2005 Tax deduction

Well, I have to say I'm a contarian when it comes to this war. I didn't support our going in to begin with, because Iraq doesn't mean much to us. I would have much rather seen a covert action to take out Saddam for his personal crimes. The reason the French and Germans were upset with us is that they were raking in the dough (and the oil) from Iraq by selling them technology via a back channel and avoiding the UN sanctions (sanctions ... another technique I don't agree with).

Nation building is a hard thing to do. I didn't support our efforts in Bosnia for that reason. Altruistic efforts are best left to agencies like the UN. The only time US troops should be in harm's way is to protect our vital interests, not to save other peoples.

But that being said, once you commit to it, you have to finish it. The southeast asian bloodbath that resulted when we pulled out of Vietnam shocked even George McGovern, who said we should go back in to stop the massacre Pol Pot was responsible for. But again, our national interest wasn't represented by the death of so many; and the international community didn't care. We can't afford to see that happen in the middle east because it IS in our vital national interest to ensure a free market in the supply of oil. We will starve, literally starve, without access to oil. So now, in the words of Colin Powell, who told Bush "if you break it, you bought it", we have indeed "bought" the problem.

We have to do what is necessary to finish the job. It will take another three years or so to get a good Iraqi defense force free of Bathists that can protect the country from the influx of terrorists from Iran and Syria. The recent election is the sign I was hoping for ... a large majority of all factions voting. If the Iraqi people can hold on for another three years, they will regain what they had before Saddam came into power with a military coup ... a westernized Arab country.

 

I"m in complete agreement with all points... The Arab nations are the last ones I have a warm and fuzzy for... but now that we are in it... what can you do?

I do think things could be speed up with more support, but I don't know all the logistics involved.... seems we are fighting every cockroach in every hole.
I wish we wouldn't have gotten involved, but I do like the interest we are fighting for.... Saddams biggest mistake was to harbor Bin Laden.... whether he really did or not.. who knows, but he paid a dear price for it if he did.
however, stamping out terroism is a job so big that all of the world needs to be chipping in.
Whats ashamed is when we finally do pull out.. even if Iraq can stand on its own, we have far from removed the source of the problem over there and they will be vulnerable to fall again without world support.

As long as the terrorist are stupid enough to pick on other nations too.. maybe that will bring some buyin that its a problem that needs to be addressed.

Thats the way gangsters operate.... you work with us, or we blow up your part of the neighborhood!

I wish I too could stick my head in the dirt, "or up my butt" and make the problem go away... but I can't.

 

"Fair" is a very subjective term.

As I see it, the gov't. decided to spend a certain amount of money in a certain way.

Because of the AMT limitation, it (surprisingly for this congress) does not disproportionately benefit the well-off.
This limitation also affects some retirees.

Because it's non-refundable (no money back if the credit is larger than your tax liability) it doesn't help the poorest or, again, some retirees as much.

It could be asserted that the poorest and retirees are not the best targets to incent to buy a hybrid and that for the most well-off, the credit will not generally be a deciding factor.

It seems to me that the credit is targeted to reduce fuel consumption and emissions among the group producing the most of these.
Although I'm probably giving the gov't too much credit, they're approach in this case can be viewed as rational and pragmatic.
Whether it is considered "Fair" will depend on each person's subjective criteria.

 

From the way it's going to break out (timed to benefit US manufacturers down the road a little, so they can ramp up and possibly improve their hybrid output), it sure looks as if Congress (their legal staffs, anyway) put more thought into this one, relatively insignificant portion of the Energy Act than they put into the Patriot Act!

 

I sure wish I was in the 13% bracket... but the more you make the more you pay. I did not buy my Prius to get a tax break. I bought it to make me feel like I can make a difference, by telling detroit and the oil companies that I'm not playing their game AND get 50 mpg doing it. The tax incentive was just a plus.
On a side note, just last night, I filled up next to a large black lincoln navigator with 20 inch rims... I put in 18$ and he was still pumping gas when I left and it was up to 54$ and change. I just shake my head and drive off happy. I like the way my prius makes me feel about me and my choices, my life and my priorities. It's the best money I have ever spent spent.
-Paul R. Haller- B)

 

Yea.. I made my decision about the prius never knowing about the credit... but with some, it may make a diff whether they can get it or not, or whether they buy hybrid verses non-hybrid... I think the latter is supposed to be the incentive really!

A large percentage of buyers I bet fall into this bracket and are the targets..

A man goes to buy a car.. he says.... humm.. I can get this car for X, or I can get a hybrid for X + 3000.00..... and help save the economy and use less gas. Many are afraid of the new technology and care more about what they can afford rather than saving the world with thier personal pocket book. Besides it takes 6 years or so to pay yourself back for the added cost of the hybrid and many will sell before then....
The credit is a nice counterbalance. So that is one primary target as I see it.

But it doesn't matter if the rich man helps save gas or the poor man... its just that Uncle Sam is not into helping certain classes of people any more than they are already helped by other services.

 

That's probably a good way of looking at it. We're focused on the automobile portion of the energy bill, but there's also an array of incentives for installing insulation, and things such as high efficiency home heating boilers (which really don't save any energy, but you can't expect politicians to understand that).

 

I don't get it, how do insulation and high efficiency appliances not save energy. Take water heaters. If I use 1kwh per day heating my efficient tank and you spend 5 kwh a day heating your old tank, given all other variables being the same, how is that not saving energy. Is it simply a matter of semantics, or do youe really mean that using less energy is not savign energy?

I really don't understand how credits for these things are bad. California certainly could use a few more households with energy efficient appliances. Might fix a few of their black-out problems, or at least make them only be brown-outs.

Either way, I see tax credits/deductions as a good incentive for these tyoes of things. They may help to convince some people to get a more efficient whatever at their next purchase. As I and others have stated, this doesn't apply to the top and bottom of consumers, as their choices are determined by other things than these types of tax incentives.

We are lucky enough to be in the top tax bracket. For us, the tax incentive didn't make any difference as to when we got the Prius. Before or after Jan 1, didn't matter as long as I got the exact car I wanted, which I did. Could I have waited two more weeks? Sure. Would it have mattered? Nope.

 

THANK YOU SIR...Both my boys have and are overthere, and they all say the same things., it is called ROE (Rules of engagement)., you have to get authorization to go active on any weapon system, right down to IED's and M-16's, even in my days back in Nam I had ROE's, most were printed and taped to our consoles on the helo's. Nowadays they have to radio in to a Situation Officer or a roving air command center, to get authority to go active on weapons, or to engage, there are few exceptions, and if you fire first or go active your nice person is grass if done without authorization.

 

Scary to be there, But nice rules!... just would be scary to live under!

But not as scary as the rules we live by here..... Innocent until they take your daughter!...and on the way into your house in the dark, make sure you don't have anything in the way that might cause them to trip and hurt themselves.... you would hate to be sued you know!
Thats what Liberal Rules have done for us here!

 

Insulation is fine, and so is installing more efficient air conditioners. But the same isn't true in the case of home heating boilers. On home heating boilers, where you are putting higher temperature water through your baseboards, radiators or even radiant floor heating (if your return water temp is above 120F), there is no difference in the energy consumed by an appliance rated at 85% AFUE and one rated at 98% AFUE. Its a technical issue, but consumers are being fooled by marketing, and evidently the foolish legislators were also. The short version is: In order to get above 85% efficient, you have to reclaim heat out of the water vapor in the flue gasses. In order to get the heat out of the water vapor you need to condense it back into water. Flue gasses will not condense on the heat exchanger in the boiler unless the water inside the tubes is below about 110F. If you keep your boiler water at the point where the appliance condensates, and is therefore "energy efficient", your house will never get warm. Now THAT's a waste of energy!

The most efficient energy source for home heating is electric heating. It is 100% efficient, but it is also so much more expensive that it is cheaper to "waste" 15% - 20% of your energy by using gas appliances.

California's electric problems were not due to ineffecient appliances; it was due to half - hearted deregulation (they deregulated the wholesale supply, but not the retail price, so energy suppliers could charge what they want, but the distribution folks couldn't raise their rates easily ... so they just shut down the grid). If you deregulate, you have to do it "whole hog" and be prepared for dramatic increases in consumer prices until the market finds its center. That's probably not politically feasible.