Electric cars

[[email protected]]

No! No! No! NOT a "sales" tax - that punishes the merchant.

Make it a "PURCHASE" tax, or outgo tax, or expenditure tax; the BUYER
pays the tax.

Of course, the rich would fight that tooth and nail - under the current
system, the rich just hire squadrons of lawyers to evade the current taxes.

Buy a $100.00 suit, pay $10.00 purchase tax.
Buy a $2,000.00 suit, pay $200.00 purchase tax.
Buy a $40,000,000.00 corporate jet, pay $4,000,000.00 purchase tax.

Of course, there would be no purchase tax on grocery store food, anything
medical, or used stuff (thrift shop clothes, yard sale stuff, etc.)

That would be not only fair, but it should please the "liberals",
because that would be a way to "soak the rich".

But it seems that common sense is a dying breed these days. Sigh.

Only in the US. You are on the way to re-inventing value added tax,
which is remarkably popular in Europe at the moment. You haven't got
to the bit about being able to claim back the value-added-tax on the
stuff you bought when you sold it on to someone else who paid value-
added-tax on what they bought, but that's the nice thing about re-
inventing the wheel - you do have to go through the lump roller stage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax

 

[[email protected]]

Everybody avoids the real answer - stop ripping off the wage-earners
and giving handouts to the unproductive and crooked.

It's not so much that people give money to the crooked - if the crooks
are any good at their business they take the money before anybody gets
a chance to make a decison.

The unproductive present a different problem. Letting the unemployed
starve to death or die of exposure wne the economy is depressed leads
to a shortage of workers when the economy recovers - the less
enterprising unemployed die along with their dependants, and the more
enterprising become crooks and end up in prison, leaving their
dependants to starve

As solutions go, it is a good less than optimal. See if you can come
up with a better idea.

--

 

[[email protected]]

As people's incomes increase, their birth rates decline. That is
probably the only practical, or at least humane, population limit.

It doesn't seem to work as well as it might have done in the USA.
Educating women has an even bigger effect on birth rate than income,
and the USA does seem to fall short in this area. I'm aware that the
USA educates men and women equally well but - as evidenced by a lot
of the comment that gets posted on this user group - the US education
system can prove inadequate for both sexes.

I'm not arguing that the US education system fails everybody - even
amongst the US posters on this user group there are people who do know
what they are talking about, and don't post about stuff about areas
where they are ignorant - but it certainly seems to fail far too many
people.

 

[[email protected]]

The market itself is the most ruthless, brutal regulator there is. If
people don't like your crap, they won't buy it.

Unless you advertise it vigorously

Harry Browne was aware of this in 1973:http://mysite.verizon.net/richgrise/HIFF/

So the government is the biggest protection racket in town. Very
original. The anarcho-syndicalists had a slightly better solution, and
it probably does come close to a true optimum. Unfortunately it isn't
a Nash optimum, in that cheats can do better for themselves by
cheating in one way or another. The solution we've actually got comes
tolerably close to the optimum - despite Harry Browne's logic -
because it does inhibit a lot of the cheating, but nowhere near all of
it.

 

[Jim Yanik]

in
[snip]

I want FAST and SAFE, which usually implies BIG ;-)

...Jim Thompson

several Porsches and Mercedes are small,fast,yet safe.
No car should be required to withstand fast collisions or off-road
"shunts".
IMO,people SHOULD be at risk;it will make them pay more attention to
their driving,or thin out the gene pool.

IMO,good handling,braking and most importantly,the DRIVER,make a car
"safe".BTW,"safety" also includes the damage your vehicle can do to
other vehicles.
IMO,having more SUVs and "light trucks" being commonly used as
daily-driver passenger vehicles has DECREASED safety for everyone.

I forgot to mention, 5-passengers, seated in comfort, and all their
luggage for 1 week stashed in the trunk ;-)

...Jim Thompson

for those few occasions that you travel enmasse,you can RENT one of
those. You don't drive a U-Haul truck daily just because you need to
move once in a while.

When I'm involved in an accident, I want to be on the winning side.

I drive freeways every few days. Lots of people die out there.

Those that aren't PAYING ATTENTION.

I've been driving for 54 years... never _caused_ an accident, but I've
been T-boned three times by red light or stop sign runners.

So? I don't expect a car to be armor against collisions.
One heavy enough for that SUCKS TOO MUCH GAS,drives like a barge.
Harder to park,too.

Small cars also make you be more attentive,because you may get crunched by
some landbarge or tank.

BTW,my Integra;2600 lbs,got nailed in the front by a full-size SUV and only
suffered a crunched left fender;parking lot collision on the exit road.She
was speeding and probably distracted by her 2 small kids.I removed the
fender and pounded the crunch out of it,repainted.

Worst case injury... sprained thumb from steering wheel spinning upon
impact. I no longer tuck thumbs under steering wheel spokes ;-)

...Jim Thompson

I learned to drive in my dad's 57 Caddy Fleetwood,a massive car,so I'm no
stranger to landbarges. Owned a 63 Dodge Polara,too,my only big car.
But even at my advanced age,I prefer small cars;they make more sense.

 

[Jim Yanik]

I should clarify: 'big' meaning 'longer and wider' for more
crush zone, not 'top heavy and fat.'

unfortunately,the trend today is to make vehicles taller and narrower,even
the compact cars.

But,"big" means more material and more weight.More cost,too.

Lovins agrees and makes the same points you do about the
SUVs' illusion of safety.

you must love this Lovins,you refer to him so much. ;-)

It's an illusion to think an unskilled driver in a top-heavy tank
is protected. They aren't, and it makes them a menace to the rest
of us.

Agreed;A big,heavy car/SUV/light truck has less margin for error and is not
as forgiving.

 

[Jim Yanik]

in [snip]

I want FAST and SAFE, which usually implies BIG ;-)

...Jim Thompson

several Porsches and Mercedes are small,fast,yet safe.
No car should be required to withstand fast collisions or off-road
"shunts".
IMO,people SHOULD be at risk;it will make them pay more attention to
their driving,or thin out the gene pool.

IMO,good handling,braking and most importantly,the DRIVER,make a car
"safe".BTW,"safety" also includes the damage your vehicle can do to
other vehicles.
IMO,having more SUVs and "light trucks" being commonly used as
daily-driver passenger vehicles has DECREASED safety for everyone.

I forgot to mention, 5-passengers, seated in comfort, and all their
luggage for 1 week stashed in the trunk ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Hi Jim,
But really, how often do you actually need a 5 passenger vehicle with
a weeks worth of luggage? Once a year? Twice a year? Unless you are
a big family, or a family that does a lot of soccer/baseball/football
or other sports with the kids, you don't really need that bus all the
time. It would be much more economic to just rent that monstrosity
when you actually need it, rather than be paying for its gas and
upkeep throughout the year.

That is why the small, electric commuter that can seat two people and
hold a weeks worth of groceries is usually more than sufficient.


Charlie

Heck,a decent 4 seater small car is fine.
My 1968 English Ford Cortina(GT) was a great car,had it during the 1973 gas
crisis,when they rationed fillups to 10 gallons,which didn't bother me
in the least.
(Wish I coulda got the Lotus Cortina! DOHC!! a screamer!)

the Honda Civic had a hatchback model in the late 80s-early 90s that seated
4 very comfortably,had more interior room than many "large" domestics,and
had room for your groceries,too,and got great mileage,all on a 1.6 liter
motor.you could even carry a TV in it,thru the hatch,rear seats folded
down.
No sloth,either,and low emissions.I still see them on the road today.

 

[Jim Yanik]

The BUYER pays sales taxes. The equivalent tax on a merchant is a
VAT. The difference between the two taxes is who pays.

The consumer pays ALL the taxes;businesses pass on taxes as part of the
cost of doing business. even VAT.
Lawyers and CPAs.

That sort of thinking put a *lot* of people out of work in the
Carter days.


Now you're back to your dreaded government making win/lose
decisions. I thought you didn't like the government making such
decisions.


I always knew you were a weenie.


Certainly a lack of it in your neighborhood.

It s a FACT that lower taxes -raise- tax revenues.
People have more of their own money to spend or invest,and businesses
profit from both. If gov't gets the money,they WASTE most of it.

Heck,the US Gov't couldn't even run the House and Senate lunchrooms.
The less money we give them,the better off we are.
We need to stick to the essentials in Gov't;defense,Judicial,etc.,not
social programs.

 

[Jim Yanik]

It makes perfect sense--you can't tax the unproductive, because
they're...unproductive. Govmn't has to take their money from those
who have it, and while it's still in their hand (or before).

They've got no choice but to tax the stuff that works to support
the stuff that doesn't.

Here's a quote from an unknown person;
when liberals want things to actually work, they start acting like
conservatives.
It means that liberal policies can only exist if the country is strong
enough to sustain the damage done by liberal policies.

Kind of anti-optimal from a stimulus/job-creating point of view.

James Arthur

agreed!

 

[krw]

Well, lithium batteries do better in the cold than other technologies,
but are still effected.

How well do they work at -20F?

And electric cabin heat would really drain a
pack fast, you would probably find some sort of heat pump arrangement
for heating and cooling.

How is the heat pump going to work at -20F?

It would also become common for employers and cities to have charging
stations in the parking lots. Some of that charge could be used for
'battery warmers' just like you have engine warmers today for cold
climes.

EMployers don't have electricity for tank heaters or battery chargers
now. You're going to demand they have charging stations suitable for
all parking spaces?

 

[Jim Yanik]

I suspect there might be an downturn in that tax revenue curve
*somewhere* before you hit zero taxes, Jim.

Let's be sensible,here. I never said anything about zero taxes.
"lower taxes" does not equal zero taxes.
Looking back,the US was most successful before the Income tax was enacted.

And of course maximizing tax revenues is not necessarily what the
government is supposed to do, just as many private companies purposely
choose not to maximize their own revenues: Sometimes maximizing your
revenues means giving up other attributes you value that don't
directly translate into cash.


Obama claims he's going to try to reduce waste in government... as has
pretty much every other president over time.

Obama SAYS one thing,and DOES something else.
(too bad the Obamaniacs can't understand that.)
Just look at his current "position" on gun control,and his actual past
voting record and past statements.
there's no gun control law he didn't vote for.

Obama fully intends to INCREASE Federal government,and that requires more
money.

Just wait for his civilian Internal Security Force...
(AKA BrownShirts)

 

[James Arthur]

James Arthur wrote

But,"big" means more material and more weight.More cost,too.

you must love this Lovins,you refer to him so much. ;-)

Naw, I don't love 'im. He comes off as a bit of a snob, and
stretches his points here and there. It's not all quite as
easy as he says.

But he is super smart, he's thought a lot about this problem,
and his website _had_ a lot of useful info and common sense.
The info's mostly gone, but that Stanford video lecture series
I mentioned is really excellent.

My take-away message from it was: there are several, easy ways
to increase fuel economy, without sacrificing, without the need
for big breakthroughs, but SUV-buying consumers simply haven't
cared until now.

Even greater economy is possible with new attention to weight
and materials.

I just find it cool--inspirational--to encounter such simple
engineering solutions to seemingly intractable societal problems.

The lecture on industry is similarly inspiring. Much could
be saved with just a few simple changes, like eliminating
sharp bends in pipes, oversizing ducts, and using more
efficient blowers.

I don't mean to champion Lovins, just cherrypick his ideas.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

How well do they work at -20F?

Very well. Problem is they're waayyy too expensive.

James Arthur

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

Very well. Problem is they're waayyy too expensive.

James Arthur

Even the Mars rover worked in deep sub-zero temps. Of course, there is
no water on Mars to speak of to the point of it condensing on anything.

 

[Charlie E.]

How well do they work at -20F?


How is the heat pump going to work at -20F?


EMployers don't have electricity for tank heaters or battery chargers
now. You're going to demand they have charging stations suitable for
all parking spaces?

Well, there are always places in which a certain vehicle doesn't make
sense. If you are in an area that is regularly -20F, then you
probably also don't see many convertibles or motorcycles, right? What,
you DO see them? But they are so impractical at that temp, no one in
their right mind would get one...

And, employers DO provide such things in those areas, at least good
ones do. Or covered parking or other amenities when they can.

Actually, I expect cities to get into providing charging stations that
double as parking meters!

Charlie

 

[Jim Yanik]

Once you start driving,the heat generated by the electric motor may be used
to provide interior heat.
That doesn't provide for defrosting current for the back window or initial
defrosting of the front.
That's where a hybrid electric auto is more practical.A small gas or diesel
motor will heat up quickly.

Well, there are always places in which a certain vehicle doesn't make
sense. If you are in an area that is regularly -20F, then you
probably also don't see many convertibles or motorcycles, right? What,
you DO see them? But they are so impractical at that temp, no one in
their right mind would get one...

And, employers DO provide such things in those areas, at least good
ones do. Or covered parking or other amenities when they can.

A company providing charging outlets essentially is paying for your power
usage.They may not be interested in doing that. I suspect most companies
will not do it for free,or not at all.Just the initial cost of the wiring
and outlets is something I doubt most companies will provide,particularly
in today's business climate.(economics,tight profit margins)

Covered parking may just be the result of city regs requiring employers or
commercial buildings to have enough parking spaces for the employees.Like
making them build a parking garage.

Actually, I expect cities to get into providing charging stations that
double as parking meters!

Charlie

They may not be able to afford the installation costs,and desire to move
you into public transpo anyways.

 

[JosephKK]

Except that it was Clinton who pushed, and signed, the dereg bills
that led to this mess.

John

Clinton did not push them, but he did sign them. Also Carter before
him signed several of them. It was not until a few of the neocon
dereg' bills were added that the combination became so toxic.

 

[JosephKK]

DemocRATs are "do as I say,not as I do", "And don't question what I say or
do.","Go along with our policies,because we won."

"give us your full support,even though we didn't do that when your guy won
election".

And last;"don't listen to Rush Limbaugh".

Rush dreams of being a neocon Howard Stern. He just isn't funny
enough. They are both megajerks and hypernutter twits.

 

[JosephKK]

Shooting all the Democrats does away with all the pols (snicker ;-)

...Jim Thompson

No it only takes out about half of them. Have to shoot all the
republicans as well, to get rid of a worthwhile chunk of politicians
(crapheads).

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

But trying to do that by mandate is just more excessive government.

Mother nature will automagically put a stop to exponential (or maybe
asymptotic) growth.

Hum, yes. I'm certainly not in favour of more government, but
I do think that mother nature's way of stopping our growth is
going to hurt.

I also think that even though some sub-groups may be able to
stop their growth, this will never work globally. So mother
nature will get the job anyway, eventually.

Jeroen Belleman