Congressman Paul Introduces Bill for Fuel Efficient Cars

[heavenlyboy34]

This isn't an expansion of government.. they will be getting LESS tax money.

"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."

This is a government mandate-an intrusion into the free market. Therein lies the flaw of using "good" government laws to counteract "bad" government laws. The use of force (the State) is still present. In this case, they are directing money towards "fuel efficient" vehicles instead of letting the market handle the problem. This government fiat will inevitably cause distortions in the market (especially considering how interrelated the various markets are now-due to government intervention since time immemorial). I know we all want to think RP has the best intentions in mind (and he usually does), but this is the wrong way to go.

 

[torchbearer]

"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."

This is a government mandate-an intrusion into the free market. Therein lies the flaw of using "good" government laws to counteract "bad" government laws. The use of force (the State) is still present. In this case, they are directing money towards "fuel efficient" vehicles instead of letting the market handle the problem. This government fiat will inevitably cause distortions in the market (especially considering how interrelated the various markets are now-due to government intervention since time immemorial). I know we all want to think RP has the best intentions in mind (and he usually does), but this is the wrong way to go.

maybe you haven't noticed, but we don't have a free market, and we haven't had one for about 100 years.

 

[dannno]

"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."

This is a government mandate-an intrusion into the free market. Therein lies the flaw of using "good" government laws to counteract "bad" government laws. The use of force (the State) is still present. In this case, they are directing money towards "fuel efficient" vehicles instead of letting the market handle the problem. This government fiat will inevitably cause distortions in the market (especially considering how interrelated the various markets are now-due to government intervention since time immemorial). I know we all want to think RP has the best intentions in mind (and he usually does), but this is the wrong way to go.

A tax cut a government mandate??

Partially offsetting the MASSIVE $1 trillion/year in oil subsidies through our military along with direct subsidies is anti-free market??


Answers:

No, a tax cut is a not a government mandate.

No, offsetting a gigantic anti-free market program with a tax cut is not anti-free market.. what you guys are failing to realize is this is putting us CLOSER to a free market, no matter which angle you look at it from.

 

[acptulsa]

No, offsetting a gigantic anti-free market program with a tax cut is not anti-free market.. what you guys are failing to realize is this is putting us CLOSER to a free market, no matter which angle you look at it from.

I was right with you until now. Trying to balance one regulation with some other incentive isn't exactly a move closer to a free market. It may be a move toward balance, and that may be a good thing, but pitting bad legal complexities against each other isn't exactly a great move toward a free market. Wish we were close enough to a free market that it wouldn't even possibly be beneficial...

 

[Kraig]

A tax cut a government mandate??

Partially offsetting the MASSIVE $1 trillion/year in oil subsidies through our military along with direct subsidies is anti-free market??


Answers:

No, a tax cut is a not a government mandate.

No, offsetting a gigantic anti-free market program with a tax cut is not anti-free market.. what you guys are failing to realize is this is putting us CLOSER to a free market, no matter which angle you look at it from.

You mean it will put people who buy these new efficient cars closer to a free market. If it was going to move everyone to the free market, it would be a tax credit for all with no qualifications, and yes I understand that would have no chance at getting through. It's not nearly as bad as I thought at first, but it still sucks, I guess that's just politics.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

A tax cut a government mandate??

Partially offsetting the MASSIVE $1 trillion/year in oil subsidies through our military along with direct subsidies is anti-free market??


Answers:

No, a tax cut is a not a government mandate.

No, offsetting a gigantic anti-free market program with a tax cut is not anti-free market.. what you guys are failing to realize is this is putting us CLOSER to a free market, no matter which angle you look at it from.

You're right that a tax cut is not a mandate. I would be fine with removing taxes entirely. We are dealing here with a one time "rebate", not a tax cut. (somewhat reminiscent of the "stimulus" checks) It would be more honest and useful to simply eliminate all those wasteful military and oil subsidies altogether than to play the government game.

 

[CUnknown]

This bill gives two good outcomes (tax breaks + fuel efficiency) and the only negative anyone can come up with is a potential minor intrusion into the free market. Sounds like a win to me.

Look guys, people don't want these fuel-inefficient clunkers anyway. The market has spoken. Are we really crying because these bad cars no one wants might be put at slight competitive disadvantage, at the same time as we get to keep more of our own money? How odd.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This bill gives two good outcomes (tax breaks + fuel efficiency) and the only negative anyone can come up with is a potential minor intrusion into the free market. Sounds like a win to me.

Look guys, people don't want these fuel-inefficient clunkers anyway. The market has spoken. Are we really crying because these bad cars no one wants might be put at slight competitive disadvantage, at the same time as we get to keep more of our own money? How odd.

No, I am "crying" over a matter of principle. It seems small now, but this only conditions the sheeple to accept progressively larger evil (the State) over a long period of time. You must realize that Statists enjoy these games of psychological/sociological manipulation. Also, the evils of the State only become magnified the longer that they are accepted by the sheeple (i.e. Soc Security). You and I may find it trivial, but it is indeed a way of life for the evil Statists. (not that I'm lumping RP with Statists-don't misunderstand)

 

[Feenix566]

I'm really disappointed in a lot of you. This topic has given everyone a good opportunity to show their true colors. Now we know which of us support Ron Paul because they understand free market economics, and which of us just don't get it, but support Ron Paul anyway for some other reason.

 

[torchbearer]

I'm really disappointed in a lot of you. This topic has given everyone a good opportunity to show their true colors. Now we know which of us support Ron Paul because they understand free market economics, and which of us just don't get it, but support Ron Paul anyway for some other reason.

Or some people understand both free markets and politics in real life.
In the LP we had two kinds of libertarians-
Those who lived in white towers and those who lived in the real world.
Those that lived in white towers never did anything to advance the cause of liberty, their only purpose was to criticize the people who had to do the dirty work of engaging the political system.
Come down from your tower.

 

[acptulsa]

Now we know which of us support Ron Paul because they understand free market economics, and which of us just don't get it, but support Ron Paul anyway for some other reason.

And how do you tell the ones who understand free market economics and want to get back to them, but understand that it will take quite some time to get there from here and, in the meantime, life must go on?

And do we disappoint you into this severe depression you're feeling as well?

 

[dannno]

I'm really disappointed in a lot of you. This topic has given everyone a good opportunity to show their true colors. Now we know which of us support Ron Paul because they understand free market economics, and which of us just don't get it, but support Ron Paul anyway for some other reason.

So Ron Paul doesn't understand Free Market Economics either, right

 

[Feenix566]

Listen, guys, I've explained to you how this is bad for the economy. Others in this thread have, as well. If you don't get it, you don't get it. No amount of repeating myself is going to change that. You apparently don't care. So now you're supporting a bill that's bad for the economy. Obviously, the best interests of the economy are not your highest priority. Something else must be more important to you.

 

[gls]

Listen, guys, I've explained to you how this is bad for the economy. Others in this thread have, as well. If you don't get it, you don't get it. No amount of repeating myself is going to change that. You apparently don't care. So now you're supporting a bill that's bad for the economy. Obviously, the best interests of the economy are not your highest priority. Something else must be more important to you.

Stealing from people is never "good" for the "economy", no matter how much you want it to be.

 

[acptulsa]

Something else must be more important to you.

Say, something like getting to the point where we can politically do something good for the economy, perhaps?

Excuse me while I remain unapologetic. I haven't seen a strictly economic reason for doing this yet. It has been political discussion. I know you're unused to political realities being good for the economy, but some of us have a dream we're chasing...

 

[gls]

Seriously, what a bunch of socialists in this thread. Acting like they're entitled to the fruit of other people's labor. Thank you Dr. Paul for advancing freedom in any way you can.

 

[werdd]

I have serious reservations about this as well, just doesn't seem like something he would write.

I'll wait for his explanation, something else is at play here.

 

[Cowlesy]

wow 136 posts and I just saw this thread.

Haven't read the posts, but as long as someone has actually PAID $2,000 in Federal Income Tax, I don't mind backdoor ways of getting taxes returned, but how do you ensure that someone who didn't pay $2,000 in FIT is not getting the tax credit?

I'm never a fan of using the tax code to influence behavior -- it'd be great if it helped reduce our dependence on foreign oil (though I doubt this will).

 

[devil21]

Again, yes.

I anticipate this being spun into hell by the right just like they did with earmarks.

Anybody on the right that is against a TAX BREAK needs a reality check and a reminder what being a conservative is supposed to mean.

 

[ProBlue33]

Listen up, those that are against this, don't get it, if Ron Paul can get ANY legislation passed it is a win. The whole movement can move up a notch.

And really if your in the market for a new car this is a great idea, I support it 100%.

Stimulates the economy and rewards the companies that have invested in R&D in this area.

People have been harping on Paul for positive idea's to help fix things RIGHT NOW, so when he finally does come up with a good idea some of his supporters slam him.

Guys this has mass appeal, that's a good thing. If Obama will support it, it's a done deal.