SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Citizens Manifesto -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (131)6/16/2005 7:58:25 PM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 492
 
re: The efficient cars get turned over faster, but the inefficient cars get kept in operation longer because no one can get a similar new vehicle without getting hit with a large tax bill.

There would be some of that, but a small percentage of the total impact. And the "mean" would change every year, so the tax implications would change, and the incentive to produce more efficient vehicle would be relentless.

re: How would you deal with vehicles that have good passenger miles per gallon while having poor gas mileage. For example the 15 seat vans that my parents (who had 11 children) owned for years?

Nothing is perfect. Look around, by far most vehicles have a driver and no passenger.

re: Also I think there are a lot of negative results from interfering with the market prices of goods by giving them a close to 50% subsidy or tax. Of course most new cars would probably get a smaller subsidy or tax than that (at least as a %) but they would still be hefty.

Yes, but look at the benefits, political and economic (previous posts and in the header). The federal politicians are always manipulating taxes credits to the corporations, top down. The current energy bill is 90% exploration credits, essentially consumption credits. What's wrong with a bottoms up approach; give the consumer the incentive, and let the corporations respond?

re: I have been thinking in terms of results for citizens but our different ideologies cause us to view different things as being beneficial to citizens (or you could say we view different things as being beneficial, therefore we have different ideologies). A large part of what an ideology is, is a set of beliefs about what is good for people and society. Even more radical ideologies, like Communism, Facism, and Islamic Fundamentalism, often justify (and sometimes or even often there adherents truly believe) that they are working for the good of people.

You don't have to make it complicated. If the litmus test of "what's good for the middle class, and those aspiring to the middle class, is good for the country" is too simple, I'm sorry. But I'm sick and tired of the dogma from both sides of the isle. I'm tired of the special interests, with their donations to both parties, making important legislation that benefits them and screws the middle class.

I sincerely believe we've lost the "of the people, by the people, and for the people". Gerrymandering has killed "of and by the people", and the money from the special interests has killed the "for the people". I feel like we are losing our precious and fragile democracy.