There are a great many ways to store wealth that are more or less untraceable...
People will just move their wealth to those ways...
Income is, more or less, reasonably easy to track, at least beyond a basic level (cash for mowing lawns is hard to track, but it also is small potatoes)
Taxing the wealthy sounds nice, until you actually try and create a system. In doing so, you must consider all the ways the wealthy will change their behavior to avoid your new taxes.
People don't like paying tax, they'll go to great lengths to avoid it, behavior doesn't remain static.
As always, the devil tends to be in the details...
What do Norway, Sweden, Canada, and New Zealand have in common? No need for a military to speak of, they are all protected by the major nations.
Much of Europe has this benefit as well, from the US. If the US actually did scale back defense, other countries would have to step up. They currently underspend on defense and overspend on social things because they enjoy the protection of the United States of America.
As does much of the world... Perhaps we should send everyone a bill for that?
Where do people want to live? In an old school Soviet style apartment building, or a nice house with a lawn in the suburbs?
What do people want to eat? A bowl of rice and chicken every day, or perhaps a balanced and interesting diet?
Those of us with skills and means do not want to live a basic life, if we did, we wouldn't try very hard.
Frankly, I find those asking for "all fair and equal and love and stuff" to be those without money, very few people who actually have skills and money want that.
You clearly don't know anything about software programming... You can't just throw more people at it and have each of them do a little bit and get anything useful out of it...
That all sounds nice, except some of us like our money and we'll use that money to buy a much better military than your "world without money" could ever obtain...
Then we'll crush your world and replace it with ours.
And that is why money, as it stands today, runs the world, because it buys a better military than all the other systems that have been tried.
At the end of the day, that is really all that matters.
Sounds so nice, but as long as we're putting hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil into a ship and sailing them around the world, there are going to be accidents.
Double hulls are largely already required, what else do we do?
While I understand the feeling, you can also make it hurt so much that they no longer bother.
What if they just sell off their assets and move on with life?
Think of it like child support, which already has gone too far in many cases. Many people are ordered to pay more than they really can (yes, there are deadbeats too), so they do work for cash to keep it "off the books".
You can only "punish" people so hard before they change their behavior, the harsher the punishment, the more they will change to avoid it.
I actually agree with most of the concerns about the F-35...
It isn't big enough, it isn't fast enough, it needs a second engine, etc...
The idea was to have a few expensive F-22 fighters to dominate the air and a bunch of cheaper F-35 fighter/bombers to do what the F-16 does today...
Nice idea, replace the F-15 with the F-22 and the F-16 with the F-35, and that works to a point, but the F-35 is a bit small for all that it is asked to do.
The primary difference between our two points of view, I believe, is that you're taking into account current market conditions and assuming they make any sense or will last, where as I'm ignoring them because I know they are a fantasy.
If the Leaf became anywhere nearly as popular as the Civic, you'd see that $7,500 federal rebate go away in a big, big hurry. If the Leaf became anywhere nearly as popular as the Civic, you'd see the electric market change due to the increased demand. The only power that can be brought online in large amounts in any reasonable period of time are fossil fuels.
So if you remove the tax credits, then take into account that as more people buy electric cars, electricity rates will rise while gas prices may actually start to fall (production vs. demand), you'll find all your nice numbers go away in a big, big hurry.
Then there is the issue that Nissan isn't making any money on the Leaf, reports that I've read is that they are losing several thousand on each car. So it works, as a halo product at low volume, but that doesn't mean it is a real option that they can mass produce.
So your numbers "work", assuming a lot of things... Remove them and the car becomes a terrible idea.
Electric cars may well have their day, but that day isn't today and it won't be tomorrow either. Maybe some day, but the business model has quite a few flaws in it right now.
While I'll be happy to admit that there are indeed a few people who actually benefit from a Leaf, the broader issue is that very few people actually do, most gain nothing from it, even those who fit "the profile" of an electric car driver.
You bring up the garage issue, that is actually a good one. Those who think electric cars will "take over" from gas cars in 10-20 years are completely missing the problem of where to park and charge at home. Only a fraction of car owners in this price range have a garage. Most in the price range of a Tesla S have one (or 3).
You bring up the "It's environmentally friendly" point. Is it? Really? I guess it depends on what makes your wall power. Here in Texas, most of that is coal and natural gas, neither of which are much better than oil. Some nuclear, a very small amount of wind, but frankly, it is coal and natural gas for the most part. Swapping out gas for coal isn't an improvement in my books, worse when you consider the pollution of actually making the batteries (which are not clean).
I suspect a large percentage of the buyers of the Leaf are doing it for that reason "save the Earth", but that percentage will always be in the single digits, it isn't enough of a reason for most people to make their second largest purchase for.
If the Leaf were $5K LESS to buy than the Civic, then you'd have something, a real arguement for why it makes sense to take the chance, but it doesn't, it costs more and "maybe" saves some money in fuel costs. I say "maybe" because consumers have been lied to so often about so many things that they will have to see it to believe it before they buy into it. Yes, it is obvious to those who can do math that the monthly fuel cost is lower with electric, that isn't in dispute, but you'd be shocked how many people can't even do that math. (you probably think I can't, from my comments, but I can, I just use different assumptions and numbers than you do)
Lets say you're right... Why isn't the Leaf selling? It is getting clobbered by the Civic, and almost everything else for that matter... Try adding the similar cars from Toyota, Ford, Chevy, and even Nissan to the Civic's sales numbers, it is being outsold 100 to 1, so clearly something is wrong with the Leaf.
We lost that F-117 because it flew the same route over and over again, they figured it out and just waited for it. As shown in the first Gulf War, all the random AAA in the world is unlikely to ever hit anything.
Your cost comparison has some assumptions in it that I don't agree with, so you keep saying the break even is closer than I believe it is.
I don't believe the average Leaf buyer drives 15K miles a year. You do, I don't, nothing is going to reconcile that.
A mid-level Civic is about $200/month to lease, a mid-level Leaf is about $300/month to lease, I've seen those numbers posted by multiple people, your lease numbers are maybe what is in the dealer ads, but I doubt very many people pay those.
The Leaf requires that you pre-pay the cost of driving it, if it sits for a month, it still costs you an extra hundred or so, if the Civic sits without being driven, it is cheaper.
Finally, what does the Leaf really offer that the Civic doesn't? In other words, the Civic is the safe, known choice... to branch out and "try something new", the Leaf must offer something appealing that the Civic doesn't.
When all is said and done, over 3 years, at best the Leaf is a wash in costs (using your numbers) and a bit behind in using my numbers. It comes with range limits, it is different, etc...
So why bother, just get a Civic and move on with life. Clearly most people are making that choice.
Judging by the sales numbers, a Leaf isn't the car for most people.
Last year, the Nissan Leaf sold 22,610 cars. The Honda Civic sold 336,180 cars. The Civic beat out the Leaf by 15 to 1, and that is only considering the Civic, there are many other cars similar in nature which also crushed the Leaf in sales. Given that the Leaf largely has this space all to itself, it should be blowing out the door.
Yes, but would the AAA have been able to hit the plane in the first place? Was it RADAR guided? IR guided? Would a faster, higher, stealthier plane have ever been shot at?
I can lease a Civic for under $200 a month. A Leaf runs about $300 a month. The Leaf uses less money for go-go juice, but not enough to break that difference.
The fact is, all costs considered (including depreciation), a Leaf just doesn't make any sense. The sales numbers are proof of this... How many Civics were sold last month vs the Leaf?
[It's almost never worth driving your own car over a couple hundred miles versus a cheap rental, but that's another story.]
There are some assumptions in there as well.
First, you're assuming you're just moving you.
Second, you're assuming that your car is basic and small, thus a cheap rental will be anything like what you drive every day.
Third, you're assuming that getting into a strange car and driving a long distance is just as safe as driving that distance in something that you know front to back (it isn't).
Finally, there is the time and energy to go and get a rental car, worry about the condition, how has it been maintained, will it be ok driving far distances out into the countryside, etc?
As a bonus, since I actually drive fewer than 10K miles a year, it really doesn't cost much if anything to add 1K more miles on a long cross country drive. Yes, every mile you drive takes something off the value of the car, but within a given range over time, 1K or even 3K miles over 3-5 years of ownership doesn't make that much difference. Renting a car for a week? Not cheap.
Second bonus... I don't drive cars... I haven't owned a car in almost 20 years, if I buy one, it is likely to be one of the new Corvette Stingrays, otherwise, I'm likely to drive a truck forever. Renting a nice truck is really expensive.:)
The irony is that I can afford a Tesla S, but I'm not going to buy one, it is an average car that costs a ton of money, has limited range, limited space, and frankly does nothing useful for me.
For local driving, if there were lots of places to charge, I might feel otherwise. Here in North Texas, I think I've seen a charging once in front of a Twin Peaks restaurant, otherwise, that's it.
The challenge is that to get past the range anxiety, you have to own and drive the car often, but that requires that you take the leap of faith before owning the car that it will all work out.
Then you have to ask yourself, why bother? You aren't saving money in any reasonable period of time, the math just doesn't work out, unless you really twist the numbers. I suppose there is the "save the world" idea, but frankly, putting 25K of these cars on the road isn't going to make a lick of difference, you need to put 25M of them on the road, all powered by electricity that doesn't come from coal or natural gas (which ours does in Texas).
And frankly, you need to make them into trucks, but there the math gets worse, not better. My truck averages 11.5 mpg overall, much better on the highway, but I don't drive on it enough to see that benefit. I use it around town 99% of the time, and the range would be fine, but how much battery is required to move a 5,700lb truck around town for 100 miles? Something tells me north of $100K for the truck and battery, maybe even $150K.
There are several things wrong with what you posted.
First, I doubt that most people buying a Leaf are driving 15K miles a year. We could debate that point until the cows come home, but at 15K miles a year, you're putting 41 miles a day, 7 days a week, on the car. Some days you won't drive, so lets say you average 300 driving days a year.
That works out to 50 average miles a day. Since some days you'll drive 20 miles and others you'll drive 80, range is an issue.
Second, you're taking the tax credit into account. That is silly, it is just the government giving you your own tax dollars back and it will go away the minute electrics become actually popular. Also, not everyone actually needs the credit. Well, everyone buying a Tesla S does, but not everyone leasing a Leaf for $300 a month does.
Third, the Civic is, frankly, a more "normal" looking car that has a more "known" resale value. I don't want to say "better looking", since looks are in the eye of the beholder, but you can't claim the Leaf looks like the "average car", and these days, people don't like buying freaky looking cars (Pontiac Aztec anyone?)
Finally, you have the long recharge time vs. 3-5 minutes at the gas station. The electric cars have a long way to go to get around this issue.
There is a reason why the electrics just aren't selling in huge numbers, price and range are by far the largest.
Not quite... the F-35 is stealthy, the A-10 is not... The A-10 can be hit by almost any missile made in the past 30 years, the F-35, much harder to shoot down.
Now, that being said, you really only need a few F-35s, to take out the SAM sites and mobile defenses, once you have control of the skies, bring in hundreds of A-10s for CAS.
The Germans in WWII showed with the JU-87 Stuka that when you have control of the skies, any old ground attack airplane will do, but if threatened, they'll be shot down very quickly.
And yea, either give the A-10 to the Army, or perhaps merge the Army and Air Force back into one military unit and this argument may go away.
Slashdot Mirror
So you tax the farm based on its value...
Hmm, so what is that farm really worth? It hasn't sold in years, near by farms are different in size and scope...
Income is a number, you can tax the number, the number is really not in dispute, you earn what you earn.
What is something worth? Whatever someone will pay, but if no one is actually buying and selling, then it is just an opinion.
No, no way for the IRS to inflate the value of assets to generate more revenue, now is there? :)
This has bad, terrible, horrible idea written all over it.
There are a great many ways to store wealth that are more or less untraceable...
People will just move their wealth to those ways...
Income is, more or less, reasonably easy to track, at least beyond a basic level (cash for mowing lawns is hard to track, but it also is small potatoes)
Taxing the wealthy sounds nice, until you actually try and create a system. In doing so, you must consider all the ways the wealthy will change their behavior to avoid your new taxes.
People don't like paying tax, they'll go to great lengths to avoid it, behavior doesn't remain static.
You really want to live in a world where the government comes and takes your kids away because it doesn't agree with your choice of life?
Really?
Adolf Hitler called and wants to come visit, that idea is really that bad...
As always, the devil tends to be in the details...
What do Norway, Sweden, Canada, and New Zealand have in common? No need for a military to speak of, they are all protected by the major nations.
Much of Europe has this benefit as well, from the US. If the US actually did scale back defense, other countries would have to step up. They currently underspend on defense and overspend on social things because they enjoy the protection of the United States of America.
As does much of the world... Perhaps we should send everyone a bill for that?
Where do people want to live? In an old school Soviet style apartment building, or a nice house with a lawn in the suburbs?
What do people want to eat? A bowl of rice and chicken every day, or perhaps a balanced and interesting diet?
Those of us with skills and means do not want to live a basic life, if we did, we wouldn't try very hard.
Frankly, I find those asking for "all fair and equal and love and stuff" to be those without money, very few people who actually have skills and money want that.
First, can we please figure out what is "fair"?
I hear all the time, "fair share" and "we need to do what is fair"...
But no one ever seems to actually want to say what they think "fair" is.
You clearly don't know anything about software programming... You can't just throw more people at it and have each of them do a little bit and get anything useful out of it...
That all sounds nice, except some of us like our money and we'll use that money to buy a much better military than your "world without money" could ever obtain...
Then we'll crush your world and replace it with ours.
And that is why money, as it stands today, runs the world, because it buys a better military than all the other systems that have been tried.
At the end of the day, that is really all that matters.
"may prevent future accidents"
Sounds so nice, but as long as we're putting hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil into a ship and sailing them around the world, there are going to be accidents.
Double hulls are largely already required, what else do we do?
While I understand the feeling, you can also make it hurt so much that they no longer bother.
What if they just sell off their assets and move on with life?
Think of it like child support, which already has gone too far in many cases. Many people are ordered to pay more than they really can (yes, there are deadbeats too), so they do work for cash to keep it "off the books".
You can only "punish" people so hard before they change their behavior, the harsher the punishment, the more they will change to avoid it.
His point is that at some point the source for the Atari 800 should have been released when support was dropped.
You're defending your purchase, which is fine...
But that doesn't mean it is anything other than a niche product.
Electric cars existed 100 years ago, they haven't taken over yet...
I actually agree with most of the concerns about the F-35...
It isn't big enough, it isn't fast enough, it needs a second engine, etc...
The idea was to have a few expensive F-22 fighters to dominate the air and a bunch of cheaper F-35 fighter/bombers to do what the F-16 does today...
Nice idea, replace the F-15 with the F-22 and the F-16 with the F-35, and that works to a point, but the F-35 is a bit small for all that it is asked to do.
If the Leaf became anywhere nearly as popular as the Civic, you'd see that $7,500 federal rebate go away in a big, big hurry. If the Leaf became anywhere nearly as popular as the Civic, you'd see the electric market change due to the increased demand. The only power that can be brought online in large amounts in any reasonable period of time are fossil fuels.
So if you remove the tax credits, then take into account that as more people buy electric cars, electricity rates will rise while gas prices may actually start to fall (production vs. demand), you'll find all your nice numbers go away in a big, big hurry.
Then there is the issue that Nissan isn't making any money on the Leaf, reports that I've read is that they are losing several thousand on each car. So it works, as a halo product at low volume, but that doesn't mean it is a real option that they can mass produce.
So your numbers "work", assuming a lot of things... Remove them and the car becomes a terrible idea.
Electric cars may well have their day, but that day isn't today and it won't be tomorrow either. Maybe some day, but the business model has quite a few flaws in it right now.
You bring up the garage issue, that is actually a good one. Those who think electric cars will "take over" from gas cars in 10-20 years are completely missing the problem of where to park and charge at home. Only a fraction of car owners in this price range have a garage. Most in the price range of a Tesla S have one (or 3).
You bring up the "It's environmentally friendly" point. Is it? Really? I guess it depends on what makes your wall power. Here in Texas, most of that is coal and natural gas, neither of which are much better than oil. Some nuclear, a very small amount of wind, but frankly, it is coal and natural gas for the most part. Swapping out gas for coal isn't an improvement in my books, worse when you consider the pollution of actually making the batteries (which are not clean).
I suspect a large percentage of the buyers of the Leaf are doing it for that reason "save the Earth", but that percentage will always be in the single digits, it isn't enough of a reason for most people to make their second largest purchase for.
If the Leaf were $5K LESS to buy than the Civic, then you'd have something, a real arguement for why it makes sense to take the chance, but it doesn't, it costs more and "maybe" saves some money in fuel costs. I say "maybe" because consumers have been lied to so often about so many things that they will have to see it to believe it before they buy into it. Yes, it is obvious to those who can do math that the monthly fuel cost is lower with electric, that isn't in dispute, but you'd be shocked how many people can't even do that math. (you probably think I can't, from my comments, but I can, I just use different assumptions and numbers than you do)
Lets say you're right... Why isn't the Leaf selling? It is getting clobbered by the Civic, and almost everything else for that matter... Try adding the similar cars from Toyota, Ford, Chevy, and even Nissan to the Civic's sales numbers, it is being outsold 100 to 1, so clearly something is wrong with the Leaf.
We lost that F-117 because it flew the same route over and over again, they figured it out and just waited for it. As shown in the first Gulf War, all the random AAA in the world is unlikely to ever hit anything.
I don't believe the average Leaf buyer drives 15K miles a year. You do, I don't, nothing is going to reconcile that.
A mid-level Civic is about $200/month to lease, a mid-level Leaf is about $300/month to lease, I've seen those numbers posted by multiple people, your lease numbers are maybe what is in the dealer ads, but I doubt very many people pay those.
The Leaf requires that you pre-pay the cost of driving it, if it sits for a month, it still costs you an extra hundred or so, if the Civic sits without being driven, it is cheaper.
Finally, what does the Leaf really offer that the Civic doesn't? In other words, the Civic is the safe, known choice... to branch out and "try something new", the Leaf must offer something appealing that the Civic doesn't.
When all is said and done, over 3 years, at best the Leaf is a wash in costs (using your numbers) and a bit behind in using my numbers. It comes with range limits, it is different, etc...
So why bother, just get a Civic and move on with life. Clearly most people are making that choice.
Last year, the Nissan Leaf sold 22,610 cars. The Honda Civic sold 336,180 cars. The Civic beat out the Leaf by 15 to 1, and that is only considering the Civic, there are many other cars similar in nature which also crushed the Leaf in sales. Given that the Leaf largely has this space all to itself, it should be blowing out the door.
So why isn't it?
Yes, but would the AAA have been able to hit the plane in the first place? Was it RADAR guided? IR guided? Would a faster, higher, stealthier plane have ever been shot at?
The fact is, all costs considered (including depreciation), a Leaf just doesn't make any sense. The sales numbers are proof of this... How many Civics were sold last month vs the Leaf?
[It's almost never worth driving your own car over a couple hundred miles versus a cheap rental, but that's another story.]
There are some assumptions in there as well.
First, you're assuming you're just moving you.
Second, you're assuming that your car is basic and small, thus a cheap rental will be anything like what you drive every day.
Third, you're assuming that getting into a strange car and driving a long distance is just as safe as driving that distance in something that you know front to back (it isn't).
Finally, there is the time and energy to go and get a rental car, worry about the condition, how has it been maintained, will it be ok driving far distances out into the countryside, etc?
As a bonus, since I actually drive fewer than 10K miles a year, it really doesn't cost much if anything to add 1K more miles on a long cross country drive. Yes, every mile you drive takes something off the value of the car, but within a given range over time, 1K or even 3K miles over 3-5 years of ownership doesn't make that much difference. Renting a car for a week? Not cheap.
Second bonus... I don't drive cars... I haven't owned a car in almost 20 years, if I buy one, it is likely to be one of the new Corvette Stingrays, otherwise, I'm likely to drive a truck forever. Renting a nice truck is really expensive. :)
The irony is that I can afford a Tesla S, but I'm not going to buy one, it is an average car that costs a ton of money, has limited range, limited space, and frankly does nothing useful for me.
The challenge is that to get past the range anxiety, you have to own and drive the car often, but that requires that you take the leap of faith before owning the car that it will all work out.
Then you have to ask yourself, why bother? You aren't saving money in any reasonable period of time, the math just doesn't work out, unless you really twist the numbers. I suppose there is the "save the world" idea, but frankly, putting 25K of these cars on the road isn't going to make a lick of difference, you need to put 25M of them on the road, all powered by electricity that doesn't come from coal or natural gas (which ours does in Texas).
And frankly, you need to make them into trucks, but there the math gets worse, not better. My truck averages 11.5 mpg overall, much better on the highway, but I don't drive on it enough to see that benefit. I use it around town 99% of the time, and the range would be fine, but how much battery is required to move a 5,700lb truck around town for 100 miles? Something tells me north of $100K for the truck and battery, maybe even $150K.
And that is why we don't have them.
First, I doubt that most people buying a Leaf are driving 15K miles a year. We could debate that point until the cows come home, but at 15K miles a year, you're putting 41 miles a day, 7 days a week, on the car. Some days you won't drive, so lets say you average 300 driving days a year.
That works out to 50 average miles a day. Since some days you'll drive 20 miles and others you'll drive 80, range is an issue.
Second, you're taking the tax credit into account. That is silly, it is just the government giving you your own tax dollars back and it will go away the minute electrics become actually popular. Also, not everyone actually needs the credit. Well, everyone buying a Tesla S does, but not everyone leasing a Leaf for $300 a month does.
Third, the Civic is, frankly, a more "normal" looking car that has a more "known" resale value. I don't want to say "better looking", since looks are in the eye of the beholder, but you can't claim the Leaf looks like the "average car", and these days, people don't like buying freaky looking cars (Pontiac Aztec anyone?)
Finally, you have the long recharge time vs. 3-5 minutes at the gas station. The electric cars have a long way to go to get around this issue.
There is a reason why the electrics just aren't selling in huge numbers, price and range are by far the largest.
Now, that being said, you really only need a few F-35s, to take out the SAM sites and mobile defenses, once you have control of the skies, bring in hundreds of A-10s for CAS.
The Germans in WWII showed with the JU-87 Stuka that when you have control of the skies, any old ground attack airplane will do, but if threatened, they'll be shot down very quickly.
And yea, either give the A-10 to the Army, or perhaps merge the Army and Air Force back into one military unit and this argument may go away.