And with a regular car, the leasing company is allowed leave the externalities - such as climate change and health effects of exhaust - of their business to be paid collectively.
Then punish the losers, don't pick winners. Government has a pretty lousy history in trying to pick winners.
If burning gas is a problem, then tax it more. Maybe EVs will be the solution, maybe something else will be.
The rebates and credits for EVs is the government trying to pick winners, it is a wealth transfer to whomever the government likes at the moment.
Instead, if you have a carbon tax, what you're saying is "carbon, you're bad, you'll pay more" and then the market is free to come up with something, anything, that is better.
They aren't 'just' passing money around. These incentives are helping to encourage a new industry that is generating new jobs, and putting food on people's tables. Those people also pay taxes and buy stuff which helps put food on other people's tables, and in turn generates more tax.
Color it in all the nice words you want, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Yes, the government IS just passing money around. A better plan would be for the government to buy the panels itself and setup utility scale solar systems and sell the power on the open market and put the money into the general fund.
That I'd have no problem with.
If you told me that you wanted to spend half a trillion dollars over the next 10 years getting solar to 20% of our power by that method, I'd be willing to discuss that, because yes, I can see the benefits of reducing our fossil fuel consumption as helping all of us.
What I have a problem with, and you should too, is when the government says "lets make SOME of our citizens better off at the expense of others".
If you honestly don't see that as a problem, more reading of history will hopefully help. It is a horrible idea and it has been tried and it never ends well.
But if you want to get pedantic, everything you do is at taxpayer expense, since taxpayers keep the borders secure, the water clean, and provide all the bits and pieces of everyday life that allow each of us to pursue our own personal interests.
No, you didn't read everything I wrote...
Taxpayer's money to defend the country doesn't make me rich at YOUR expense, it makes us ALL rich.
Same thing with having EVERYONE have education.
Now, if you said "lets have the government put solar on EVERYONE's roof, I actually would have less problem with that than the current system.
What we have now is wealth transfer, the government has decided that you should become wealthier at other citizen's expense. It is great when you're on that end, but the ends switch all too easy and you don't want to go down that path.
The roads, the police, the military, etc. benefit everyone. You personally own the solar system that everyone else paid 30% or more for. That is the problem.
Well then we clearly live in different worlds... Because that would be a rather foolish thing to do... but you're entitled to think and feel anything you want, so carry on.:)
I'm willing to bet that a single Bitcoin costs a whole lot more to produce than a credit card transaction takes to process.
Or to put it another way, if you were to replace the entire existing credit card system with Bitcoin, would it use more or less power than the current system?
---
Or perhaps if you were to be honest about the whole thing... Even with Bitcoin, you still are using the existing system, since very few places take bitcoin and most that do convert it into dollars or euros right away.
So you now have twice as many transactions, once for bitcoin, another for the "old guard" banking system.
As a side note, there is an AMT for people, but not for companies.
Perhaps the problem is that large companies can simply find ways around all this and end up paying little to no tax.
Perhaps an idea could be an AMT for companies, or perhaps a gross revenue tax. We have that in Texas, I pay it on my LLC since my revenue exceeds the limits. A small part of my gross revenue is payable as tax, regardless if I am profitable or not.
Tax laws are far too illogical and capricious to debate in these forums, whether you're discussing personal or business tax codes.
I would agree with you, the tax laws are way, way too complex...
I own my own business, I've been filing business tax returns for more than 20 years now, I am well versed in how messed up our tax laws are.
---
It would be interesting to setup a room in Washington DC and assemble two groups of people.
1. A group of CPAs, tax experts, lawyers, etc.
2. A group of random people taken from society, everyone from a McDonald's worker to a CEO.
It could be a reality TV show. The goal is to see which group can shrink the tax code the most, while being revenue neutral and not adding to the burden of tax compliance.
The irony is that just a few stories down, there is a lot of talk about why more people don't drive EVs and how important it is for the world to get off fossil fuels.
So... how much power generated by fossil fuels was consumed "mining" bitcoins last month?
I can't think of anything less "green" than a computer pulling hundreds of watts sitting around 24/7 chewing on random numbers.
I don't know what beelsebob's terms are, but it is very rare that a lease would be a better deal than a purchase.
In my experience, the only times a lease is actually a good deal is when it is subsudized by the factory.
From time to time, they'll underwrite a lease deal to move a slow selling vehicle and you can get good deals. I came close to leasing an Escape last year as a second SUV to have something small and cheap to run about it and save on gas in my big truck.
For a top of the line Titanium loaded with everything, it was $277 a month with nothing due at signing, 36 months, 10,500 miles a year. First payment 30 days after I drove away, TT&L rolled into it. Sticker was right around $35k (invoice about 2k less), so $277 a month with not a penny at signing is actually pretty reasonable.
It might or might not end up being cheaper after 3 years, honestly you'd have to see what it is worth then to know, but my rule of thumb is that you should pay no more than $100 per month per $10k of the cost of the vehicle for a 36 month lease.
First, downpayments are generally stupid with leases. Even with gap insurance, you generally don't get a downpayment back if you total the car. So you have to come up with another downpayment.
Second, the whole point of a lease is to keep your money in your pocket. If you're putting 10-20% down, just finance, it is usually cheaper.
I'm not against spending money when it benefits everyone.
If you said, "lets spend public money to install a power company scale solar system", then fine, do that if it makes sense.
The issue I have is that we're spending government money to buy YOU a solar system that you personally benefit from. It increases the value of your home and saves you money at taxpayer's expense.
Now, if you said, "but lets use your roof", and the solar panels belong to the government and they sell you power at say 80% of the normal rate in return for using your roof, I'd be ok with that as well.
So I'm not against my money being used to make the Earth cleaner, I just don't think it should be used this way.
Slashdot Mirror
And with a regular car, the leasing company is allowed leave the externalities - such as climate change and health effects of exhaust - of their business to be paid collectively.
Then punish the losers, don't pick winners. Government has a pretty lousy history in trying to pick winners.
If burning gas is a problem, then tax it more. Maybe EVs will be the solution, maybe something else will be.
The rebates and credits for EVs is the government trying to pick winners, it is a wealth transfer to whomever the government likes at the moment.
Instead, if you have a carbon tax, what you're saying is "carbon, you're bad, you'll pay more" and then the market is free to come up with something, anything, that is better.
They aren't 'just' passing money around. These incentives are helping to encourage a new industry that is generating new jobs, and putting food on people's tables. Those people also pay taxes and buy stuff which helps put food on other people's tables, and in turn generates more tax.
Color it in all the nice words you want, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Yes, the government IS just passing money around. A better plan would be for the government to buy the panels itself and setup utility scale solar systems and sell the power on the open market and put the money into the general fund.
That I'd have no problem with.
If you told me that you wanted to spend half a trillion dollars over the next 10 years getting solar to 20% of our power by that method, I'd be willing to discuss that, because yes, I can see the benefits of reducing our fossil fuel consumption as helping all of us.
What I have a problem with, and you should too, is when the government says "lets make SOME of our citizens better off at the expense of others".
If you honestly don't see that as a problem, more reading of history will hopefully help. It is a horrible idea and it has been tried and it never ends well.
But if you want to get pedantic, everything you do is at taxpayer expense, since taxpayers keep the borders secure, the water clean, and provide all the bits and pieces of everyday life that allow each of us to pursue our own personal interests.
No, you didn't read everything I wrote...
Taxpayer's money to defend the country doesn't make me rich at YOUR expense, it makes us ALL rich.
Same thing with having EVERYONE have education.
Now, if you said "lets have the government put solar on EVERYONE's roof, I actually would have less problem with that than the current system.
What we have now is wealth transfer, the government has decided that you should become wealthier at other citizen's expense. It is great when you're on that end, but the ends switch all too easy and you don't want to go down that path.
The roads, the police, the military, etc. benefit everyone. You personally own the solar system that everyone else paid 30% or more for. That is the problem.
Well then we clearly live in different worlds... Because that would be a rather foolish thing to do... but you're entitled to think and feel anything you want, so carry on. :)
That's the Austerity myth. If you spend money on growing your economy, you can actually spend more and tax less.
You grow the numbers, but that doesn't make people wealthier...
If it did, then we should go out and spend $50 trillion tomorrow. We'll all be rich!
Of course, a new car would cost half a million and a house 10 million, but who's counting? We'll all be millionaires!
There are a few small miners outside these areas, but the big ASIC miners are located in areas where cheap hydropower is available.
And there is no better use for this power besides running computers 24/7?
Your replies miss the point I'm afraid...
Fair enough...
How does Bitcoin solve that? Should it become more than a side show, do you honestly believe government will stay out of it?
Per transaction, or total?
I'm willing to bet that a single Bitcoin costs a whole lot more to produce than a credit card transaction takes to process.
Or to put it another way, if you were to replace the entire existing credit card system with Bitcoin, would it use more or less power than the current system?
---
Or perhaps if you were to be honest about the whole thing... Even with Bitcoin, you still are using the existing system, since very few places take bitcoin and most that do convert it into dollars or euros right away.
So you now have twice as many transactions, once for bitcoin, another for the "old guard" banking system.
My power comes from coal and natural gas and costs less than 11 cents per kWh.
Are you suggesting that is too expensive to mine with?
Are you suggesting that no one outside of those areas are mining Bitcoin?
Probably a few coal trains.
Well sure, thus my question as to why people here rail against SUVs and such, but seem to love Bitcoin so much...
As a side note, there is an AMT for people, but not for companies.
Perhaps the problem is that large companies can simply find ways around all this and end up paying little to no tax.
Perhaps an idea could be an AMT for companies, or perhaps a gross revenue tax. We have that in Texas, I pay it on my LLC since my revenue exceeds the limits. A small part of my gross revenue is payable as tax, regardless if I am profitable or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Tax laws are far too illogical and capricious to debate in these forums, whether you're discussing personal or business tax codes.
I would agree with you, the tax laws are way, way too complex...
I own my own business, I've been filing business tax returns for more than 20 years now, I am well versed in how messed up our tax laws are.
---
It would be interesting to setup a room in Washington DC and assemble two groups of people.
1. A group of CPAs, tax experts, lawyers, etc.
2. A group of random people taken from society, everyone from a McDonald's worker to a CEO.
It could be a reality TV show. The goal is to see which group can shrink the tax code the most, while being revenue neutral and not adding to the burden of tax compliance.
The irony is that just a few stories down, there is a lot of talk about why more people don't drive EVs and how important it is for the world to get off fossil fuels.
So... how much power generated by fossil fuels was consumed "mining" bitcoins last month?
I can't think of anything less "green" than a computer pulling hundreds of watts sitting around 24/7 chewing on random numbers.
You are an idealist. Unfortunately we live in a society where "the end justifies the means."
Sometimes they do... but this is not one of those times...
I don't know what beelsebob's terms are, but it is very rare that a lease would be a better deal than a purchase.
In my experience, the only times a lease is actually a good deal is when it is subsudized by the factory.
From time to time, they'll underwrite a lease deal to move a slow selling vehicle and you can get good deals. I came close to leasing an Escape last year as a second SUV to have something small and cheap to run about it and save on gas in my big truck.
For a top of the line Titanium loaded with everything, it was $277 a month with nothing due at signing, 36 months, 10,500 miles a year. First payment 30 days after I drove away, TT&L rolled into it. Sticker was right around $35k (invoice about 2k less), so $277 a month with not a penny at signing is actually pretty reasonable.
It might or might not end up being cheaper after 3 years, honestly you'd have to see what it is worth then to know, but my rule of thumb is that you should pay no more than $100 per month per $10k of the cost of the vehicle for a 36 month lease.
True, but after watching the value of the Volt, I'm not sure that the first few years of EVs will hold much value. :)
The technology is moving so fast, in 5 years they'll be better for less, the current depreciation will be horrible I think.
You'd be utterly insane to actually buy the thing with that deal.
Yea, I have to agree with you on that one...
Shame the deal is so subsidized... It won't last, but a few people will enjoy it. :)
$159 a month with nothing due at signing?
First, downpayments are generally stupid with leases. Even with gap insurance, you generally don't get a downpayment back if you total the car. So you have to come up with another downpayment.
Second, the whole point of a lease is to keep your money in your pocket. If you're putting 10-20% down, just finance, it is usually cheaper.
I suppose that is one way to look at it. :)
I generally don't like encouraging such things however... the more the government spends, the more they have to tax.
Just because something benefits me doesn't make it right.
The job of gov't is to hand out the money of others.
Actually, no it really isn't... :) So we disagree on that point...
I'm not against spending money when it benefits everyone.
If you said, "lets spend public money to install a power company scale solar system", then fine, do that if it makes sense.
The issue I have is that we're spending government money to buy YOU a solar system that you personally benefit from. It increases the value of your home and saves you money at taxpayer's expense.
Now, if you said, "but lets use your roof", and the solar panels belong to the government and they sell you power at say 80% of the normal rate in return for using your roof, I'd be ok with that as well.
So I'm not against my money being used to make the Earth cleaner, I just don't think it should be used this way.
You keep pitching that, but the government is just handing you other people's money.
If you're comfortable taking it, then go ahead, but some of us consider that to be wrong when it is for something optional like a car.
I don't mind for education, because that benefits us all, but you don't need an eGolf. If you want it, go spend your own money on it.
Nissan is, to move the Leaf which otherwise isn't selling.
The eGolf starts at about $33K. The normal Golf starts at about $18k.
You have to burn a whole lot of fuel to make up that difference.
Actually, it is a lot more than $80 from the government.
A 3 year lease, with $7,500 from the federal government and $2,500 from CA is $10K.
$10K "down" on a 3 year lease easily cuts the payment in half.