Tax the Economy to Health, yeah Right!

Nothing reduces consumption faster than rising prices. Lower consumption leads to lower overall economic growth. So what idiot would propose raising prices to "avert fiscal calamity?"

According to Lori Montgomery of The Washington Post, the idiot(s) would be:

"... a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT."

A VAT, or Value Added Tax, is sales tax, usually a fixed amount added to the purchase price of any good or service sold. Ms. Montgomery continues that the poor are most hurt, but should promote a VAT because:

"VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families."

A good credit score can save money! See your CREDIT SCORE in Seconds - $0

Ahh, now I understand, to add health care to the list of nationalized industries, President Teleprompter needs some extra cash. Is it not clear to the 50% of us who pay income tax that even darker economic times are yet to come??

Cheap? No. 100% Free. Trade stocks for free on Zecco.com. The Free Trading Community. www.zecco.com

Let me provide the fastest and easiest way to get this country out of its economic trouble, REDUCE GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!! Additionally, reduce fees and regulatory burdens on business, as well as eliminating the death tax and capital gains tax. Did I mention eliminating corporate taxation?

Lest anyone forget, this VAT being discussed is ON TOP OF existing federal income tax, and will likely be raised, just like state sales taxes are. Again, higher prices equals less consumption. Less consumption leads to lower industrial and economic production. Lower production leads to unemployment and economic degradation. Stop this VAT nonsense!

Electric Car Finds its Niche

In a brutally honest (and refreshing) piece in Reuters, titled "Electric cars -- It's the economy, stupid!" the author gives a real-world assessment of her Reva G-Wiz, pictured on the left. Guess what, it isn't all pretty, but that's not why I like the article.

The author purchased the car to be able to drive in London and avoid the congestion tax, as well as the $9 a gallon gasoline, and also take advantage of free parking. To that I say, "Good for you!" She wisely identified that her objective was to have self-determination in transportation and a cost that suited her budget.

From the article, "...I set up a spread sheet when I bought the car and I fill in the savings I make on the congestion charge, estimated on petrol and on parking... I sold my old car and I have now "made back" the expenditure on the G-Wiz through these savings... I "paid off" the car in March this year and am on the way to "paying off" the total amount."

So what' the catch? The car go only go about 40 miles per charge. Additionally, that 40 miles is really only in mild weather on flat roads. It has poor acceleration and is very small. The author also stated that going up hills was like riding a bicycle.

What this article really is about is choice, and that's what I like about the article. The consumer had a choice of the beefier car, but was faced with congestion tax, parking fees, and very expensive gas. She chose an alternative which saved her money and suited her needs. Long live the free market!!

Enjoy this Jeremy Clarkson ( of the BBC's Top Gear) video of his take on the G-Wiz. It is in about 2 minutes or so. He takes those two minutes to mock the French.

Sacrifice for Thee, but Not for Me

I will let this video speak for itself. Al Gore goes to give his energy speech (read tax, tax, tax) in Washington, and arrives in a fleet of Lincoln Towncars. One of which idles for 20 minutes, while running the AC.

Thanks to AmericansforProsperity.com (http:\\www.americansforprosperity.com)

Guess what?! I've got a fever, and the only prescription... is more cowbell!

Like Christopher Walken says in the Saturday Night Live sketch, leftists around the world say about taxes. However, it really goes something like this: "There is some made up crisis, and the only prescription is more taxes!" Or government control, but you get the picture.

In a previous post, "I'm the Taxman, Yeah the Taxman," I detailed how the United Kingdom is looking for more taxes to make the UK more "green." Not to be outdone, the wild man from Tennessee, Al Gore, according to CNN, "...has pushed for polices that would reduce the emission of carbon dioxide, such as greater energy conservation and the development of alternative energy sources like wind and solar energy. Gore has also advocated for governments to tax the emission of carbon dioxide."

Why is Al Gore promoting this? Because he is a big fan and shareholder in a carbon credit business, but I digress.

Green taxation, according to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, has been around for 15 years. It seems that they want taxes to:

* to generate revenue to pay for damages created from past pollution and for measures to reduce future pollution

* to change behavior

* combine(s) a significant pollution tax with a major restructuring of the tax system to make the overall economy more efficient. This process is called "tax shifting."

While they recognize green taxes are regressive, that is they hurt poor people the most, and not folks like Ted Kennedy and Barbara Streisand, the ILSR states: "One way to deal with the inequities resulting from an across the board carbon tax would be to return a significant portion of the revenue to the low income community for energy efficiency."

Well look what we have here. It is all just another income redistribution scheme with a helping of Nanny State on top. So there you have it, the earth is falling apart! Tax everybody! Leftists have the answer! Do I need to put in a sarcasm tag?

I'm the Taxman, Yeah the Taxman

Apologies to the Beatles, but the silliness of the "green" movement has hit the United Kingdom.

In its quest to have a low carbon economy the government is going to do what? You guessed it, tax their citizens more!! Most green technologies are either too new or not efficient and thus require subsidies. In other words, the government knows better than its citizens, as to how to spend the citizens' money.

From Reuters:


The green money machine strikes again!

Hybrids, the Real Deal or Flavor of the Month?

Gas is about $4.00 a gallon where I live, almost twice what it was a year ago. So what? If you are considering a hybrid, it is a pretty big so what. When I was considering the costs and benefits of hybrids a year ago, I came to the reasoned conclusion that there was little economic benefit to be had. The clear reason was that cost savings from using less fuel didn't cover the acquisition cost. Most hybrids tend to several thousand dollars more than their non-hybrid siblings.

The US government, as well as many state governments, decided they should lavish hybrid owners and manufacturers with tax payer money (a.k.a. subsidies), as well as certain privileges, such as driving in HOV lanes without other passengers. They did this to encourage the technology, ostensibly to reduce emissions as well as dependence on foreign oil. Arguably, those may be noble goals, but the number of potential vehicles wouldn't make a dent in either of the issues. ULEV (Ultra-low Emission Vehicles) are able to reduce vehicle emissions without having to worry about recycling or producing expensive battery packs needed for hybrids. Additionally, there are several models of inexpensive gasoline-powered cars that get similar mileage for less money, not to mention diesel-powered vehicles.

Back to the question at hand, will a hybrid save its owner enough money to justify the premium price? The answer is found by using a simple formula. Take the fuel economy of a non-hybrid and multiply by the average number of miles per tank to get price per mile. Do the same thing with the hybrid. Subtract the two results. Take the difference and multiply by tanks per year. So, if one saves $500 a year, and its a 5 year loan, the owner saves $2500 over the life of the car. Is that amount greater than or less than the premium to by the hybrid? That answer will determine generally whether owning a hybrid makes sense from an economic point of view. $4.00 gasoline has really changed the outcome of that equation, making them more attractive. I tell you what I am waiting for though, hydraulic diesel hybrids, as they don't require batteries to store power. UPS is running a pilot now. Details can be found here.

Don't forget to use the MPG calculator at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/savemoney.shtml