The Affordable Car Act 2014

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,672
Reaction score
4,535
Location
Michigan
I have been thinking a lot about the Affordable Care Act and I have come to the conclusion that it's the best thing ever. I wanted to do my part, so I came up with the Affordable Car Act, and I'm going to send it to my elected representatives in Washington DC so they can introduce it as a Bill and hopefully vote it into law. Now that we know that individual mandates are Constitutional so long as they fall under the 'tax' category of federal powers, there is no reason not to extend this to cover other social needs.

Whereas we need affordable cars to get to work, and many people do not have access to affordable cars, it is incumbent upon a rich society such as ours to provide affordable cars to everyone,

And,

Whereas it is important that we cut our dependence on foreign oil, and domestic drilling and 'fracking' are bad and known to cause heartburn in tree-huggers, it is incumbent upon the government to require everyone to drive an alternative-fuel vehicle,

Be it then resolved that the United States of America will, beginning in 2014, require every American over the age of 16 to purchase and maintain an alternative-energy car. This will also require the purchase of automobile insurance appropriate to the state of residence, and the storage and regular maintenance of same.

The majority of Americans who already own cars will be unaffected, except that they will be required to 'phase out' their use of internal combustion vehicles which burn fossil fuel and purchase alternative-fuel vehicles which burn renewable fuels or run on alternative sources of power such as electricity. To make this affordable, all citizens of driving age who earn less than an amount to be determined later will receive subsidies from the federal government for the purchase of an alternative-fuel vehicle. These subsidies will be based on income and will be received as a reduction in income tax owed at the end of the year when filing taxes. Citizens regardless of income will need to purchase alternative-fuel vehicles prior to filing for tax breaks based on income.

Those citizens deemed able to afford to purchase new alternative-fuel vehicles will not receive any tax assistance from the federal government. In addition, they will pay a new use tax based on miles driven, as determined by mandatory GPS transceivers mounted in all new vehicles sold after 2012, and they will be required to pay a new fee on all automobiles purchased from auto manufacturers not owned by the federal government.

The subsidies to low-income citizens for new alternative-fuel vehicles must be paid for by an individual mandate. So even those who prefer to bike or take public transportation or live in large cities where driving is impractical will be required to purchase a new alternative-fuel vehicle. Failure to do so will result in a 'fee' charged by the IRS on taxes due at the end of the year. It is anticipated that the Supreme Court will call this a 'tax', but the federal government will require all citizens to call it a 'fee' instead. Failure to call the tax a fee will be punishable by law.

Since alternative-fuel technology is still increasing and there is currently no major infrastructure to provide charging stations and alternative-fuel filling stations across the USA, the federal government will embark upon a grand expansion of these stations, based on studies which show where Americans need to drive, and paid for with a new 'national alternative fuel infrastructure tax' levied on all American wage-earners, regardless of whether or not they drive their required alternative-fuel vehicles.

All vehicles sold in the USA after 2013 will also be designed to stop running at the 80,000 mile mark, requiring the owner to puchase a new vehicle. This will ensure that the economy is kept in motion with new vehicle purchases. A new branch of government, the Department of Recycling, will ensure that all cars past the 80,000 mile mark are properly recycled to be made into new alternative-fuel vehicles. Since it costs more than the raw materials required to build such a vehicle to recycle the old parts, a new tax will be levied on all citizens to pay for this necessary work.

*************

Now, while may seem on the surface to any intelligent person that the average citizen will be required to fund the purchase of a wildly-expensive vehicle every couple years whether they want one or not, that they're being forced to purchase a car even if they don't drive or have no license, that they will be paying a multitude of increased fees and taxes, and that even those who will supposedly receive 'free' cars will have to front the money and then MAYBE get a percentage of that refunded at the end of the year, I assure you THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

This entire purpose of this ACA is to make cars affordable, even if math, logic, and the rules of the universe prove this is not the case. How do you know? Because that's what the Act is called, dummy.

And it will be against the law to argue that 'affordable' does not actually mean 'huge new taxes and fees'. This Act will be popular and make citizens happy, by Act of Law.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
21,974
Reaction score
7,528
Location
Covington, WA
If I drive my car for 12 to 14 years, it will have saved ~$25k in fuel, which means that an effectively free car is already available. the idea that alternative fuel cars are expensive is a myth.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
 
OP
Bill Mattocks

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,672
Reaction score
4,535
Location
Michigan
If I drive my car for 12 to 14 years, it will have saved ~$25k in fuel, which means that an effectively free car is already available. the idea that alternative fuel cars are expensive is a myth.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Exactly the government's point. Who cares if you can't afford the upfront cost to buy such a car? If you're poor, the government will help you buy one (after you front the money and file your taxes later) and if you're not poor, you should be forced to buy one anyway. I can see how this kind of bully-boy tactic, er, oops, I mean enlightened and benevolent leader theory works.

But in reality - no. Electric and dual-powered vehicles need new batteries, which are a huge expense. Insurance costs are much higher when you have to insure a financed car than one that is paid for and can legally carry only liability insurance. Older cars can be repaired far less expensively by local mechanics who do not have or cannot afford the specialized equipment required for the most modern hybrid and electric vehicles. And so on. Fuel costs are only a small part of per-mile amortization of the cost of driving.

And in any case, even if were 'cheaper' to buy a hybrid or electric vehicle, that is not a valid reason to force citizens to buy one. My post was meant to be sarcastic and point out the evil logic of the Affordable Care Act, apparently lost in translation?
 

zDom

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
3,081
Reaction score
110
My post was meant to be sarcastic and point out the evil logic of the Affordable Care Act, apparently lost in translation?

Nah, I got it :)

I want to tack on the Fourth Pillar amendment.

Everybody is going to read news eventually and it is important to democracy (the fourth pillar of democracy!).

So everybody needs to buy a newspaper every day even if you aren't going to read it that day. Otherwise, those who do read everyday will be subsidizing those who won't buy one until they want to read the news.

We could set up news exchanges for those unable to find a reliable and affordable news source on their own.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
21,974
Reaction score
7,528
Location
Covington, WA
It was obviously sarcastic, but it is also built on some popular but untrue premises. Such as that alternative fuel cars are expensive. If I save as much over 12 years as I did last year the savings in fuel have effectively paid for the car. That's just the difference in what I did pay for gas and what I do pay for the electricity.

Every car has maintenance costs. It's only an insightful observation if it's grounded in reality.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

granfire

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
16,005
Reaction score
1,612
Location
In Pain
http://newamerica.net/user/115

Lisa Margonelli had an interesting presentation a while back on the cost of cars etc, and how the lower financial echelons suffer.

You really only can safe money if you can afford to drop it in purchase price first.
 
OP
Bill Mattocks

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,672
Reaction score
4,535
Location
Michigan
http://newamerica.net/user/115

Lisa Margonelli had an interesting presentation a while back on the cost of cars etc, and how the lower financial echelons suffer.

You really only can safe money if you can afford to drop it in purchase price first.

Little did I know that there would be people who thought my sarcastic commentary would be be embraced as a good idea. Good grief! Yes, poor people have a human right to own a car, and those not poor should be forced to buy it for them. Right. NO!
 

granfire

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
16,005
Reaction score
1,612
Location
In Pain
Little did I know that there would be people who thought my sarcastic commentary would be be embraced as a good idea. Good grief! Yes, poor people have a human right to own a car, and those not poor should be forced to buy it for them. Right. NO!

LIEK ZOMG...


hey, you might have been sarcastic, but the math is still there.

However, somewhere in the base of the idea, there is that notion that we don't need no stinkin electric cars...the consumer don't want them....

More of the same old same old....until the numbers are presented. Saving money on gas is really cool...forget about the eco deal as long as the bottom line improves.

But I get it, you were sarcastic.

(but the lady still had an awesome presentation on why the middle class got screwed on the car deal in the last 4 years, effectively shrinking their networth, by driving alone)
 
OP
Bill Mattocks

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,672
Reaction score
4,535
Location
Michigan
LIEK ZOMG...


hey, you might have been sarcastic, but the math is still there.

However, somewhere in the base of the idea, there is that notion that we don't need no stinkin electric cars...the consumer don't want them....

More of the same old same old....until the numbers are presented. Saving money on gas is really cool...forget about the eco deal as long as the bottom line improves.

But I get it, you were sarcastic.

(but the lady still had an awesome presentation on why the middle class got screwed on the car deal in the last 4 years, effectively shrinking their networth, by driving alone)

The point you make that freaks me out is the notion that since the math is right for electric cars, and consumers refuse to make the 'right' choice, they should therefore be forced to. That gacks me double hard. I'm serious, my head wants to explode right off my shoulders. It's like every ultra-conservative's accusation about liberals come true with a vengeance, and the liberal in question going "Yeah, so?"

I like you, but inside I'm going OH MY FREAKING GAWD!
 

granfire

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
16,005
Reaction score
1,612
Location
In Pain
The point you make that freaks me out is the notion that since the math is right for electric cars, and consumers refuse to make the 'right' choice, they should therefore be forced to. That gacks me double hard. I'm serious, my head wants to explode right off my shoulders. It's like every ultra-conservative's accusation about liberals come true with a vengeance, and the liberal in question going "Yeah, so?"

I like you, but inside I'm going OH MY FREAKING GAWD!


LOL, no, not like you can make Americans do anything unless you make it look like it was their own idea.

it's the same with photo cells on the roof. it would make sense to put them up in most parts of the country. The upfront cost is prohibitive for most people.

(I didn't think you are easily freaked, let alone by something that is not real :lol:)
 

Omar B

Senior Master
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
3,687
Reaction score
87
Location
Queens, NY. Fort Lauderdale, FL
Interesting thread. I will write more later when I'm home. A car is not a right and the government shoukd not be making them more affordable. What should be going on is a push back to rapid transit, trains, improve it. Develop it and make it more viable for the whole country rather than the eastern seaboard, LA and Chicago.
 

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
Bill Mattocks, this whole thing will look a lot better after you drink this nice glass of obamacare kool-aid and place this complementary Obamacare "pod," under your bed tonight before you go to sleep. It will all make much more sense in the morning.
 

Gentle Fist

Master Black Belt
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
1,145
Reaction score
15
Location
U.S.A.
Interesting thread. I will write more later when I'm home. A car is not a right and the government shoukd not be making them more affordable. What should be going on is a push back to rapid transit, trains, improve it. Develop it and make it more viable for the whole country rather than the eastern seaboard, LA and Chicago.

Well said!
 

granfire

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
16,005
Reaction score
1,612
Location
In Pain
Interesting thread. I will write more later when I'm home. A car is not a right and the government shoukd not be making them more affordable. What should be going on is a push back to rapid transit, trains, improve it. Develop it and make it more viable for the whole country rather than the eastern seaboard, LA and Chicago.

Communist!
 

Omar B

Senior Master
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
3,687
Reaction score
87
Location
Queens, NY. Fort Lauderdale, FL
Communist!

What the hell?

In any case, the government is not here to make sure you can drive around in some crap economy car subsidized to heck and back with all the saftey, fuel saving technology and high tech matrerials priced out to the lowest bidder. Makes me wonder how much more awful a car can get. If the government is gonna pay for cars then we are all gonna get some damn crap cars.
 

shinbushi

Green Belt
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
184
Reaction score
7
Location
Manhattan Beach, California
Interesting thread. I will write more later when I'm home. A car is not a right and the government shoukd not be making them more affordable. What should be going on is a push back to rapid transit, trains, improve it. Develop it and make it more viable for the whole country rather than the eastern seaboard, LA and Chicago.
Did you actually say L.A. and rapid transit in the same sentence? mass transit in L.A. is horrible. also the county with the BEST mass transit is Japan AND all the buses trains and subways are PRIVATELY owned. From what I head from Japanese was when the government ran it was horrible.
 

Omar B

Senior Master
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
3,687
Reaction score
87
Location
Queens, NY. Fort Lauderdale, FL
Oh I agree that public transport and such should be the realm of private enterprise. Same for health care and a lot more. I'm an objectivist, I don't want government in anything.

But the conceit of the thread is a government/car thing so that's the sandbox I'm playing in.
 

granfire

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
16,005
Reaction score
1,612
Location
In Pain
What the hell?

In any case, the government is not here to make sure you can drive around in some crap economy car subsidized to heck and back with all the saftey, fuel saving technology and high tech matrerials priced out to the lowest bidder. Makes me wonder how much more awful a car can get. If the government is gonna pay for cars then we are all gonna get some damn crap cars.

:lfao:

You don't lay around in the Study often enough.

or you'd know that everything not GOP is communist...

;)
 
Top