Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Clunker Cars - Ends Justifies Means?

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

  • Clunker Cars - Ends Justifies Means?

    Does anyone else find the clunker car program grossly unjust? It only benefits those who previously bought gas guzzlers (wastrels) and offers no benefit to all the consciencious economizers. It's providing benefits to those least deserving. Why couldn't they create an onerous tax on gas guzzling vehicles (old and new) and use those funds to provide support for the purchase of economical vehicles for all buyers? Don't get me wrong, I like the carrot approach, but I also like to have a chance at the carrots myself.
    May I always be found beneath your contempt.

  • #2
    Re: Clunker Cars - Ends Justifies Means?

    Originally posted by salmoned View Post
    Does anyone else find the clunker car program grossly unjust? It only benefits those who previously bought gas guzzlers (wastrels) and offers no benefit to all the consciencious economizers. It's providing benefits to those least deserving. Why couldn't they create an onerous tax on gas guzzling vehicles (old and new) and use those funds to provide support for the purchase of economical vehicles for all buyers?
    My comments:

    1) There already is a gas guzzler tax assessed to the price of new cars that fall below a certain fuel economy level.

    2) Adding a "new" gas guzzler tax on top of that in the kind of economic climate we have seen this year is not politically feasible. You can fantasize and talk about it all you want. As far as Congress is concerned, you won't get a single lawmaker (Republican or Democrat) to sponsor such a bill, let alone get others to vigorously engage in a serious debate to implement a new tax that would hit everyone (rich, middle class, poor) who happens to have a low fuel-mileage vehicle. Some people own such vehicles out of necessity for their work and taxing them further would be odious.

    3) You sound like the older brother of the prodigal son who feels unrewarded at having done "the right thing" all these years and being economically sensible up to now, while the prodigal son gets lavished with a joyous party by his father after suddenly turning his life around from a previously extravagant and wasteful lifestyle. I'm sure there was a profound moral lesson to this Biblical parable that someone else can better explain. (It's been many moons since I studied the good book at Sunday School, shame on me. ) But for the purposes of this discussion, I will say that someone having owned a fuel efficient car over the long haul should not lose sight of the benefit that they have reaped for themselves during that time. Namely, the lower fuel expenses that they have incurred vs the higher costs they would have encountered doing the same driving with a more fuel-hungry vehicle. Can you honestly say you never enjoyed more of certain things (i.e. trips, shopping, etc.) that were made possible with your fuel savings? Consider the things you would have had to forego and do without had you been driving a Hummer all this time. I don't know if that will make you feel any better,.... but it is something worthwhile to think about.
    Last edited by Frankie's Market; August 5, 2009, 04:22 PM.
    This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Clunker Cars - Ends Justifies Means?

      1. I'm suggesting an annual gas guzzler tax on all vehicles ON THE ROAD that fall below a certain MPG rating (higher than the current gas guzzler rating), which differs significantly from the current gas guzzler tax (a one-time payment for new vehicles only, with plenty of exemptions).

      2. You mean adding a tax to gas guzzlers is somehow less palatable than adding a tax to 'cadillac health plans'? If both taxes promote targeted goals and both targeted goals are equally worthy, they are equally palatable. I suppose it all boils down to whether or not you believe reduction in oil consumption is a worthy goal.

      3. If you can't pluck the 'profound moral lesson' from the story, why assume its existence? The story exemplifies how human emotion trumps human wisdom - not something I find profound. Oh, and one other thing - don't hold a grudge. Maybe you believe alluding to biblical stories with unidentified profound moral lessons supports your argument and are all that's necessary to solve the problems of the world, but I would disagree. Quite to the contrary, thinking of that sort is exactly what's driven us into the current state of affairs.

      4. You haven't touched on the main thrust of the post - do the ends justify the means with regard to the clunker car policy? Is providing a benefit only to fast-acting existing owners of gas guzzler vehicles a reasonable and fair method to achieve reduction in oil consumption [and a temporary boost in car sales]?
      Last edited by salmoned; August 6, 2009, 08:38 AM.
      May I always be found beneath your contempt.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Clunker Cars - Ends Justifies Means?

        Originally posted by salmoned View Post
        1. I'm suggesting an annual gas guzzler tax on all vehicles ON THE ROAD that fall below a certain MPG rating (higher than the current gas guzzler rating), which differs significantly from the current gas guzzler tax (a one-time payment for new vehicles only, with plenty of exemptions).
        The current gas guzzler sales tax (which was first enacted in the late 1970s) is obviously different from the annual tax you propose, not that I ever said otherwise. However, I did bring it up since you totally failed to mention it in your initial post and it was not clear that you were aware of the current gas guzzler tax's existence.

        Originally posted by salmoned View Post
        2. You mean adding a tax to gas guzzlers is somehow less palatable than adding a tax to 'cadillac health plans'? If both taxes promote targeted goals and both targeted goals are equally worthy, they are equally palatable. I suppose it all boils down to whether or not you believe reduction in oil consumption is a worthy goal.
        If you are talking about the president proposed national health care plan, Obama has talked about raising the tax rate on the wealthy (those earning $200,000 or more). The annual tax you are talking about is going to hit everyone (wealthy, middle-class, poor) who happens to own a low gas mileage vehicle.

        Originally posted by salmoned View Post
        3. If you can't pluck the 'profound moral lesson' from the story, why assume its existence? The story exemplifies how human emotion trumps human wisdom - not something I find profound.
        I agree. "That" sort of superficial analysis of the parable is far from being profound. I know that my minister had more thoughtful and deeper insights to offer.

        Originally posted by salmoned View Post
        Maybe you believe alluding to biblical stories with unidentified profound moral lessons supports your argument and are all that's necessary to solve the problems of the world, but I would disagree. Quite to the contrary, thinking of that sort is exactly what's driven us into the current state of affairs.
        I may not have expounded on the moral principles of the parable. But I did bring up the practical lessons of the tale, which you have totally overlooked. The father reasoned with his older son, reminding him that he would inherit everything that he owned. IOW, although the prodigal son was enjoying his homecoming party, the older son's hard work and family loyalty was not in vain. The older son was initially upset at the party and the celebration because he had lost sight of the things that he was destined to inherit that his brother would not receive.

        And I repeat what I said earlier. Had you owned a Hummer instead of whatever fuel-efficient car you owned, can you honestly say there's nothing in your personal budget that would have been sacrificied in order to pay for the Hummer's hefty gas bill?

        As I said before, you can pooh-pooh this pracitical lesson if you want. I just wanted to make it clear that my bringing up the parable of the prodigal son did have a salient point, even if you totally failed to see it.

        Originally posted by salmoned View Post
        4. You haven't touched on the main thrust of the post - do the ends justify the means with regard to the clunker car policy? Is providing a benefit only to fast-acting existing owners of gas guzzler vehicles a reasonable and fair method to achieve reduction in oil consumption [and a temporary boost in car sales]?
        Maybe it's not a perfect solution. But IMNSHO, it's a lot, LOT better than creating a new, annual tax that punishes people who own large trucks/vans for business/work purposes in the midst of an economic recession.
        Last edited by Frankie's Market; August 6, 2009, 12:16 PM.
        This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Clunker Cars - Ends Justifies Means?

          Yes, but is it better than doing nothing?

          If your minister cares to relate the moral lesson, I'm all ears, but I can't imagine why YOU would mention that story without a point - which I still can't quite make out in relation to this thread. Are we supposedly welcoming wastrels back into the economizing fold here? Should we all enjoy paying out of our own [taxpayer] pockets for their personal profit? I think not on either account.

          Taxing 'cadillac medical insurance plans' - personal income hasn't yet been mentioned in that scheme.

          As for 'hitting everyone', not everyone with an income over $200,000 is wealthy (some owe more than they own), but everyone with a low MPG vehicle is behaving as if they were wealthy, just like that prodigal son before his money ran out. By your reasoning, the government should offer money or other benefits to every bankrupt, criminal or jaywalker if they show a willingness to reform. Rewarding bad behavior seems more likely to increase it in the future. Perhaps you feel we should turn the other cheek to every criminal, as well, eh? Why not go whole hog and give everything we have to the poor - then they can sort it all out. Mindless blather, IMHO. Bible stories are great if your intent is Armaggedon.
          Last edited by salmoned; August 6, 2009, 03:11 PM.
          May I always be found beneath your contempt.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Clunker Cars - Ends Justifies Means?

            Originally posted by salmoned View Post
            Does anyone else find the clunker car program grossly unjust? It only benefits those who previously bought gas guzzlers (wastrels) and offers no benefit to all the consciencious economizers. It's providing benefits to those least deserving. Why couldn't they create an onerous tax on gas guzzling vehicles (old and new) and use those funds to provide support for the purchase of economical vehicles for all buyers? Don't get me wrong, I like the carrot approach, but I also like to have a chance at the carrots myself.
            I absolutely agree with you on this one. The clunker plan is a waste of money rewarding the wrong crowd. Just like how the TARP money became bonuses for companies that FAILED. Now that $2 billion more is committed to the clunker, that's $2 billion robbed from the DOE meant to fund research on cleaner energy and efficiency. This has nothing to do with being bitter. This is plain short-sightedness. Other countries have their own versions of the clunker but in my opinion, have gone about it in a smarter way. China for example dropped or vastly reduced the sales tax on highly fuel efficient city cars. It rewards everyone, not just those who owned gas guzzlers.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Clunker Cars - Ends Justifies Means?

              Originally posted by salmoned View Post
              Yes, but is it better than doing nothing?
              The current "cash for clunkers" law, as it stands, gets gas guzzlers off the road. It has stimulted new car sales. So yes, I think it is "better than doing nothing." You are of course, free to disagree.

              Originally posted by salmoned View Post
              If your minister cares to relate the moral lesson, I'm all ears, but I can't imagine why YOU would mention that story without a point - which I still can't quite make out in relation to this thread.
              Here was my point. Posted for the THIRD and what will be the final time. If you still don't get it, oh well.

              Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
              I may not have expounded on the moral principles of the parable. But I did bring up the practical lessons of the tale, which you have totally overlooked. The father reasoned with his older son, reminding him that he would inherit everything that he owned. IOW, although the prodigal son was enjoying his homecoming party, the older son's hard work and family loyalty was not in vain. The older son was initially upset at the party and the celebration because he had lost sight of the things that he was destined to inherit that his brother would not receive.

              And I repeat what I said earlier. Had you owned a Hummer instead of whatever fuel-efficient car you owned, can you honestly say there's nothing in your personal budget that would have been sacrificied in order to pay for the Hummer's hefty gas bill?

              As I said before, you can pooh-pooh this pracitical lesson if you want. I just wanted to make it clear that my bringing up the parable of the prodigal son did have a salient point, even if you totally failed to see it.
              Originally posted by salmoned View Post
              As for 'hitting everyone', not everyone with an income over $200,000 is wealthy (some owe more than they own), but everyone with a low MPG vehicle is behaving as if they were wealthy, just like that prodigal son before his money ran out.
              Ummm, so are the people who earn more than $200K per year but are obviously living beyond means if they "owe more than they own."

              And I don't see any useful purpose in classifying a business owner (large or small) or construction worker/contractor who needs to use big trucks and vans in order to carry out their work as "behaving as if they were wealthy." I repeat: they need those vehicles to do their work. It is a tool for their livelihood. And you want to punish them with another tax? If that's your opinion, then fine. But I'll call it as I see it. Such a tax would be one of the most business-UNfriendly suggestions that I have ever seen in quite awhile. Thank goodness such a measure has NO chance of ever passing in Congress for the foreseeable future.

              Originally posted by salmoned View Post
              By your reasoning, the government should offer money or other benefits to every bankrupt, criminal or jaywalker if they show a willingness to reform. Rewarding bad behavior seems more likely to increase it in the future. Perhaps you feel we should turn the other cheek to every criminal, as well, eh? Why not go whole hog and give everything we have to the poor - then they can sort it all out. Mindless blather, IMHO. Bible stories are great if your intent is Armaggedon.
              Rather than respond in kind with strawman arguments, logical fallacies, and ad-hominem attacks, let me just say, salmoned, that you started this thread by asking the question, "Does anyone else find the clunker car program grossly unjust?" As such, it invited anyone here to respond. Were you only expecting responses to agree with what you were thinking? Sounds like it, if "mindless blather" is what you would describe a POV that differs from yours.
              This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Clunker Cars - Ends Justifies Means?

                So, first you claim 'profound moral lessons', but only offer a 'practical lesson' - I still fail to grasp how it relates to the thread topic. You belittle my deep analysis of the biblical story (just a little reflection would have you realizing that the prodigal son let emotion trump wisdom when he took his inheritance and squandered it, the father let emotion trump wisdom when he had a feast for his returned son, and the loyal son let emotion trump wisdom when he complained about the hubbub - biblical stories often pound the lesson in with this 'triple punch' format). Now you claim strawman arguments, logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks without delving into specifics - or are you leaving that to your minister as well? You can scream bloody murder all you want, but screaming doesn't produce a bloody body.

                If you can't fathom how anyone wasting resources is living in a wealthy fashion, then so be it. I said it, you don't get it. I don't expect everyone to get it, you're among those who don't. Fine with me.

                You feel offering cash incentives only to owners of low value, low MPG vehicles to buy new higher MPG vehicles (no one will trade in their hummer for this deal unless it's worth less than the incentive, since the vehicle must be discarded) is good public policy. I feel this is bad public policy. We can agree to disagree. I only wish you could have offerred some intelligent reasoning to support your position, instead of mentioning an irrelevant biblical story to which you assign, but don't discuss, a profound moral lesson [or claiming knowledge of what's politically feasible in Congress].
                Last edited by salmoned; August 7, 2009, 09:51 AM.
                May I always be found beneath your contempt.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Oops, double post.
                  Last edited by salmoned; August 7, 2009, 09:17 AM. Reason: double post
                  May I always be found beneath your contempt.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Clunker Cars - Ends Justifies Means?

                    Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                    So, first you claim 'profound moral lessons', but only offer a 'practical lesson' - I still fail to grasp how it relates to the thread topic.
                    So be it.

                    Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                    Now you claim strawman arguments, logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks without delving into specifics - or are you leaving that to your minister as well?
                    Your strawman: By your reasoning, the government should offer money or other benefits to every bankrupt, criminal or jaywalker if they show a willingness to reform.

                    That is a totally ridiculous statement. Attributing such nonsense to me does absolutely nothing to further any productive discussion and debate.

                    Your ad-hominem attack: Mindless blather, IMHO.

                    'Nuff said.

                    Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                    You can scream bloody murder all you want, but screaming doesn't produce a bloody body.
                    Who's "screaming" here?

                    Can't you just stick to the meaningful substance of the topic, instead of engaging in mischaracterizing the other person you happen to disagree with?

                    Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                    If you can't fathom how anyone wasting resources is living in a wealthy fashion, then so be it. I said it, you don't get it. I don't expect everyone to get it, you're among those who don't. Fine with me.
                    Speaking as someone who's family runs a small business which depends on the use of large-sized trucks and vans, let me say that your vision of an additional gas guzzler tax hurting only those who are living it up "in a wealthy fashion" is, sad to say, out of touch with reality for the many middle-class folks who need those vehicles to support their livelihoods. Just because you're able to carry on in your life with some sub-compact sedan doesn't mean that everybody else lives under the same circumstances that you do.

                    There's a big difference between a working-class guy who needs a vehicle to do heavy-duty loading in order to earn a paycheck vs. some millionaire playboy who drives a gas-hungry Rolls Royce. And that is something "you don't get."
                    This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Clunker Cars - Ends Justifies Means?

                      'Mindless blather' refers to the product, not the producer, hence no ad hominem. 'Mindless blatherer' would have been ad hominem.

                      Your reasoning that the clunker car program (cash incentives only for owners of 'gas hog' vehicles to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles) is worthwhile leads through a logical progression (not necessarily the only logical progression imaginable, of course) to those furtherances of the policy position to offenders of another ilk.

                      My mention of screaming was with regard to your unsupported accusations of false arguments. It works better if you post the argument WITH the accusation, then we save an unnecessary iteration of misunderstanding.

                      The difference you mention is irrelevant and impertinent to the discussion. Both are likely program-eligible, so the difference between them is moot regarding the clunker car program. We're discussing the fairness of the program regarding those not eligible for participation. If a tax on gas guzzling vehicles increases the cost of doing business for some businesses, well it would only be one more of very many regulations on business deemed proper and necessary to promote the protection of the people, eh? Nothing personal, brah.
                      Last edited by salmoned; August 11, 2009, 10:13 AM.
                      May I always be found beneath your contempt.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Clunker Cars - Ends Justifies Means?

                        Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                        Does anyone else find the clunker car program grossly unjust? It only benefits those who previously bought gas guzzlers (wastrels) and offers no benefit to all the consciencious economizers. It's providing benefits to those least deserving. Why couldn't they create an onerous tax on gas guzzling vehicles (old and new) and use those funds to provide support for the purchase of economical vehicles for all buyers? Don't get me wrong, I like the carrot approach, but I also like to have a chance at the carrots myself.
                        Meh.

                        While I applaud and commend those who have taken the initiative to get fuel-efficient vehicles, I'm one of the other people that usually says, "What's in it for me?" besides saving the Earth and weaning off of imported oil.

                        Besides, it's no more unjust than giving tax breaks to certain industries to thrive in places like Hawaii.

                        If anything, the government should offer some kind of tax exemption for owning and operating a fuel-efficient vehicle.

                        BTW, shouldn't we taxpayers be getting something for bailing out our American-based automakers soon?
                        Beijing 8-08-08 to 8-24-08

                        Tiananmen Square 4-15-89 to 6-04-89

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Clunker Cars - Ends Justifies Means?

                          Have anyone watched this?
                          www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWs12ccbOiE

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Clunker Cars - Ends Justifies Means?

                            Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                            It's providing benefits to those least deserving.
                            The recent Hawaii tax amnesty was a similar problem. If someone was late in their taxes, and then paid the penalty/interest even just one day before the amnesty was announced, they were not allowed the discount. So, those who "settled up" on their own accord missed the discount. Meanwhile, those who owed the back taxes and had done nothing to pay up benefited fully. The "do-nothing" people benefited, the "doers" lost out.
                            Now run along and play, but don’t get into trouble.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Clunker Cars - Ends Justifies Means?

                              Originally posted by Random View Post
                              While I applaud and commend those who have taken the initiative to get fuel-efficient vehicles, I'm one of the other people that usually says, "What's in it for me?" besides saving the Earth and weaning off of imported oil.
                              "What's in it for me?" Ah! Now you get a tip of the hat from me for being honest rather than putting on some show of sanctimoniousness.

                              Originally posted by Random View Post
                              If anything, the government should offer some kind of tax exemption for owning and operating a fuel-efficient vehicle.
                              My thoughts exactly!

                              BTW, the federal govt. does offer one-time rebates ranging from $3,000 - 7,500 for purchasing new electric or hybrid vehicles.

                              http://www.hybridmile.com/news/gover...rebate-hybrid/
                              This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X