Taxes, tax cuts, economy... my thoughts. [Archive] - WebRats Fun and stupidity at its best!!

View Full Version : Taxes, tax cuts, economy... my thoughts.

09-07-2008, 06:55 PM

I'm starting to think that arguing about taxation is like winning the Special Olympics.

This might actually be my last thread regarding politics until after the election...

I'm all for tax cuts. I mean, who isn't? However, it seems that if the government was run more like a household, there would be some type of order on what to do next. Call me crazy, but it makes sense to me to cut down on wasteful spending, and get government streamlined, before you start giving tax cuts away. Hell, if the national debt wasn't there our currency would be worth so much more, you wouldn't need to push for tax cuts. But every single president who runs on tax cuts and gets elected seems to get us more and more into debt. I know the problem is with both Dems and Reps in office, but it has just seemed to me over the years that the debt has increased more while a Republican was in office. With that being said, I'm perfectly ok with someone like McCain being in office if he can actually fix things. What I'm not ok with is if he gets elected and does help in that area while also fucking us over with lifting the ban on offshore drilling and not pushing for energy independence.

I think most of you know my position on not wanting the oil companies to get their way, but if not, here's a recap:

1) Oil companies are not looking out for us. They are looking out for their own pockets, and if that means promising us good times for a few years by lowering prices - they will... but I KNOW that after a few years of lower gas prices and less American focus on alternative energies, they will fuck us bad. REALLY BAD.

2) When car companies exist like APTERA (http://aptera.com/), this country needs these companies to not get buried under the shit oil companies might say if the bans are lifted (which seems to be the case if either gets elected). Why can they make a 150+ mpg car and Honda, Toyota, Nissan, GM, and others can't even come close to 80? And the funny thing is that not only is it super efficient, I also think it looks a lot closer to the car of the future since current car companies seem to want to stick with the same old boxy look.

So hopefully when whoever gets elected, we as a country will be able to tell the oil companies to go fuck themselves while also raising the value of the US Dollar by getting rid of the debt. And for as long as I can remember, getting rid of the debt has NEVER been accomplished with a Republican President, so for that alone, I'm leaning towards Obama.

*A little off subject, but since it's my own thread I suppose it's ok, but here are the things that I'm putting my focus on for the upcoming election:

1) Debt. It affects the country more then most care to admit, and yet nobody talks about it. The economy is great a great talking point and all, but how about using some of the taxes you collect and pay that shit off?!?!

2) Alternative Energy. As long as we are dependent on oil, this country will never truly be out from under the boot of powerful oil companies.

3) Education. Forget all the bullshit of throwing money at the problem and hoping it gets better. I have said it before and I'll say it again... this country needs to focus on education almost more then anything else. Want to know who can fix the economy? Smart people. Want to know who can find creative ways of making this country energy self sufficient? Smart people. Because of that, I'd like to see teachers unions go bye-bye. Let's judge teachers based on merit, and how about we finally pay them what they deserve?!

4) Long term solutions. This means that we don't pick sides in the middle east or elsewhere, unless it's the right choice. As in, let's pick the side that's right, and not the side that's "right now". This also means that we have a plan for the energy grid of America and the future direction of transportation for consumers and businesses. 30 mpg cars just aren't cutting it anymore, when the technology exists now to put 200 mpg cars on the road. Oh, and I know that coal power plants are bad (just ask the air above China), but if we do move more towards nuclear, I want to know that the spent rods are going to be safe and shielded... and not in my backyard. ;=)

I'm sure I can think of more things, but right now I need to go get groceries... hopefully less then my last visit when I dropped $130, but I doubt it.

licupssy

09-07-2008, 08:51 PM

Not what I would really call practical or affordable. Not only is the innital cost way to high for a small vehicle that only goes 120 round trip but also charging the 10KWh battery pack is really going to increase your monthly electric bill. Then there is the possible $3000 battery replacement every 2 to so years(just guessing using reference to the battery pack used in the Camry hybrid). Just think what the large SUV model will cost.

Select the Aptera model (All Electric or Plug-In Electric Hybrid):
All Electric
This drive option will be the first Aptera to go into production late in 2008. It is powered by an electric drive train and will get you around town to the tune of up to 120 miles depending on your driving conditions. At night you simply plug the Aptera into any standard 110 volt outlet and in just a few hours you will have a fully charged vehicle and the best part of all? You'll never have to stop at another gas station! The approximate cost of this option will be $27,000.

Plug-In Electric Hybrid
This option will not be available until early in 2010. It is powered by an electric drive train as well, but is assisted by a fuel efficient gasoline powered generator which continually recharges your batteries stretching your range significantly. In typical driving you may achieve the equivalent of 300 miles per gallon and you will have range far beyond any passenger vehicle available today. The approximate cost of this option will be $30,000.

thecowboy

09-07-2008, 09:16 PM

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Huh? No mention of the president's role in raising revenue?

joerockhead

09-07-2008, 10:21 PM

09-08-2008, 12:27 AM

Not what I would really call practical or affordable. Not only is the innital cost way to high for a small vehicle that only goes 120 round trip but also charging the 10KWh battery pack is really going to increase your monthly electric bill. Then there is the possible $3000 battery replacement every 2 to so years(just guessing using reference to the battery pack used in the Camry hybrid). Just think what the large SUV model will cost.
Yeah. A car that only gets 120 miles per trip would never be practical for me. Oh wait... I drive only 10 miles to work round trip. Ok, I also saw that with current costs in California, "filling up" is about $1-2 overnight. Now with someone like me, I could probably get to work and back the entire week before I need to drop $2 on the car. So the monthly electric bill REALLY isn't an issue. As far as the battery goes, this is from aptera's website:
What will be the battery life and cost replacement?

This depends largely on usage and if you have an "All Electric" or an "Electric Plug-in Hybrid" version of the Aptera. We will share these exact numbers when they become available closer to the start of Aptera production.
You're guessing about the battery replacement? I'd say lets wait and see before we start trying to discourage that option.

And for the large SUV model, two of the reasons they suck at mpg is that they are really large/heavy and horribly aerodynamic. I never said the aptera was the solution, but it's a hell of a better step in the right direction then anything the major car companies have done.

This whole thing isn't about the sticker shock... once this idea and technology is embraced and improved upon, it will be no different then what today's potential car buyer is seeing. So although $30,000 isn't cheap, to be able to drive a car that gets such good mpg, is a conversation piece, and saves you hundreds of dollars worth of gas a year, I wouldn't say it's all that expensive either. Remember licu... cost is relative, and some would love to get that car just for the stares they will get driving it around town.

09-08-2008, 12:38 AM

Well, I do have to agree with many items CD has stated, but first - If you start using numbering of Paragraphs, stay consistent. Don't start 1, then 2. and then change a paragraph, and go 1,2,3,etc. It makes it hard to comment.

I agree with much of the opening Paragraph. Whom ever wins must get us energy independent (and in less then 10 years), initiate refunds for Citizens getting clean energy (Solar / Wind) and working to get many more systems installed.

I also agree that our Debt is a huge Problem. Neither member has mentioned much about it. But getting Congress to spend more wisely is hard. Neither has done it while in Congress!!!!

I agree that the Oil companies only care about the $$

I also agree education needs to be more important, but not with Free college.
Families need to impress upon the children how important Education is. Getting a good start at a young age will help far more then Free College if the kids are not smart enough to get to College.
Fair enough. I'll try to do that if the opportunity arises again.

The debt... yes, both sides suck at this but I'd really like to see us with a surplus paying of the debt before we start cutting taxes. Because we all pretty much know that any cut in taxes right now can't be backed up by a decrease in congressional spending. Congress just doesn't roll that way.

Yep. Oil companies are evil. Just think of how many beneficial things we'd have today if they weren't buried or "eliminated" by the evil empire.

I never said college had to be free. I just know that there is a way this country can really make the education system shine, and I'm open to hear how it's gonna be done. Fixing the K-12 schools would be something I'd love to see in my lifetime... less talking back from students (starts at home!), less violence, more focus, more respect and pay for teachers, fewer to zero unions keeping bad teachers there, etc...

shiiboi

09-08-2008, 10:51 AM

I'm all for tax cuts. I mean, who isn't? However, it seems that if the government was run more like a household, there would be some type of order on what to do next.

The dilemma is always tax cuts for whom?

In unregulated free market capitalism, there is always a wholesale transfer of wealth from the many to the few (that's the definition of 'profit' isn't it?) When the wealth disparity becomes too great, the system collapses on itself (i.e. recessions, depressions).

Progressive tax systems were implemented during the FDR administration to capture some of the wealth concentration and pump it back into the economy, preferably spent on 'public' goods (things which the society needs, like infrastructure, but the free market doesn't provide). The hope was that public spending of some of the wealth rather than allowing it all to become ultra-concentrated in the hands of a few would prevent depressions. It worked pretty well for 40 years, actually.

But starting with the Reagan administration, the tax structure shifted to offload some of the taxation away from the wealthiest on to the middle class. Government spending was shifted from 'public' works to direct payments to private interests ('earmarks' 'corporate welfare'). The theory was that wealthy people had acquired their money because they were smart, and so were better equipped to spend their money in ways that would boost the economy than politicians.

So now, the tax system supports the capitalist wealth transfer from the many to the few again, and we have the same huge disparity in wealth between the richest 1% and the middle class that existed right before the great depression.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana 1905

2) When car companies exist like APTERA (http://aptera.com/),

Gee, it looks an awful lot like Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_Car) car, designed in 1933.

Similar cars were designed during the oil crisis in the 1970's.

And don't forget GM's EV1 from the 1990s.

And here we are again. Most of the patents for efficient, long-range rechargeable batteries are locked away in ExxonMobil's vaults where they will never see the light of day (ExxonMobil quietly bought the patents from their inventors during times of low fuel costs).

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana 1905

3) Education. ... I'd like to see teachers unions go bye-bye. Let's judge teachers based on merit, and how about we finally pay them what they deserve?!

The reason K-12 teachers are underpaid is because their salaries come out of school board budgets, which are derived from property taxes. Citizens with school-aged children believe in paying higher taxes for better schools. Everyone else in the community votes against school budget increases to prevent property tax increases.

Teachers' unions keep teacher pay from being even lower. In 'union-free' districts, salaries are extremely low and student performance even lower. Unions don't support teacher incompetence-- incompetent teachers stay employed either because they're politically connected, or the pay offered is too low to attract better teachers.

Sometimes local districts get so bad that a larger entity, i.e. the state steps in. When they take over the administration becomes bloated with patronage jobs and some well-connected teachers get big raises. All the other teachers salaries remain low and there's rarely ever any improvement in student outcomes.

Private schools fare better than public schools in student outcomes, but teacher salaries are rarely better (and often worse) than public schools. Calls for eliminating the public school system and privatizing k-12 education forget that public education was implemented specifically because the free market failed to provide universal education.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana 1905

4) Long term solutions. This means that we don't pick sides in the middle east or elsewhere, unless it's the right choice. As in, let's pick the side that's right, and not the side that's "right now".

Yeah, that'll happen. The trend has been in the direction of extremely short-term, and often short-sighted thinking. Corporations used to make 5-year plans, now they focus on the coming fiscal quarter. Politicians used to plan for the next generation, now they plan for the next election.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana 1905

We need someone with a 'big picture' world view, but where will he/she come from?

ravenshrike

09-08-2008, 04:31 PM

thecowboy

09-08-2008, 06:53 PM

I think he's saying that GM has the designs, not the patents, as in: it would be patented if gm didn't buy them. This also assumes there is no one else in the country (or world) who could come up with the same design.

For the record, I don't believe any of it.

09-08-2008, 09:18 PM

The dilemma is always tax cuts for whom?
I didn't say give tax cuts... I just said that I like them. But if my options were to get one and have things get worse, or not get one and the debt is paid off... then sign me up for that smaller debt.

The reason K-12 teachers are underpaid is because their salaries come out of school board budgets, which are derived from property taxes. Citizens with school-aged children believe in paying higher taxes for better schools. Everyone else in the community votes against school budget increases to prevent property tax increases.

Teachers' unions keep teacher pay from being even lower. In 'union-free' districts, salaries are extremely low and student performance even lower. Unions don't support teacher incompetence-- incompetent teachers stay employed either because they're politically connected, or the pay offered is too low to attract better teachers.

Sometimes local districts get so bad that a larger entity, i.e. the state steps in. When they take over the administration becomes bloated with patronage jobs and some well-connected teachers get big raises. All the other teachers salaries remain low and there's rarely ever any improvement in student outcomes.

Private schools fare better than public schools in student outcomes, but teacher salaries are rarely better (and often worse) than public schools. Calls for eliminating the public school system and privatizing k-12 education forget that public education was implemented specifically because the free market failed to provide universal education.
That's cause nobody wants to give up anything for the common good. This is a society of "me, me, me." Everyone knows that we need good teachers, police officers, and firemen, but nobody wants to pay for it, until the shit hits the fan. Hell, I remember years ago when the bridge collapsed, and improving the infrastructure and bridges were a top priority... for a while! Then you have a few months ago, both McCain and Clinton talking about the gas tax holiday which basically cut taxes... that go for infrastructure! It was about the most retarded thing I ever heard, but people are so short sighted that most forgot about why those taxes were (and still are) important. I've even heard most high level economists talk about how improving your country's infrastructure is one of the best things you can do since the money stays "in-house" along with the benefits of such repairs.

Yeah, that'll happen. The trend has been in the direction of extremely short-term, and often short-sighted thinking. Corporations used to make 5-year plans, now they focus on the coming fiscal quarter. Politicians used to plan for the next generation, now they plan for the next election.

We need someone with a 'big picture' world view, but where will he/she come from?
I have no idea, but neither Obama nor McCain seem to be the answer, and that is pretty saddening.

joerockhead

09-08-2008, 09:36 PM

......Politicians used to plan for the next generation, now they plan for the next election........We need someone with a 'big picture' world view, but where will he/she come from?

This is so true. But if someone came up with the long term, then they would not even be in the running. No one wants to wait that long. Greed.

Also, now if a politician says it will take 10 years, it is because they are gone if it fails.

............I have no idea, but neither Obama nor McCain seem to be the answer, and that is pretty saddening.

This is very sad but true too. :ugh:

My only question - Should I have to pay taxes for a School system, when I have NO kids at all?

shiiboi

09-09-2008, 10:34 AM

My only question - Should I have to pay taxes for a School system, when I have NO kids at all?
That depends on whether you have enough cash saved in your mattress to support yourself in your old age without social security and if any private retirement savings you have in stocks/mutual funds turn into worthless paper.

No matter how 'independent' you consider yourself, modern humans are entirely 'interdependent' on each other. You depend on an economically successful society to insure that there will be food on the supermarket shelves when you are hungry, that there will be electricity to power your lights and a fuel supply to heat your home. Short-sighted selfishness will always come back to bite you in the ass later.

Helping to pay for education is your insurance policy that the next generation entering the work force will be able to sustain the society you depend on for your very survival when you are no longer able to actively participate.

shiiboi

09-09-2008, 10:50 AM

Whohooo, conspiracy theory times. Care to show us those patents? Being patents, they are public records. Unless you're positing that they paid the inventors not to patent and use their inventions, in which case anybody else could file a patent on the same subject matter. This is reminiscent of the 100 mpg carb, which would violate the laws of thermodynamics.
I suggest you find and watch this documentary:
"Who Killed the Electric Car" (http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/)

It's about the GM EV1 electric car & how the oil companies lobbied it out of existence. Inventors who registered patents on products (including batteries) to extend its range etc. are interviewed and explain how when interest in alternative vehicles died-- the only option they had was to sell their companies and patents to Texaco-- who promptly shut them down and locked the patents away.

No conspiracy theories here. Large companies in all industries routinely buy up technologies that may become competition for themselves in the future in order to shut them down. In economics 101 it's considered acting in one's 'rational self-interest.'

joerockhead

09-09-2008, 10:53 PM

..........Helping to pay for education is your insurance policy that the next generation entering the work force will be able to sustain the society you depend on for your very survival when you are no longer able to actively participate.

Hahaha, BULLSHIT!

Look at the schools today! they are more worried about grades, then educating students! Most kids are not getting any education, and also, why the hell are Parents not being an active participant anymore??? Most expect the schools to teach them, and the parents buy them Video games!!!

In all reality, I do not mind, as it is needed. My Neighbors little girl needs to the opportunity to get an education. But it sure as hell will not help my Social Security issue. Nor most anything else. All that crap is screwed via Congress.

No, My Military retirement will be a part of my income, as well as my 401Ks and stock....as long as it is not taxed to hell and back!!!!

BackdoorJesus

09-10-2008, 02:40 PM

2) When car companies exist like APTERA (http://aptera.com/), this country needs these companies to not get buried under the shit oil companies might say if the bans are lifted (which seems to be the case if either gets elected). Why can they make a 150+ mpg car and Honda, Toyota, Nissan, GM, and others can't even come close to 80? And the funny thing is that not only is it super efficient, I also think it looks a lot closer to the car of the future since current car companies seem to want to stick with the same old boxy look.
Actually that looks kinda cool...and since they are only about 30 miles down the road from me and the price is relatively decent, it would not be too outrageous to consider picking up one of those bad boys sometime next year when I am considering replacing my current beloved Cadillac gas hog anyway. Only problem is that I don't know how slow their actual production is going to be & I don't really want to hang out on a waiting list until they can step it up. Like so many "alternate energy" solutions, it needs to be a reality that people can move on NOW, not in some utopian future.

ddoubleez

09-10-2008, 07:20 PM

Europe has had cars that make 70 to 90 mpg for over a decade... Seems that in the land of the free, we do not have these choices, because oil companies do not want 350 million Americans to purchase cars that will use less breaks and break pads, rubber for tires and of course less gas.

http://www.toyota-europe.com/cars/new_cars/aygo/fullspecs.aspx

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/06/renaultrsquos_n.html

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/citroen/index30.html

The new Vauxhall Corsa has already caused quite a sensation with its bold styling and impressive road manners, but now the wraps have come off the long awaited performance flagship VXR version – the lightweight turbo 1.6-litre engine of the VXR produces 192PS (189.3 bhp) and more than 260Nm to give it a top speed of 140 mph (225 km/h) and acceleration of 0-60 in 6.8 seconds. Despite its wild performance, the Corsa VXR promises to be an affordable car to run, with surprising fuel economy on extra-urban routes of 44.1mpg (5.3 liters/100 km) according to official figures and the combined fuel economy figure is 35.8mpg (6.57 liters/100 km).

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/jan2007/bw20070108_991099.htm?campaign_id=rss_topStories

VW has a tandem 2 seater that will make 258 mpg as a concept car, and admits that it will probably never make it to north american shores...

As far as taxes go, NO ONE WANTS more taxes, just as no one wants to eat vegetables instead of ice cream, but with the value of the dollar shrinking, and more and more people using roads and other services you can not expect to be responsible to cut taxes..... All americans say they are proud of their country and even believe it is the best place in the world, but when it comes to taxes you can not find anyone that wants to pay for all that they have...... Taxes also immediately go back into the economic system, where as the tax cuts go into an offshore account of what ever CEO is pocketing the savings, where it goes to another economy or stays and collects interest in another market......

Most corporations, including the vast majority of foreign companies doing business in the United States, pay no income taxes, according to a Government Accountability Office report released Tuesday.

During the eight-year period covered by the report, 72 percent of foreign-owned corporations went at least one year without owing taxes, and the same was true for 55 percent of domestic corporations.

http://www.truthout.org/article/most-corporations-dont-pay-income-taxes

START TAXING THE RICH, the only thing that trickles down in this economy is the value of the dollar.....

BackdoorJesus

09-10-2008, 07:55 PM

Well, cars in Europe are one thing, but these cars are made 30 miles away from me. And for a deposit of 500 bucks I can be on the waiting list to get one hopefully by mid-2010...I think I can deal with that, inasmuch as that comes with a lot of nifty standard extras I had on my Caddy XLR like keyless entry/ignition, GPS nav screen, decent audio, and solar assisted A/C & heat. All that without the XLR's 17 mpg...and for about 40k less in purchase price. Granted 0-60 in ten seconds is significantly slower than 0-60 in five seconds, but we're talking about less than a tenth of the operating cost, still buying American and supporting local business to boot. Yeah I think I could get on board with that real easy.

licupssy

09-10-2008, 08:38 PM

Yeah. A car that only gets 120 miles per trip would never be practical for me. Oh wait... I drive only 10 miles to work round trip. OK, I also saw that with current costs in California, "filling up" is about $1-2 overnight. Now with someone like me, I could probably get to work and back the entire week before I need to drop $2 on the car. So the monthly electric bill REALLY isn't an issue. As far as the battery goes, this is from apt era's website:

You're guessing about the battery replacement? I'd say lets wait and see before we start trying to discourage that option.

And for the large SUV model, two of the reasons they suck at mpg is that they are really large/heavy and horribly aerodynamic. I never said the apt era was the solution, but it's a hell of a better step in the right direction then anything the major car companies have done.

This whole thing isn't about the sticker shock... once this idea and technology is embraced and improved upon, it will be no different then what today's potential car buyer is seeing. So although $30,000 isn't cheap, to be able to drive a car that gets such good mpg, is a conversation piece, and saves you hundreds of dollars worth of gas a year, I wouldn't say it's all that expensive either. Remember licu... cost is relative, and some would love to get that car just for the stares they will get driving it around town.

If your looking for a conversation piece I recommend the Tesla Roadster. At a mere $100,000 it's a niece toy to bop around town in and the lithium-ion battery is a pittance at $20,000. Actually it is what is needed in a 4 door family version. The 220 mile range is almost what I would need to visit my daughter. True, she's only 212 miles but were she lives you might need a 5 mile long extension cord if you run out of juice a bit early. I don't even need the top speed of 125 mph. I could live with it doing 80 to 90 mph.

The Xebra at $12,000 would be nice. But with a maximum speed of 40 and distance of 25 miles round trip makes it only viable for a few thin people(4 passenger ~ 303 lbs). It would be a nice city car but getting parking would create a lot of fights with people needing to park in-front of their townhouse to charge their batteries.

The battery price of $3000 I spoke of was what I read in an article on the 2007 Camry Hybrid after my wife bought her standard $2006 version. I just read today on the dropping prices on Honda and Toyota so I may have been under estimating the price. Since they are Ni-mh the Lithium-Ion will most likely cost a bit higher depending on size. I don't know if that includes labor and the cost of disposal of the old battery.

Just a few weeks ago, the cost was much higher than it is now. As demand rose, hybrid manufacturers realized that if the prices didn’t come down, things could get ugly. So Honda and Toyota slashed battery prices to $1,968-$3,000 – a substantial savings over what they were prior to June 1, 2008 ($3,400-$5,500).

I'm all for electric cars but you got to realize that the price has to avail itself to the people that will benefit most by them. Otherwise like at the end of the gas shortage of the '70s you'll have poor people driving around in Lincoln Continentals getting 4 miles to the gallon. Poor people will be sucking up them large SUVs. Paying $10 a gallon to drive back and forth to their low paying job in the suburbs.

93crawler

09-10-2008, 09:28 PM

HBo2xQIWHiM

I saw this movie trailer today, while on the Apple homepage, it seems to fit the context of the thread.

ravenshrike

09-10-2008, 11:30 PM

ddoubleez

09-11-2008, 06:28 PM

Sorry, no. The reason those cars never make it to America is because of all the safety redesign and extra weight they need packed on in order to be sold in America.

Really? Hmmmm, I am confused?

High standards of safety

As on the Audi A8, the ASF principle constitutes an ideal basis for high passive safety. This high-strength frame structure surrounds the occupants to protect them like a cage, impact energy is converted particularly effectively and the occupant cell retains its shape to the maximum possible extent.

With two airbags at both the front and sides, seat belt tensioners and belt force limiters, plus the optional SIDEGUARD head airbags that are available for all seats - a unique feature on a car of this class - the Audi A2 assures supreme standards of safety for all its occupants. A pioneering feature in this class of car: head-level airbags were until now only available in larger cars with a very full equipment specification.

Lightweight and safe
In addition to its low weight, the Audi Space Frame of the Audi A2 provides an ideal basis for optimum occupant protection: it is made from high-strength aluminium profiles and surrounds the driver and passenger like a protective cage which dissipates impact energy highly effectively.

The three-litre version is no exception in that it comes with the Audi A2's complete range of safety equipment: the driver, front-passenger and side airbags, the belt tensioners and belt force limiters are of course included as standard. The SIDEGUARD head airbag system is in addition available as an equipment option.

The Audi A2 1.2 TDI's active driving safety features also contribute towards this high standard. The latest generation of anti-lock brake system, in conjunction with electronic brake-force distribution (EBD) and the electronic stability program (ESP), defines the standard in this class.

FYI, ultra light and compact cars in the EU have to meet safty standards that exceed cars made in the US..... European and Japaneese auto makers raised safty features more often and almost always before american auto makers. American auto makers raise standards when foreign markets change standards, as to not loose sales.....

tRKTGHSCjsw

X6PqxKSEJVA

In addition, the austin cooper mini from 1968 to 1980 was a 1400 lb car and you can register it in nearly every state.......

shiiboi

09-12-2008, 10:58 AM

Sorry, no. The reason those cars never make it to America is because of all the safety redesign and extra weight they need packed on in order to be sold in America.

Your statement is technically accurate, but misleading.

The differing standards between US and Europe/Japan are mostly in the details, i.e., the color and placement of signal lights, the position of crash-test dummies in collision tests, passenger seatbelts. There's nothing in the standards difference that precludes building high fuel efficiency cars for the US market.

The time and expense of designing cars in compliance with the differing safety rules leads automakers to design and build each model for one specific market. They build high fuel-efficiency cars for Europe and Japan because the local laws require it, and those governments also impose high fuel taxes specifically to encourage car buyers to seek out such cars.

In the US, as ddoubleez pointed out, the auto makers don't make high-efficiency models for the US market because of the complex interrelationship among the varied financial interests in the car-making process, i.e., if making a certain model car requires a certain sort of tire, but the US tire makers don't make such tires available in this market because it's counter to their financial interests, if the auto insurance companies penalize buyers of lighter-weight cars with higher premiums, if the oil companies don't make the correct mixture of deisel fuel available, and if the US auto buyer prefers a gas-guzzling SUV or a high-performance sportscar over a fuel-efficient model, then the automakers profits in the US are tied to making more of the same-old same-old.

It will take government-mandated fuel efficiency standards to force everyone play nice-- but of course the oil companies' lobbyists are working overtime to make sure that doesn't happen.

shiiboi

09-14-2008, 01:14 PM

Not to beat a dead horse, but yesterday CSPAN televised a congressional hearing about the future of energy.

The only subject the oil company ceo's were willing to discuss was offshore oil drilling, and the tax money the US should spend building coastal infrastructure to support the new drilling sites. When questioned about the recent oil price bubble bid up by the futures market-- they diverted the question to how more price rises would be inevitable because of increasing demand from emerging economies. Their mantra was domestic drilling, more government subsidies.

Meanwhile, an MIT chemistry professor conducting research into energy alternatives insisted that gasoline prices in the US could be quickly forced down by 40 cents per gallon, simply by reducing the speed limit to 50mph.

A representative from a Google-sponsored study reported that they had successfully converted Google's company fleet of US domestic market 30mpg Fords and Toyotas to 70-90mpg using existing, proven technologies without violating any US safety standards.

A consensus among alternative fuel companies is that inconsistent US tax policy hinders development in their industries. The US gives tax credits or subsidies to an industry-- i.e., solar power, but for limited time spans, i.e., 2 years. When the credits/subsidies are up for renewal, oil company lobbyists successfully work to prevent their renewal. As a result, the alternative energy companies find it nearly impossible to get private investment capital.

So, to bring this issue back to taxation & the economy, you have to ask yourself this:

Has the free market provided you as a consumer with a range of cost-effective energy options supplied by a broad collection of competing companies? (No, of course not. A few monster-sized Oil companies gained control of the marketplace, and now dicate the terms to you.)

Which is a more rational solution going forward:

1. Pay a small increase in taxes to help develop the competitive alternative energy options which have been suppressed by big oil's near monopolistic control, insuring that you will have access to affordable and competitive energy options in the future.

or

2. Pay the same increase, but directly to oil companies' profits as energy prices continue to rise unchecked with the only guarantee being that the prices will continue to rise even more in the future.

You WILL pay more, it's just a matter of to whom, and what benefit you derive from your payment.

09-14-2008, 08:58 PM

Which is a more rational solution going forward:

1. Pay a small increase in taxes to help develop the competitive alternative energy options which have been suppressed by big oil's near monopolistic control, insuring that you will have access to affordable and competitive energy options in the future.

or

2. Pay the same increase, but directly to oil companies' profits as energy prices continue to rise unchecked with the only guarantee being that the prices will continue to rise even more in the future.

You WILL pay more, it's just a matter of to whom, and what benefit you derive from your payment.
That is basically the point I've been trying to make for a while. Thanks for wording it well.

ravenshrike

09-14-2008, 10:57 PM