Congressman Paul Introduces Bill for Fuel Efficient Cars

[Feenix566]

Congressman Paul Introduces Bill for Fuel Efficient Cars

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Ron Paul is urging his colleagues in congress to cosponsor his legislation HR 1768 the Energy Efficient and Environmentally Friendly Automobile Tax Credit Act.

This legislation would help Americans spend less on gas and reduce pollution by providing a tax credit of up to $2,000 when they sell or trade in a car and obtain a vehicle that has at least 20% higher average fuel economy than their previous vehicle. It also creates a federal tax deduction for any state or local taxes paid on the purchase or the more fuel-efficient automobile, and makes interest on loans to purchase the more fuel-efficient vehicle tax deductible.

“Providing tax deductions and tax credits to make it easier for Americans to purchase fuel-efficient automobiles is a win for American consumers, a win for the environment, and a win for those of us who favor free market solutions to pollution and high gas prices,” Congressman Paul stated in a letter to his congressional colleagues.

Congressman Paul has frequently made the case for the free market and private property rights in protecting the environment, and has signed the Americans for Prosperity’s “No Climate Tax” Pledge. This pledge states that “climate change legislation should not be used as a guise to fund a massive increase in the size and scope of government…” and reaffirms Congressman Paul’s promise to vote against any legislation related to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx14_paul/efficientcars.shtml

Umm.... wtf?

It's inappropriate to use the tax code as a means of influencing people.

 

[torchbearer]

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx14_paul/efficientcars.shtml

Umm.... wtf?

It's inappropriate to use the tax code as a means of influencing people.

If you can't get rid of the income tax, at least find ways to give people there money back.
This seems like a bill the dems will support.
If Paul gets two bills on the floor for a successful vote, he ascends from pariah to nirvana.

 

[0zzy]

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx14_paul/efficientcars.shtml

Umm.... wtf?

It's inappropriate to use the tax code as a means of influencing people.

Is it? The tax code itself is bad, but to make a system work to its best potential?

 

[Feenix566]

If you can't get rid of the income tax, at least find ways to give people there money back.
This seems like a bill the dems will support.
If Paul gets two bills on the floor for a successful vote, he ascends from pariah to nirvana.

This sounds like some crap a Dem would write. That's not why I support Ron Paul.

Cutting taxes without a corresponding cut in spending is pointless. Every single dollar the government spends gets paid for by the American people, one way or another. Some people think you can reduce the size of government by "starving the beast", but that clearly doesn't work. The budget deficit is already $1.8 trillion. The beast cannot be starved. They'll just keep borrowing and printing.

Plus, using the tax code to provide incentives for people to do things that they wouldn't otherwise do flies in the face of free market economics. If people want more fuel efficiency, they'll buy more fuel efficiency. If the government induces us to spend more money on fuel efficiency than we otherwise would, then we're not spending that money somewhere else. Somebody else is NOT getting a job because we're spending money on something that we wouldn't have otherwise bought.

 

[Kotin]

This sounds like some crap a Dem would write. That's not why I support Ron Paul.

Cutting taxes without a corresponding cut in spending is pointless. Every single dollar the government spends gets paid for by the American people, one way or another. Some people think you can reduce the size of government by "starving the beast", but that clearly doesn't work. The budget deficit is already $1.8 trillion. The beast cannot be starved. They'll just keep borrowing and printing.

Plus, using the tax code to provide incentives for people to do things that they wouldn't otherwise do flies in the face of free market economics. If people want more fuel efficiency, they'll buy more fuel efficiency. If the government induces us to spend more money on fuel efficiency than we otherwise would, then we're not spending that money somewhere else. Somebody else is NOT getting a job because we're spending money on something that we wouldn't have otherwise bought.

hello..... we all know this.


you miss the point.


beause we cannot change the system overnight.. we must work within it anyway we can.. there is nothing but good things that come out of this bill..

if you want to be a purist, then go ahead and give up right now.

 

[steph3n]

hello..... we all know this.


you miss the point.


beause we cannot change the system overnight.. we must work within it anyway we can.. there is nothing but good things that come out of this bill..

if you want to be a purist, then go ahead and give up right now.

you are exactly right, and this is showing that Ron Paul knows you can't do massive changes literally overnight, which is leadership.


Some people on this forum would prefer to cut off their nose than take steps toward liberty in an environment that is increasingly hostile to it at the govt levels

 

[silverhawks]

beause we cannot change the system overnight.. we must work within it anyway we can.. there is nothing but good things that come out of this bill.

if you want to be a purist, then go ahead and give up right now.

You are aware that President Obama is actively supporting flex-fuel vehicles, in particular the Chevy Volt? And that to achieve an American "oil independence", Obama is supporting similar action to Brazil - which has devastated the Amazon Rainforest through mass burning and deforestation in order to plant biofuel crops. Organic farming in the US will suffer as even more farmers are handed subsidies to grow GM biocrops instead of food crops (which also causes pollution of the water table through constant use of pesticides and fertilizers; google "dead zone" + "gulf of mexico"), and likely companies like Monsanto will profit at the same time as members of Congress owning stocks in bio-corps line their pockets.

So no, this has some VERY bad outcomes.

And doesn't this just get people more used to "tax credits" instead of looking for more wide-ranging reform and abolishment of taxes altogether?

Doesn't even read like one of his bills...this isn't a "free market solution" to pollution, this is a government handout, that plays right into the Administration's plans to run the auto industry and encourages people to go into debt through getting a loan on a new car (tax deductible or not).

If this was written by Dr Paul, this is a gross error in judgment on his part.

 

[gls]

You are aware that President Obama is actively supporting flex-fuel vehicles, in particular the Chevy Volt? And that to achieve an American "oil independence", Obama is supporting similar action to Brazil - which has devastated the Amazon Rainforest through mass burning and deforestation in order to plant biofuel crops. Organic farming in the US will suffer as even more farmers are handed subsidies to grow GM biocrops instead of food crops (which also causes pollution of the water table through constant use of pesticides and fertilizers; google "dead zone" + "gulf of mexico"), and likely companies like Monsanto will profit at the same time as members of Congress owning stocks in bio-corps line their pockets.

So no, this has some VERY bad outcomes.

It's a bill to provide tax breaks to those who buy fuel-efficient vehicles. It's a tax cut that might actually be passed by a democratic majority. It's not advocating a centrally planned national energy policy as far as I can tell.

And doesn't this just get people more used to "tax credits" instead of looking for more wide-ranging reform and abolishment of taxes altogether?

Doesn't even read like one of his bills...this isn't a "free market solution" to pollution, this is a government handout.

How is it a government handout? It is allowing certain people to have the government steal a little less from them. You talk like you have a right to other people's money.

 

[paulitics]

I'm going to reserve judgement until I hear his explanation. I'm sure this is simply strategic since it sounds contrary to free market phiolosophy that Paul promotes. I'm not against this type of thing necessarely depending on the context and details. Sure enough, it sounds like massive climate change bullshit will be rammed down our throats with higher taxes and regulation. Perhaps this is a strategic maneuver to make the socialists look bad with their middle class destroying plan. This will also beat the RHINOs to the punch, when they offer a socialist lite proposal to the democrats. At the very least, I can see this as being a pretty shrewd political move on his part to expose the congress as radical socialist/fascists in bed with Monsanto.

 

[Old Ducker]

Does the bill (I didn't read it) define what source is used to determine it's fuel usage? I can understand if there is a source from the manufacturer, but if I was to trade in, say, a 1965 Dodge Dart for a Prius, I don't believe there is any "objective" source as to it's fuel consumption rate...especially if it's been modified from stock over the years.

Generally I hate laws such as this...all they do is render the Tax Code even more inscrutable. I am somewhat shocked that Paul would attach his name to it. My guess is that he's either trying to head off even uglier legislation, or "broaden" his appeal by providing he is more than "Dr. No."

So...while I do not support this bill, it won't cost Paul my support; if he were perfect, he wouldn't be a member of the criminal conspiracy otherwise known as the federal government.

 

[dannno]

Hah, lowering taxes is bad now? What??


Look, with all of the environmental bills going through congress right now, Ron Paul is simply putting up a better option... they are about to pass a cap and trade scheme that is going to screw us all.


I'm sure he still votes against the spending so he isn't being hypocritical.

 

[dannno]

this is a government handout

No it is most certainly not.. getting my taxes back is not a hand out... and as far as the spending goes, he's still voting against the spending. You can't blame him for that.

 

[qh4dotcom]

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx14_paul/efficientcars.shtml

Umm.... wtf?

It's inappropriate to use the tax code as a means of influencing people.

RP has said before that he votes for all tax credits no matter how silly they may seem...it's all about giving people back the money that has been stolen from them on April 15th.

 

[silverhawks]

..

It's a bill to provide tax breaks to those who buy fuel-efficient vehicles. It's a tax cut that might actually be passed by a democratic majority. It's not advocating a centrally planned national energy policy as far as I can tell.

Tax cuts are better than tax credits. Tax credits are better than nothing.

How is it a government handout? It is allowing certain people to have the government steal a little less from them. You talk like you have a right to other people's money.

How exactly did ANY of what I posted translate into talking like I have a right to other people's money???

I don't want ANY taxes, barring the ones advocated by the Founding Fathers. My money is my money, and your money is your money. Tax credits are form of state benefit, a way for the government to manipulate and encourage spending. This one is no different. And there's nothing in this bill that prevents this tax cut being a public subsidy in disguise, with the difference in lost tax revenue being made up somewhere else.

I certainly don't want legislation that encourages the masses to go out and get a loan to buy a new car if they cannot afford it. This bill is encouraging people to go out and spend during a recession.

Based on what we've seen of the American consumer base, how many people (especially Obama supporters) do you think are going to flock to buy a $30,000 hybrid with a $2000 tax credit? Especially when one in particular is coming with a Presidential endorsement, at a time the mass media is saying that the economy is improving, and the government has been hinting at guaranteeing car loans?

And we already HAVE a centrally planned national energy policy. Go out and research the latest issues and imminent changes to that policy that I described that President Obama himself has been talking about recently.

 

[Feenix566]

Hah, lowering taxes is bad now? What??

When our government is already $11 trillion in debt, it is. When the projected budget deficit is already $1.8 trillion per year, it is. When the tax code is being used to control people, it is.

When the government borrows money, it does so by issuing treasury notes. These treasury notes compete with the bond market for investment capital. The bond market is the means by which corporations borrow money so they can hire more people and create jobs. If no treasury notes were issued, all the investment capital would go straight into the economy. In other words, every single dollar that the government borrows directly hurts the economy.

So anyone who says this will have no bad effects is incorrect. It will further unbalance the federal budget, which will further slow down the economy.

Also, as I mentioned before, it will encourage people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles that they would not have otherwise bought. As a result of that, they won't buy whatever else they would have bought instead. So this bill will cause the economy to restructure itself in a less efficient way than it otherwise would have.

As is the case with every government economic intervention, the downside lies in the things that don't happen.

 

[brandon]

You don't just simply get your taxes back though.

You only get some of our tax money back if you purchase products the government tells you to purchase. That is a fine example of corporatism.

Furthermore, people who paid less than $2000 in federal taxes are still eligible to get the $2000 credit.


This bill is a piece of garbage and I'm highly disappointed with Paul.

 

[brandon]

This place really seems like the Church of Paul sometimes.

 

[dannno]

You don't just simply get your taxes back though.

You only get some of our tax money back if you purchase products the government tells you to purchase. That is a fine example of corporatism.

It's not corporatism if you are simply favoring the companies that make the most efficient product

Furthermore, people who paid less than $2000 in federal taxes are still eligible to get the $2000 credit.

Proof??

This bill is a piece of garbage and I'm highly disappointed with Paul.

Maybe you should get your facts straight first and listen to an explanation from Paul himself? I've heard a lot of Ron Paul supporters get mad at him for the earmarks thing, until they realized they were not educated on the issue.

 

[dannno]

Cars cause toxic pollution, and polluting goes against the principle of property rights.

Tax credits for cars that pollute less and tax hikes for polluting are both things that Ron Paul has determined to be constitutional, as they help to protect property rights. Are you against property rights?

 

[brandon]

It's not corporatism if you are simply favoring the companies that make the most efficient product

Who is doing the favoring? The government. The government favoring companies is pretty much the definition of corporatism. If these companies really had the most efficient product they would not need the government to provide incentives for people to buy it.


I don't need to hear Paul explain it. I'm fully capable of thinking for myself.