TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
Great. Let's give even more power to the government. Worked great in the USSR. :barf:
Economic coercion of the electorate by the elected.
What happened to America?
Yeah, this should help gas prices!
- Thread starter lg_mouth
- Start date
Economic coercion of the electorate by the elected.
What happened to America?
Redworm
No, they're not. US companies have a vast array of ways to skirt their taxes so let's not pretend that they're struggling to survive.
Blame that on the convoluted US tax laws. You write a "War and Peace" sized boox of tax regulations you bet you ass there are going to be loopholes. Whose fault is that? It's the governments fault for creating such a bureaucratic boondoggle.
I am a firm believer that the US tax code, and many other government regulations, should be understandable to anyone with a high school diploma. Politicians who make it more complex than that are failing at their job. There is no need to make the tax code this complex. However, there are many reasons they may WANT to make it more complex.
No, they're not. US companies have a vast array of ways to skirt their taxes so let's not pretend that they're struggling to survive.
Blame that on the convoluted US tax laws. You write a "War and Peace" sized boox of tax regulations you bet you ass there are going to be loopholes. Whose fault is that? It's the governments fault for creating such a bureaucratic boondoggle.
I am a firm believer that the US tax code, and many other government regulations, should be understandable to anyone with a high school diploma. Politicians who make it more complex than that are failing at their job. There is no need to make the tax code this complex. However, there are many reasons they may WANT to make it more complex.
LightningJoe
New member
The money that goes to the government is taken away from people and entities that will use the money for capital investment. The government mainly uses the money to write checks or to provide in-kind payments to people who will use the money for consumer spending. Remember your macroeconomics 101, the supply-demand curve. This tax and distribution policy is inherently inflationary. How do we curb inflation? We suppress economic activity by clamping down on the money supply by various means.
The economy has just hit the skids and the Fed has just injected money into the economy by lowering interest rates dramatically and repeatedly (although you can't push a rope so this may not work), but if it does it'll give us Jimmy-Carter-era inflation (while possibly doing too little to fight stagnation).
There are ONLY two things that can restart the economy: lower taxes and reduce regulation (which is a kind of idiot's tax that flushes the money down the toilet).
Increasing taxes on anybody is exactly the wrong thing to do.
The economy has just hit the skids and the Fed has just injected money into the economy by lowering interest rates dramatically and repeatedly (although you can't push a rope so this may not work), but if it does it'll give us Jimmy-Carter-era inflation (while possibly doing too little to fight stagnation).
There are ONLY two things that can restart the economy: lower taxes and reduce regulation (which is a kind of idiot's tax that flushes the money down the toilet).
Increasing taxes on anybody is exactly the wrong thing to do.
Beretta686
New member
Than stop whinning about gas prices and this and that, since it's our unwillingness to cut back on gasoline consumption that drives up the price as I'm sure a few of you learned in college (or your GED class).
While I understand the psyschological aspects of why people "need" a massive vehicle (thanks to marketing and what not) but I'm continually amazed that people buy these silly things, especially when all their doing is driving around town (or the trailer-park, as may be).
I think most people are missing the point when it comes to rising prices for oil, food, and everything else. What has happened in the world is overpopulation. There are more people now than this planet can support with it resources. I think only the Chinese have taken steps to deal with the problem in their country. What we need to do in the US, first of all, is stop all immigration. More people means more cars on the road, and higher gas prices. Most of the immigrants we get come from poor countries looking to raise their standard of living. So a lot of them are driving big gas guzzlers which they would not be doing if we had not let them in in the first place.
BoringAccountant
New member
Do your research first. The economy car is fastly growing as the number one seller because of gas concerns.
Second, if I want to buy an SUV for a variety of reasons (its safer than a little compact, its easier with kids, its better for all weather type environments, etc.) why should I have to pay a tax because the mileage is not up to government standards? So, therefore I am punished?
And where would that tax go if I had to pay it? To the more fuel efficient cars, the government itself, to alternative fuels research, where?
I don't like the high price of fuel.. but bitchin' pissin' and moanin' won't reduce the price... Our drilled crude is largely exported as it is too high in sulfur to refine with our epa laws... so we sell it overseas... Duh ain't it going into the atmosphere to circulate around the earth? The price of gas is not the fault of the American oil companies... OPEC is in control of the pricing and they damn well know it.
Talk to Al Gore's cronies about your gripes...
Brent
Talk to Al Gore's cronies about your gripes...
Brent
Here's a pop quiz for ya. Who uses more gasoline? The knuckle dragging inbreed in a 15mpg SUV that works 5 miles from his trailer park or the city worker that sits in traffic an hour and half a day and commutes to his utopian neighborhood 35 miles away in his 35mpg foldup tinfoil econocruiser?
Just playing along with your stereotypes. But the point is that one can actually use less gas and be much safer in a SUV so your point is moot. Not only that, how many people have died because cars are made so light these days to meet artificial gas consumption requirements? What's your life worth and who are you to decide someone else's? And what makes you think politicians should be setting these standards when they know little or nothing about it?
Jaser... Duh.. us knuckle draggers....
"Here's a pop quiz for ya. Who uses more gasoline? The knuckle dragging inbreed in a 15mpg SUV that works 5 miles from his trailer park or the city worker that sits in traffic an hour and half a day and commutes to his utopian neighborhood 35 miles away in his 35mpg foldup tinfoil econocruiser?"
We buy a case of beer and hit the "pits" to do some muddin' after work...
That can wipe out a half tank
Brent
"Here's a pop quiz for ya. Who uses more gasoline? The knuckle dragging inbreed in a 15mpg SUV that works 5 miles from his trailer park or the city worker that sits in traffic an hour and half a day and commutes to his utopian neighborhood 35 miles away in his 35mpg foldup tinfoil econocruiser?"
We buy a case of beer and hit the "pits" to do some muddin' after work...
That can wipe out a half tank
Brent
I completely agree.
Well I do think it should be simpler but let's not lower the bar to simply a high school diploma.
A little encouragement for a more educated populace is a good thing.I do think that understanding our tax system should be a larger portion of high school government classes, though.
I'm all about reducing emissions and encouraging more responsible vehicular purchasing decisions but there's no need to be a dick about it.
arguable
it depends on the type of accident involvedA compact with crumple zones can be far safer than body-on-frame vehicle that transfers all the energy of an impact into the softest things available: the passengers.
BoringAccountant
New member
Thanks Mr. Scientist...
As a general thought though, wouldn't you say they are generally more safe than the little Prius' and hybrid vehicles? Maybe size is deceiving, but I would much rather my wife and my kids be in an accident in a big Chevy Suburban, than a little Prius anyday. Again, maybe I am wrong.
Again, depends on the type of impact.
There are some crashes in which I'd be a lot safer in my 240SX and some crashes in which I'd be a lot safer in my Z71.Size is certainly deceiving; if your wife and kids were in a medium speed (say, 35-45 mph) accident with a typical family sedan then yes, you'd be better off having them in a Suburban. However if your wife lost control and slammed into a tree or concrete barrier they would have a much greater risk of sustaining injuries in the Prius with crumple zones.
Trucks are built to be stiff and until very recently (last decade-ish) were some of the worst crash rated vehicles on the road. The most recent generation of them are much, much better and your family would now essentially be just as safe but it would still depend on the type of accident involved.
So basically, against smaller objects a larger vehicle would be safer. But against larger or immovable objects a truck body is going to be less safe than a unibody car. Better the car be utterly destroyed and the passengers stay intact than the vehicle be left in a condition where it can be driven away.
JuanCarlos
New member
You're both right and wrong. In general, you are generally safer or at least no less safe in a more compact vehicle. The physics really are much more complex than big=safe. However, the primary reason you may be safer (overall) in an SUV/truck is only because so many people drive SUVs/trucks.
Now, I may be mistaken (and I'm too lazy to research right now) but I seem to remember that in "same size" collisions (car-v-car, truck-v-truck), or single-vehicle collisions, people in cars were generally safer than people in trucks. The only real exception is when you're in a car and involved in an accident with a truck (or SUV). So yes, you may be safer in an SUV; but only at the expense of those not in SUVs and only because so many others drive SUVs.
So in theory everybody would actually be safer (overall) if there were simply less trucks on the road.
I think there may have been a typo in here, or at least this is an improper use of "however."
Size matters. Sure, there are specific test crashes that can show a smaller car doing better than a larger one but I remain skeptical and wonder if the tests weren't designed to promote smaller cars. Just a few days ago they showed an accident in Seattle where a econo car crossed the line and had a head on into a full size F150. The econo car was unrecognizable, driver was toast. The pickup driver was uninjured but looked like he was in for a new bumper and fender work.
I was in a auto accident about this time last year. I was driving a mid-size car and was hit from behind by a Ford Ranger.
My car was totalled and the Ranger wasn't damaged to any degree.
As for the safety mechanisms that are supposed to make compacts as safe as larger cars, people need to understand that those mechanisms only work in certain circumstances. My air bags did not deploy (despite an impact velocity at highway speeds and thus far greater than the design trigger speed) because the truck's bumper rode over mine.
My car was totalled and the Ranger wasn't damaged to any degree.
As for the safety mechanisms that are supposed to make compacts as safe as larger cars, people need to understand that those mechanisms only work in certain circumstances. My air bags did not deploy (despite an impact velocity at highway speeds and thus far greater than the design trigger speed) because the truck's bumper rode over mine.
oh please. Yes, there's a massive conspiracy among car manufacturers to promote smaller cars even though larger ones are more marketable and sell in greater numbers.
Now imagine if that econo car had been a truck. Greater chance that both drivers would be toast.
Now you also have to take into account what kind of car this was. Some are better built than others.
But if you want to ignore the hundreds of thousands of man hours by trained scientists and engineers because you like big trucks, go right ahead.
First of all the argument is cars vs trucks, not small cars vs large cars. The crux of the issue is unibody construction with better crumple zones than stiffer, body-on-frame construction.
That being said, in the accident you mentioned your car was totaled because more of the energy from the impact was transferred to your car instead of into you. In the case of the Ranger a greater percentage of the impact energy was transferred to the driver because the body of the truck is not designed to absorb impact as well as on a car.