Posted on 04/08/2015 10:54:33 AM PDT by C19fan
“Let’s try this one: in lieu of spending on DHS, the feds could provide an annual $1000 tax credit to anyone who agrees to obtain an M4(gery) at their own cost, consent to annual training, and keep it always accessible within one minute. We wouldn’t really need DHS then, would we? much cheaper and much more effective to let the people handle the task than raising a standing army.”
That sounds like an excellent idea, but providing for the common defense is job that constitution says the government should do. Subsidizing companies isn’t a job companies should do.
You could say the same about any tax-reduction plan.
Heck, you could apply the same argument to ALL income: every dollar you earn COULD be in the Treasury, save for the government granting you “welfare” in the form of letting you keep it; after all, they could just take your whole d@mn paycheck and then delivering your “fair share” in pennies on the back of an elephant. A whole lotta Leftists think that way. Are you a Leftist?
It’s MY money. I needed a new car; GA and US gov’ts gave me a tax reduction on the condition that I got an EV instead of an ICE, because “the people” decided that society would benefit more from me driving that instead of sending the tax money to the Treasury under compulsion.
I’m inclined to conclude that anyone objecting to such non-refundable tax credits really isn’t interested in lowering taxes, being jealous of those who have their taxes reduced and not being screwed as equally as others. Ya know who clamors for equalizing misery, largely thru the process of high taxation? Leftists.
The “delivering 750,000 pennies on the back of an elephant” option strikes me as being an overly expensive method for welfare payments. I’d drop that one from the list.
;-)
“providing for the common defense is job that constitution says the government should do.”
Only insofar as the Founding Fathers realized that the public at large would not be persuaded to do the job in lieu of a standing army (which the FFs despised).
There’s a difference between tax breaks/credits vs bailouts.
Tax breaks/credits involve the gov’t _not_ taking so much of your money.
Bailouts involve the gov’t giving proven failures money that isn’t theirs.
If you can’t see the obvious & important difference, no point in continuing the discussion.
It does look a lot like a Ford Fusion.
Just pointing out that Musk is simply cherry picking designs and technology, and then marketing it "cheaply" with mass production.
Which is no hit on him, or at least not too much. Least he did it, right? A-M can only do the hand built thing and end up charging 200K - which is ridiculous. It's only bent metal.
I’ve paid about a half-million dollars in taxes. The few times I’ve gotten any money from the gov’t in any form (however you care to stretch it), the bottom line still works out to a huge net payment out of my pocket & labors. If that means a 1% reduction in my total taxes because I chose one car over another, it’s hardly leeching off my fellow taxpayers.
Take the issue up with the ~50% of citizens making a profit off “entitlements” before you whine at someone who found a way to reduce his cumulative long-term tax rate from 50% to 49.5%.
And if you can’t see the obvious similarities, then there is no point in continuing the discussion.
I hope you buy the car, obtain your taxpayer funded subsidy, and enjoy both.
You’re welcome.
I think most all of us on FR agree that if there was no California and Northeast States mandate for a certain percentage of ev sales by manufacturer, there would be no Tesla.
The money made by selling those credits to other manufacturers is what is keeping Musk in business.
And so far you appear to be the only one who is whining. I never said not to take advantage of the government subsidy on Tesla cars. All I asked was that you ADMIT that it's a taxpayer funded subsidy. And I obviously struck a raw nerve now that you're resorting to an "I'm not benefiting anywhere NEAR as much as others" argument.
All I asked was that you not pretend that your purchase of an electric Tesla automobile is free and clear of taxpayer subsidies. And yet, in your self-aggrandizing delusion, you cannot even admit that. Maybe your "rugged independent individualist" identity is somehow threatened by having to admit you're taking advantage of a government program?
three days later...
We have a poster here who thinks it is absolutely WUNNERFUL.
He’s also a fanboi of Elon Musk the Obama slobberer. —Darksheare
Quickly now, deny it!
lol
It seems to me you’re being intentionally obtuse. I can see how you might have an internal conflict between your general disapproval of subsidies and your decision to take this particular subsidy. However your fixation on the method with which the subsidy is delivered is irrelevant.
As I said before, I have no problem with you taking a subsidy. If the government is throwing money on the ground, by all means pick it up. But you shouldn’t pretend it’s anything other than a subsidy for people who are already wealthy.
I think this is poor public policy, but I don’t have any objection to your taking advantage of a bad public policy. I just don’t know why you feel the need to pretend it is anything other than what it is.
The abiogenic petroleum theory that you are referencing was bandied about the Soviet Union for a several decades until it showed up in the West via Thomas Gold later in the 20th century.
I has long since been discredited. “Fossil fuels” is the correct term; or more specifically “remains of ancient plankton fuels” if you prefer.
You might still find pockets of people who believe in the theory though, usually people associated with the oil industry who want to convince people that we don't need to worry about oil ever running out.
lol, of course you were not referring to me.
Of course!
Come on, SURELY you can point out the handle!
Show links!
http://www.universetoday.com/12800/titan-has-hundreds-of-times-more-liquid-hydrocarbons-than-earth/
Show what fossils existed on Titan.
“it doesn’t redistribute the taxes of others”
Utter nonsense.
Revenues are fungible and the loss of any one source requires an increase in some other (or a decrease in spending or increased borrowing).
Just as states’ lottery profits “for the schools” actually pay for everything else.
Arguments can at least be made that there is a social good from some subsidization of home ownership.
None can be made for any subsidization of E-car purchases.
Maybe L.A. could justify a local subsidy with their smog problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.