22 Jan 2003 | ek said...

That deduction actually already exists, but in its current form is limited to $25,000.

22 Jan 2003 | ek said...

From the article that SU linked to, here's the Administration's rationale for increasing the deduction:

White House spokesman Taylor Gross said Monday that the provision ''is not designed to favor one vehicle over another, but rather to allow small businesses to buy more equipment and to create more jobs.''

If that's the reason, then why is it limited to vehicles weighing in excess of 6,000 lbs? Don't small business owners drive cars too?

22 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

Don't small business owners drive cars too?

The point is to give small businesses a tax break to buy trucks to do their business. Business typically do not buy passenger cars to haul things and conduct business. If the credit was not limited to trucks, you would be complaining that Bush & Co. were giving tax breaks to the "rich" to buy personal cars to drive around in...

22 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

"The point is to give small businesses a tax break to buy trucks to do their business."

But what's your point?

The stupidity of this administration is getting way to thick.

22 Jan 2003 | ~bc said...

I'm sure the original intent was for delivery trucks, not personal vehicles. Well, original meaning "the person in charge of cutting breaks for small business." But in the hands of the current administration its selfishly turned into something to cut a hole in the CAFE standards. They shouldn't have put a bottom limit on it, and it should be limited to legit business vehicles, not a CPA getting a Lexus Wannabe-U-V. And given a much, much bigger break to those who bought alternative fuel vehicles. But that'd be progress, and we couldn't have that.

22 Jan 2003 | SU said...

~bc, exactly. Why is it so incredibly off-the-wall to give businesses a tax break for purchasing a natural gas or other alt-fuel vehicles for deliveries?

And can someone point to a concrete example where purchasing a truck has led to the creation of more jobs and income for your average Joe? Trickle down? Trickle up to the CEO of Ford/GM, more like.

22 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

And can someone point to a concrete example where purchasing a truck has led to the creation of more jobs and income for your average Joe?

Last time I checked truck are built by Union Workers... More trucks sold, more trucks made, more Union wages paid... Pretty simple really...

22 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

We're talking Ford Expedition and GM's Suburban/Tahoe XLS.

That's it as far as SUV's are concerned.

Talk about a *slanted* article! You must mention "SUV" and the knee-jerk reaction is quite predictable.

As a small business owner, I could use the tax break. IT WILL HELP ME HIRE ANOTHER PERSON. Think about that.

22 Jan 2003 | bruno said...

Natural gas or other alt-fuel vehicles are not built by union workers? Midsized cars are not built by union workers? Come on. I totally agree that not ALL SUVs and SUV owners deserve a kick in the nuts but the following fact pisses the hell out of me. I live in a very big US city. I do not drive everyday but own a car. My auto insurance is more expensive that the same person with the same drivers record driving 30+ miles in to town from the suburbs in his SUV. Why? because SUVs are supposedly safer for the driver (not the person that gets broadsided) and homeboy's suburban gated community has less crime than a downtown zip code. My point? Nonsustainable consumption is always rewarded financially. Fine yes we live in a market economy but let me make this analogy. The US is to the world as the stomach is the the human body. Unfortunately the US is also functioning as the brain. How healthy do you think this body is going to be?

Back to emptying these trash cans in this office building.

22 Jan 2003 | JF said...

I know it's easy to think all small business owners are web designers, but plenty of small business owners need to haul their wares, and many need large trucks.

I'm not defending the policy, or gas guzzlers, I'm just making a point. Sure, there are other realities too, but some businesses just need what they need. I'm all in favor of the Gov't giving more breaks to small business -- we all know the big guys get the majority of the breaks. Small business is what makes this country work -- it's often where the big ideas and "next big thing" comes from.

23 Jan 2003 | SU said...

I know it's easy to think all small business owners are web designers, but plenty of small business owners need to haul their wares, and many need large trucks.

Of course designers and developers are exceptions to the rule, but the government shouldn't be offering incentives that encourage consumption without augmenting that with something a bit more "green."

I'm all for giving my friend Isaac a break on his Toyota truck because he uses it every day on his construction site. But I'm not in favor of all the real estate agents and interior designers in my area who may be led to believe their best driving option is now a Ford Expedition or Chevy Suburban... Without also giving consideration to Dave who drives a Honda Civic Hybrid or Sally who drives an older Civic that's been gutted to house a fully-electric motor.

Incentives that are based on consumption may look like a good idea in the short term, but they are fundamentally unsustainable in the long run.

23 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

Natural gas or other alt-fuel vehicles ... Midsized cars are not built by union workers?

That was not the question asked. And to answer that question, Yes they maybe, but frankly I don't know the availability of reasonable prices of alt-fuel to small businesses that do not buy a fleet of vehicles at a time. To my knowledge alt-fuel vehicles are still way more expensive than a conventional vehicles, at least in the truck classes. When Detroit, or Japan can make an alt-fuel vehicle that does not cost 2x as much or is the size of a compact car then you will see adoption by more people.

The SUV question will be decided by the American people, not Congress.

23 Jan 2003 | Fool said...

Web browsers go back to basics [BBC News]

23 Jan 2003 | hurley said...

One interesting way to encourage fuel-efficient cars while discouraging the frivolous purchase of gas-guzzlers is to use "feebates." In this system, a tax is levied progressively on the purchase price of new vehicles based on the amount of fuel they consume: if you buy a car that gets 14 miles to the gallon, the fee might be, say, $2,000, whereas a car that gets 20 miles to the gallon would have a smaller fee, maybe $1,000, and one that got 25 miles per gallon would only pay $500.

Delivery trucks and other such vehicles used legitimately for business would receive an exemption. The fees collected would be used to fund rebates for fuel-efficient cars using a similar progressive scale. So if you buy a car that gets 35 miles per gallon, you get a rebate of $500, and if you buy one that gets 45 mpg you get a rebate of $1,000, etc.

The feebate system is entirely revenue-neutral; the government doesn't get to keep any of the money apart from administrative fees (unless nobody buys fuel-efficient cars).

Ontario had a feebate system for a while (it was scrapped after a more conservative party took over the government), and several states, including Maine, have proposed it. It's a step toward incorporating the environmental costs of goods into their price. The feebate concept can be applied to lots of other areas in which you want to discourage one kind of behavior while encouraging another.

23 Jan 2003 | hurley said...

Following up on my own post...I wrote: "The feebate concept can be applied to lots of other areas in which you want to discourage one kind of behavior while encouraging another."

For example: If micropayments on the Web ever become ubiquitous, people who care about standards could set up a system that charges "fines" to people who use bad, outdated browsers and use the funds collected to pay rebates to people who use up-to-date standards-compliant browsers. :-)

23 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

Last time I checked truck are built by Union Workers... More trucks sold, more trucks made, more Union wages paid... Pretty simple really...

That simplistic thought process is what keeps an idiot like Bush in office. Yea, sure, encouraging the purchase of a specific product will help that specific niche industry. So, sure, more trucks sold, more trucks made. But hmm...I guess less cars will be bought now, hence less cars made, hence car plants go out of business...hmm...less jobs.

I know it's easy to think all small business owners are web designers, but plenty of small business owners need to haul their wares, and many need large trucks.

Of course designers and developers are exceptions to the rule

Exception? That's the norm. Most small business owners have no specific need for an SUV.

Incentives that are based on consumption may look like a good idea in the short term, but they are fundamentally unsustainable in the long run.

Argh. SU, why can't the rest of the country grasp that concept? This whole consumption = better economy logic is killing us all.
Many do. By no means a majority, or even a large percentage of all small business owners, though. Plus, an SUV is not a good delivery vehicle. A cargo van is cheaper, more space, and the better option. A station wagon is cheaper, more space, and the better option. A used pickup is cheaper, more space, and the better option.

all in favor of the Gov't giving more breaks to small business

No one is arguing that. If you want to give a tax break, give all small businesses the same tax break. Not a break that favors a specific industry that the president and vp have direct ties to (oil).

The SUV question will be decided by the American people, not Congress.

It OBVIOUSLY *is* being decided by congress. They are offering tax breaks for them. They are not requiring manufacturers to improve safety nor fuel efficiency. People are stupid, they buy what's cheap and makes up for their small penises.

23 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

Hmm...my post got a little mangled. Oops.

23 Jan 2003 | JF said...

This whole consumption = better economy logic is killing us all.

Really? It's worked pretty damn well for this country. Show me a stronger economy on this planet.

23 Jan 2003 | hurley said...

JF said Show me a stronger economy on this planet

At the moment there are several stronger economies if you define strength as rate of growth. Here are some statistics from the >International Monetary Fund's latest world economic outlook.

The US economy was expected to grow by 2.2% in 2002 and 2.6% in 2003.

Of the industrialized (G7) nations, Canada is doing better at 3.4% in 2002 and 2003.

Some other growth rates to consider:

China: 7.5% in 2002; 7.2% projected for 2003.
India: 5.0% in 2002; 5.7% in 2003.
Russia: 4.6% in 2002; 4.9% in 2003.
Africa: 3.1% in 2002; 4.2% in 2003.

23 Jan 2003 | hurley said...

Um, what I meant to say was:

JF said Show me a stronger economy on this planet

At the moment there are several stronger economies if you define strength as rate of growth. Here are some statistics from the International Monetary Fund's latest world economic outlook:

The US economy was expected to grow by 2.2% in 2002 and 2.6% in 2003.

Of the industrialized (G7) nations, Canada is doing better at 3.4% in 2002 and 2003.

Some other growth rates to consider:

China: 7.5% in 2002; 7.2% projected for 2003.
India: 5.0% in 2002; 5.7% in 2003.
Russia: 4.6% in 2002; 4.9% in 2003.
Africa: 3.1% in 2002; 4.2% in 2003.

23 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

Really? It's worked pretty damn well for this country. Show me a stronger economy on this planet.

Did you read my post? It's KILLING us all.

What's with everyone's infatuation with the 'economy'. The economy is nothing but a man made construct and, in this country, it is solely based on greed.

That means we're a damn rich country. We've had 200 years of fun, but it's really about time that we begin realizing what our 'strong economy' is doing to the planet.

As SU said, there is nothing sustainable about our 'More Consumption = Better Ecomony' logic. We're already sucking the life out of other economies and sooner or later, we'll have sucked all we can out of others. Then where does that leave us?

Also, having the strongest economy in the world doesn't equate to us having the best life experience in the world. It means we can waste a lot and hoarde a lot of crap, but that's really about it.

23 Jan 2003 | SU said...

Really? It's worked pretty damn well for this country. Show me a stronger economy on this planet.

Sure, if you use GDP and other standard economic indicators alone to rate one economy against another, the USA comes out on top. Now, if you factor in the long-term costs of resource depletion, waste containment, defense spending in to protect oil reserves, individual consumer debt, water+air quality, and more; we could be doing much better.

23 Jan 2003 | JF said...

Sure, if you use GDP and other standard economic indicators alone to rate one economy against another, the USA comes out on top.

That's how economies are measured from purely economic perspective. That was my point.

23 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

That's how economies are measured from purely economic perspective. That was my point.

Fair enough. And SU's point (which I completely agree with) is that it's bad to focus solely on the economy as the problem and/or the solution as Bush is making it to be.

23 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

That's how economies are measured from purely economic perspective. That was my point.

Fair enough. And SU's point (which I completely agree with) is that it's bad to focus solely on the economy as the problem and/or the solution as Bush is making it to be.

23 Jan 2003 | fajalar said...

I might have posted this link on a similar topic in the recent past, but I'll put it up again. A good book called, Natural Capitalism: Creating the NExt Industrial Revolution

The nice thing is that it follows a pragmatic line of thinking. At least I would call it pragmatic.

23 Jan 2003 | Milton said...

"Now, if you factor in the long-term costs of resource depletion, waste containment, defense spending in to protect oil reserves, individual consumer debt, water+air quality, and more; we could be doing much better."

The problem here is that you can't express most natural reserves and their protection in terms of money. There have been many attempts to calculate an ecological GDP, but that's basically impossible. I think the ESI is an interesting source but it still doesn't allow to compare two nations. I.e. you can't tell in which state the natural ressources are (I'm sure there are more lakes and animal species in the US than in Zimbabwe). And the ESI cannot show how the loss of a million trees in the US will affect world climate etc.

I'd rather prefer an index where there's more emphasis on new ecological technologie potential and the implementation of it (again the US is spending more on these technologies than Zimbabwe but it could spend a lot more in this field). The idea of sustainability is good and important simply because many ecological damage will backfire in the future (of course it already does) and this will mean reduction of the GDP.

In addition to that, the GDP has other shortcomings - a small example: if you have a lot of accidents, the related damage (to people, nature etc) will not decrease the GDP. But all tasks to clear up the damage from the mecanics to the flowers sent to hospital are included in the GDP. And a war will also increase the GDP in the short run. Therefore we need an additional measurement although this cannot be expressed in financial terms.

And we should also remember what Keynes said: "In the long run we're all dead".

23 Jan 2003 | paolo said...

I wonder who padded Bush's pockets to come up with this idea. Economy? Jobs? I think not.

What it comes down to is what Bush & friends got out of the deal. A smarter President would see the real problem and take preventative measures to avoid it.

Here it is in its simplest form:
Hussein wants to control the oilas much as possible. He's not going to nuke the U.S. or use chemical/ biological agents. He simply wants to control what we all need. He who controls the oil, controls the people. [Go watch the movie Dune for more background on this]

Bush decides that rather than pour money into alternative fuel and energy research, he'll give incentives for business people to buy gas guzzling SUVs, (like giving drug addicts discounts on crack) bolsters his military, starts a war under the guise of crushing evil and gains his own kind of control over the World's oil deposits.

So long as Americans want and need oil, Bush will fight evil to get more.

Ultimately, the people who have oil outside of the U.S. don't trust or like the U.S. and in some cases outright hate them. Business is being done on this front with one hand behind the back at all times. Sooner or later, it will either run out or someone else will gain control over it. Without a backup plan, were all f*cked.

The last time Hussein tried to wrestle control of the oil and lost, he attempted to destroy what was there so that at least America wouldn't have it.

The most powerful country in the World couldnt stop planes from crashing into their own buildings, how then can they stop the same thing from happening to oil wells half a world away?

Consider that the next time you hear of "incentives" to buy big vehicles.

24 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

You guys are getting worked up over the wrong set of laws. Giving small business owners a break is a great thing - the little guys need it - no matter what they drive. Get mad about the fact that you have virtually no enivronmental taxes on gas and items which damage the environment, that you arent taxed based on gas milage, that you have no sustainable alternative engergy sources or building standards worth mentioning, etc. Those are the laws that ensure that you pay for the decisions you make. America is light-years behind many countries in environmentalism & sustainability even though they are the richest, most powerful country on the earth.

24 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Alisha ... name some countries and how they are light years ahead of the United States in environmentalism and sustainability. Some *specific* examples.

Or point us to a site if you don't feel like typing a tome.

Seriously. It would be very edifying.

24 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

P.S. Rocky Mountain Institute is my personal philosophy on the environment. I'm also a card-carrying member of Surfrider.

24 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

P.P.S. To Alisha

I am not being a smart-ass. I'm asking you to list them because most people prolly don't believe you. *I* do.

24 Jan 2003 | thePOSTMAN said...

Lets be honest here,

This will not change the economy, nor will this give a big boost to the sales of vehicle 6000lbs and over.

The fundamental problem here is the current tax situation, if the current (or past) administration really wanted to be fair, really wanted to help the situation, they would wipe out the current tax code and set a 20% flat tax. Still let the states have what they will, but set a flat tax on gross profits of corporations as well as individuals. That is fair and it eliminates the need for this "Deduct That Gas Guzzler" tax patch. Its sh#% like this that keeps everyone busy arguing back and forth about what is fair and who it helps. Please, this is another attempt by an already failing administration to rev up the economy. I will just be happy to see when it doesn't do much what the next failed solution will be.

AND YES I AM A CRUCHY CONSERTIVE...

24 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

name some countries and how they are light years ahead of the United States in environmentalism and sustainability.

Iceland. Sweden. UK. Most of western Europe (though that's slowly changing as people try to be more like the US). Japan.

administration really wanted to be fair, really wanted to help the situation, they would wipe out the current tax code and set a 20% flat tax.

A flat tax is fairer...but not completely fair. Or, rather, it's not necessarily fair in everyone's eyes.

If bob makes 40,000 a year, then 20% ($8,000) is a decent chunk of a money for him. Someone making 4,000,000 a year, well, they can easily manage without that 20%.

I think a simple, gradated rate would be ideal. The poorest pay little (as they need to spend a much larger part of their income on day-to-day expenses) and as you get richer, your rate goes up (as your percentage of income for day-to-day expenses begins to drastically decrease).

AND YES I AM A CRUCHY CONSERTIVE...

Why do we insist on coming up with new political ideologies and still base them on the conservative/liberal label? The sooner we just get rid of the whole two-party/one dimensial political spectrum, the better off we'll be.

24 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Darrel - FYI: Most flat-tax proposals do have a minimum under which you pay nothing.

I have a better idea; eliminate income tax altogether.

24 Jan 2003 | hurley said...

Iceland. Sweden. UK. Most of western Europe (though that's slowly changing as people try to be more like the US). Japan.

But you don't say how those countries are "light years ahead of the US in terms of sustainability and environmentalism."

In fact the US led the world in environmental protection for many years. I was at the global climate change treaty negotiations at the United Nations in Geneva and New York back in the early to mid 1990s, and the European delegates were always saying that they wished they had something like our Clean Air Act. The US was viewed as an environmental leader. Many innovations in environmental protection were developed and first tested in the US as well...tradable emissions permits, the Energy Star program (now worldwide), etc. etc.; in fact I think the US EPA was the first agency of its kind in the world.

In the 90s, Europe had better environmental rhetoric, but the US had better environmental protection. Many of the European nations set themselves lofty environmental goals and pledges but couldn't meet them. How many countries actually stablized their greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000? I think it was only Germany and the UK, and there were special circumstances (reunification in Germany, the switch from coal to gas in the UK following privatization of electricity) in both cases that made it possible for them to meet those goals.

I think it's important to look at what countries actually achieve, not what they say they will do. And you also have to prorate the achievements against national circumstances. Norway's greenhouse gas emissions per capita are much lower than those of the US, but that's due mainly to their reliance on hydroelectric power. The Netherlands' transportation emissions are much lower than those of the US, but that's because it's a compact country and bicycling is a big part of the culture. Shipping a container across the Netherlands is nothing compared with shipping a container from New York to Los Angeles.

24 Jan 2003 | JF said...

And you also have to prorate the achievements against national circumstances.

I think this is an excellent point. There are lots of things that have to be taken into consideration. Population, physical land-mass size, culture, types of industry (heavy industry requires heavy energy needs), etc.

24 Jan 2003 | ~bc said...

Emissions trading is a crock. It doesn't reduce anything, it just gives an opportunity to make a business outta nothing, eg, Enron. If you're business is rich enough, you never have to clean up your act. And your neighbor still has to breathe your dirtied air.

In an oddly related note, the new Gov. of Mass., Republican Mitt Romney, is trying to weed out state-owned SUVs [ Boston Globe Story] as a way of cutting costs for the state.

'The price tag for SUVs is 50 percent more than regular cars and it's 50 percent more to operate,'' said Douglas Foy, the newly appointed coordinator of housing, transportation, environment, and energy under Governor Mitt Romney. ''Aside from the environmental issue, it's a budget issue in these austere times.''- Boston Globe

Hell, even certain Republicans are conceeding that these things aren't so hot now. But let's get more people to waste their money on them so somebody's friends can get richer...

24 Jan 2003 | hurley said...

Emissions trading is a crock. It doesn't reduce anything, it just gives an opportunity to make a business outta nothing, eg, Enron.

Au contraire, emissions trading has resulted in acid rain emissions being reduced considerably faster and more cheaply than required under the Clean Air Act. There's a good explanation of how it works and how a cap and trade program really does reduce emissions in this PDF available from EPA's web site:

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/articles/clearingtheair.pdf

(FYI -- I'm not a government employee. I mentioned above that I attended the UN treaty negotiations on climate change -- I was there as a journalist. I had put that in there but accidentally deleted it while editing my post.)

24 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

I have a better idea; eliminate income tax altogether.

That is better. The poor pay an unfair percentage more of income taxes than the rich.

But you don't say how those countries are "light years ahead of the US in terms of sustainability and environmentalism."

Iceland is going fossil fuel free within 25 years.

If you drive in england you will see a LOT of mini cars...very few gas guzzlers.

All of the above countries have reliable, usable mass transit.

In fact the US led the world in environmental protection for many years.

We also lead the world in waste production.

We *do* do good things, it's just that we know we could do a lot more, but don't. In the name of the economy.

If you're business is rich enough, you never have to clean up your act.

And that about sums it up here in the US. :o(

24 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Darrel, you say That is better. The poor pay an unfair percentage more of income taxes than the rich.

Please provide proof. I know that in 2001, for example, my effective tax rate was just over 44 percent. Federal. Never mind state, sales, local, excise, etc etc.

I don't see too many poor people sending one half of their income to the government.

24 Jan 2003 | JF said...

Iceland is going fossil fuel free within 25 years.

Iceland is setting a terrific example, but it's not a realistic example for the rest of the world to follow at this time. Iceland doesn't have the industrial demands of a superpower or highly populous nation. Their cities are mostly coastal and their population is less than 300,000.

I'm thrilled that they are moving away from fossil fuels, but their methods, circumstances, and sources of alternative energy aren't scalable.

24 Jan 2003 | SU said...

Iceland is setting a terrific example, but it's not a realistic example for the rest of the world to follow at this time. Iceland doesn't have the industrial demands of a superpower or highly populous nation. Their cities are mostly coastal and their population is less than 300,000.

Not to mention the abundance of geothermal energy not found in many other parts of the world.

'Course, the USA should be doing much, much more with all that (hot) air blowing across our great nation. Wyoming alone could generate so much more of its total energy needs if they built more windmills.

24 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

I don't see too many poor people sending one half of their income to the government.

The unfairness comes into play when the richer are able to generate more money outside of income. In otherwords, it becomes much easier to route incoming wealth outside of the 'income' definition. The poorer you are, the less you can do that. But you are right, at a certain point, the poor pay less that the middle class. So, I agree with your statement, but would say your beef should be with the rich, who simply hide the income better.

Iceland is setting a terrific example, but it's not a realistic example for the rest of the world to follow at this time.

Of course Iceland has a lot of viable natural resources to meet that goal, but that doesn't make it unobtainable for other countries. I'm not saying the US should be fossil free in 25 years, but, hell, we can't even enact better fuel efficiency regulations. We just don't care.

I'm actually looking into purchasing a residence in a new eco-friendly village in our city. It'll have about 150 units all together. Heated and cooled via geothermal and powered via wind. It's completely do-able. We CAN do it. We just DON'T.

24 Jan 2003 | JF said...

Your beef should be with the rich, who simply hide the income better.

If it's legal, the beef should be with the legislators, not the rich. They are doing what they are allowed to do.

And, BTW, what's with this rich "racism?" Larry Liberal hates it when someone tosses everyone from one group into a huge pool and then talks about the pool. Being rich doesn't mean you cheat, lie, and steal.

24 Jan 2003 | hurley said...

Some researchers at Cornell did a study recently on the potential for renewable energy in the US. Here's their main conclusion:

"If all the best renewable energy technologies were implemented to the fullest, those hydroelectric dams, wind farms and other installations would take up 17 percent of the land and still replace less than 50 percent of our fossil-fuel consumption. The biggest problem is our extraordinary rate of energy consumption to maintain our standard of living -- or should we say standard of burning."

"With less than 4 percent of the world population, we are emitting 22 percent of the carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. Developing countries use the energy equivalent of 500 liters of oil [132 U.S. gallons] per capita per year; in the United States each of us, on average, uses 8,000 liters [2,113 U.S. gallons] of oil equivalents annually -- 16 times as much. The only way to change the equation -- to make renewable energy sources go further and kick our addiction to fossil fuels -- is to reduce energy consumption, and that means conservation."

Read a summary of the paper at

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Dec02/Alt-energy.hrs.html

24 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

If it's legal, the beef should be with the legislators, not the rich. They are doing what they are allowed to do.

It's one and the same most of the time. ;o)

Being rich doesn't mean you cheat, lie, and steal.

Of course not. It just means you have access to a lot of the benefits that everyone should have access too. Ie, tax cuts should be given unilaterally, not favoring those that already have the money.

24 Jan 2003 | JF said...

It just means you have access to a lot of the benefits that everyone should have access too.

Should the rich "have access" to the low tax rates paid by the poor? Or should the poor pick it up and pay the same rates as the rich? If we're going to share, why don't we share everything equally?

24 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

JF, the rich do have access to the same low tax rates paid by the poor. The first X dollars (don't remember the cutoff) are taxed at 15 percent for everyone, regardless of how much they ultimately earn. Same for the next Y dollars at 28 percent, Z dollars at 33 percent, etc. It's not as if the system says "Oops, you're $1 over the cutoff, so all of your income is now taxed at 28 percent instead of 15."

On the issue of so-and-so pays much more in taxes than someone else, I'm finding that it tends to be a crock. I wish I could find this damn chart I'm about to refer to (I'm reasonably certain I saw it in last week's Business Week), but the aggregate federal tax load is a lot flatter than I would have thought. The study split the population into five quintiles. The bottom and the top had the highest effective tax rates (18 and 19 percent; don't remember which had which). The middle three paid the least, ranging from 14 percent to 16 percent. So, one could argue that the tax system is both progressive and regressive. One could also argue that the rate structure isn't working that well, either, since the upper quintile, which has marginal rates in the 30-something percentages, is paying far less than that, while the bottom quintile, which is supposed to be paying 15 percent, is paying more.

24 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

JF:

The poor are poor. They're fucked as it is. Maybe I'm being hypocritical, but I don't care if we tax the poor at all.

25 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

Don, its a lot of time and work to dig up all these stats and links for you and I dont have them right now, but will let you know if I quickly find some. When I speak about europe being light years ahead, Im talking mainly about northern europe, including the scandinavian countries. The main difference between the US and northern europe is the implementation of eco-legislation. The US does have some wonderful environmental organizations, but very few eco-laws. I admire certain Americans for striving to bring ecology forward, even though its not required by law - thats real triple bottom line thinking at its best. But laws are necessary and we have them here. In Germany we have a very high ecotax - I once saw a study that claimed that roughly 80% of gas price goes to ecotax. whether good or bad, it exists. (and its even higher in the UK, Netherlands and Belgium) Recycling is a law in many n. european countries. Building codes are strict to save energy. Environmental practice is heavily subsidized and rewarded ($) here. and in the case of wind energy, that subsidizing is starting to pay off - Ive read that Germany provides the world with 25% of its wind-generated energy. Denmark , 50%. They have less space, less land and less resources so they must have laws. Theres really no choice. Scandinavian countries are even further than the germans in many cases, and thats why they have such big mouths about environmental issues.

Hurley is right when he says the main problem is consumtion. Its extremely high in the states, compared to many european countries. There need to be laws put in place to reduce consumtion. This is also one of the reasons that Germany is less economically competitive - they have many eco-laws which hinder businesses revenues. Its also one of the reason companies would rather relocate to eastern europe where there are no laws.

American mentality would most likely rebel against the loss of such freedoms, but the loss of certain freedoms in this case means more life quality for all.

25 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

let me add that when I first moved here, I was constantly pissed about the eco-laws because they were so strict and they affected my everyday life. My american mentality didnt like being restricted and controled and lets face it, its expensive - you literally feel it in your pocket. (our state, NRW, is stricter than other states because we have the largest industrial & most populated region in Germany) But now I realize why they exist and what this country would be like without them.

26 Jan 2003 | hurley said...

The US does have some wonderful environmental organizations, but very few eco-laws.

Well, at the federal level we've got the National Environmental Policy Act (passed in 1970!); The Clean Water Act; the Clean Air Act; the Safe Drinking Water Act; the Endangered Species Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Superfund (for cleaning up hazardous waste sites); the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (also controls pesticides); to name just some of the big ones. We have energy-efficiency building codes in the US as well, enforced by most of the states.

A lot of the states and municipalities have recycling laws. Seattle recycles more than 40 percent of its solid waste, for example, and there are national goals to increase recycling across the country to 50 percent or more.

Anyway, my point is that the US does in fact have quite strong environmental laws. We just get more attention for the things that we're not doing: for example our lack of serious greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, and the fact that the price of gasoline here is still less than that of bottled water. People argue that we need to keep the price of gasoline low because it's a big country and high prices would penalize people who have to drive long distances, but obviously if people had to pay $4 or $5 per gallon of gas we'd start putting more money into alternative forms of transportation. But the public and industry resistance to such taxes is so high that it would be political suicide for any leader to propose them, so it doesn't happen.

Ecotaxes are a good idea and could be valid political options if they are used to reduce taxes on things that governments should encourage. If you increase eco-taxes and decrease income taxes, for example, that would be a good thing -- as long as you can provide exemptions to poor people who might be unfairly burdened by ecotaxes.

27 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

ok, Hurley, youve got basics. But every developed country has safe drinking water laws, endangered species laws, food & drug laws, etc. Your drinking water wouldnt be legal in Germany however, because of the high arsnic and chlorine allowance. Im not saying the US is awful but I wouldnt call thier policies "strong" either. The "strong" US eco efforts come from non-profits like the Nature Conservancy, and that is really something to be proud of, but its not law.

People have less of a problem with your low gas prices, as they do with the lack of ecotaxes. Youre right that Americas infrastructure makes it difficult to become less dependant on gas, while Europes makes it easy. But letting developers continue to build however they want & wherever they want isnt exactly helping things. Doesnt city & urban planning fit into the eco-equation? Again, Im not saying that the EU is perfect, Im only saying they have much stronger environmental laws accross the board than the US.

For example, the EU has new laws that have to be carried out by each EU member, ontop of the already existing national laws, like the EU Water Directives. By the year 2015 all EU bodies of water (above and below ground) have to be in "good" condition, (what good stands for look under: EU Water Framework Directive) Otherwise EU members are penalized. This system, believe it or not was started by the Brits in 1997. For countries like Sweden, its fairly easy but Germany is struggling. Theyre sitting in the middle of Europe - not only do they have 82 million german inhabitants, but all of Europe uses thier waterways, freeways and railways.

heres a good link to find out more:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/index_en.htm

27 Jan 2003 | hurley said...

Your drinking water wouldnt be legal in Germany however, because of the high arsnic and chlorine allowance.

The "precautionary principle" definitely carries more weight in Europe than in the US. The allowable levels of pollutants in the US are typically based on scientific risk analysis (with factors of uncertainty built in), although of course politics, economics, and industry pressure get involved as well. But EPA knows that environmental groups like NRDC, Environmental Defense, and Sierra Club will sue if it can be shown that standards are not strong enough to protect public health, so they do their best to make the limits scientifically defensible. In Europe, there tends to be less tolerance of risk and there's a lot of public pressue for lower limits.

Doesnt city & urban planning fit into the eco-equation?

Definitely important, and here in the US that is pretty much left to the cities and states. The result is a patchwork, with some places doing a great job of moving toward sustainability and others going to hell: just look at Vermont and New Hampshire, for example. Vermont has strong statewide development laws, a ban on billboards, and strong public support for environmental protection. It's one of the most environmentally pristine states in the country. Neighboring New Hampshire leaves zoning and development regulation up to individual towns. Much of New Hampshire has been ruined this way; the only good parts left are those where towns have decided to preserve their character.

27 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

Hurley youre very well informed - who do you work for? ;-) Unfortunately, states like Colorado and Vermont arent vacation targets for international tourists so they see very little of the states which are well kept. (on second thought, maybe thats a good thing) although Colorado has gone downhill bigtime. Its really sad.

27 Jan 2003 | hurley said...

Hurley youre very well informed - who do you work for? ;-)

Right now I work for an environmental consulting firm, but for most of the past 14 years or so I was an environmental journalist, focusing mainly on climate change and ozone depletion. And, like any journalist, I can sound like I know what I'm talking about, even when I really don't. ;-)

27 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

The allowable levels of pollutants in the US are typically based on scientific risk analysis

While that's true, they are also somewhat based on lobyists' opinions. ;o)

Of course, there's the simply argument, why allow ANY arsenic? We tend to let economics beat environmental issues most of the time when enacting laws...which is what I get bummed about.

Look at Bush's push to eliminate logging studies before allowing loggers to log national forests. Things like that are purely economically driven. Loggers need work so let's give them some trees to cut down. Those types of decisions scare me.

Definitely important, and here in the US that is pretty much left to the cities and states.

To an extent. It's fair to say that city planners have little real say in things these days. Most of this is now dictated by the developers. And the developers for the most part could care less about environment. Urban sprawl is a major eco (and economic, for that matter) problem in this country. Urban sprawl, alone, is one of the largest contributors to our overconsumption of resources.

The result is a patchwork, with some places doing a great job of moving toward sustainability and others going to hell

Did anyone see the PBS special on Urban Sprawl? It was a great show and basically summed the above up quite well. Some are doing great jobs at it, while most, sadly, are ignoring it for now.

Hurley...can you share your employeers name? Sounds like a great job. (I'm slowly drifting that way in interests...maybe leading to a career change at some point.)

27 Jan 2003 | hurley said...

Hurley...can you share your employeers name?

Not that it has any bearing on this discussion, but it's ICF Consulting. Of course all disclaimers apply (i.e., I don't speak for my employer or any of my clients when I post on this forum, which I do on my personal time. I work at home and not always on a regular schedule!).

One of the many good place to look for environmental jobs--including Web development stuff--is the Green Dream Jobs site:

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/jobs/

27 Jan 2003 | blake said...

the press has is wrong. most suv's(including gm's suburban,yukon xl) do not weight 6,000 lbs., so they don't qualify for the irs $25,000 deduction.

27 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

Thanks for the link, Hurley...great resource!

27 Jan 2003 | fajalar said...

Look at Bush's push to eliminate logging studies before allowing loggers to log national forests. Things like that are purely economically driven. Loggers need work so let's give them some trees to cut down. Those types of decisions scare me.

I agree. People need work. Some people happen to be loggers. But just because they are loggers doesn't mean we should just blankly allow them to log.

Though, while I support having studies done before such impacts happen, I also think more force should be put on change from the consumer point of view (as in stop buying things that support clear cutting (granted a simplistic scenario)). And that means changing minds and habits.

27 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

But aren't houses made of wood? Isn't wood renewable? What's the alternative? ... stuff made of plastic?

Asking.

27 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

Wood's renewable, but it tends not to renew nearly as fast as it's consumed.

There are other construction methods for housing, as well. Steel, for one. Of course, steel production involves other environmental issues.

Like most things, there's a balance to be struck in the middle, and it's unlikely it will ever be hit because no one makes money or political progress by hitting the middle. Advocacy groups stay in business by using scare tactics. Chambers of Commerce, manufacturing associations and the like act as if any environmental regulation is going to result in the end of life as they know it, and they scare businesses into giving them money that way. And yet, we haven't lost jobs - on a net basis - because of environmental regs. Environmental groups act as if anything other than total protection is going to result in the apocolypse, and they scare like-minded people into giving them money that way. And yet, we have made huge improvements: drinking water is in better shape, the air's cleaner than it has been since they've been able to measure such things, there's more forested land in the northeastern part of the US than there was in colonial times, etc.

28 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

But aren't houses made of wood? Isn't wood renewable? What's the alternative?
---
brick. it holds heat in the winter and keeps it out in the summer. Its the best material for energy saving. (as far as I know)

btw, nice site Hurley. Very impressive.

28 Jan 2003 | hurley said...

btw, nice site Hurley. Very impressive.

Thanks, I'll pass that on to the people who designed and developed the site...I had nothing to do with it myself!

28 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Brick's not bad. It only holds heat if it's insulated on the *outside*, so the pretty brick isn't noticeable.

But won't work in a seimic area. Neither will steel. Reinforced concrete (disclaimer: my father and grandfather invented the machines to cut and bend rebar, and I have a software "interest" in this field) is the answer. Again, insulated on the outside.

Steve -- got proof of that claim that wood is consumed faster than it's renewed?

Finally, Earthships are gorgeous. Wonder what the genius Amory Lovins would say ( www.rmi.org)?

28 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

Why won't steel work in a seismic area? Especially since that's what's used to reinforce concrete, isn't it? (Seriously, I have no clue on this stuff.)

As for proof that wood is consumed faster than it's renewed: Common sense, Don. If I cut down a tree to use it for wood, unless I use it really slowly, I'm going to run out before whatever tree I planted to replace the one I cut down grows to maturity or to a point where it has enough wood to be useful. I doubt many people are spreading out the lifespan of lumber use from a given amount of trees over the 15-20 years, minimum, it takes to get the new trees to be worth cutting.

There are ways of getting around this via rotational plantings and that sort of thing, and some companies do make use of this. However, most lumber companies are too impatient to make the investment of time and money in planting and harvesting in an orderly manner and would rather just go find the nearest stand of big trees and knock them down.

28 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Steve -- steel twists and falls during earthquakes. That's why Taiwan ROC uses as much rebar as the United States.

If I use lumber at the rate of, say, 10 acres a year, then I would only need 200 acres to keep myself covered. No big deal.

My own *very* limited involvement with the lumber industry is that it is doing a great job of keep forests vibrant. YMMV, etc etc.

28 Apr 2003 | canadian postal code said...

steel is too soft, will bend and teist like play-do.

27 Jul 2003 | John Whitley said...

On the 'environmental scare', read the astonishing chapter from Larry Abram's book, 'THE GREENING', which details the elite's game-plan for using the IMF, the World Bank, etc. to drive into indebtedness, then bankrupt, then threaten Second and Third World countries with continued denial of any further funding unless they consent to assign title to their most valiable mineral and land resources to the new, privately-owned, 'World Conservation Bank'!

Brazil has already been coerced into surrendering ownership of the Amazon Basin, and its vast and invaluable rain forests.

You can read this astonishing chapter at http://www.survivalistskills.com/greening.htm.

There's a substantial archive of other fascinating and invaluable 'New World Order Intelligence Update' articles on the New World Order at http://www.survivalistskills.com/sect22.htm and archived also at http://www.rarehistorybooks.com/NWOLINKS.HTM. The 'NWOIU' site itself is currently being substantially up-dated, but these archived articles are well worth reading.

13 Nov 2003 | Debt Consolidation said...

Useful Creditor info: Creditors recognize that people who enter a debt consolidation program are trying to repay their obligations in good faith. Creditors are more willing to extend favorable terms to such clients in the hope that they(the creditor) will avoid the significant expense of turning the account over to a collections firm or avoid an extended drawn out process if the account holder goes through the expense of declaring bankruptcy.

20 Nov 2003 | car insurance information said...

can we pollute any more than we are now?

13 Jan 2004 | logo said...

Mein Hobby ist es Gästebücher zu besuchen. Das ist immer ganz interessant und widerspiegelt so, was die Leute im Internet wirklich denken. War auch interessant bei Dir ! Bis zum nächsten Mal. All The Best OfNew Year. Sorry for my english i'am from Germany.