• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A tax credit for a product means no one wants to buy it

Read Question


  • Total voters
    27
The whole point of the tax credit is help the environment, reduce foreign oil dependency, and promote environmental responsibility in this country. This is a national security issue and also a national issue because of the impact on the environment. Many of you probably don't favor the Mideast region and don't want to be dependent on oil from there. This tax credit helps reduce foreign oil dependency.

The free market is not a panacea, and does not care about the environment, only on maximizing profit. If it wasn't for regulation and the government, many of the products you use would contain lead, carcinogens, and other harmful chemicals. Companies would not bother to regulate their environmental impact and safety of their products because that costs money, and they could just hide or conceal any dangers from the consumer.

This tax break is not picking and choosing companies, its not picking LG over Mitsubishi, its treating all companies the same and its saying that this product will further our national interests than current products.

Again, many of you knock governmental regulation, but you enjoy the benefits of their protections, such as minimal acid rain and breathing relatively clean air with less SO2, CO, NO, and NO2. If catalytic converters weren't required by the government, car companies would probably not include them because they add to the cost. I doubt people would be environmentally conscious and purchase cars with catalytic converters too if they added to the cost.

I am a former nuke operator/Instrument tech/metrology tech, and can agree with Scarecrow and Opteron both, depending on points.
The free market SHOULD be the deciding factor on business decisions, but they still bear watching. When faced with the expense of disposing of waste products, it just seems to be too hard for too many businesses to dump their wastes in an environmentally safe manner. Speaking of golf carts, there is a business near my AZ home that routinely dumps battery acid right in plain sight. Anyone driving by can see the stained ground. That is blatant, and the guy should be jailed. But when I attempted to report it, I found the local agencies uninterested in such a small "spill". Seems there wasn't much money to be made from it. Years ago I saw a guy burning oil drained from transformers, he was recycling the metals and the oil was in his way. So he just poured it all in a barrel and burned it, in plain site of the freeway exit going into the center of Idaho Falls, Idaho. Don't know if there were PCB's in the oil or not, but again, try finding a govt agency that cares to do their job. So on the one hand we have those who don't mind polluting, and on the other hand we have govt that won't leave the comfort of their offices to look into dumping of hazardous wastes.
There needs to be serious prison time involved for those who would be so irresponsible.
 
Rush Limbaugh said this recently:

“However, you can get it for less — there's a $7,500 tax credit,” Limbaugh said with a sardonic tone on his Wednesday program. “Which means that Obama and the government are admitting that nobody wants this. Nobody wants it. We gotta give you a $7,500 discount. Why don't you try this, Mr. Obama, and the rest of you at Obama Motors: Just put it out there at 41 grand and let the market decide.”

Let's ignore for the time being that the Tesla Roadster and the Fisker Karma both eligible for the credit have large backlogs are eligible for the credit.

Do you agree that when the government offers a tax credit for a product, that means no one wants to buy it?

Well - if it costs $41,000 and people are discouraged from buying it because of that - then that means, yes, people aren't buying it.

But does that mean that people don't *want* to buy it? No - that just means that people *might* want to buy it but *can't* buy it because it's so damn expensive.

Thus - give an incentive - and maybe some people who want to buy it but can't would likely be more interested.

Rush, however, is saying that people don't *want* it - which isn't true . . .if people didn't *want* it then sales of various things wouldn't go *up* when these things are offered.

Rush is an idiot, afterall, with only a radio-program to listen to whilst driving. (That's what happens when people don't *want* to listen to you flap your lips)
 
Last edited:
Well - if it costs $41,000 and people are discouraged from buying it because of that - then that means, yes, people aren't buying it.

But does that mean that people don't *want* to buy it? No - that just means that people *might* want to buy it but *can't* buy it because it's so damn expensive.

Thus - give an incentive - and maybe some people who want to buy it but can't would likely be more interested.

Rush, however, is saying that people don't *want* it - which isn't true . . .if people didn't *want* it then sales of various things wouldn't go *up* when these things are offered.

Rush is an idiot, afterall, with only a radio-program to listen to whilst driving. (That's what happens when people don't *want* to listen to you flap your lips)

It appears that the sporty electric cars will sell well, but the boxy ugly ones won't....so is this a subsidy that supports ugly?:2razz:
 
I say I'm libertarian because it makes the MOST sense to me, amongst popular political groups. Could you list some faults in the Libertarian foundation? I'm wondering what you mean by flaws.
I guess maybe not so much flawed, but I believe libertarianism is not an optimal system. I am not an expert in libertarianism platform, but one thing is that libertarianism would result in monopolies in industry. A hands off approach would result in these monopolies who would then prevent competitors entering the market and also misuse their market power. Also, I'm not sure if environmental regulation is included in libertarianism, if its not, that would be a major detriment. Financial regulation is not included, and would probably result in excessive risk taking by financial companies. I don't agree with the isolationist foreign policy as well, but that one is debatable.

Another example is credit card companies, in the free market without any regulation, they all had high rates, excessive rules against the consumer, they could raise your rates anytime and without reason. It took regulation to curb their abuses.

There's some economic insight posted in this thread starting at page 24 and going to page 25.
 
Well - if it costs $41,000 and people are discouraged from buying it because of that - then that means, yes, people aren't buying it.

But does that mean that people don't *want* to buy it? No - that just means that people *might* want to buy it but *can't* buy it because it's so damn expensive.

If people AREN'T buying it at the offered price, then there's no DEMAND for the product at that price. While technically different than "not wanting it", the economic effect of not buying it is what's important.

Thus - give an incentive - and maybe some people who want to buy it but can't would likely be more interested.

Hello?

It's not the government's job to give incentives to people to buy a product. If GM wants to give people incenttive to buy a car, then GM has to implement a rebate program or simply cut the price, and the GM sees a cut in the profits on the vehicle. If GM has to cut the price to below cost, so that they're giving the cars away, the stockholders should stop the production of that model car.

This is called business.

The government should not be giving a big corporation a taxpayer subsidy.

Right, socialists?
 
I guess maybe not so much flawed, but I believe libertarianism is not an optimal system. I am not an expert in libertarianism platform, but one thing is that libertarianism would result in monopolies in industry.

Yes. You clearly haven't studied libertarianism.

Free market systems cannot generate coercive monopolies. Only non-free markets with government power interfering can do that.
 
Yes. You clearly haven't studied libertarianism.

Free market systems cannot generate coercive monopolies. Only non-free markets with government power interfering can do that.
Obviously, you have no idea what you're talking about and what libertarianism is because monopolies are generated many times in free markets. Go to the "Myths about Capitalism" thread and read up on all the ways you are wrong. Ever heard of the practice called "dumping"? Tell that to Andrew Carnegie and his steel monopoly.
 
It appears that the sporty electric cars will sell well, but the boxy ugly ones won't....so is this a subsidy that supports ugly?:2razz:

LOL

I'm still eyeing cost-issues, I loved the 80's so I could go boxy - but my 2006 GTO has some nice curves. :) LOL

Overall, though, for me to get rid of my guzzler SUV which I have only 10 months left to pay on (which I'm intending ot hack that down to 6) They'd have to make something that costs me practically nothing.
Which aint happening :)

My 2 tanks of gas a month VS $500.00/monthly payment for a new vehicle for the next 6 years = obvious selfish interest being preserved.


If people AREN'T buying it at the offered price, then there's no DEMAND for the product at that price. While technically different than "not wanting it", the economic effect of not buying it is what's important.



Hello?

It's not the government's job to give incentives to people to buy a product. If GM wants to give people incenttive to buy a car, then GM has to implement a rebate program or simply cut the price, and the GM sees a cut in the profits on the vehicle. If GM has to cut the price to below cost, so that they're giving the cars away, the stockholders should stop the production of that model car.

This is called business.

The government should not be giving a big corporation a taxpayer subsidy.

Right, socialists?

I definitely don't support the government doing what they've been doing - I agree with you on this. Such things should come *from* the company - not *from * the government and thusly *from* my taxes.

But - a basic fact of business is that to boost sales on a product a coupon, discount, rebate or other incentive is maybe 90% effective.
 
Obviously, you have no idea what you're talking about and what libertarianism is because monopolies are generated many times in free markets. Go to the "Myths about Capitalism" thread and read up on all the ways you are wrong. Ever heard of the practice called "dumping"? Tell that to Andrew Carnegie and his steel monopoly.

If that makes you feel better, you have the freedom to believe that.
 
LOL

I'm still eyeing cost-issues, I loved the 80's so I could go boxy - but my 2006 GTO has some nice curves. :) LOL

Overall, though, for me to get rid of my guzzler SUV which I have only 10 months left to pay on (which I'm intending ot hack that down to 6) They'd have to make something that costs me practically nothing.
Which aint happening :)

My 2 tanks of gas a month VS $500.00/monthly payment for a new vehicle for the next 6 years = obvious selfish interest being preserved.

Back during the first oil embargo, my neighbors were trading in paid for "gas guzzlers" for little japanese cars. I tried to talk some of them out of it, to no avail. Where I screwed up, tho, was not buying some of those gas guzzlers. There were some really nice high performance cars going for cheap....
 
Back during the first oil embargo, my neighbors were trading in paid for "gas guzzlers" for little japanese cars. I tried to talk some of them out of it, to no avail. Where I screwed up, tho, was not buying some of those gas guzzlers. There were some really nice high performance cars going for cheap....

If the CfC program was being offered *after* I paid off my truck I'd jump on it.
Sadly - tis not so. . .I kind of got stuck with it. . . but when the program was in swing I looked into ti - there just aren't very many option for large-family vehicles that qualify as 'efficient' - you have a lot of people = crappy gas mileage, no way around it.

If I could go back in time I'd get a different vehicle but it would be the same story - 5 years ago there were no fuel efficient or hybrids at the used carlot.
 
Rush is always wrong.

I am sorry, but this comment bothers me. It is impossible for someone to always be wrong. The moment Rush says something like "I had breakfast this morning" he was right about something.
 
If the CfC program was being offered *after* I paid off my truck I'd jump on it.
Sadly - tis not so. . .I kind of got stuck with it. . . but when the program was in swing I looked into ti - there just aren't very many option for large-family vehicles that qualify as 'efficient' - you have a lot of people = crappy gas mileage, no way around it.

If I could go back in time I'd get a different vehicle but it would be the same story - 5 years ago there were no fuel efficient or hybrids at the used carlot.


There was a time that most car makers offered up gas misers, but they just didn't sell very well. Those cars would have a small engine, manual overdrive transmission, manual steering, and very few options that added weight. Americans didn't want them at that time. Now most cars are fuel efficient, but too complicated repair wise, and too costly. What ever happened to SIMPLE?
 
Now most cars are fuel efficient, but too complicated repair wise, and too costly. What ever happened to SIMPLE?
The largest part of that has to do with the EPA emissions standards that forced the car companies to dump the carb and go to EFI.
 
The largest part of that has to do with the EPA emissions standards that forced the car companies to dump the carb and go to EFI.

Computer controlled EFI is a good thing, but mostly for emissions improvements. There was one item of old technology that could have been applied long before EFI that improved MPG a lot, and that is the overdrive transmission. Beats me why the govt had to force the car makers to do the right things. Long term results are good, though. Now we need to work on getting our buildings more energy efficient, and less polluting, but it can be done without tax credits or even new technology. We just need to have stricter building codes that are aimed at using existing building methods and materials to lessen the energy usage of buildings.
 
Computer controlled EFI is a good thing, but mostly for emissions improvements.
Well, yeah -- but that leads to the 'complication' you talked about.
 
Well, yeah -- but that leads to the 'complication' you talked about.
Comparing my 79 volare wagon with 318, 4bbl carb, auto trans, and 2.45 rear axle to my 95 dakota, with 318, EFI, auto trans with OD, and 3.55 rear axle, I got about the same mileage. The dakota axle ratio, with the tranny in OD, was effectivelly the same as the volare 2.45 ratio. Of course, the dakota had tighter emissions standards, but fact remains, you can get good MPG without EFI.
Both vehicles were almost the same in weight...
 
Back
Top Bottom