Why I love digital

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:07:28 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:55:45 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

Nope. SUVs are an easy to state example. I want all car prices to
include the societal costs of the cars, I am tired of subsidizing
items that put me at risk. If you want to refer to safety as a moral
issue, fine.

I refer to it that way becasue you do. It's pretty simple, really.

If you object to that moral view, that safety is important, then say
so. I would think, though, that you would object more to funding an
army than to raising taxes on some vehicles.

I don't like it when people blow up buildings down the
block, I don't like it when my country goes to war, and I want to
minimize those things. Taxing cars to include their fair share of
those costs seems far better than giving up some of my rights and
paying higher taxes to pay for the war. If you would rather have a war
than pay higher car and gas taxes then you have a screwed up morality.

Then, in that case, I strongly sugest that you start out with local
politics, be good at it, and work your way up to the point where you
can do something about it.
Or, alternatively, work hard to get whichever pol fits your morality,
and get him elected, and make yourself useful to him, so he will
listen to your input, and be an influence on his actions.

Thanks for your advice?

Do you do that, or just whine?

Have you stopped doing crack?


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 07:07:49 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:22:03 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:09:51 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:35:05 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

And you want to make sure they are outlawed?

No, just tax them and the fuel they burn until nobody buys them.

Ah, so you want to get all Hummers off the roads, including those that
are used in businesses?

The social and environmental costs are no different just
because a business uses the vehicle. Notice that businesses can always
afford things which the average consumer could nt justify on the basis
of occasional need. So if the business really needs one of the
guzzlers, let them pay in accordance with the social costs of their
choice.

And, of course, you are willing to visit the higher prices on commerce
this would require on everyone, not just yourself.
Sure, this is workable. In a police state, certainly not in the US.

Yeah, the U.S. certainly does not have taxes designed to affect social
policy. BTW, did you remember to deduct mortgage interest?


And just how do you propose to tax the gas for Hummers (and, I will
suppose, other vehicles you don't like)?

Let's stop the whining, and get down to brass tacks: how do you want
to do this? Make a workable proposal, as I did in another post.

--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:13:12 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:59:25 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

Seriously, what are you really trying to say?

And if they were considered cars, not trucks, they would be higher
priced still and less popular.

And if they were considered cars, so would all other light trucks in
that weight class.
Is that what you want? Because that's what you're saying.

Largely yes. What I want in this area in particular is for the
government to decide what is a truck or a car and do so consistently
if they are going to tax them differently. I don't want the government
to tax them differently, but allow the manufacturer to decide which is
which and allow them to change the designation along the supply path.
If you wish to give subsidies to business because you think that is a
good thing then make that argument.



--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:32:42 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:45:29 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:12:29 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:46:45 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Big Bill wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:45:22 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:


I wonder what your idea of "pure free market" is.

Usually the normal things, a large number of buyers and sellers,
essentially equivalent products, free flow of information regarding
the products and previous sales, a market that clears in market time,
etc. Also I would include in this case neutral government intervention
to distort the price. It is the current government distortion of the
price that I keep objecting to.

Let me take a particularly egregious example. Car companies have to
meet average gas mileage standards, the CAFE standards. The Hummer is
so large that it is not included in the average. Think of it, it is
such a guzzler that they leave it off the list. This significantly
lowers the cost of the vehicle to GM and so to the consumer.


You are making a false claim: when you say the Hummer is so large that
it is not included on the list, you are suggesting that the list was
designed to exclude the Hummer, when you know better.
The Hummer fits into a weight category that was excluded because that
category overwhelmingly included trucks used in commercial uses.
That's not a Government distortion, that's a distortion on your part.
What you are asking for is that either *all* vehicles be included in
CAFE (think about that; there are very good reasons that didn't
happen, and won't happen), or you want the government to make
case-by-case decisions on what vehicles will be covered by CAFE.
Again, something that you really don't want. Imagine the costs
involved.


While the size and weight would seem to make the Hummer a 'commercial
vehicle', how many have you seen actually USED as such? They are bought
by private citizens who have more money than good sense and want to show
off. Let them pay.

Yes, they are.
So lets make more laws, and make them even more restrictive, so we can
all see more easily that laws that get more specific are easier to
circumvent.
We seem to be getting a common thread he some want more laws to try
to correct a situation made by a bad set of laws.

The common thread I see is your insisting on calling a change an
addition.

Enlighten me. What change are you talking about? The evolving of light
trucks and SUVs into what the customer wants?

Having a consistent designation of what is a truck vs. a car rather
than allowing the companies to decide on a whim and change their mind.
If we are going to subsidize one over the other lets us have a
rational basis for doing so. Saying that trucks don't have to meet
safety or gas standards because they are used for business and then
allowing them to be marketed as cars to non-business users is
hypocritical at best. If we can't distinguish between the two, then
don't. Have one set of rules, a *simplification* of the current
system.

We're in the problem (vis-a-vis SUVs and light trucks) becasue of the
laws (CAFE). Let's not just say more laws will fix this, becasue they
won't.

Laws get changed all the time as conditions change.

yes they do. And not always for the better.
What you propose is not, IMO, for the better.

Then explain why, don't present nonsense like objecting because it is
"more" laws. Transparently false arguments don't help your position.
Explain why it is a good thing for some vehicles to be exempt from
some safety standards and not others. Explain why it is good that
some vehicles don't have to meet the same gas standards just because
the car company says so.

New laws to correct this would either be more inclusive (not
wanted, because of obvious needs of heavier vehicles), or more
specific (trying to control either specific models bad because a new
door handle would warrant a new model designation) or by intent of
purchaser (and we *never* want to go there)).

Why not by the intent?

You want to somehow divine the intent of someone?

We do it all the time. Plenty of acts are crimes or not based on the
intent of the person. (The classic, of course, is the assault with
intent to commit great bodily harm.)

Please tell me the mechanics of this, as there are literally thousands
of courts who would like to know.

Courts do it all the time. We determine intent by looking at the
actions. A vehicle marketed to the general public is not a business
vehicle. The current systems already discriminates based on supposed
intent. The current laws allow exemptions for some vehicles, the
supposed trucks, because they are supposedly to be used for business.
We give them subsidies based on our guess at the intent rather than
doing any work to determine intent. If we can't make that
determination then don't have the exemption. All cars and trucks have
to meet the same standards.

We already tax things different based on how
they are used.

Well, which is it? Intent, or use?

I will go along with use as well. Provide documentation on how the
item is used and if we want to subsidize business then give a rebate.
Again, this is already done in the tax code for various things.

Why have a rule that is suppose to judge intent but not
actually look at intent? Or toss it out and just tax them all the
same?

Use and intent are very different.
If you wan to use 'use', then require all commercial vehicles to be
registered to a comercial entity, and foloow that up with a
requirement that they be listed as an asset for property tax use. They
can be exempt from extra taxes that could be levied on privately
registered vehicles.
Is this what you're looking for?

What I want is a system where the purchaser actually pays the costs
rather than having the society pick up the tab. There are multiple
ways we can do this. If we as a society want to subsidize some actions
then we should do so explicitly and openly, not with hidden rules. As
I have said, I bet that most people who buy an SUV do not know they
don't have to meet the same safety standards as a car. I want a system
where those who consume petroleum products pay for the increased
threats to the U.S. based on that usage. We should have put in a major
gas tax (like $1 a gallon or more) 30 years ago, we would be safer
today.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:32:42 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:45:29 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:12:29 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:46:45 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Big Bill wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:45:22 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:


I wonder what your idea of "pure free market" is.

Usually the normal things, a large number of buyers and sellers,
essentially equivalent products, free flow of information regarding
the products and previous sales, a market that clears in market time,
etc. Also I would include in this case neutral government intervention
to distort the price. It is the current government distortion of the
price that I keep objecting to.

Let me take a particularly egregious example. Car companies have to
meet average gas mileage standards, the CAFE standards. The Hummer is
so large that it is not included in the average. Think of it, it is
such a guzzler that they leave it off the list. This significantly
lowers the cost of the vehicle to GM and so to the consumer.


You are making a false claim: when you say the Hummer is so large that
it is not included on the list, you are suggesting that the list was
designed to exclude the Hummer, when you know better.
The Hummer fits into a weight category that was excluded because that
category overwhelmingly included trucks used in commercial uses.
That's not a Government distortion, that's a distortion on your part.
What you are asking for is that either *all* vehicles be included in
CAFE (think about that; there are very good reasons that didn't
happen, and won't happen), or you want the government to make
case-by-case decisions on what vehicles will be covered by CAFE.
Again, something that you really don't want. Imagine the costs
involved.


While the size and weight would seem to make the Hummer a 'commercial
vehicle', how many have you seen actually USED as such? They are bought
by private citizens who have more money than good sense and want to show
off. Let them pay.

Yes, they are.
So lets make more laws, and make them even more restrictive, so we can
all see more easily that laws that get more specific are easier to
circumvent.
We seem to be getting a common thread he some want more laws to try
to correct a situation made by a bad set of laws.

The common thread I see is your insisting on calling a change an
addition.

Enlighten me. What change are you talking about? The evolving of light
trucks and SUVs into what the customer wants?

Having a consistent designation of what is a truck vs. a car rather
than allowing the companies to decide on a whim and change their mind.
If we are going to subsidize one over the other lets us have a
rational basis for doing so. Saying that trucks don't have to meet
safety or gas standards because they are used for business and then
allowing them to be marketed as cars to non-business users is
hypocritical at best. If we can't distinguish between the two, then
don't. Have one set of rules, a *simplification* of the current
system.

We're in the problem (vis-a-vis SUVs and light trucks) becasue of the
laws (CAFE). Let's not just say more laws will fix this, becasue they
won't.

Laws get changed all the time as conditions change.

yes they do. And not always for the better.
What you propose is not, IMO, for the better.

Then explain why, don't present nonsense like objecting because it is
"more" laws. Transparently false arguments don't help your position.
Explain why it is a good thing for some vehicles to be exempt from
some safety standards and not others. Explain why it is good that
some vehicles don't have to meet the same gas standards just because
the car company says so.

New laws to correct this would either be more inclusive (not
wanted, because of obvious needs of heavier vehicles), or more
specific (trying to control either specific models bad because a new
door handle would warrant a new model designation) or by intent of
purchaser (and we *never* want to go there)).

Why not by the intent?

You want to somehow divine the intent of someone?

We do it all the time. Plenty of acts are crimes or not based on the
intent of the person. (The classic, of course, is the assault with
intent to commit great bodily harm.)

Please tell me the mechanics of this, as there are literally thousands
of courts who would like to know.

Courts do it all the time. We determine intent by looking at the
actions. A vehicle marketed to the general public is not a business
vehicle. The current systems already discriminates based on supposed
intent. The current laws allow exemptions for some vehicles, the
supposed trucks, because they are supposedly to be used for business.
We give them subsidies based on our guess at the intent rather than
doing any work to determine intent. If we can't make that
determination then don't have the exemption. All cars and trucks have
to meet the same standards.

We already tax things different based on how
they are used.

Well, which is it? Intent, or use?

I will go along with use as well. Provide documentation on how the
item is used and if we want to subsidize business then give a rebate.
Again, this is already done in the tax code for various things.

Why have a rule that is suppose to judge intent but not
actually look at intent? Or toss it out and just tax them all the
same?

Use and intent are very different.
If you wan to use 'use', then require all commercial vehicles to be
registered to a comercial entity, and foloow that up with a
requirement that they be listed as an asset for property tax use. They
can be exempt from extra taxes that could be levied on privately
registered vehicles.
Is this what you're looking for?

What I want is a system where the purchaser actually pays the costs
rather than having the society pick up the tab. There are multiple
ways we can do this. If we as a society want to subsidize some actions
then we should do so explicitly and openly, not with hidden rules. As
I have said, I bet that most people who buy an SUV do not know they
don't have to meet the same safety standards as a car. I want a system
where those who consume petroleum products pay for the increased
threats to the U.S. based on that usage. We should have put in a major
gas tax (like $1 a gallon or more) 30 years ago, we would be safer
today.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:49:57 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:07:28 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:55:45 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

Nope. SUVs are an easy to state example. I want all car prices to
include the societal costs of the cars, I am tired of subsidizing
items that put me at risk. If you want to refer to safety as a moral
issue, fine.

I refer to it that way becasue you do. It's pretty simple, really.

If you object to that moral view, that safety is important, then say
so. I would think, though, that you would object more to funding an
army than to raising taxes on some vehicles.

I didn't say so, so I'd really appreciate it if you were honest enough
to not try to make me say so.
if that's the way you need to defend you rposition, it certainly says
a lot about the strength of your position.

I don't like it when people blow up buildings down the
block, I don't like it when my country goes to war, and I want to
minimize those things. Taxing cars to include their fair share of
those costs seems far better than giving up some of my rights and
paying higher taxes to pay for the war. If you would rather have a war
than pay higher car and gas taxes then you have a screwed up morality.

Then, in that case, I strongly sugest that you start out with local
politics, be good at it, and work your way up to the point where you
can do something about it.
Or, alternatively, work hard to get whichever pol fits your morality,
and get him elected, and make yourself useful to him, so he will
listen to your input, and be an influence on his actions.

Thanks for your advice?

Do you do that, or just whine?

Have you stopped doing crack?

See? Your position is so weak that this is your response.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:50:46 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 07:07:49 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:22:03 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:09:51 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:35:05 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

And you want to make sure they are outlawed?

No, just tax them and the fuel they burn until nobody buys them.

Ah, so you want to get all Hummers off the roads, including those that
are used in businesses?

The social and environmental costs are no different just
because a business uses the vehicle. Notice that businesses can always
afford things which the average consumer could nt justify on the basis
of occasional need. So if the business really needs one of the
guzzlers, let them pay in accordance with the social costs of their
choice.

And, of course, you are willing to visit the higher prices on commerce
this would require on everyone, not just yourself.
Sure, this is workable. In a police state, certainly not in the US.

Yeah, the U.S. certainly does not have taxes designed to affect social
policy.

It doesn't?
Ever hear of "sin tax"? You don't really think taxes on, for example,
cigarettes are high just for the fun of it, do you?
BTW, did you remember to deduct mortgage interest?

Why? Did you?


And just how do you propose to tax the gas for Hummers (and, I will
suppose, other vehicles you don't like)?

Let's stop the whining, and get down to brass tacks: how do you want
to do this? Make a workable proposal, as I did in another post.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:53:03 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:13:12 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Big Bill
in
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:59:25 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

Seriously, what are you really trying to say?

And if they were considered cars, not trucks, they would be higher
priced still and less popular.

And if they were considered cars, so would all other light trucks in
that weight class.
Is that what you want? Because that's what you're saying.

Largely yes. What I want in this area in particular is for the
government to decide what is a truck or a car and do so consistently
if they are going to tax them differently.

So you want the government to make a case-by-case decision? So that a
new door handle or drivetrain configuration costs more to certify? You
really want to drive costs up by using more government?
I don't want the government
to tax them differently, but allow the manufacturer to decide which is
which and allow them to change the designation along the supply path.

This is in direct opposition to what you wrote above. Or did you
mis-type?
If you wish to give subsidies to business because you think that is a
good thing then make that argument.

The reason I'm not making that argument is because it's not my
argument.
What I'm trying to do is get you to think about your stance; what will
it do besides your primary goal?
Unintended consequences can be a real bitch when you start mucking
with commerce and governmental intrusion.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:04:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

Enlighten me. What change are you talking about? The evolving of light
trucks and SUVs into what the customer wants?

Having a consistent designation of what is a truck vs. a car rather
than allowing the companies to decide on a whim and change their mind.
If we are going to subsidize one over the other lets us have a
rational basis for doing so. Saying that trucks don't have to meet
safety or gas standards because they are used for business and then
allowing them to be marketed as cars to non-business users is
hypocritical at best. If we can't distinguish between the two, then
don't. Have one set of rules, a *simplification* of the current
system.

Sorry, the fact is that the government already does that; it's changes
in the vehicles that puts them into a differtent classification, not a
mere whim.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:04:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
wrote:

yes they do. And not always for the better.
What you propose is not, IMO, for the better.

Then explain why, don't present nonsense like objecting because it is
"more" laws. Transparently false arguments don't help your position.
Explain why it is a good thing for some vehicles to be exempt from
some safety standards and not others. Explain why it is good that
some vehicles don't have to meet the same gas standards just because
the car company says so.

For starters, it's because you don't understand how things work, but
you want to change the system anyway.
The car companies don't get to determine what classification their
vehicles go into just because they say so. The government defines the
classes, and the manufacturers *design* the vehicles to fit in
certain classes. It's not just because the car company says so.
It's also because you have demonstrated a decided lack i=of interest
in any side effects of your desires. You have no concern over what
else may happen; you've certainly exhibited none, even when pushed.

Your entire argument is based on idealism. While nothing's wrong with
that, you refuse to admit that idealism and reality seldom mesh well.
I also wish things were better. I even come up with ideas to help that
along, as much as I can.
But I have enough experience to know what human nature is, and that
human nature is far more selfish than it is altruistic.
I also know that the young, without enough experience to understand
that, can (and do) often push enough to make changes. Keep it up. But,
when your ideas won't work as is, be intelligent enough to accept
it,and change your ideas into something that *can* work. As an
example, learn as much as you can about the system you want to change;
as it is, you don't understand the system well, as shown above. Learn
the rules, *then* work to change them.
If you don't know the rules, you will always be surprised by those who
do.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"