Raiders22

@StumpTownStu

 Not just the energy savings of LEDs -- like 80%.  So, that for sure adds up over a vast amount.  But they last 30 times longer.  So, not just individually does it add up but overall this would add up for the difference to be noticed.

But when you try to explain to folks that they are more expensive but last longer, do not get as hot, and last far longer so they save money in the long run -- do the folks really believe it or even care.  

They just do not want to be told that this is their only choice now.  Even when they see the brightness is the same and have the dimmer option, etc.

But this is an example of constant innovation over time that can be demonstrated.  But the disposal and the 'forceful' attitude on the folks is what is not liked.

The washers a lot of folks seem not to like because they say it doesn't agitate the clothes enough and you need to do fewer clothes at a time, etc.

So, it is always tricky to convince folks how overall better these things are.  But in the long run if it is seen better people will automatically switch over.

For example, even where old bulbs were still available people moved more to LED on their own, etc.

@StumpTownStu

 Overall, I mostly agree.  Some of the things no doubt are more energy efficient.  Bulbs that generate far less heat for light, washers that use much less water for loads, etc.

But a lot of folks want freedom of choice and if things are truly better then those products will naturally win out over time.  I know folks that simply prefer the older lightbulbs because they say the light is better.  Some folks prefer the older washers because they can ut more clothes in and/or get a better wash instead of having to do more loads, or do loads more often.

Sometimes, this is just folks preferring their known methods with no sound resigning other than that is what they prefer.

But when the 'new and more efficient' things are forced on folks and the unintended consequences are not considered is where I see a bigger problem.  Now you have to look at disposal of things differently -- say the LEDs with mercury or arsenic, etc.  Or the batteries in EVs.

Then even take the wind turbines.  So many people that live near them have issues.  At first it seems like just bellyaching until you look into it, etc.

Then look at the problems with EVs in general -- from building, charging, maintenance, etc.

Sure, some of these things can and will be innovated to be better -- but 'forcing' people and whole states to only have these choices is wrong.  Most are not even really that much more environmental friendly -- some can be argued are worse.  

That is why it looks like just a money grab that is part of the Global Warming scam.  That is why I call most of this nonsense a scam.  Some of course have good parts.  Like I say, most folks want a cleaner environment and more efficient 'things'.  But are they truly any of these things instead of part of the larger scam is the question.

  Need more goals in Vegas/Ottawa game 

BOL tonight 

@StumpTownStu

 The scam part is the money grab part of it.

Then the forcing something on the world that is not perfected and efficient enough yet.

Solar is good, wind is good, EVs are good, etc., etc.  There is no way possible at this time they could replace fossil fuels.

But they need innovation and improvements.  No one is saying they are the scams.  The Green Energy money grab is the scam.

There are so many difficulties with EVs for example.  Just to get the batteries made and then disposal, etc.

Now imagine the issues with everyone charging them all at once when they get hoe from work -- if no combustible engines are no longer allowed.

Imagine evacuating in a hurricane, etc.

All of these things are supplemental at best currently.

No one argues against a clean earth and general energy improvements.

But the Global Warming scam has bled over into the Green Energy scam now to get money and force folks house washing machines that are more 'efficient' but not more effective.

Then they try to make the folks feel guilty and that they are doing a good thing by not 'polluting' and cooling the Earth.  The 'pollution' is very, very minimal overall and could never cool the Earth if it was done in totality.

But they get billions upon billions of dollars to promote it and force it on folks when it is not practical or effective enough for the folks.

If it were the folks would automatically gravitate to these 'better' things.  Maybe one day they will be.

But they are not and the Left and the Government should not be forcing them on the people.

@Barbarossa

Huge potential letdown spot for them after last week's win.

But I am counting on their offense to step up after last week's awful display.  Defense was great.

PIT -3.5 -104. Had to skip total -- I had it at 39ish. So, Leaned over.

Glad we on same side 

Possibly -- got a little NHL going and NFL. But soccer all done for today I think.

That explains fairly succinctly that the 'rich' are overpaying not only in proportion but in dollar amounts.

It explains that it has not always been that way.

It also explains some of the reasons it go this way and how to alleviate it.

The problem now is perception and a readily available media to promote the fear and division tactics of the Left.

What led to our tax system becoming more progressive today than it has been since at least World War II?

One reason is the massive expansion of social programs delivered through the tax code over the past three decades. Some of the largest programs aimed at lower-income families and those with children are run through the IRS — the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit. Collectively, they deliver roughly $180 billion worth of benefits each year, much of which is refundable — meaning a family gets a tax refund check even if they don’t owe any taxes.

Since the mid-1990s, tax credits like these have multiplied like rabbits. There are tax credits for adoption, putting your kids in daycare or your grandparents in senior care, paying for college, buying an electric car, putting solar panels on your roof, and buying health insurance, to name a few. The IRS is now a super-agency delivering all manner of social services. These responsibilities are beyond the capacity of a tax collection agency. No wonder it can’t function.

If Congress believes that these benefits are important for families, another agency should provide them through a spending program, not through the tax code.

The result is that a record number of taxpayers pay no income taxes after claiming their credits and deductions. In 2019, pre-pandemic, 34% of tax filers — equal to 54 million tax filers — paid no income taxes because of the generous credits and deductions in the tax code. In 1980, just 21% paid no income taxes because of credits and deductions.

Despite the well-worn political rhetoric about “fair share,” the burden on top earners continues to climb. If the rich are using loopholes to avoid paying taxes as so many politicians allege, many of them need better accountants.

This is a concise breakdown of it and the sentiment the folks have:

Some 56% of Americans say the amount they pay in taxes is “more than their fair share,” up from 51% who thought so in 2019. Unsurprisingly, nearly two out of every three Americans feel the wealthy don’t pay their fair share of taxes, and 61% said they would support raising taxes on households earning over $400,000.

But what constitutes a “fair share”?

While “fair” is subjective, most Americans might not understand how much of the tax burden the rich actually bear. The answer may surprise them.

According to the IRS, in 2020, the top 1% of taxpayers (about 1.5 million taxpayers), paid $722 billion in income taxes. That amount accounted for 42.3% of all income taxes paid, the highest percentage in modern history.

By contrast, the bottom 90% of taxpayers (about 142 million taxpayers) paid a combined $450 billion in income taxes, or just 26.3% of the total, their lowest percentage of the tax burden in decades. That means the top 1% of taxpayers pay a far greater share of the nation’s tax burden than 142 million of their neighbors combined.

Surely, the rich pay a larger amount because they earn the most money, right? Not exactly. In 2020, the top 1% of taxpayers earned 22% of all adjusted gross income; their 42.3% share of the income taxes is nearly twice their share of the nation’s income.

The opposite is true for the bottom 90%. They earned more than half, 50.5%, of the nation’s income but paid 26.3% of the taxes — roughly half of their share of the nation’s income.

This hasn’t always been the case. In 1980, the tax burden was much more evenly shared. The bottom 90% earned 68% of the nation’s income and paid 52% of the income taxes. The top 1% earned 9.6% of the nation’s income and paid 17% of the income taxes.

@StumpTownStu

I am okay, in principle, with a flat tax, VAT, consumption, etc.

I would not tax corporations one dime.

I get what you are saying about foreign investments.  But that is a separate issue(s) from the taxes and what 'rich' versus 'poor' pay.

Too much and too big government is too costly and is the root of most of the problems.

The more money the government can collect from any means they will spend.  They need to cut back and drastically.  Pay the debt down and cut spending.

Then the taxes could be lowered and used for what they only should be used for.

@ABooksNightmare

That is everyone's copout and go-to.  Every business is in it to make money and profits; no one starts a business to give away free stuff.

People say 'greed' like it is a bad thing.  It almost seems they are downright envious of successful people and businesses.

Ambitious people fully take advantageous of a society where they can be rewarded for succeeding in life.  Others call it 'greed'.

@StumpTownStu

The last one is the technical stuff.  The others are an overview of the proposal and the issues folks have with it, etc. 

https://www.ntd.com/energy-department-proposes-new-restrictions-on-ceiling-fans_938586.html

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/08/biden-admin-cracking-down-on-another-popular-home-device/

https://www.eenews.net/articles/not-just-gas-stoves-gop-widens-assault-on-energy-efficiency/

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/07/f54/Jan%202018%20ASHRAE%20Journal%20article%20-%20New%20Federal%20Regulations%20for%20Ceiling%20Fans.pdf

@StumpTownStu

 Went jogging down beach to eat.

Will send link or two about it in a bit.

It is just nonsense and a scam.

The push is to design them to be more 'efficient' because of the Green Energy scam.

So, manufacturers will have to retool, etc.

There is no great savings for the consumer.  Especially, if you already have a working fan, etc.

It is another vast over reach by agenda-driven politicians to force things they deem as 'polluting' to be 'fixed'.  They do this without considering the unintended consequences of their actions.

@wallstreetcappers

 Yessir.  But what you started off with an incorrect thesis.  Call it straw-manning, call it setting up something you want to knock down, etc.

So, of course you stand by it.

I can quote the whole thing.  But it does not take away from the fact that your starting point was wrong.

is a servant to the common citizen period and the lowest common citizen

Are two very different things.  One implies someone that enjoys having the opportunity to live and get ahead and be rewarded.  The other simply infers that the government should be helping all of the idlers that refuse to attempt to get going on their own.

One thesis Trump is using, the other he is flat-out denying.

"Providing good for the common citizen" and providing bets opportunity for the citizen is vastly different.

At no point has Trump indicated the folks work for him.  That is another abuse of freedom in the thesis.

the majority of US citizens are at and below median income

This is totally incorrect just by the definition of the word 'median'.

The thesis should be to provide the best opportunity for the folks to better themselves NOT to simply provide for them.

Another overriding fault with your thesis is that the folks stay at that tier.  They do not.  

People are constantly moving up and down -- largely thought efforts of their own (or lack thereof).  They make plenty fuse of the opportunity that is provided to them.  Some do not and stagnate.

But Trump hiring self-starters and ambitious people and folks that expect results is not a bad things.

For far too long bureaucrats and politicians that have very little real world experience have made it worse for the 'common citizen'.

It is time to see if people with experience in other aspects will work or not.

See how that works?

@cd329

 So, what did the article tell you?

Are you able to break it down on ‘how little they pay’?

Then we can move to ‘their fair share’.

Two different issues. 

@StumpTownStu

 I get what you are saying.  But wholeheartedly disagree.  
The deck favors commoners if they want to make it happen.  
People too easily have a defeatist attitude and then blame the ‘man’, ‘system’, and etc.

If folks plan and live within their means starting out and get a skill or education they can do fine.  

It is the folks that do not do this that look for the excuses and reasons why they cannot get ahead.