|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
When hundreds of California nutritionists and dietitians gathered for their annual conference in April, their Friday lunch was a bacon ranch salad, chocolate chip cookies and a pink yogurt parfait, all courtesy of McDonald's.
According to a story on Mother Jones' website by Kiera Butler, an editor at the magazine who went to the conference of the California Dietetic Association, besides the McDonald's lunch, one dinner was catered by Sizzler, Boston Market and California Pizza Kitchen.
Butler tells Melissa Block on All Things Considered that the food industry also played a big role in the conference sessions.
One panel on sweeteners in schools was sponsored by the Corn Refiners Association, whose members produce high fructose corn syrup.
Inside the exhibition hall, Hershey's was handing out chocolate and strawberry milk, and Butter Buds gave out fake butter crystals.
"These nutritionists and dietitians were here getting continuing education credits," says Butler. "So going to this conference and attending these sessions is something that they need to do to keep up their accreditation. These people work in all kinds of places. They work in school cafeterias, hospital cafeterias; they work in corporate settings — these are really the gatekeepers of our nutritional information."
The problem with such a heavy industry presence, according to Butler, is that "they are getting their information from a very one-sided panel that is sponsored by manufacturers of high fructose corn syrup, which we know contributes to the obesity epidemic."
Butler says some of the attendees were troubled by the heavy industry presence at the meeting. "There were a lot of eye rolls at the McDonalds lunch," she says.
One veteran nutritionist told her: "I can't believe we're sleeping with the enemy."
Source
|
On May 15 2014 11:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 10:45 IgnE wrote:On May 15 2014 10:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 09:44 IgnE wrote:On May 15 2014 09:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 08:54 IgnE wrote:
Jonny wants to get something practical done on climate change, but first let's just junk the CAFE standards so we can get some more gas-guzzling cars on the road to revamp the economy. Higher gas prices should offset that. But no, let's keep supporting bad policies because "liberals! yeah!". Cars are a bad policy. They kill 34,000 people a year, and injure countless more in this country, while being one of the largest sources of pollution, including carbon emissions. If we spent more money putting in mass transit systems and cut down on the number of cars we would be a lot better off. I'm not sure what this has to do with CAFE standards or a gas tax. I'm fine with more mass transit in some areas, but its not a universal solution. Commuter trains often compete with rail freight which makes high speed trains problematic. Mass transit also doesn't work well in rural areas. But to turn to your point, your solution is to charge people more for driving farther, hoping to disincentivize travel? Umm, if cars are 'bad policy' why would this be bad? But to clarify, higher prices would encourage people either to drive less or pay up for better fuel efficiency. It's the same dynamic that is expected to happen with a carbon tax. Rather than lower all emissions you are going to hope that people just drive less? I'm not sure what you are arguing here. CAFE standards are fuel efficiency standards, not emissions standards. What you want is a regressive tax on our nation's commuters. Commuters are polluters and put wear and tear on the roads. They should be the ones taxed. CAFE standards are regressive as well as they raise the price of cars. Gas prices have gone up by 300 or 400% in the last 20 years. How much less do we drive now? ![[image loading]](http://www.ssti.us/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/2014-VMT-chart-453x363.jpg) ^ that much Better yet, why don't you just keep the CAFE standards and raise the gas tax? Why do both? That sounds needlessly inefficient. Or even better yet, why don't you start taxing financial trading and use the money to build infrastructure like roads? Why would that be a good idea? Because you like roads (I thought you didn't?) and don't like finance? Please don't talk about how you want to work on "practical solutions" to climate change when you are opposed to such simple standards as gas mileage regulations on cars. Maybe you could make some arguments as to why CAFE standards are good policy. Why do you think they represent a positive trade off and what information do you have in support? Your dissecting of and taking discrete parts of my post out of context seems to speak to your lack of a coherent argument. You haven't put forth a reason yet why you think the CAFE standards are "bad policy" and yet you want me to put forth an argument other than the obvious, prima facie argument that greater gas mileage means less fuel consumption means lower total emissions. Your graph seems to indicate that a price increase of 300-400% leads to a minor drop (<10%) in total miles logged over a time period where telecommuting and other technological efficiencies have reduced daily commutes. So where is the evidence that a higher gas tax would reduce total fuel consumption? Or that it would be on par with the comparative reduction expected from more efficient cars? You say that commuters are the polluters, and that's exactly why I am for increased gas mileage, rather than only raising the tax. Someone who has an hour commute every morning is not going to not come into work today because the gas prices have been raised. He is going to come into work still if the only cars on the lot get 50+ mpg. Higher gas prices encourage people to drive less and buy more fuel efficient vehicles. I think the evidence is pretty supportive of that idea. Prices went up a lot in the 2000's, CAFE standards didn't move much, and people started driving less and buying more fuel efficient cars. Countries that have better fuel efficiency than the US also have higher gas prices. People bitch about gas prices as much as the weather. I find it hard to believe that they don't respond to those prices. Show nested quote +It's a good idea to tax financial trading because the states and localities that have been seeing the worst problems with funding rely mostly on sales taxes, which are regressive, and declining, since the very rich do not spend the same proportion of their increased wealth on consumer goods, and aggregate demand from the squeezed middle and lower classes is stagnant or declining. Taxing financial trades and transactions is a progressive tax because most intangible assets like stocks are owned by the richest in society. Distributing such tax revenues to states and/or using them for federal infrastructure would help overcome the shortfall in relatively small budgets. I think you're right that it would be more progressive but I don't think that's a good enough reason by itself. If you aren't raising the gas tax you'll need to raise CAFE standards more to make up for that. That means higher vehicle prices which is regressive to consumers as well. Also, the transaction tax wouldn't be related to road maintenance so it would be more of a paid to manage the revenue and expenses. Seems easier and more straight forward to just use the gas tax. If the overall progressiveness of the tax code remains an issue, I think you can deal with that separately.
Just to be clear are you saying that the 'increase caused by CAFE standards' is just in purchase price not in the ownership cost or are you suggesting both?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On May 15 2014 11:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 10:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 10:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2014 10:05 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 09:19 Danglars wrote:On May 15 2014 07:51 Wolfstan wrote:On May 15 2014 07:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 07:38 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 07:30 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
Yes, that's how you predict the future. Or do you have data from the future? What kind of moronic argument is that?
@Wolstan: What exactly we should do can be debated. That climate change is very real, heavily influenced by humans, and will significantly affect humans in the future is a fact and not up for discussion. On May 15 2014 07:32 Chocolate wrote:
[quote]
"Data on the past is not a model that predicts the future"
-Jonny, 2014 Stay in school kids  No you're making a fool of yourself by saying retarded stuff, that's not our problem Climate models predict the future. That's what they do, and they don't do it very well. ![[image loading]](http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20130330_STC334_1.png) OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”
Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise. Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models (see chart 1). If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years. Source So that hockey stick prediction based on computer models doesn't hold up well 15 years after it was released? It's that the latest and greatest models failed to predict a temperature stall for the past decade or so. If we have such an understanding of the impact of atmospheric CO2 and all the rest, why wasn't this expected? If global warming can take a decade off and astound scientists, how can we then put faith in their predictions 20 or 30 years off? One writeup of the discrepancy. When predictions go wrong (but don't worry, we'll get it right next times, it lends weight to moderates and those beyond. On the policy side, the fever pitch of Do-Something-Now should be mediated by the global nature and India/China plopping down a coal plant every week. It's worth a pause before sending industries and livelihoods down the tubes. Oh great, why should we listen to the IPCC if we can have Dailymail. The temperatures we're seeing are still in range of the lower boundaries that the models you label "false" predicted. It makes no sense to talking to people like you or Jonny, you'll never get it. Fortunately the majority of people seem to have understood that and we'll probably not see people winning elections with that kind of attitude in the US. Well... I wouldn't say we are there yet. But the younger, more educated, and less white you are, the more likely you are to not be Republican and/or believe the Earth is ~9,000 years old. So outside of that graph I posted (which me and Jonny are hoping was a sampling issue and not the start of a trend), it looks like the people who think like Jonny or Danglers and more pointedly, the people to their right on these types of issues are dying faster than they can be replaced. I don't think you can read too much into polls like that. They don't tell you how much people believe in a particular thing. You can believe in a religion at a personal level and still understand science at an intellectual / professional level. For example about half of people in the UK believe in psychic powers. Of 1,006 adults polled for Readers Digest Magazine, 43% reported reading others' thoughts or having theirs read. source How much should I read into that? Probably not too much. Something to think about. I wouldn't really parallel an untraceable readers digest poll with one from Gallup but putting that aside, 'reading thoughts' has very sensible scientific explanation that explains why we would have that 'experience'. When you explain to the reasonable people who think something like that, they are generally accepting of the explanation and often imply that is more or less what they meant anyway (although twin connections often don't fit that description). Young Earth is a whole other animal. Unlike the scientific explanations for 'mind reading' which are relatively obscure, the knowledge and scientific explanations for the age of the earth are everywhere. One has to go out of their way to bitterly cling to beliefs that are in conflict with the fact that the earth is not ~9,000 years old. As much as I hate the oligarchy America currently is, these people who think the <10,000 y.o. statement aligns better than the Divinely inspired evolution statement, don't help the case against it... I disagree with plenty from those camps but this country can't seriously move forward until we can agree, that at least for purposes of governance, we universally (practically) accept that base fact. I'll give you points for at least linking something slightly interesting, although terribly irrelevant.
I'm not buying your explanation. There's more nuance to the 'I believe in psychic powers' poll but not more nuance to the 'I believe in creationism' poll? Any proof?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
lol.
anyway on the temp trend stuff, the earth may have buffers that delay temp increase for a bit but the basic mechanism of greenhouse heat entrapment is absolutely not in question. sooner or later buffers will run out
|
On May 15 2014 11:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 11:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 10:45 IgnE wrote:On May 15 2014 10:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 09:44 IgnE wrote:On May 15 2014 09:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 08:54 IgnE wrote:
Jonny wants to get something practical done on climate change, but first let's just junk the CAFE standards so we can get some more gas-guzzling cars on the road to revamp the economy. Higher gas prices should offset that. But no, let's keep supporting bad policies because "liberals! yeah!". Cars are a bad policy. They kill 34,000 people a year, and injure countless more in this country, while being one of the largest sources of pollution, including carbon emissions. If we spent more money putting in mass transit systems and cut down on the number of cars we would be a lot better off. I'm not sure what this has to do with CAFE standards or a gas tax. I'm fine with more mass transit in some areas, but its not a universal solution. Commuter trains often compete with rail freight which makes high speed trains problematic. Mass transit also doesn't work well in rural areas. But to turn to your point, your solution is to charge people more for driving farther, hoping to disincentivize travel? Umm, if cars are 'bad policy' why would this be bad? But to clarify, higher prices would encourage people either to drive less or pay up for better fuel efficiency. It's the same dynamic that is expected to happen with a carbon tax. Rather than lower all emissions you are going to hope that people just drive less? I'm not sure what you are arguing here. CAFE standards are fuel efficiency standards, not emissions standards. What you want is a regressive tax on our nation's commuters. Commuters are polluters and put wear and tear on the roads. They should be the ones taxed. CAFE standards are regressive as well as they raise the price of cars. Gas prices have gone up by 300 or 400% in the last 20 years. How much less do we drive now? ^ that much Better yet, why don't you just keep the CAFE standards and raise the gas tax? Why do both? That sounds needlessly inefficient. Or even better yet, why don't you start taxing financial trading and use the money to build infrastructure like roads? Why would that be a good idea? Because you like roads (I thought you didn't?) and don't like finance? Please don't talk about how you want to work on "practical solutions" to climate change when you are opposed to such simple standards as gas mileage regulations on cars. Maybe you could make some arguments as to why CAFE standards are good policy. Why do you think they represent a positive trade off and what information do you have in support? Your dissecting of and taking discrete parts of my post out of context seems to speak to your lack of a coherent argument. You haven't put forth a reason yet why you think the CAFE standards are "bad policy" and yet you want me to put forth an argument other than the obvious, prima facie argument that greater gas mileage means less fuel consumption means lower total emissions. Your graph seems to indicate that a price increase of 300-400% leads to a minor drop (<10%) in total miles logged over a time period where telecommuting and other technological efficiencies have reduced daily commutes. So where is the evidence that a higher gas tax would reduce total fuel consumption? Or that it would be on par with the comparative reduction expected from more efficient cars? You say that commuters are the polluters, and that's exactly why I am for increased gas mileage, rather than only raising the tax. Someone who has an hour commute every morning is not going to not come into work today because the gas prices have been raised. He is going to come into work still if the only cars on the lot get 50+ mpg. Higher gas prices encourage people to drive less and buy more fuel efficient vehicles. I think the evidence is pretty supportive of that idea. Prices went up a lot in the 2000's, CAFE standards didn't move much, and people started driving less and buying more fuel efficient cars. Countries that have better fuel efficiency than the US also have higher gas prices. People bitch about gas prices as much as the weather. I find it hard to believe that they don't respond to those prices. It's a good idea to tax financial trading because the states and localities that have been seeing the worst problems with funding rely mostly on sales taxes, which are regressive, and declining, since the very rich do not spend the same proportion of their increased wealth on consumer goods, and aggregate demand from the squeezed middle and lower classes is stagnant or declining. Taxing financial trades and transactions is a progressive tax because most intangible assets like stocks are owned by the richest in society. Distributing such tax revenues to states and/or using them for federal infrastructure would help overcome the shortfall in relatively small budgets. I think you're right that it would be more progressive but I don't think that's a good enough reason by itself. If you aren't raising the gas tax you'll need to raise CAFE standards more to make up for that. That means higher vehicle prices which is regressive to consumers as well. Also, the transaction tax wouldn't be related to road maintenance so it would be more of a paid to manage the revenue and expenses. Seems easier and more straight forward to just use the gas tax. If the overall progressiveness of the tax code remains an issue, I think you can deal with that separately. Just to be clear are you saying that the 'increase caused by CAFE standards' is just in purchase price not in the ownership cost or are you suggesting both? + Show Spoiler +
It affects the purchase price which affects the ownership cost along with the change in fuel mileage. I don't have an exact answer as to how that plays out in total.
I did find a CBO report on CAFE vs taxes from 2004:
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/gastaxvscafe.PNG)
source
|
On May 15 2014 11:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 11:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2014 11:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 10:45 IgnE wrote:On May 15 2014 10:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 09:44 IgnE wrote:On May 15 2014 09:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 08:54 IgnE wrote:
Jonny wants to get something practical done on climate change, but first let's just junk the CAFE standards so we can get some more gas-guzzling cars on the road to revamp the economy. Higher gas prices should offset that. But no, let's keep supporting bad policies because "liberals! yeah!". Cars are a bad policy. They kill 34,000 people a year, and injure countless more in this country, while being one of the largest sources of pollution, including carbon emissions. If we spent more money putting in mass transit systems and cut down on the number of cars we would be a lot better off. I'm not sure what this has to do with CAFE standards or a gas tax. I'm fine with more mass transit in some areas, but its not a universal solution. Commuter trains often compete with rail freight which makes high speed trains problematic. Mass transit also doesn't work well in rural areas. But to turn to your point, your solution is to charge people more for driving farther, hoping to disincentivize travel? Umm, if cars are 'bad policy' why would this be bad? But to clarify, higher prices would encourage people either to drive less or pay up for better fuel efficiency. It's the same dynamic that is expected to happen with a carbon tax. Rather than lower all emissions you are going to hope that people just drive less? I'm not sure what you are arguing here. CAFE standards are fuel efficiency standards, not emissions standards. What you want is a regressive tax on our nation's commuters. Commuters are polluters and put wear and tear on the roads. They should be the ones taxed. CAFE standards are regressive as well as they raise the price of cars. Gas prices have gone up by 300 or 400% in the last 20 years. How much less do we drive now? ^ that much Better yet, why don't you just keep the CAFE standards and raise the gas tax? Why do both? That sounds needlessly inefficient. Or even better yet, why don't you start taxing financial trading and use the money to build infrastructure like roads? Why would that be a good idea? Because you like roads (I thought you didn't?) and don't like finance? Please don't talk about how you want to work on "practical solutions" to climate change when you are opposed to such simple standards as gas mileage regulations on cars. Maybe you could make some arguments as to why CAFE standards are good policy. Why do you think they represent a positive trade off and what information do you have in support? Your dissecting of and taking discrete parts of my post out of context seems to speak to your lack of a coherent argument. You haven't put forth a reason yet why you think the CAFE standards are "bad policy" and yet you want me to put forth an argument other than the obvious, prima facie argument that greater gas mileage means less fuel consumption means lower total emissions. Your graph seems to indicate that a price increase of 300-400% leads to a minor drop (<10%) in total miles logged over a time period where telecommuting and other technological efficiencies have reduced daily commutes. So where is the evidence that a higher gas tax would reduce total fuel consumption? Or that it would be on par with the comparative reduction expected from more efficient cars? You say that commuters are the polluters, and that's exactly why I am for increased gas mileage, rather than only raising the tax. Someone who has an hour commute every morning is not going to not come into work today because the gas prices have been raised. He is going to come into work still if the only cars on the lot get 50+ mpg. Higher gas prices encourage people to drive less and buy more fuel efficient vehicles. I think the evidence is pretty supportive of that idea. Prices went up a lot in the 2000's, CAFE standards didn't move much, and people started driving less and buying more fuel efficient cars. Countries that have better fuel efficiency than the US also have higher gas prices. People bitch about gas prices as much as the weather. I find it hard to believe that they don't respond to those prices. It's a good idea to tax financial trading because the states and localities that have been seeing the worst problems with funding rely mostly on sales taxes, which are regressive, and declining, since the very rich do not spend the same proportion of their increased wealth on consumer goods, and aggregate demand from the squeezed middle and lower classes is stagnant or declining. Taxing financial trades and transactions is a progressive tax because most intangible assets like stocks are owned by the richest in society. Distributing such tax revenues to states and/or using them for federal infrastructure would help overcome the shortfall in relatively small budgets. I think you're right that it would be more progressive but I don't think that's a good enough reason by itself. If you aren't raising the gas tax you'll need to raise CAFE standards more to make up for that. That means higher vehicle prices which is regressive to consumers as well. Also, the transaction tax wouldn't be related to road maintenance so it would be more of a paid to manage the revenue and expenses. Seems easier and more straight forward to just use the gas tax. If the overall progressiveness of the tax code remains an issue, I think you can deal with that separately. Just to be clear are you saying that the 'increase caused by CAFE standards' is just in purchase price not in the ownership cost or are you suggesting both? + Show Spoiler + It affects the purchase price which affects the ownership cost along with the change in fuel mileage. I don't have an exact answer as to how that plays out in total. I did find a CBO report on CAFE vs taxes from 2004: source
Just wanted to be sure that you didn't know/ weren't suggesting that CAFE standards result in actually owning a vehicle being more expensive or just a nominal increase in sticker price that may or may not actually mean owning the 'CAFE' car costs less.
|
On May 15 2014 12:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 11:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 11:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2014 11:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 10:45 IgnE wrote:On May 15 2014 10:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 09:44 IgnE wrote:On May 15 2014 09:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 08:54 IgnE wrote:
Jonny wants to get something practical done on climate change, but first let's just junk the CAFE standards so we can get some more gas-guzzling cars on the road to revamp the economy. Higher gas prices should offset that. But no, let's keep supporting bad policies because "liberals! yeah!". Cars are a bad policy. They kill 34,000 people a year, and injure countless more in this country, while being one of the largest sources of pollution, including carbon emissions. If we spent more money putting in mass transit systems and cut down on the number of cars we would be a lot better off. I'm not sure what this has to do with CAFE standards or a gas tax. I'm fine with more mass transit in some areas, but its not a universal solution. Commuter trains often compete with rail freight which makes high speed trains problematic. Mass transit also doesn't work well in rural areas. But to turn to your point, your solution is to charge people more for driving farther, hoping to disincentivize travel? Umm, if cars are 'bad policy' why would this be bad? But to clarify, higher prices would encourage people either to drive less or pay up for better fuel efficiency. It's the same dynamic that is expected to happen with a carbon tax. Rather than lower all emissions you are going to hope that people just drive less? I'm not sure what you are arguing here. CAFE standards are fuel efficiency standards, not emissions standards. What you want is a regressive tax on our nation's commuters. Commuters are polluters and put wear and tear on the roads. They should be the ones taxed. CAFE standards are regressive as well as they raise the price of cars. Gas prices have gone up by 300 or 400% in the last 20 years. How much less do we drive now? ^ that much Better yet, why don't you just keep the CAFE standards and raise the gas tax? Why do both? That sounds needlessly inefficient. Or even better yet, why don't you start taxing financial trading and use the money to build infrastructure like roads? Why would that be a good idea? Because you like roads (I thought you didn't?) and don't like finance? Please don't talk about how you want to work on "practical solutions" to climate change when you are opposed to such simple standards as gas mileage regulations on cars. Maybe you could make some arguments as to why CAFE standards are good policy. Why do you think they represent a positive trade off and what information do you have in support? Your dissecting of and taking discrete parts of my post out of context seems to speak to your lack of a coherent argument. You haven't put forth a reason yet why you think the CAFE standards are "bad policy" and yet you want me to put forth an argument other than the obvious, prima facie argument that greater gas mileage means less fuel consumption means lower total emissions. Your graph seems to indicate that a price increase of 300-400% leads to a minor drop (<10%) in total miles logged over a time period where telecommuting and other technological efficiencies have reduced daily commutes. So where is the evidence that a higher gas tax would reduce total fuel consumption? Or that it would be on par with the comparative reduction expected from more efficient cars? You say that commuters are the polluters, and that's exactly why I am for increased gas mileage, rather than only raising the tax. Someone who has an hour commute every morning is not going to not come into work today because the gas prices have been raised. He is going to come into work still if the only cars on the lot get 50+ mpg. Higher gas prices encourage people to drive less and buy more fuel efficient vehicles. I think the evidence is pretty supportive of that idea. Prices went up a lot in the 2000's, CAFE standards didn't move much, and people started driving less and buying more fuel efficient cars. Countries that have better fuel efficiency than the US also have higher gas prices. People bitch about gas prices as much as the weather. I find it hard to believe that they don't respond to those prices. It's a good idea to tax financial trading because the states and localities that have been seeing the worst problems with funding rely mostly on sales taxes, which are regressive, and declining, since the very rich do not spend the same proportion of their increased wealth on consumer goods, and aggregate demand from the squeezed middle and lower classes is stagnant or declining. Taxing financial trades and transactions is a progressive tax because most intangible assets like stocks are owned by the richest in society. Distributing such tax revenues to states and/or using them for federal infrastructure would help overcome the shortfall in relatively small budgets. I think you're right that it would be more progressive but I don't think that's a good enough reason by itself. If you aren't raising the gas tax you'll need to raise CAFE standards more to make up for that. That means higher vehicle prices which is regressive to consumers as well. Also, the transaction tax wouldn't be related to road maintenance so it would be more of a paid to manage the revenue and expenses. Seems easier and more straight forward to just use the gas tax. If the overall progressiveness of the tax code remains an issue, I think you can deal with that separately. Just to be clear are you saying that the 'increase caused by CAFE standards' is just in purchase price not in the ownership cost or are you suggesting both? + Show Spoiler + It affects the purchase price which affects the ownership cost along with the change in fuel mileage. I don't have an exact answer as to how that plays out in total. I did find a CBO report on CAFE vs taxes from 2004: source Just wanted to be sure that you didn't know/ weren't suggesting that CAFE standards result in actually owning a vehicle being more expensive or just a nominal increase in sticker price that may or may not actually mean owning the 'CAFE' car costs less.
Same can be said for the gas tax - avoid the cost by trading up to higher fuel efficiency.
|
How about something more recent than a decade ago?
|
On May 15 2014 12:22 IgnE wrote:
How about something more recent than a decade ago?
Sure. By the power of Google! (note: use He-Man voice for full effect)
In a paper published online this week in the journal Energy Economics, I and other scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimate that the new standards will cost the economy on the whole — for the same reduction in gas use — at least six times more than a federal gas tax of roughly 45 cents per dollar of gasoline. That is because a gas tax provides immediate, direct incentives for drivers to reduce gasoline use, while the efficiency standards must squeeze the reduction out of new vehicles only. The new standards also encourage more driving, not less.
Other industrialized democracies have accepted much higher gas taxes as a price for roads and bridges and now depend on the revenue. In fact, Germany’s gas tax is 18 times higher than the United States’ (and seven times more if the average state gas tax is included).
Source
|
Sounds fine to me; how much shall we raise the gas tax then? Is there an estimate of the effects various numbers would have?
|
On May 15 2014 12:51 zlefin wrote:
Sounds fine to me; how much shall we raise the gas tax then? Is there an estimate of the effects various numbers would have?
Well there was the one Johnny produced that showed a 300-400% increase netted about 10% reduction in miles logged...
It was a crudely formed point he was making, but that was the most charitable interpretation.
So another doubling or two of current gas prices should get us another chunk...
Wait I thought conservatives didn't want to raise energy prices to reduce their consumption?
|
Just do both. Gas taxes create an incentive to drive in more efficient ways (carpooling, walking more when possible, etc) and CAFE standards force automakers to invest in more fuel efficient vehicle designs.
|
On May 15 2014 12:51 zlefin wrote:
Sounds fine to me; how much shall we raise the gas tax then? Is there an estimate of the effects various numbers would have?
I'm happy just getting the highway trust fund funded. The CBO should have some numbers on that.
I think I proved my point though so I'm done. GH is going derpy again and I don't want to get sucked into it.
|
On May 15 2014 13:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 12:51 zlefin wrote:
Sounds fine to me; how much shall we raise the gas tax then? Is there an estimate of the effects various numbers would have? I'm happy just getting the highway trust fund funded. The CBO should have some numbers on that. I think I proved my point though so I'm done. GH is going derpy again and I don't want to get sucked into it.
Why not have both? Isn't the goal to reduce fuel consumption? Let's take an all of the above approach. Can't even read that paper they wrote to see what their model looked like and why CAFE costs so much and gas tax is so effective.
|
Being I drive a (albeit reletively cheap) sports car, I will have to say gas taxes sound like a bad idea, instead money should be used as an incentive for comapnies to start making affordable and practical non gas cars, preferably ones that aren't so ugly that there is a stigma against them purely based on looks.
|
On May 15 2014 14:22 hunts wrote:
Being I drive a (albeit reletively cheap) sports car, I will have to say gas taxes sound like a bad idea, instead money should be used as an incentive for comapnies to start making affordable and practical non gas cars, preferably ones that aren't so ugly that there is a stigma against them purely based on looks.
You should do both : finance incentive for a change in prodiction process or for more efficient engine with a taxation on gas.
|
On May 14 2014 04:24 Danglars wrote:
I'm very glad some governments in Europe can run efficient industries, and I myself have been surprised how well places like Denmark and Sweden have done in satisfaction of government services and meeting funding targets (not always but in my own past research). Societies are different and I wouldn't advocate the import of the people running them any more than I would suggest swapping their populations. When it works, they deserve credit. I don't fully know the regulatory atmosphere that private companies were competing in prior to public takeover, so I can't fully comment on your cited case.
Its not just Europe you know. Nebraska, a fairly conservative place, actually requires all energy companies to be publicly run.
http://www.nppd.com/about-us/public-power/
Low-Cost Power
Nebraska’s average electric rates remain among the lowest of all 50 states.
Reliable Service
Millions of dollars are invested annually to maintain and upgrade the states’ electrical infrastructure.
Local Control
Citizens have a direct and powerful voice in utility decisions and policies, both at the ballot box and in open meetings where business is conducted.
Not-For-Profit
Public power’s success is measured by how much money stays within the community through low rates and not by how much goes out to shareholders.
|
Americans are tapping their 401ks at unprecedented rates since the great recession. Maybe that is why debt-load has gone down. Housing lost a ton of value so people don't have access to home equity loans and instead are tapping their 401ks to keep their standard of living. Young workers are tapping at very high rates.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-06/early-tap-of-401-k-replaces-homes-as-american-piggy-bank.html
You also have Bloomberg reporting that home prices and sales are only going up on the richest homes, over $1M dollars. Low-end homes, that account for 2/3 of the market have seen a 12% drop since last year. So talk of a housing rebound seems to be illusory, as only the richest, who are the ones who have reaped the benefits since 2008, are the ones who are actually buying houses in this market.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-02/luxury-home-sales-jump-as-low-end-falters-in-u-s-rebound.html
Luxury-home sales are climbing as an improving economy and stocks that have almost tripled from 2009 lows bolster confidence among affluent buyers. At the same time, slow wage growth, tight credit standards and escalating prices are putting homeownership out of reach for many Americans. While investors drain the market of lower-end properties, builders are constructing more expensive houses that generate bigger profits.
|
On May 15 2014 19:57 IgnE wrote:Americans are tapping their 401ks at unprecedented rates since the great recession. Maybe that is why debt-load has gone down. Housing lost a ton of value so people don't have access to home equity loans and instead are tapping their 401ks to keep their standard of living. Young workers are tapping at very high rates. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-06/early-tap-of-401-k-replaces-homes-as-american-piggy-bank.htmlYou also have Bloomberg reporting that home prices and sales are only going up on the richest homes, over $1M dollars. Low-end homes, that account for 2/3 of the market have seen a 12% drop since last year. So talk of a housing rebound seems to be illusory, as only the richest, who are the ones who have reaped the benefits since 2008, are the ones who are actually buying houses in this market. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-02/luxury-home-sales-jump-as-low-end-falters-in-u-s-rebound.htmlShow nested quote +Luxury-home sales are climbing as an improving economy and stocks that have almost tripled from 2009 lows bolster confidence among affluent buyers. At the same time, slow wage growth, tight credit standards and escalating prices are putting homeownership out of reach for many Americans. While investors drain the market of lower-end properties, builders are constructing more expensive houses that generate bigger profits.
I haven't looked into the 401(k) numbers yet but the housing story sounds fine:
Transactions for $250,000 or less, which represent almost two-thirds of the market, plunged 12 percent in the period as house hunters found few available homes in that price range.
New home sales have been doing well. March wasn't a good month (how much do we want to look in to one Month's data?) but if low inventory levels played a role there than we should see increased building in response.
|
FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers.
The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for the guarantee of flawless video streaming.[...]
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/u2dMVSM.png)
