Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Not Tax - No More Jokes About Washington

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Not Tax - No More Jokes About Washington

    OK, I've had it. http://www.baltimoresun.com/features...,2398603.story

    Back when the government took over GM, we joked on this and a couple of other forums that rather than buy a failing business it would be more effiicient for the government to have a national lottery and give people money to buy a car. Then the geniuses in Washington came up with the "Cash for Clunkers" lottery - you knew if you were a winner without even having to scratch off the glue on the ticket. The only problem was their $1 Billion rough estimate ran out in less than 5 days, but Congress quickly rectified that problem by just upping the jackpot by $2 Billion. Also, an unintended consequence is that the prices for used cars have gone up, so the forces of supply and demand are now extracting a price from the people who rely on used cars to meet their transportation needs. I'll bet they didn't know they'd be helping pay for somebody's new car.

    During that time, we had some fun with "Cash for Wide Screen TV's." We're not quite there yet, but we're getting close with the "Refrigerator Lottery". It appears that the Refrigerator Manufacturers' PAC must be almost as effective as the Auto Lobby. This one's slated to only cost about $300 million, but given their track record using "back-of-the-napkin" accounting, we just know that figure will be at least $1 Billion before it's all over.

    It's frustrating to make an outlandish joke about a subject and then later learn that somebody in Washington had actually planned to do something along those lines and spend OUR MONEY on it. I'm not implying that our jokes actually inspired someone to act, but I'm astounded that serious people are allocating serious bucks to projects that really don't deserve anything more that a flippant reference on a public forum at best.

    Also, I'd like for someone to explain why anyone would be foolish enough to cough up $800 for a refrigerator just because the government is going to kick in $100 or so. The "green" argument doesn't cut it, because there's no turn-in feature for the old appliances. That means that most of those old refrigerators will wind up in people's garages or bonus rooms storing beer for the big game, still eating up electricity and still leaking CFC's into the atmosphere. More importantly, do the bureaucrats not understand that $800 spent on a refrigerator is simply $800 that won't be spent on a Washer & Dryer or a Wide Screen TV? Even when the government chips is, there still ain't no free lunch. Rather than confiscate our money, skim some off the top, and give it back to us in targeted spending schemes, why not just let us keep it in the first place and trust us to make our own rational spending decisions? (I'll stipulate that the spending schemes are being financed with debt right now, but eventually the repayment on the debt will be confiscated from us or our decesndants through higher taxes, inflation, or a combination of both.)

    I think our politicians need a basic economics lesson, so lets send them all a balloon. Tell them to blow it up and observe how perfectly round it is because the forces of nature will equailize the air pressure without any outside interference. Then tell them to squeeze the balloon at some point and watch how their efforts do nothing but distort the balloon's shape since the total amount of air in the balloon is unchanged and its surface area remains constant. It's true that some people are skilled at squeezing & distorting ballons into all sorts of fancy, recognizable shapes and they often produce impressive results. But we need to tell our politicians that while they may think they're fashioning a perfect representation of a dog, it's beginning to look more and more like a duck-billed platypus with a third eye.
    Last edited by JohnH; 08-26-2009, 10:23 AM.
    "The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectful" - John Kenneth Galbraith

    #2
    If you read the article, you would see it was not just refrigerators, but also other energy star appliances. If you read to the bottom of the article, you would see that many utility companies or sellers appliances will either take away the old appliance or pay for the privelege of recycling it. Out here in CA at least, a lot of cities, counties or utilities also offer rebates to purchase more efficient appliances. Most of these rebate require that the old appliance be given up. I still have my old toilet I replaced for a water efficent one because the rebate money ran out before I called in for the rebate, and if the program gets additional funding I can still get the $125 if I have the old one.

    Reading the article, the first thought I had was that my really efficient ten years ago but not nearly as efficient now washer & dryer are 10 years old and would be the next appliances I'd be replacing. I might not get rid of the old ones, but would replace my tenant's even-more-inefficient washer/dryer sets, and get rid of the ones they have.

    The cash-for-clunkers was a horrible program, except for the car dealers. But this one really isn't a bad one.

    Comment


      #3
      Thanks for the clarification, but I'll respectfully disageee with the final sentence. The only reason this seems to be not such a bad program is because the balloon happens to be bulging in your direction this time around.
      "The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectful" - John Kenneth Galbraith

      Comment


        #4
        Refrigerator Doors

        ...and of course, it will be the responsibility of the appliance dealer to render dysfunctional any refrigerators, washers, dryers, etc.

        Now we need even more legislation for heavy fines on dealers who leave the doors on. Some toddler can get into a junk fridgie and lock himself in, so death rates go up.

        Next comes "cash for caskets" because death rates have gone up. Is there any end in sight??

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by JohnH View Post
          OK, I've had it. http://www.baltimoresun.com/features...,2398603.story

          It's frustrating to make an outlandish joke about a subject and then later learn that somebody in Washington had actually planned to do something along those lines and spend OUR MONEY on it. I'm not implying that our jokes actually inspired someone to act, but I'm astounded that serious people are allocating serious bucks to projects that really don't deserve anything more that a flippant reference on a public forum at best.

          Along that line then, here's another joke:

          Tax client comes in to my office and asks me to prepare current year tax return. I'm glad to do so and when he picks up the finished product I tell him there is no fee for my service, since the IRS is paying me $1,500 for every return I prepare and efile.

          Are you reading this Mr./Ms. Congressperson?
          "A man that holds a cat by the tail learns something he can learn no other way." - Mark Twain

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by JohnH View Post
            Thanks for the clarification, but I'll respectfully disageee with the final sentence. The only reason this seems to be not such a bad program is because the balloon happens to be bulging in your direction this time around.
            No, that's not the issue. The new vehicles only had to get 1 mpg more in some cases than the 'clunker' traded in. If the idea was truly to get inefficient vehicles off the road, rather than as a give-away to car dealers, then a more significant increase in fuel efficiency should have been required.

            Comment


              #7
              Good thinking, but there's already a "Cash for Tax Preparers" program.

              It's called EITC &+ RAL, it mainly benefits the big boys, and I don't think it will be expanded in any meaningful way.
              "The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectful" - John Kenneth Galbraith

              Comment


                #8
                Where is my cash

                for a new hog?

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by joanmcq View Post
                  No, that's not the issue. The new vehicles only had to get 1 mpg more in some cases than the 'clunker' traded in. If the idea was truly to get inefficient vehicles off the road, rather than as a give-away to car dealers, then a more significant increase in fuel efficiency should have been required.
                  And it shouldn't require the purchase of a new vehicle. I know someone who is junking their 19 MPG car and bought a 30 MPG car and they get nothing. Much more green than many of the transaction that qualify.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    The problem is . . .

                    as I see it anyway.

                    Politicians are more about keeping their jobs than public service. People are too afraid to vote for the challenger. If you are a Democrat or Republican please vote for the challenger next time. We need fresh blood that will adhere to the constitution. This is the government we have asked for (at least those who keep voting for the same person).

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Incumbents

                      "This fall, Fire 'em all!! Vote against all incumbents!!!

                      We can't say we're sick of Washington, sick of Democrats, sick of Republicans, etc. and then turn around and elect the same people every election. Political history shows incumbents win re-election 90% of the time

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X