increases the inflation tax.

silverhawks
05-12-2009, 05:38 PM
And its not like this bill advances an agenda at all.

Obama calls for 'clean energy' nation (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12280.html) (Mar 2008)


Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Monday called reducing the nation’s energy consumption “the great test of our time” and proposed billions of dollars in subsidies for business and consumers to encourage a “clean energy “ future.

“We can do this,” he vowed in Michigan, the nation’s car capital, promising to spend $150 billion over 10 years on the effort.

The plans include a $7,000 tax credit to drivers who buy advanced-technology vehicles and $4 billion in direct assistance to Detroit automakers to help them build hybrid vehicles in the U.S.

McCain (and Obama Too?) Embraces the Chevy Volt (http://alternativefuels.about.com/b/2008/07/21/mccain-embraces-the-chevy-volt-and-obama-too.htm)


Automotive News reports that, at a recent GM facility visit, Republican White House hopeful John McCain took a spin in a concept plug-in hybrid electric Chevrolet Volt. He then told a group of about 300 GM Detroit Technical Center employees, "I will do everything in my power to make sure this breakthrough has every chance of success and that we will make sure American citizens understand what's happening here." He also pledged to give up to $5000 in tax credits to initial buyers to make the Volt more affordable. According to the report, GM CEO Rick Wagoner said that Democratic rival Presidential candidate-to-be Barack Obama also favors tax incentives for first buyers.

Chevy Volt inspires financial vows from Barack Obama (http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2008/08/05/chevy-volt-inspires-financial-vows-from-barack-obama/) (August 2008)


The Michigan economy has struggled for a while now with a declining auto industry and Barack Obama knows that. That’s why he’s making some bold promises to support the auto industry with government loans and consumer tax credits, and he mentioned the Chevy Volt by name.

Obama's sensible fuel fix (http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=580107f4-4958-45a4-9345-10cccd02932d) (April 2009)


Obama proposes a specific remedy: a law that would mandate flex-fuel engines in automobiles in order to break the oil monopoly, as Brazil has done. Letting consumers choose or blend the two fuels exerts downward price pressure and is good for the economy. Extra cost? US$100 a model.

Obama on Chevy Volt: Rebuff or Reality Check? (http://featured.matternetwork.com/2009/4/obama-chevy-volt-rebuff-reality.cfm) (April 2009)


Analysts have not been saying that the Volt -- or any of the plug-in vehicles -- will be profit centers for the auto companies right away. The federal government realizes this, and that's why it is offering a $7,500 incentive to consumers, as well as substantial stimulus money towards making the grid more PHEV friendly.


If this bill had been put to the House by ANY other member of Congress, I'd be checking to see whether they were invested in biofuels or automobiles by now.

NinjaPirate
05-12-2009, 05:45 PM
This thread is chock-full of stupid.

krazy kaju
05-12-2009, 05:46 PM
It's inappropriate to use the tax code as a means of influencing people.

So you want to pay higher taxes?

brandon
05-12-2009, 05:46 PM
Oh snap! I have a great idea!

So, I've been wanting to get a motorcycle for a couple years now. And if this bill passes I can get one for free!

I will just go buy some old beat up car for $2000. Then I will trade it in for a used motorcycle that costs $2000 and get my $2000 of free government money!

dannno
05-12-2009, 05:49 PM
Oh snap! I have a great idea!

So, I've been wanting to get a motorcycle for a couple years now. And if this bill passes I can get one for free!

I will just go buy some old beat up car for $2000. Then I will trade it in for a used motorcycle that costs $2000 and get my $2000 of free government money!

Stop calling it free government money. Jesus Fucking Christ I know you are smarter than that.


And yes, that is a great idea. You will pollute a lot less with your motorcycle and the air on my property and the water in your town will be that much cleaner.

Danke
05-12-2009, 05:52 PM
Oh snap! I have a great idea!

So, I've been wanting to get a motorcycle for a couple years now. And if this bill passes I can get one for free!

Well, I have been looking for help funding my home of salvation for wayward women. Maybe I could lobby for a tax credit to help me out in my ministry.

brandon
05-12-2009, 05:53 PM
I just realized how this bill will destroy the used car market.

No car will sell for under $2000. Have an old beat up car that you were planning on selling for $1000? Well you're definitely not going to sell it now if you find out you can get $2000 extra dollars if you trade it in. Or even if you don't want to trade it in yourself, I'm sure you can find someone else who is looking to buy a new car and will gladly buy your $1000 car from you for $2000 just to go and trade it in.

People in the lower class that need to buy cheap cars to get to work will not be able to find them anymore.

Bastiat is rolling in his grave.

Danke
05-12-2009, 05:54 PM
Stop calling it free government money.


It is government money. That is why it is called a "return."

ItsTime
05-12-2009, 05:54 PM
Great move by Ron Paul use the dems own propaganda against them!

dannno
05-12-2009, 05:56 PM
it is government money. That is why it is called a "return."

No it is my money!! It is a tax credit!! It is my fucking money that I earned!

Don't you remember the interview with Neil Cavuto? He asked the guy who was for the bailouts why they're using "our" money, the guy said it wasn't "our" money, but Neil said "IT IS!! IT IS OUR MONEY!!"


WTH is the matter with our forum today? It's like it's broken or something..

silverhawks
05-12-2009, 05:57 PM
Stop calling it free government money. Jesus Fucking Christ I know you are smarter than that.

Smart enough to realise this bill encourages large materialistic purchases at a time of unprecedented recession, from someone who supposedly encourages fiscal responsibility, and has been pointing towards an imminent dollar crash.

brandon
05-12-2009, 05:57 PM
Well, I have been looking for help funding my home of salvation for wayward women.

Got paypal? I'll send you $100 if you appoint me head therapist. :D

dannno
05-12-2009, 05:59 PM
Great move by Ron Paul use the dems own propaganda against them!

Seriously, we're about to have a massive cap and trade scheme evoked, Ron Paul gives them the alternative of lowering taxes and it goes over half the people on this forum's head!! WTF??

dannno
05-12-2009, 06:00 PM
Smart enough to realise this bill encourages large materialistic purchases at a time of unprecedented recession, from someone who supposedly encourages fiscal responsibility, and has been pointing towards an imminent dollar crash.

IT IS A FUCKING TAX RETURN!!

God dammit.. We are taking money from the government, this is a win win situation.. what is the matter with people today?? Seriously..

I mean, yes, we need to lower spending, he tries to do that, but that doesn't mean he should stop fighting for tax breaks. He fights for tax breaks and spending cuts. Period. That is what Ron Paul does. That is what he has always done. He has NEVER changed his position!!

silverhawks
05-12-2009, 06:01 PM
Seriously, we're about to have a massive cap and trade scheme evoked, Ron Paul gives them the alternative of lowering taxes and it goes over half the people on this forum's head!! WTF??

And what exactly do you get from this bill that makes it an alternative to cap and trade, instead of being deployed in tandem with it?

Looks to me that it makes people buy into the need for cap and trade, by ramping up the urgency to go green and "save the planet".

Objectivist
05-12-2009, 06:01 PM
Nice, lets legislate behavior and screw the guys who drive a truck to work.

Danke
05-12-2009, 06:02 PM
No it is my money!! It is a tax credit!! It is my fucking money that I earned!


WTH is the matter with our forum today? It's like it's broken or something..

Just because you have never studies the IRC, don't blame the educated for your ignorance in sending in a portion of your private receipts.

dannno
05-12-2009, 06:03 PM
And what exactly do you get from this bill that makes it an alternative to cap and trade, instead of being deployed in tandem with it?


Because this is something that Republicans would be more likely to vote for OVER the cap and trade scheme..




Looks to me that it makes people buy into the need for cap and trade, by ramping up the urgency to go green and "save the planet".

What's the matter with going green to save the planet as long as it isn't a government subsidy or a cap and trade scheme??

dannno
05-12-2009, 06:05 PM
Just because you have never studies the IRC, don't blame the educated for your ignorance in sending in a portion of your private receipts.

"They have the guns" and I have a feeling they don't agree with you.. secondly this bill is irrelevant to me because I don't plan to get a new car.


We'll see what happens to you next year when Obama has the IRS squad budget doubled..

dannno
05-12-2009, 06:07 PM
Nice, lets legislate behavior and screw the guys who drive a truck to work.

How on earth are we screwing them up by giving others a tax break??

silverhawks
05-12-2009, 06:07 PM
IT IS A FUCKING TAX RETURN!!

God dammit.. We are taking money from the government, this is a win win situation.. what is the matter with people today?? Seriously..

I mean, yes, we need to lower spending, he tries to do that, but that doesn't mean he should stop fighting for tax breaks. He fights for tax breaks and spending cuts. Period. That is what Ron Paul does. That is what he has always done. He has NEVER changed his position!!

OK, let me run you through this scenario:

I go out and sell my SUV, and buy a Highlander or an Escalade instead. Let's say I spend $30,000 on the vehicle.

So now I get a $2000 RP tax credit back, "taking money away from the government".

Who finances the other $28,000?

Unless I have cash, I'm going to need an auto loan. Which is putting me into debt for $28,000 plus interest, on a loan funded by the banking industry.

Win-win!

Do you seriously not see this scenario evolving all across America as legions of Obamabots sold on the Chevy Volt flock to buy their great leader's "People's Car"?

brandon
05-12-2009, 06:11 PM
How on earth are we screwing them up by giving others a tax break??

Because the truck drivers are now at a competitive disadvantage.

Every individual is competing for wealth in a free market. When the government subsidizes one individual, it puts the others at disadvantage.

It's the same as when the government subsidizes a corporation.

Danke
05-12-2009, 06:20 PM
"They have the guns" and I have a feeling they don't agree with you..

Well hell, might as well give up now. Fuck the R3volution. Game over.

Where should I run too?

Danke
05-12-2009, 06:23 PM
We'll see what happens to you next year when Obama has the IRS squad budget doubled..

Thanks for your support in the fight. I guess when they charge you with a felony for smoking a joint, I'll be right there saying, "I told you so."

silverhawks
05-12-2009, 06:27 PM
Because this is something that Republicans would be more likely to vote for OVER the cap and trade scheme..

This is a HORRENDOUSLY naive assumption about the state of politics in Washington.

Look at how the Republican side of Congress rallied around to save the public money by passing the bailouts.

They will vote for cap-and-trade AND this, because BOTH will make them money.

Alternatively, considering the Democratic majority, the Dems will vote for cap-and-trade, the Repubs will vote for this, and both will profit; and in the eyes of their supporters, both will have "stood up for their party's principles".

Omphfullas Zamboni
05-12-2009, 06:32 PM
Because the truck drivers are now at a competitive disadvantage.

Every individual is competing for wealth in a free market. When the government subsidizes one individual, it puts the others at disadvantage.

It's the same as when the government subsidizes a corporation.

Howdy,

It is not a subsidy, begging your pardon. If Representative Paul had his way, everything would come with a tax break, eliminating the burden on taxpayers.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Omphfullas Zamboni

Danke
05-12-2009, 06:34 PM
Howdy,

It is not a subsidy, begging your pardon. If Representative Paul had his way, everything would come with a tax break, eliminating the burden on taxpayers.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Omphfullas Zamboni

Not until you get spending under control. The inflation tax would just increase, and that is a bigger burden on the lower classes.

torchbearer
05-12-2009, 06:38 PM
It is government money. That is why it is called a "return."

It is your money that is why they call it a return.
A return of your money. Some people think that's a bad thing.

specsaregood
05-12-2009, 06:48 PM
It is your money that is why they call it a return.
A return of your money.

I would hope that would be obvious.

I'm for it. Give us tax credits for EVERYTHING until I don't have to pay one cent to the government.

And for the record, you don't have to be a al gore devotee to think that fuel-efficient cars are good for our country, overall..

Danke
05-12-2009, 06:53 PM
It is your money that is why they call it a return.
A return of your money. Some people think that's a bad thing.

Do you know the history of the term?

silverhawks
05-12-2009, 06:55 PM
It is your money that is why they call it a return.
A return of your money. Some people think that's a bad thing.

I don't think that's the bad part, Torchbearer. I think the bad part is that it encourages people to spend or borrow at least ten times the amount of the return in order to get the return, at a time of recession caused by reckless spending and borrowing.

And in particular, I'm disturbed that this is being encouraged by someone who continues to forecast imminent economic collapse; the same person who stresses the importance of saving money rather than spending it or borrowing recklessly.

Omphfullas Zamboni
05-12-2009, 06:56 PM
Not until you get spending under control. The inflation tax would just increase, and that is a bigger burden on the lower classes.

Hi,

Congressman Paul votes against spending.

Cheers,
Omphfullas Zamboni

specsaregood
05-12-2009, 07:04 PM
I don't think that's the bad part, Torchbearer. I think the bad part is that it encourages people to spend or borrow at least ten times the amount of the return in order to get the return, at a time of recession caused by reckless spending and borrowing.

And in particular, I'm disturbed that this is being encouraged by someone who continues to forecast imminent economic collapse; the same person who stresses the importance of saving money rather than spending it or borrowing recklessly.

1. In the case of imminent economic collapse, screw the debt. You can't squeeze blood from turnips.

2. Nothing in the bill forces a person to take out a bank loan to buy the car. I know more than a few people that don't -- they either save up for it or get loans from family/friends. I'm in this group.

3. Using a more fuel-efficient car saves you money over time, especially so if oil prices increase (likely) and taxes on gas increase (highly likely).

4. This encourages spending in a "good way". If somebody is in the market to buy a new car or needs a new car they are going to buy it. A $2000 taxbreak is not gonna create much/if any artificial demand.

5. It is a taxbreak not a subsidy, not a handout, not free money. It is their own money they are getting back. The more taxbreaks the merrier.

torchbearer
05-12-2009, 07:10 PM
Do you know the history of the term?

the term return?
As in something you have given that is returned to you?

krazy kaju
05-12-2009, 07:10 PM
don't blame the educated for your ignorance in sending in a portion of your private receipts.

Aren't you forced to have your income withholded?

jclay2
05-12-2009, 07:12 PM
This does seem contradictory to Dr. Paul's core principles of free markets, so I am unneasy about the legislation and its market impact. However as many of you point out, he is just trying to make the best out of a bad situation.

CUnknown
05-12-2009, 07:47 PM
I love Ron Paul. :)

This bill is just another reason why.

You people who are against this bill -- are you against tax breaks or just fuel efficiency? :p What's not to like, honestly?

Danke
05-12-2009, 07:53 PM
Hi,

Congressman Paul votes against spending.

Cheers,
Omphfullas Zamboni

Yes I know that, but it does not negate the reality of the inflation tax. Therefore, no "eliminating the burden on taxpayers." In fact it increases the burden upon the lower classes. Need to fix spending first to prevent that.


If Representative Paul had his way, everything would come with a tax break, eliminating the burden on taxpayers.

Danke
05-12-2009, 07:57 PM
Aren't you forced to have your income withholded?

There are ways to prevent that. But it is hard to get FICA not withheld, so best to think of it as an interest free loan that you get back the following year. However, I do not know anyone who has been able to get the "employer" portion back.

specsaregood
05-12-2009, 08:17 PM
Yes I know that, but it does not negate the reality of the inflation tax. .

But in reality "inflation" is something that you can hedge against and combat with the proper investments. Combating taxes is much more difficult. In fact, would not a more fuel-efficient vehicle be one way of combatting inflation and a rise in oil prices due to inflation?

Danke
05-12-2009, 08:22 PM
But in reality "inflation" is something that you can hedge against and combat with the proper investments. Combating taxes is much more difficult. In fact, would not a more fuel-efficient vehicle be one way of combatting inflation and a rise in oil prices due to inflation?

In some ways, but it is hard for those of us earning a salary to get anywhere close to a real inflation adjusted wage increase.

My parents live on SS for the most part, it has been going down in purchasing power because of inflation.

specsaregood
05-12-2009, 08:33 PM
In some ways, but it is hard for those of us earning a salary to get anywhere close to a real inflation adjusted wage increase.

My parents live on SS for the most part, it has been going down in purchasing power because of inflation.

Fair enough, personally I'd still rather fight the inflation monster than the tax monster.

Maybe RP has a hunch that oil prices are going to go up due to inflation and thinks giving a tax-credit is a good way of helping people already interested in getting into more fuel-efficient vehicles, actually get them -- just throwing that out there, schiff certainly thinks so. Not that all the other reasons people have posted in this thread isn't good enough.

I'm sure RP will have a chance to further explain his reasoning soon enough.

Kraig
05-12-2009, 09:19 PM
I agree with Brandon I am very surprised almost everyone seems to support this here, I am also surprised and disapointed Ron Paul would push this. This is not "getting your tax money back" this is redistributing the tax money to people who want to/are able to buy a new car. The arguments you other guys are using to support this can just as easily be applied to unemployment or welfare.

torchbearer
05-12-2009, 09:27 PM
I agree with Brandon I am very surprised almost everyone seems to support this here, I am also surprised and disapointed Ron Paul would push this. This is not "getting your tax money back" this is redistributing the tax money to people who want to/are able to buy a new car. The arguments you other guys are using to support this can just as easily be applied to unemployment or welfare.

sounds like money going into people's hands and not the governments hands.
credits for everything for everyone until the government gets nothing.

Kraig
05-12-2009, 09:31 PM
sounds like money going into people's hands and not the governments hands.
credits for everything for everyone until the government gets nothing.

Welfare is also money going to the people's hands. Realistically all tax money eventually ends up in "the people's hands", it's just a matter of which people.

specsaregood
05-12-2009, 09:38 PM
Welfare is also money going to the people's hands. Realistically all tax money eventually ends up in "the people's hands", it's just a matter of which people.

Welfare is other people's money going into people's hands, aka: theft. A tax-credit is my own money coming back to me. If I don't have any tax-money to get back, I don't get anything. Completely different. He isn't proposing paying people to buy one of these vehicles.

torchbearer
05-12-2009, 09:39 PM
Welfare is other people's money going into people's hands, aka: theft. A tax-credit is my own money coming back to me. If I don't have any tax-money to get back, I don't get anything. Completely different. He isn't proposing paying people to buy one of these vehicles.

yes. important to note- this is a tax credit.
welfare is not a tax credit.

Kraig
05-12-2009, 09:42 PM
yes. important to note- this is a tax credit.
welfare is not a tax credit.

So how does a tax credit work? It's part of your tax return at the end of the year? People who didn't pay more than 2k in taxes wouldn't be eligible for this?

torchbearer
05-12-2009, 09:44 PM
So how does a tax credit work? It's part of your tax return at the end of the year? People who didn't pay more than 2k in taxes wouldn't be eligible for this?

A tax credit comes off of the money you owe.
So if you don't owe taxes, it does you no good.

specsaregood
05-12-2009, 09:45 PM
So how does a tax credit work? It's part of your tax return at the end of the year? People who didn't pay more than 2k in taxes wouldn't be eligible for this?

In short, yes. They count as taxes-paid. More valuable than tax-deductions actually. If you had owed/paid only 2k in taxes for the year, you would get it all back.

Danke
05-12-2009, 09:45 PM
So how does a tax credit work? It's part of your tax return at the end of the year? People who didn't pay more than 2k in taxes wouldn't be eligible for this?

If you are not a taxpayer (income tax) then no benefit. Most of us are not liable for the income tax, so no benefit, just the opposite, higher inflation tax.

Kraig
05-12-2009, 09:47 PM
A tax credit comes off of the money you owe.
So if you don't owe taxes, it does you no good.

So then how does one owe taxes when they are taking it out of your check? I know it happens, but it seems like it would be pretty rare outside of people who file incorrectly or run a buisness. Fuck I know shit about taxes, I have only filed once and I didn't even get the money back assumingly because I did something wrong. This doesn't sound that bad anymore though, thanks for explaining it.

specsaregood
05-12-2009, 09:49 PM
So then how does one owe taxes when they are taking it out of your check? I know it happens, but it seems like it would be pretty rare outside of people who file incorrectly or run a buisness. Fuck I know shit about taxes, I have only filed once and I didn't even get the money back assumingly because I did something wrong. This doesn't sound that bad anymore though, thanks for explaining it.

The taxes taken out of your check are included in what torch was saying in "owed". So if your employer took out 4k worth of taxes and you had this tax credit you would get at least 2k back when you file your return.

torchbearer
05-12-2009, 09:50 PM
So then how does one owe taxes when they are taking it out of your check? I know it happens, but it seems like it would be pretty rare outside of people who file incorrectly or run a buisness. Fuck I know shit about taxes, I have only filed once and I didn't even get the money back assumingly because I did something wrong. This doesn't sound that bad anymore though, thanks for explaining it.

The money they withhold is the money you will owe assuming your dependents and deductions don't adjust anything at the time of filing.
SO if your employer witheld $2000 on behalf of the federal government and you get $5000 in tax credit from buying a eco friendly car, you will get your $2000 back from the government. It is a return of your money.
Isn't that so evil?

Yeah- they shouldn't take it to begin with, but now you have another way to tell the government you don't owe them that money.

specsaregood
05-12-2009, 10:02 PM
It is a return of your money.
Isn't that so evil?

Yeah- they shouldn't take it to begin with, but now you have another way to tell the government you don't owe them that money.

Not to go offtopic with theoretical discussions but...
We all know RP loves tax credits and he is pro-life....
If somebody proposed a bill to give a tax credit for getting an abortion, do you think RP would vote for it?

Danke
05-12-2009, 10:08 PM
The money they withhold is the money you will owe assuming your dependents and deductions don't adjust anything at the time of filing.
SO if your employer witheld $2000 on behalf of the federal government and you get $5000 in tax credit from buying a eco friendly car, you will get your $2000 back from the government. It is a return of your money.
Isn't that so evil?

Yeah- they shouldn't take it to begin with, but now you have another way to tell the government you don't owe them that money.

You are disregarding FICA. You can have many exemptions and have no withholding except FICA taxes.

torchbearer
05-12-2009, 10:08 PM
Not to go offtopic with theoretical discussions but...
We all know RP loves tax credits and he is pro-life....
If somebody proposed a bill to give a tax credit for getting an abortion, do you think RP would vote for it?

no. you'd be giving incentives for people to kill their babies.
the credit should be the result of a positive action, not a negative.
Like for every crack rock you sell to a 5 year old you get a $100 Tax credit. makes no sense.

It would have to be something like- for every new tree you plant on your property you get a $100 credit.
Not because it is right to use people's money to extort their behavior, but because it was their money to begin with, but you can't end the income tax because not enough congressmen support your bill so you try other ways to get people relief.

torchbearer
05-12-2009, 10:10 PM
You are disregarding FICA. You can have many exemptions and have no withholding except FICA taxes.

how many people know and do this?
I know a good bit about taxes and I have no idea what you are talking about.
I just don't pay shit.
But i'm certain everyone who works for a 'law abiding' employer has 0-2 exemptions and are suffering from withholdings.

Omphfullas Zamboni
05-12-2009, 10:11 PM
Not to go offtopic with theoretical discussions but...
We all know RP loves tax credits and he is pro-life....
If somebody proposed a bill to give a tax credit for getting an abortion, do you think RP would vote for it?

Rock and a hard place for Paul.

specsaregood
05-12-2009, 10:17 PM
no. you'd be giving incentives for people to kill their babies.
the credit should be the result of a positive action, not a negative.
Like for every crack rock you sell to a 5 year old you get a $100 Tax credit. makes no sense.

But who decides what is positive and what is negative? I know people that would argue that the world is overpopulated and increasing abortions is a positive thing. (not my opinion)

Although I guess you sort of addressed this with:


Not because it is right to use people's money to extort their behavior, but because it was their money to begin with, but you can't end the income tax because not enough congressmen support your bill so you try other ways to get people relief.



It would have to be something like- for every new tree you plant on your property you get a $100 credit.

I would totally support that. I'd cut all the trees down on my property just to plant more! :D

Danke
05-12-2009, 10:19 PM
how many people know and do this?
I know a good bit about taxes and I have no idea what you are talking about.
I just don't pay shit.
But i'm certain everyone who works for a 'law abiding' employer has 0-2 exemptions and are suffering from withholdings.

How many people? I really don't know.

There are many ways to tackle the income tax withholding issue.

I work for a big corporation, so I have chosen to withhold over 50 on my W-4 (effectively no withholdings except FICA).

But like I said, there are many ways to address this issue, some have either sued or threatened to sue their "employer" and stopped them from any withholdings, including FICA.

torchbearer
05-12-2009, 10:24 PM
But who decides what is positive and what is negative? I know people that would argue that the world is overpopulated and increasing abortions is a positive thing. (not my opinion)

Although I guess you sort of addressed this with:



I would totally support that. I'd cut all the trees down on my property just to plant more! :D

the individual decides what is positive. I assume Paul would not want to give someone something (Even their own money) to kill their baby.
If someone wants to do that for other reasons outside government influences... that may be a different issue.
But the government giving credits for abortions is akin to china mandating them.
That is why I say so many times, the federal government shouldn't be involved in this issue. It is best governed close to the family.

devil21
05-12-2009, 11:14 PM
Welfare is also money going to the people's hands. Realistically all tax money eventually ends up in "the people's hands", it's just a matter of which people.

But welfare is taking someone else's money when you didn't pay into the system in the first place. Taking a tax break is getting back your own money (or keeping it in your pocket, depending on your individual tax situation).

I think the bill is fine. Any tax breaks are a good start, especially with the tax machine in the Oval Office. No one is forcing anyone to drive a gas guzzler. If you want the tax break then buy a new more fuel efficient car. The bill doesn't mandate a particular type of car. It appears to only specify a 20% higher gas mileage as the trigger for the tax break. If you want your gas guzzler, keep your gas guzzler. That's freedom of choice right there. Just don't expect a tax break for driving the gas guzzler. I'm sure Obama will be happy to apply that $2000 to universal health care or a new welfare program for illegal immigrants if you don't want it back.

And rest assured that no one in Congress but Ron Paul will be offering you a tax credit of any sort over the next 4 to 8 years, so take it where you can get it.

Immortal Technique
05-12-2009, 11:16 PM
If you can't get rid of the income tax, at least find ways to give people there money back.
This seems like a bill the dems will support.
If Paul gets two bills on the floor for a successful vote, he ascends from pariah to nirvana.

LMAO, best post ive seen in a while

torchbearer
05-12-2009, 11:18 PM
LMAO, best post ive seen in a while

i think it should be corrected to 'from pariah to Brahmin" to be more correct. though i think people understand the idea either way.

Bossobass
05-13-2009, 04:57 AM
Seriously, we're about to have a massive cap and trade scheme evoked, Ron Paul gives them the alternative of lowering taxes and it goes over half the people on this forum's head!! WTF??


Cap and trade, in other words, is a scheme to redistribute income and wealth -- but in a very curious way. It takes from the working class and gives to the affluent; takes from Miami, Ohio, and gives to Miami, Florida; and takes from an industrial America that is already struggling and gives to rich Silicon Valley and Wall Street "green tech" investors who know how to leverage the political class.

CBO estimates a trillion dollars over the first decade. We all know the estimates are BS. This scheme will double the income tax revenues.

RP is throwing a wrench into this jack off scheme and this thread rambles on incoherently about everything but the point, except for Danno, who gets it right.

Bosso

Austin
05-13-2009, 05:45 AM
I don't like this bill. It is essentially a subsidy and it will inevitably have adverse effects on some portion of the market.

That said, at least it is a tax break... It's tolerable, but I would have preferred Dr. Paul not introduced this bill at all...

nobody's_hero
05-13-2009, 06:53 AM
Interesting.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it but this kind of reminds me of the $8K tax credit you can get if you are a first-time home-buyer.

Couple of problems with that:

1. Most of the people who couldn't afford the $200,000 house will not suddenly be able to afford it if they now only have to pay $192,000 for it.

2. It really benefits the banks, and few others. Homes still hanging on at those prices aren't going to sell in this market anyway. Instead of asset liquidation, the government supposedly has to step in and make the garbage more enticing, with money it doesn't have. Our government is flat broke, in case you haven't gotten the memo.

3. There is nothing to benefit the people who rent, with the knowledge that they cannot undertake the fiscal suicide of purchasing a home at this time. No rewards for people who manage their money wisely. Typical government work, no doubt.

There are probably countless other issues that I have with the housing tax credit.

Apply that to the auto industry, and there you have it.


Still, this is only the second issue I have with Ron Paul. It is nothing that puts any nails in the coffin for my support, for sure—just something I would try to find alternatives to, if I were in his position.

acptulsa
05-13-2009, 07:14 AM
CBO estimates a trillion dollars over the first decade. We all know the estimates are BS. This scheme will double the income tax revenues.

RP is throwing a wrench into this jack off scheme and this thread rambles on incoherently about everything but the point, except for Danno, who gets it right.

Bosso

x2. Here we have a bill that, one, for everyone who buys in will get a tax break now to help them buy (hopefully but, it seems, not necessarily from Detroit) and create jobs (hopefully but not necessarily in this country), and two, will help rob the robbers of future cap-and-trade 'revenue'. And since he's only offering to let people keep their money, not give them someone else's money, if they jump through hoops, it isn't to my mind a subsidy. It's helping people to help themselves get ahead of the cap-and-trade taxinistas. And it acts as another litmus test--anyone who votes against this and for cap-and-trade obviously has an agenda, and that agenda is not we the people.

From an ideological standpoint--meh. As a political move to help those who are thinking ahead, short circuit cap-and-trade (or try to), and to help us determine friends in Washington from enemies, it's brilliant. Politically brilliant. Make the most of it.

MRoCkEd
05-13-2009, 07:48 AM
Cash for clunkers?

Why do we want to encourage people to trade in perfectly good vehicles for which they have no debt and borrow money to buy new ones?
Wasn't this Obama's plan?

I'm disappointed as well.

LittleLightShining
05-13-2009, 07:51 AM
Because the truck drivers are now at a competitive disadvantage.

Every individual is competing for wealth in a free market. When the government subsidizes one individual, it puts the others at disadvantage.

It's the same as when the government subsidizes a corporation.
It's not a subsidy. Giving and not taking are two completely different things.

I don't think that's the bad part, Torchbearer. I think the bad part is that it encourages people to spend or borrow at least ten times the amount of the return in order to get the return, at a time of recession caused by reckless spending and borrowing.

And in particular, I'm disturbed that this is being encouraged by someone who continues to forecast imminent economic collapse; the same person who stresses the importance of saving money rather than spending it or borrowing recklessly.The bill isn't coercive.


Welfare is other people's money going into people's hands, aka: theft. A tax-credit is my own money coming back to me. If I don't have any tax-money to get back, I don't get anything. Completely different. He isn't proposing paying people to buy one of these vehicles.Yes.


But welfare is taking someone else's money when you didn't pay into the system in the first place. Taking a tax break is getting back your own money (or keeping it in your pocket, depending on your individual tax situation).

I think the bill is fine. Any tax breaks are a good start, especially with the tax machine in the Oval Office. No one is forcing anyone to drive a gas guzzler. If you want the tax break then buy a new more fuel efficient car. The bill doesn't mandate a particular type of car. It appears to only specify a 20% higher gas mileage as the trigger for the tax break. If you want your gas guzzler, keep your gas guzzler. That's freedom of choice right there. Just don't expect a tax break for driving the gas guzzler. I'm sure Obama will be happy to apply that $2000 to universal health care or a new welfare program for illegal immigrants if you don't want it back.

And rest assured that no one in Congress but Ron Paul will be offering you a tax credit of any sort over the next 4 to 8 years, so take it where you can get it.Again, yes.

I anticipate this being spun into hell by the right just like they did with earmarks.

homah
05-13-2009, 08:02 AM
It seems that this is an infringement on the free market. It will help companies that produce vehicles with high MPG and hurt those that don't. Perhaps with a $2000 credit the effect will be minimal, but this still rubs me the wrong way. I don't like the idea of the government influencing which corporations are successful.

Just wondering if those who are for this would have a problem with the credit being $5000? $10,000? $50,000? If so, why is $2000 okay but these higher amounts not? If not, surely you can see that some companies would have much higher profits while others would likely be put out of business.

silverhawks
05-13-2009, 08:06 AM
x2. Here we have a bill that, one, for everyone who buys in will get a tax break now to help them buy (hopefully but, it seems, not necessarily from Detroit) and create jobs (hopefully but not necessarily in this country), and two, will help rob the robbers of future cap-and-trade 'revenue'. And since he's only offering to let people keep their money, not give them someone else's money, if they jump through hoops, it isn't to my mind a subsidy. It's helping people to help themselves get ahead of the cap-and-trade taxinistas. And it acts as another litmus test--anyone who votes against this and for cap-and-trade obviously has an agenda, and that agenda is not we the people.



Cap-and-trade is not meant to be a carbon tax on cars. The government is not aiming to tax your exhaust fumes. It is a carbon tax on industry, and their industrial emissions for manufacturing.


A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those that can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.

Companies, not individuals.

It will hit INDUSTRY hard, cause INDUSTRY to move out of the USA to somewhere the tax doesn't exist, and in the case of power plants, their tax costs will be passed down to the consumer for power generation, so we will see massive price hikes for utilities.

Since 49% of American electricity comes from coal-fired power plants, a hybrid that charges up from the electric grid is still creating emissions at the other end, which will be taxed by government.

In fact, who wants to bet that a nation of people with flex-fuel hybrids will use MORE electricity than we do now, resulting in greater emissions, resulting in more cap-and-trade taxation, resulting in increased costs to charge up your hybrid?

This bill does NOTHING to stop that. In fact, voting for this AND cap-and-trade will make any politician look like an environmental messiah, because it will be perceived that they are fighting two sources of pollution (industrial pollution and automobile pollution) instead of one.

acptulsa
05-13-2009, 08:10 AM
Cap-and-trade is not meant to be a carbon tax on cars.

Yet. But if you give them an inch, they will take a mile. They're already making little noises about it, here and there. And all the people annoyed by the roar of huge knobby Hummer tires yell, 'hell ya gig 'em!' Never fails.

silverhawks
05-13-2009, 08:18 AM
Yet. But if you give them an inch, they will take a mile. They're already making little noises about it, here and there. And all the people annoyed by the roar of huge knobby Hummer tires yell, 'hell ya gig 'em!' Never fails.

I agree with you. But please, go back and read what I posted, and tell me what the bill does to STOP cap-and-trade. It doesn't. If anything, it plays into manufacturing public consent for it.

Can you not see an Obamabot saying this?

"Well, I'm doing my part for the environment by buying a Volt, so I think the factories should do their part too, by paying for their emissions. That way, we're all saving the planet."

And then later:

"Now that those dirty factories are paying their way to saving our world, what about those gas-guzzling Hummers? Those pollute 100x more than my Volt does, and they're not paying a dime!"

And just to make myself perfectly clear - I'm not suggesting that Dr Paul of all people is on board with the Obama administration and their agenda; but I am suggesting he clearly was convinced this was a good idea by someone who is.

heavenlyboy34
05-13-2009, 08:19 AM
I'm afraid I can't agree with this expansion of government. Too unethical for my taste. Sorry, RP. :(

dannno
05-13-2009, 08:23 AM
It seems that this is an infringement on the free market. It will help companies that produce vehicles with high MPG and hurt those that don't.

Great, so can you explain what the $1 trillion military subsidy along with direct subsidies for oil create a competitive advantage for truck drivers by driving down oil prices?

We don't have a free market. Ron Paul is lowering taxes and encouraging more efficient vehicles that the free market would have provided anyway without the oil subsidy. He is battling a subsidy for oil with a tax cut for fuel efficient vehicles.

dannno
05-13-2009, 08:24 AM
I'm afraid I can't agree with this expansion of government. Too unethical for my taste. Sorry, RP. :(

This isn't an expansion of government.. they will be getting LESS tax money.

acptulsa
05-13-2009, 08:25 AM
I agree with you. But please, go back and read what I posted, and tell me what the bill does to STOP cap-and-trade. It doesn't.

It doesn't. Go back and read what I said. It could ease the pain for some participants if and when they shove through automotive cap-and-trade via federal fuel taxes, and anyone who votes for cap-and-trade but doesn't vote for this is exposed as having an unseen agenda which should be found out. These things aren't much, but could be helpful to us if we play them right.

dannno
05-13-2009, 08:27 AM
I agree with you. But please, go back and read what I posted, and tell me what the bill does to STOP cap-and-trade. It doesn't. If anything, it plays into manufacturing public consent for it.



Yes it does, did you not see the Al Gore global warming video posted the other day on here?? If not you should look it up, he gets his ass handed to him by a congressional committee.

There are a lot of people in congress skeptical of these cap and trade schemes, and this gives them an alternative environmental bill to vote for that isn't a cap and trade scheme.. because their constituency wants to see an environmental bill go through and they feel like they either need to vote for this one or seem like someone bad on the environment.

Ron Paul is a lot smarter than you. He's also a lot smarter than me, but I know for a fact he is a lot smarter than you and knows what he is doing strategically, morally, principally and otherwise.

silverhawks
05-13-2009, 08:28 AM
It doesn't. Go back and read what I said. It could ease the pain for some participants if and when they shove through automotive cap-and-trade via federal fuel taxes, and anyone who votes for cap-and-trade but doesn't vote for this is exposed as having an unseen agenda which should be found out. These things aren't much, but could be helpful to us if we play them right.

Acp, how does it "ease the pain" for drivers of hybrids if the government ARE TAXING ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION?

dannno
05-13-2009, 08:30 AM
So does anybody who was shouting "competitive advantage" before want to address the last post on page 11 about how the $1 trillion annual military oil subsidy along with direct subsidies create a competitive advantage for trucks, and that this bill is only offsetting this effect slightly? Because that is the only valid argument I've heard, and I just logically destroyed it.

dannno
05-13-2009, 08:31 AM
Acp, how does it "ease the pain" for drivers of hybrids if the government ARE TAXING ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION?

Because they are also taxing oil production (along with subsidizing at the same time!)

Bobster
05-13-2009, 08:33 AM
There are a lot of people in congress skeptical of these cap and trade schemes, and this gives them an alternative environmental bill to vote for that isn't a cap and trade scheme.. because their constituency wants to see an environmental bill go through and they feel like they either need to vote for this one or seem like someone bad on the environment.

This response should be pasted at the top of the thread. This makes a whole lot of sense and isn't expanding the size of government. In fact, it helps those who buy a new car (Most new vehicles do have better mileage than models from previous years.)

While I'm against it for obvious reasons, I think this is more of a strategic move than anything. Maybe posturing himself for some sort of future endeavor?

homah
05-13-2009, 08:36 AM
Great, so can you explain what the $1 trillion military subsidy along with direct subsidies for oil create a competitive advantage for truck drivers by driving down oil prices?

We don't have a free market. Ron Paul is lowering taxes and encouraging more efficient vehicles that the free market would have provided anyway without the oil subsidy. He is battling a subsidy for oil with a tax cut for fuel efficient vehicles.

Yes, we don't have a free market, but isn't that what Ron Paul is supposed to be striving for? It seems that introducing one anti-free market idea in an attempt to balance out another doesn't get you where you want to be in the end. Perhaps it is a short-term solution, but in the end does it lead us to the solution we want or does it make things more difficult?

acptulsa
05-13-2009, 08:41 AM
Acp, how does it "ease the pain" for drivers of hybrids if the government ARE TAXING ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION?

Plugs are optional on hybrids. The reason it isn't grossly inefficient to haul those heavy batteries around isn't so much that you get to plug in, it's mainly that at least some (if you're good, make that most) of your braking energy is saved and reused for acceleration (as opposed to simply heating up your discs and making asbestos dust).

And best of all, when you toe the brake pedal and turn the wheel motors into generators, there's no meter for the government to read.

silverhawks
05-13-2009, 08:46 AM
Yes it does, did you not see the Al Gore global warming video posted the other day on here?? If not you should look it up, he gets his ass handed to him by a congressional committee.

Yes, and I posted this in that thread:


And yet, I'm betting that most of Congress on both sides of the House will pass carbon tax and emission bills without blinking an eye.


There are a lot of people in congress skeptical of these cap and trade schemes, and this gives them an alternative environmental bill to vote for that isn't a cap and trade scheme.. because their constituency wants to see an environmental bill go through and they feel like they either need to vote for this one or seem like someone bad on the environment.

Ron Paul is a lot smarter than you. He's also a lot smarter than me, but I know for a fact he is a lot smarter than you and knows what he is doing.

Having blind faith in politicians didn't work for me on Bush, it doesn't work for me on Obama, and it most certainly doesn't work for me on Ron Paul.

So there are a lot of Democrats in the Democratic majority in Congress that are skeptical about cap-and-trade? That won't go the way that Pelosi, Reid and Obama tell them to the moment that the cap-and-trade bill heads for a vote?

For the last time: THIS BILL ISN'T AN ALTERNATIVE. An alternative to cap-and-trade would be a bill requesting federal tax exemption on private sector research into hydrogen cars or hydrogen power plants, something that removes the NEED to tax carbon emissions at the source.

This bill COMPLEMENTS cap-and-trade; through increased national electricity production which will lead to increased use of coal in coal-fired power plants, increasing the potential revenue from cap-and-trade.

I guarantee you, the majority of politicians that have this and cap-and-trade placed before them are going to vote yes for BOTH, because it will make them look more "environmentally-friendly" to act on TWO sources of pollution instead of one of them.

Failing that, the Democrats can use this bill if it becomes law to justify cap-and-trade, for the same reason.

And if Dr Paul can't see that from a mile off, then no, he most certainly ISN'T smarter than I am.

acptulsa
05-13-2009, 08:55 AM
For the last time: THIS BILL ISN'T AN ALTERNATIVE. An alternative to cap-and-trade would be a bill requesting federal tax exemption on private sector research into hydrogen cars or hydrogen power plants, something that removes the NEED to tax carbon emissions at the source.

You are right and these things are apples and oranges. That said, both fruits are government-grown, and this could be a way to try to forestall cap-and-trade taxes at the pump. 'I supported this, we don't need that' is just the kind of political cover conservative lawmakers in half-'liberal' districts will want and will take comfort in when the other subject comes up and they vote it down. So, while they're unrelated in reality, I don't think they're politically unrelated. Remember, 'in reality' and 'in politics' are two very different worlds...

heavenlyboy34
05-13-2009, 09:15 AM
This isn't an expansion of government.. they will be getting LESS tax money.

"This legislation would help Americans spend less on gas and reduce pollution by providing a tax credit of up to $2,000 when they sell or trade in a car and obtain a vehicle that has at least 20% higher average fuel economy than their previous vehicle. It also creates a federal tax deduction for any state or local taxes paid on the purchase or the more fuel-efficient automobile, and makes interest on loans to purchase the more fuel-efficient vehicle tax deductible."

This is a government mandate-an intrusion into the free market. Therein lies the flaw of using "good" government laws to counteract "bad" government laws. The use of force (the State) is still present. In this case, they are directing money towards "fuel efficient" vehicles instead of letting the market handle the problem. This government fiat will inevitably cause distortions in the market (especially considering how interrelated the various markets are now-due to government intervention since time immemorial). I know we all want to think RP has the best intentions in mind (and he usually does), but this is the wrong way to go. :(

torchbearer
05-13-2009, 09:19 AM
"This legislation would help Americans spend less on gas and reduce pollution by providing a tax credit of up to $2,000 when they sell or trade in a car and obtain a vehicle that has at least 20% higher average fuel economy than their previous vehicle. It also creates a federal tax deduction for any state or local taxes paid on the purchase or the more fuel-efficient automobile, and makes interest on loans to purchase the more fuel-efficient vehicle tax deductible."

This is a government mandate-an intrusion into the free market. Therein lies the flaw of using "good" government laws to counteract "bad" government laws. The use of force (the State) is still present. In this case, they are directing money towards "fuel efficient" vehicles instead of letting the market handle the problem. This government fiat will inevitably cause distortions in the market (especially considering how interrelated the various markets are now-due to government intervention since time immemorial). I know we all want to think RP has the best intentions in mind (and he usually does), but this is the wrong way to go. :(

maybe you haven't noticed, but we don't have a free market, and we haven't had one for about 100 years.

dannno
05-13-2009, 09:33 AM
"This legislation would help Americans spend less on gas and reduce pollution by providing a tax credit of up to $2,000 when they sell or trade in a car and obtain a vehicle that has at least 20% higher average fuel economy than their previous vehicle. It also creates a federal tax deduction for any state or local taxes paid on the purchase or the more fuel-efficient automobile, and makes interest on loans to purchase the more fuel-efficient vehicle tax deductible."

This is a government mandate-an intrusion into the free market. Therein lies the flaw of using "good" government laws to counteract "bad" government laws. The use of force (the State) is still present. In this case, they are directing money towards "fuel efficient" vehicles instead of letting the market handle the problem. This government fiat will inevitably cause distortions in the market (especially considering how interrelated the various markets are now-due to government intervention since time immemorial). I know we all want to think RP has the best intentions in mind (and he usually does), but this is the wrong way to go. :(

A tax cut a government mandate??

Partially offsetting the MASSIVE $1 trillion/year in oil subsidies through our military along with direct subsidies is anti-free market??


Answers:

No, a tax cut is a not a government mandate.

No, offsetting a gigantic anti-free market program with a tax cut is not anti-free market.. what you guys are failing to realize is this is putting us CLOSER to a free market, no matter which angle you look at it from.

acptulsa
05-13-2009, 09:37 AM
No, offsetting a gigantic anti-free market program with a tax cut is not anti-free market.. what you guys are failing to realize is this is putting us CLOSER to a free market, no matter which angle you look at it from.

I was right with you until now. Trying to balance one regulation with some other incentive isn't exactly a move closer to a free market. It may be a move toward balance, and that may be a good thing, but pitting bad legal complexities against each other isn't exactly a great move toward a free market. Wish we were close enough to a free market that it wouldn't even possibly be beneficial...

Kraig
05-13-2009, 09:39 AM
A tax cut a government mandate??

Partially offsetting the MASSIVE $1 trillion/year in oil subsidies through our military along with direct subsidies is anti-free market??


Answers:

No, a tax cut is a not a government mandate.

No, offsetting a gigantic anti-free market program with a tax cut is not anti-free market.. what you guys are failing to realize is this is putting us CLOSER to a free market, no matter which angle you look at it from.

You mean it will put people who buy these new efficient cars closer to a free market. :D If it was going to move everyone to the free market, it would be a tax credit for all with no qualifications, and yes I understand that would have no chance at getting through. It's not nearly as bad as I thought at first, but it still sucks, I guess that's just politics.

heavenlyboy34
05-13-2009, 09:40 AM
A tax cut a government mandate??

Partially offsetting the MASSIVE $1 trillion/year in oil subsidies through our military along with direct subsidies is anti-free market??


Answers:

No, a tax cut is a not a government mandate.

No, offsetting a gigantic anti-free market program with a tax cut is not anti-free market.. what you guys are failing to realize is this is putting us CLOSER to a free market, no matter which angle you look at it from.

You're right that a tax cut is not a mandate. I would be fine with removing taxes entirely. :) We are dealing here with a one time "rebate", not a tax cut. :( (somewhat reminiscent of the "stimulus" checks) It would be more honest and useful to simply eliminate all those wasteful military and oil subsidies altogether than to play the government game. :cool:

CUnknown
05-13-2009, 10:55 AM
This bill gives two good outcomes (tax breaks + fuel efficiency) and the only negative anyone can come up with is a potential minor intrusion into the free market. Sounds like a win to me.

Look guys, people don't want these fuel-inefficient clunkers anyway. The market has spoken. Are we really crying because these bad cars no one wants might be put at slight competitive disadvantage, at the same time as we get to keep more of our own money? How odd. :confused:

heavenlyboy34
05-13-2009, 11:19 AM
This bill gives two good outcomes (tax breaks + fuel efficiency) and the only negative anyone can come up with is a potential minor intrusion into the free market. Sounds like a win to me.

Look guys, people don't want these fuel-inefficient clunkers anyway. The market has spoken. Are we really crying because these bad cars no one wants might be put at slight competitive disadvantage, at the same time as we get to keep more of our own money? How odd. :confused:

No, I am "crying" over a matter of principle. It seems small now, but this only conditions the sheeple to accept progressively larger evil (the State) over a long period of time. You must realize that Statists enjoy these games of psychological/sociological manipulation. Also, the evils of the State only become magnified the longer that they are accepted by the sheeple (i.e. Soc Security). You and I may find it trivial, but it is indeed a way of life for the evil Statists. (not that I'm lumping RP with Statists-don't misunderstand)

Feenix566
05-13-2009, 12:36 PM
I'm really disappointed in a lot of you. This topic has given everyone a good opportunity to show their true colors. Now we know which of us support Ron Paul because they understand free market economics, and which of us just don't get it, but support Ron Paul anyway for some other reason.

torchbearer
05-13-2009, 12:39 PM
I'm really disappointed in a lot of you. This topic has given everyone a good opportunity to show their true colors. Now we know which of us support Ron Paul because they understand free market economics, and which of us just don't get it, but support Ron Paul anyway for some other reason.

:rolleyes:
Or some people understand both free markets and politics in real life.
In the LP we had two kinds of libertarians-
Those who lived in white towers and those who lived in the real world.
Those that lived in white towers never did anything to advance the cause of liberty, their only purpose was to criticize the people who had to do the dirty work of engaging the political system.
Come down from your tower.

acptulsa
05-13-2009, 12:39 PM
Now we know which of us support Ron Paul because they understand free market economics, and which of us just don't get it, but support Ron Paul anyway for some other reason.

And how do you tell the ones who understand free market economics and want to get back to them, but understand that it will take quite some time to get there from here and, in the meantime, life must go on?

And do we disappoint you into this severe depression you're feeling as well?

dannno
05-13-2009, 12:43 PM
I'm really disappointed in a lot of you. This topic has given everyone a good opportunity to show their true colors. Now we know which of us support Ron Paul because they understand free market economics, and which of us just don't get it, but support Ron Paul anyway for some other reason.

So Ron Paul doesn't understand Free Market Economics either, right :rolleyes:

Feenix566
05-13-2009, 01:04 PM
Listen, guys, I've explained to you how this is bad for the economy. Others in this thread have, as well. If you don't get it, you don't get it. No amount of repeating myself is going to change that. You apparently don't care. So now you're supporting a bill that's bad for the economy. Obviously, the best interests of the economy are not your highest priority. Something else must be more important to you.

gls
05-13-2009, 01:06 PM
Listen, guys, I've explained to you how this is bad for the economy. Others in this thread have, as well. If you don't get it, you don't get it. No amount of repeating myself is going to change that. You apparently don't care. So now you're supporting a bill that's bad for the economy. Obviously, the best interests of the economy are not your highest priority. Something else must be more important to you.

Stealing from people is never "good" for the "economy", no matter how much you want it to be.

acptulsa
05-13-2009, 01:10 PM
Something else must be more important to you.

Say, something like getting to the point where we can politically do something good for the economy, perhaps?

Excuse me while I remain unapologetic. I haven't seen a strictly economic reason for doing this yet. It has been political discussion. I know you're unused to political realities being good for the economy, but some of us have a dream we're chasing...

gls
05-13-2009, 01:11 PM
Seriously, what a bunch of socialists in this thread. Acting like they're entitled to the fruit of other people's labor. Thank you Dr. Paul for advancing freedom in any way you can.

werdd
05-13-2009, 01:21 PM
I have serious reservations about this as well, just doesn't seem like something he would write.

I'll wait for his explanation, something else is at play here.

Cowlesy
05-13-2009, 01:34 PM
wow 136 posts and I just saw this thread.

Haven't read the posts, but as long as someone has actually PAID $2,000 in Federal Income Tax, I don't mind backdoor ways of getting taxes returned, but how do you ensure that someone who didn't pay $2,000 in FIT is not getting the tax credit?

I'm never a fan of using the tax code to influence behavior -- it'd be great if it helped reduce our dependence on foreign oil (though I doubt this will).

devil21
05-13-2009, 01:47 PM
Again, yes.

I anticipate this being spun into hell by the right just like they did with earmarks.

Anybody on the right that is against a TAX BREAK needs a reality check and a reminder what being a conservative is supposed to mean.

ProBlue33
05-13-2009, 01:54 PM
Listen up, those that are against this, don't get it, if Ron Paul can get ANY legislation passed it is a win. The whole movement can move up a notch.

And really if your in the market for a new car this is a great idea, I support it 100%.

Stimulates the economy and rewards the companies that have invested in R&D in this area.

People have been harping on Paul for positive idea's to help fix things RIGHT NOW, so when he finally does come up with a good idea some of his supporters slam him.

Guys this has mass appeal, that's a good thing. If Obama will support it, it's a done deal.

nobody's_hero
05-13-2009, 01:55 PM
Haven't read the posts, but as long as someone has actually PAID $2,000 in Federal Income Tax, I don't mind backdoor ways of getting taxes returned, but how do you ensure that someone who didn't pay $2,000 in FIT is not getting the tax credit?

I knew I left one of my issues out earlier. Yes, that is another thing that rubs me the wrong way. Few people, if any, are actually researching what flows in or out. That was one reason I didn't support Ron's earmarks, as well. It is easy to argue that the money is just coming back into the rightful hands, but don't get upset when someone other than Ron Paul starts using that technique to justify a $1 million community park for every neighborhood in their district.

I'll wait for my tax credit for buying a used vehicle instead of taking out a loan that I couldn't repay and end up needing a bailout at other peoples' expense. I'd like to think it was a wise decision for me not to go into frivolous debt, but my good habits need to be reinforced by government incentive. :rolleyes:

Feenix566
05-13-2009, 01:59 PM
Stealing from people is never "good" for the "economy", no matter how much you want it to be.

Suppose someone proposed a bill that would give a full tax refund to anyone who voted for Obama. I suppose you would be in favor of this bill, given your hard-line stance that stealing is never "good" for the "economy". I mean, all they're doing is stealing less from some people, right?

acptulsa
05-13-2009, 01:59 PM
I'd like to think it was a wise decision for me not to go into frivolous debt, but my good habits need to be reinforced by government incentive. :rolleyes:

Well mine don't. And no incentive in the world will convince the neocons of my state that we don't need to go around kickin' the wurld's dawg ass, either. So, if Dr. Paul wants to convince a few disaffected liberals that all of D.C. is crooked and they should help get it cut down to size, well, we sure need them to fatten up our numbers at the next state G.O.P. convention.

So don't badmouth da man for trying to get me some of those. He's trying to do his part, just like I'm trying to do mine.

werdd
05-13-2009, 02:11 PM
asdf

rockandrollsouls
05-13-2009, 02:16 PM
I'm going to reserve judgement until I hear his explanation. I'm sure this is simply strategic since it sounds contrary to free market phiolosophy that Paul promotes. I'm not against this type of thing necessarely depending on the context and details. Sure enough, it sounds like massive climate change bullshit will be rammed down our throats with higher taxes and regulation. Perhaps this is a strategic maneuver to make the socialists look bad with their middle class destroying plan. This will also beat the RHINOs to the punch, when they offer a socialist lite proposal to the democrats. At the very least, I can see this as being a pretty shrewd political move on his part to expose the congress as radical socialist/fascists in bed with Monsanto.

Same. Though, from what I've read, I'm not sure I like it. We'll see, though.

dannno
05-13-2009, 02:20 PM
Listen, guys, I've explained to you how this is bad for the economy. Others in this thread have, as well. If you don't get it, you don't get it. No amount of repeating myself is going to change that. You apparently don't care. So now you're supporting a bill that's bad for the economy. Obviously, the best interests of the economy are not your highest priority. Something else must be more important to you.

You can't tell me that a tax break is bad for the economy. I'm sorry, you can't. It is completely irrational. Have you ever taken an economics course?

dannno
05-13-2009, 02:24 PM
I mean, all they're doing is stealing less from some people, right?

Exactly, so what's the problem??

They should steal less from others too, but that's no reason not to stop the looting in a specific area if possible. Not one.

Let's say your neighbor gets a $2,000 tax break on his new car. Maybe he'll spend it shopping at your electronics store. If the government had the money instead, what good would that do you??

In other words, we are putting more money in the hands of the people, who then use that money to drive the market. That is free economics. That is why this bill is pro-free market.

If you have taken economics, have you taken accounting? Do you know what a contra account is? This is like a like a contra account in the liabilities section of a balance sheet. More is good, even though it's on the liabilities side of the balance sheet. Once you twist your mind to understand the logic of what his happening here, you will see where Ron Paul is coming from. That is the biggest problem we had with the campaign, is that people are not educated enough on the issues to understand why he votes the way he does. Same with earmarks, only the people who were uneducated on the topic disagreed with him.

Brian4Liberty
05-13-2009, 02:48 PM
I would generally classify this as corporate welfare. You are buying a car (buying a car is the only way to get this money). You get a tax rebate. The rebate comes from the government instead of the auto manufacturer or dealer. The auto industry saves the $2000 that they would have lost in order to provide that rebate discount. Essentially a government subsidy for a specific industry. Similar to how mortgage deductions have been nothing but government welfare for the housing/mortgage/banking industry (and extra incentive for the housing bubble, btw).

This would have been preferable to the bailouts already given to the automakers, but as President Obama's advisers would say, the horse is out of the barn already on that.

It should also be noted that this differs from the bailout money given to US automakers in that this rebate/tax deduction will apply to all manufacturers.

I look forward to hearing more about this proposal.

devil21
05-13-2009, 03:13 PM
Stealing from people is never "good" for the "economy", no matter how much you want it to be.


I would generally classify this as corporate welfare. You are buying a car (buying a car is the only way to get this money). You get a tax rebate. The rebate comes from the government instead of the auto manufacturer or dealer. The auto industry saves the $2000 that they would have lost in order to provide that rebate discount. Essentially a government subsidy for a specific industry. Similar to how mortgage deductions have been nothing but government welfare for the housing/mortgage/banking industry (and extra incentive for the housing bubble, btw).

You're making a large assumption that the auto industry would cease rebates simply because of this tax break. I seriously doubt that would be the case. Keep in mind that 20% more fuel efficiency (probably based on EPA numbers on the sticker) is actually a pretty large hurdle for most people to achieve given current gas mileage averages in the mid to high 20mpg range. My 2002 SUV gets 25mpg highway so Id have to find a new car that gets at least 30mpg. That means I'd probably have to give up my SUV. Are SUV and truck owners going to willing give up their favorite style of car? If they're like me, then no, Ill keep my SUV. Basically I don't see the tax break being that wide scale that makers would cease other incentives like rebates, low financing, etc. They need to sell cars if they want to stay in business. What business they have left, at least.

But I digress. Yes, the auto companies do stand to gain some business because of a gov't stimulus proposal and I do see where some think this isn't free market economics. However, it still stands that no one is forced to take the rebate and trade in their current car. There's no mandate here.

SimpleName
05-13-2009, 03:22 PM
I've seen similar moves by Paul. He often tries to maneuver ways to reduce the tax burden on citizens in whatever way possible. There is no penalty on people who do not take part in it, so nothing to worry about. He's just trying manipulate the tax lords and pull away as much power as possible. Still the same good ol' Dr. Paul

MRoCkEd
05-13-2009, 07:54 PM
[Kludge] Dr. Paul should introduce a bill to cover the full costs of equipping a house with solar panels in tax deductions.
[Kludge] Sounds like a great idea!
[Kludge] Wait, wait -- let's give people no-sales-tax cards if they build a windmill!
[Kludge] Wait -- wait! I have another good idea... We should help society by covering healthcare with tax deductions!
[Kludge] We increase health AND lower taxes!

idiom
06-10-2009, 07:09 PM
As long as you don't have to buy GM or Ford or something.

If you can unload your GM vehicle for a Toyota then then the bill is moving America forward.

andrewh817
06-10-2009, 07:59 PM
It seems that this is an infringement on the free market. It will help companies that produce vehicles with high MPG and hurt those that don't. Perhaps with a $2000 credit the effect will be minimal, but this still rubs me the wrong way. I don't like the idea of the government influencing which corporations are successful.

Just wondering if those who are for this would have a problem with the credit being $5000? $10,000? $50,000? If so, why is $2000 okay but these higher amounts not? If not, surely you can see that some companies would have much higher profits while others would likely be put out of business.

If the credit was $10,000 couldn't you get a $30,000 car and then flip it for $25,000 to someone else using their $10,000 credit in turn selling it for $15,000 etc etc.....??

I don't know much about the tax system as I've never paid taxes so is this just a stretch of the imagination?

anaconda
06-10-2009, 08:23 PM
RP has no problem legislating for tax credits. Any means of getting the money back to the people is at least a little push back against government theft.

LibertyRevolution
06-10-2009, 11:44 PM
The auto industry and the banks are the only ones who will benefit from this bill.
People will buy into this bullshit and trade in their paid for old car for a nice new one with a 5 year car loan.
To make up for all the junk cars they are taking in on trade in, your decent trade in car will be worth $1000 less than it should be.
Dealerships will tack on an extra $1000 to the price of any fuel efficient car, because they know you got that rebate coming and can afford it.
In the end, the bank and the stealership will eat your rebate money.

muh_roads
06-11-2009, 12:48 AM
We should have tax credits for as many things as possible. For all things made in the USA would be a good start.

Brassmouth
06-11-2009, 01:30 AM
If you can't get rid of the income tax, at least find ways to give people there money back.

This justifies every form of redistribution of wealth known to man. Congrats, you're a socialist now.

People, Ron Paul is a politician. He will say or do anything to make sure he gets his votes, and (because he has a fawning internet following) his donation money.

Like the shrimp subsidies, and the other pork he inserts, this is how the State corrupts even the most well-intentioned of bureaucrats. This is why avoiding the State like the plague is the best method. This is why Peter Schiff will do far more harm than good if he gets elected.

Tax credits are not tax cuts. This is redistribution of wealth, for green cars, no less. Not even I thought Ron Paul would do something like this...

(Although given the hero-worship among you people, he can do just about anything and the lot of you will jump through hoops to justify it. Apparently, he's realized this.)

idirtify
06-11-2009, 08:34 AM
This justifies every form of redistribution of wealth known to man. Congrats, you're a socialist now.

People, Ron Paul is a politician. He will say or do anything to make sure he gets his votes, and (because he has a fawning internet following) his donation money.

Like the shrimp subsidies, and the other pork he inserts, this is how the State corrupts even the most well-intentioned of bureaucrats. This is why avoiding the State like the plague is the best method. This is why Peter Schiff will do far more harm than good if he gets elected.

Tax credits are not tax cuts. This is redistribution of wealth, for green cars, no less. Not even I thought Ron Paul would do something like this...

(Although given the hero-worship among you people, he can do just about anything and the lot of you will jump through hoops to justify it. Apparently, he's realized this.)

(Just jumping in here people, so sorry if this has already been covered.)

While I generally agree with your anti-government overview, let me offer this defense of RP.

Regarding “the redistribution of wealth”, the term is a little misleading. The crime is not really in the redistribution; it is in the taxation (stealing) part that precedes it. IOW, would you rather stolen money NOT be redistributed?

Unless you can show where RP is directly responsible for stealing the money (creating taxes) in the first place, I don’t think finding an excuse to return it is necessarily anti-libertarian / anti-liberty. I’m sure if he thought he could get away with introducing a bill that gives tax incentives for having paid taxes (simply gives the money back to those who had it stolen), he would.

So yes, in terms of the whole government, it is technically part of the crime of “the redistribution of wealth”; but in terms of one politician, it is only returning money that other politicians have stolen.

RCA
06-11-2009, 08:51 AM
tax cuts are bad how?

Danke
06-11-2009, 08:54 AM
tax cuts are bad how?

Read the entire thread.

gls
06-11-2009, 09:11 AM
Dr. Paul is right as usual. I support any legislation that allows individuals to keep more of their own money. The government is not "entitled" to one penny of it. Taxation is theft and theft is wrong.

Kraig
06-11-2009, 10:00 AM
Dr. Paul is right as usual. I support any legislation that allows individuals to keep more of their own money. The government is not "entitled" to one penny of it. Taxation is theft and theft is wrong.

Of course you are right but what I don't understand is when anarchists say you should keep 100% of your money and everything you spend it on should be voluntary they are treated as nut cases yet when Dr. Paul says "her I got a little chump change back from the thugs, if you spend it on a new car that is" then he is treated like a hero. :confused:

heavenlyboy34
06-11-2009, 10:05 AM
Of course you are right but what I don't understand is when anarchists say you should keep 100% of your money and everything you spend it on should be voluntary they are treated as nut cases yet when Dr. Paul says "her I got a little chump change back from the thugs, if you spend it on a new car that is" then he is treated like a hero. :confused:

I don't get it either. :confused: I think some people are a little too impressed with government thugs in costumes..er..."uniforms".

Annihilia
06-11-2009, 10:28 AM
I think I've come to terms with this bill. It's not exactly adherent to strict free market principles, but the effects would be pretty subtle since R&D and consumer trends are already headed towards increased fuel efficiency anyway.

We're not going to win any battles through principle alone. This looks to be purely a strategic political move, which is what unfortunately needs to be done. We need to face he fact that there will be environmental legislation coming our way by the truckloads, most of them seeking extra revenue via taxation. I'd rather have them on our terms whereby theft is minimized.

Annihilia
06-11-2009, 10:33 AM
Of course you are right but what I don't understand is when anarchists say you should keep 100% of your money and everything you spend it on should be voluntary they are treated as nut cases yet when Dr. Paul says "her I got a little chump change back from the thugs, if you spend it on a new car that is" then he is treated like a hero. :confused:

Maybe if you wish hard enough you'll be able to change the world.

Until then, those of us who suffer in the real world will continue to chip away at the government behemoth. Feel free to help at any time.

dannno
06-11-2009, 10:39 AM
Of course you are right but what I don't understand is when anarchists say you should keep 100% of your money and everything you spend it on should be voluntary they are treated as nut cases yet when Dr. Paul says "her I got a little chump change back from the thugs, if you spend it on a new car that is" then he is treated like a hero. :confused:

That's because the money is going back into the market rather than straight to the government. That's always a good thing.

We all know Ron Paul wants to END the income tax, but if he put a bill through like that it wouldn't go through, obviously. This is still a tax break no matter how you look at it. Not sure how anybody could possibly complain.

Kraig
06-11-2009, 03:33 PM
That's because the money is going back into the market rather than straight to the government. That's always a good thing.

We all know Ron Paul wants to END the income tax, but if he put a bill through like that it wouldn't go through, obviously. This is still a tax break no matter how you look at it. Not sure how anybody could possibly complain.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I just don't understand the turning point in people's minds where they think this is a good thing yet a 100% voluntary system is a bad thing. :confused:

Kraig
06-11-2009, 03:34 PM
Maybe if you wish hard enough you'll be able to change the world.

Until then, those of us who suffer in the real world will continue to chip away at the government behemoth. Feel free to help at any time.

You think me convincing people that the government 100% isn't needed doesn't chip away at the behemoth?

devil21
06-11-2009, 03:58 PM
Compared to Obama's Cash For Clunkers bill that just passed the House, this bill is miles ahead of it in terms of helping the People. Obama's bill helps the car industry. Paul's bill helps the taxpayer. Big difference.

Annihilia
06-11-2009, 05:05 PM
You think me convincing people that the government 100% isn't needed doesn't chip away at the behemoth?

I suppose it does to an extent.

Sorry about the tone of my last post, I'm just overly frustrated today after reading comments on Digg / Kos / Huffpo. I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to AnCap but your comment rubbed me the wrong way at the time.

brandon
08-04-2009, 07:31 AM
bump

DeadheadForPaul
08-04-2009, 07:58 AM
It disgusts me how some freedom lovers are so opposed to going green..

The problem is not being more energy efficient...the problem is when the government FORCES you to be more energy efficient and tells you what you can and cannot do with your property.

It is a GOOD thing that people can get their money back from the FEDs and spend it on green things

DeadheadForPaul
08-04-2009, 08:00 AM
Of course you are right but what I don't understand is when anarchists say you should keep 100% of your money and everything you spend it on should be voluntary they are treated as nut cases yet when Dr. Paul says "her I got a little chump change back from the thugs, if you spend it on a new car that is" then he is treated like a hero. :confused:

1.) Anarchists are nut cases and Dr. Paul is not one of them
2.) There is a big difference between reducing taxes/getting tax credits and eliminating police forces, the military, sewage treatment, etc.