[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Wow, one attempted "eco-serving" met with one "reality-check backhanding!"

Point, ebuddy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

My local power company has put up hundreds of turbines.

I stand corrected and apologize. Through this I come to find out that my own State is ranked 22nd in wind turbine energy production in MW. We have the potential to be #6. Interesting.

I've been paying an average of $10 a month for ten years.

This is putting your money where your mouth is. I definitely stand corrected here and apologize.

Terrapass has lots of information on their website about what they do and I've paid in for both my vehicles for two.

This I'll never get. My guess is that you'd want to give twice, perhaps even three times as much to your local power company who has a more appreciable local affect. After all, when you give to Terrapass, they're just turning around and investing in green business (like your local power company) and taking a portion of your donation to pay their employees, etc... before it gets to the green businesses who take a portion of that money for their employees and so on. This is like paying a secretary an extra 30$/month to pay your bills. Just pay them directly IMO. It's your money of course and suffice it to say this is another example of putting your money where your mouth is.

My car is a Civic and we're waiting to buy any new cars until the new plug-in hybrids hit the market.

This is in fact an "economy" and I stand corrected. I apologize.

Like I said, the influx of cash I've earmarked for solar panels doesn't come in until next year, so I've got months and months to hammer out details.

Tell you what, when you have these installed post pictures of them and I will concede on this point. Not only will you see how reasonable I am in apologizing publicly for this too, it will serve to motivate others who've been fence-sitting this technology.

I haven't had bacon in four years. My dog... My dog?

It seems you have no meat-eating pets either. BLAST! I stand corrected and apologize.

Give me a break.

I'll not only give you a break, you can watch me eat some crow while you're enjoying it. This is a very rare opportunity and I give you front row seats.

Your objections are nitpicking and argumentative--nothing else. And you missed the point.

Of course my arguments are nitpicking and argumentative. When I see; "I put my money where my mouth is", I'm going to 'Perry Mason' out some details. Again with all due respect, your original response was so lacking in substantive info to back the claim that it just wreaked of bumpkus. IMO, you've adequately addressed most of my railing and I readily apologize on those points. You're wrong on me not getting the point and I'll explain below.

If we speak to corporate America through our purchases, then my buying organic or buying green is supporting a rapidly expanding sector of the economy, raising the profile of businesses that are trying to achieve sustainable economic growth. THAT's enough good for me, even if the individual impact of any one choice is small.

IMO, had you been investing in yourself by taking the money you've been donating to Terrapass and your local power company and placed that loot in some short-term aggressive stocks of your own, those solar panels would already be on your roof serving as the most effective testimonial to the benefits of the technology. Again though it's none of my business and for the sake of the arguments I've lodged against you here, I stand corrected and apologize.

So, "less than honest?" Yeah, that's not personal. Kiss off. You can keep your pig-headed assumptions.

You went into numerical detail on your scope of daily driving and it was proven not true. To be clear, had it not been for your honesty in subsequent posts, we'd have not known this and that's why I thanked you for it. Like I said, it was that kind of "this is what I do", in-your-face sort of stuff I latch on to. I stand corrected and apologize.

Look at yourself, do you really delight in being this much of a prick?

Generally no. That's why you've known me to be a genuinely sensible and serious person as you mentioned before. I appreciate being a prick when I know I'm right. When I'm wrong, it's not as much fun. While I'm generally pretty quick to offer an apology, you've collected more in this thread than I've given in my entire time here. I much prefer when I'm right which I still maintain is most of the time.

Doof launched the silly challenge trying to set me up as a hypocrite; I never did any chest-pounding about my own eco-superiority, just told him that as a matter of fact, I do make some lifestyle sacrifices to fit my beliefs.

The whole; "this is what I've done" (missing too many details IMO) and "thank you" seemed a bit like chest-pouding eco-superiority to me and it drew me in like a moth to a bonfire. I challenged, you met. I stand corrected on most points and apologize for seeming like a prick.

I know I try to live my life responsibly, so I don't require your validation. He was big enough to admit when he was jumping to conclusions about someone. So was I, when my own assumptions were overturned. Maybe we can all learn a lesson from this.

You sure need to.

I did and I appreciate your help in this. I will try to deliver my suspicions in a more disciplined manner. You in fact have put your money where your mouth is and IMO you're not only good peepz, you're qualified to encourage others to be as conscious of the environment. I apologize for being a prick.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Wow, one attempted "eco-serving" met with one "reality-check backhanding!"

Point, ebuddy.

Unfortunately, I have to give this point back.

I'm skeptical that Helmling will be installing $10,000.00 worth of solar panels next year, but in honesty with all else he's been up to-I'm less skeptical now than I was yesterday to be sure. I think I brought up about 5 points and he's really satisfied all, but that one about wind and solar energy on his rooftop to return surplus to the grid. I've placed my smacking hands back in my pocket for now.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Unfortunately, I have to give this point back.

I'm skeptical that Helmling will be installing $10,000.00 worth of solar panels next year, but in honesty with all else he's been up to-I'm less skeptical now than I was yesterday to be sure. I think I brought up about 5 points and he's really satisfied all, but that one about wind and solar energy on his rooftop to return surplus to the grid. I've placed my smacking hands back in my pocket for now.

Well, here's hoping that I am able to afford it next year to satisfy you on that point too.

As to the feeding the grid, I don't remember where I've read about it in the past (several sources) but here are the first few links off google:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/commu...,4385512.story

http://realestate.msn.com/improve/gr...mentid=4913557

http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz...aign_id=search

Looks like you're more right than you knew. My utility needs a net metering program before I can pump juice into the grid. Fortunately, I've checked now and they sure do.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Actually I'm all for anyone that's concerned about environmental issues actually putting their money and effort where their mouth is and actually walking the walk, not just talking the talk with what everyone else needs to do.

For that, I think you deserve a lot of credit, Helming.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Actually I'm all for anyone that's concerned about environmental issues actually putting their money and effort where their mouth is and actually walking the walk, not just talking the talk with what everyone else needs to do.

For that, I think you deserve a lot of credit, Helming.

Thanks, but honestly I don't do much. If I could persuade everyone to do one thing to lower their impact, it wouldn't be to save up to put solar panels on the roof--though if you want to, knock yourself out--but just to think about trash.

Every piece of plastic took petroleum to make, took energy to process, and will end up in a landfill if not recycled. I'm really convinced that one of the things that makes America's energy consumption so much higher per capita than most other developed nations is our disposable culture. We, as consumers, could make a big impact if we just started demanding less packaging waste and making an effort to buy less of what will eventually lead us to throw something away.

So that's the sales pitch I'm making with my hard-won credibility.

Thank you, and good night.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

There's nothing illegal about tax avoidance.

In the United States it is illegal to hide taxable income in offshore bank accounts.

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Because the correct way of saying what you've just said is "Everyone should pay no, or next to no, taxes".

No. Taxes are needed to pay for state and federal services. Maintaining roadways, funding for schools, paying for the military, etc. It is ridiculous to think that only the working stiff has to pay for those things. Because your "income" is based on interest and dividends from million-dollar investments doesn't mean it should tax exempt. It should (and is to some extent) be some of the highest taxed forms of wealth because it is not dependent on a standard of living, nor does it stop appropriation of additional wealth (interest is still compounded and there is always a profit.)

The problem is exploiting the taxes to fund special interest groups. Taxes could be lowered and people could be making a lot more money if we didn't have billions of dollars going to private & special interest groups that have absolutely nothing to do with the welfare of the citizens of the United States.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It is ridiculous to think that only the working stiff has to pay for those things.

That's a strawman. The top 10% income earners pay 70% of the federal income tax.

Because your "income" is based on interest and dividends from million-dollar investments doesn't mean it should tax exempt.

Another strawman: No one said it should be. But there are many reasons why it is smart to tax it at a lower rate than normal income, for one, investment risk.

It should (and is to some extent) be some of the highest taxed forms of wealth because it is not dependent on a standard of living,

Huh? If a person's capital is suddenly reduced by an order of magnitude due to a market downturn, it certainly can affect his or her standard of living.

nor does it stop appropriation of additional wealth (interest is still compounded and there is always a profit.)

Unless the investment in question doesn't perform or falls through. Or did you think people always make money in the stock market and other capital arenas?

The problem is exploiting the taxes to fund special interest groups. Taxes could be lowered and people could be making a lot more money if we didn't have billions of dollars going to private & special interest groups that have absolutely nothing to do with the welfare of the citizens of the United States.

You mean special interests like the special interest Obama is advocating spending $97B annually on to fight global poverty? But I'll cut you some slack because you're partially right. Yes, there's a lot of useless special interest federal spending, but there's also a ton of useless spending outside of the special interest sphere. Reduce the federal government's size and scope down to something approaching proper constitutional levels - get the federal government out of the areas it was never meant to be in - and you'll cut out most all of the ridiculous spending.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

In the United States it is illegal to hide taxable income in offshore bank accounts.

In the United States tax avoidance is not illegal.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

No. Taxes are needed to pay for state and federal services. Maintaining roadways, funding for schools, paying for the military, etc.

That's not strictly true. The "fair tax" would cover the same stuff without taxing anyone's income.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It is ridiculous to think that only the working stiff has to pay for those things.

Huh? I said "Everyone should pay no, or next to no, taxes".

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

In the United States tax avoidance is not illegal.



That's not strictly true. The "fair tax" would cover the same stuff without taxing anyone's income.



Huh? I said "Everyone should pay no, or next to no, taxes".

What about a graduated "fair tax?" I mean the fair tax is projected to be something like 23%, right? What if it was graduated, more like 5% on low-level consumer goods and growing to 50% on really high end goods that only the ludicrously wealthy can buy?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

What about a graduated "fair tax?" I mean the fair tax is projected to be something like 23%, right? What if it was graduated, more like 5% on low-level consumer goods and growing to 50% on really high end goods that only the ludicrously wealthy can buy?

No thanks - that smacks of social engineering.

At the same rate, a rich bloke spending £130,000 will automatically pay more tax than a poor bloke buying some sort of £15,000 Honda. Because 23% of £130,000 is more than 23% of £15,000.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

There have been a number of studies in the US that indicate that when it comes to American demographics, liberals tend to be better educated. That, though, is a far cry from "more intelligent."

the school system is dominated by liberals.... perhaps those with more fitting views tend to stick to the system more.

As i'm sure you know, level of education can have little to do with actual intelligence....Anyone can get a PHD with enough work involved. That doesn't make you smart, and believe you me...i've met some pretty dumb PHDs...they may know their own subject very well, but when it comes to things outside of their line of study, forget it....

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

the school system is dominated by liberals.... perhaps those with more fitting views tend to stick to the system more.

As i'm sure you know, level of education can have little to do with actual intelligence....Anyone can get a PHD with enough work involved. That doesn't make you smart, and believe you me...i've met some pretty dumb PHDs...they may know their own subject very well, but when it comes to things outside of their line of study, forget it....

I should add that where the PHD comes from and what field its in is also important to describing correlations between education and intelligence. Important, but not overly so.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No thanks - that smacks of social engineering.

At the same rate, a rich bloke spending £130,000 will automatically pay more tax than a poor bloke buying some sort of £15,000 Honda. Because 23% of £130,000 is more than 23% of £15,000.

But 23% is going to have a crippling effect on consumption by the lower third of the participants in the economy, which should alarm even a supply-sider. Me, I'm more concerned about lower middle class and poor people not being able to buy things they need.

I'm not yet convinced that social engineering should be completely off the table. I'm just trying to think of ways of pulling it off that don't limit personal freedom. As I see it, higher taxes on expensive goods would be a lot better than higher income taxes from that point of view. Even better for me would be a corporate tax structure based on incentives and disincentives. Companies that have cleaner environmental records--and hence are not driving up health costs--and companies that have less income disparity among their employees--which promotes inequality, a threat to liberty in society--would pay less taxes.

We're all dreaming, of course, since we are very stuck with the tax structure we have. We're not going to get our chance to rework society.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

But 23% is going to have a crippling effect on consumption by the lower third of the participants in the economy, which should alarm even a supply-sider. Me, I'm more concerned about lower middle class and poor people not being able to buy things they need.

But the lower end of the market will very quickly (like, two weeks) compensate for this.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

we are very stuck with the tax structure we have.

You might be (if you're American). I can simply move.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But the lower end of the market will very quickly (like, two weeks) compensate for this.

There's no economic reason for this to be true. Equilibrium price is not necessarily the price most people can afford. With that tax rate demand could go low enough that for some goods, the poor would be screwed and the middle class would have to sacrifice other goods in order to afford necessities.