Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Come visit Los Angeles you will find that the Smog is very real. Everyone contributes to it and everyone should pay for the costs associated with it. Those that contribute more should pay more.
That's fine with me, charge the people in LA for creating that smog ONLY if you have a plan to clean it up... Last time I check every car created smog and if you charge someone for creating and NOT clean it up... that is bogus money that goes NOWHERE except in someone's pockets... no thanks... I wouldn't pick one group of people and demand they pay for everyone... what's that? There is no such thing as cleaning up smog... well, what are you charging them for? Make someone richer instead? I think Al Gore is volunteering to be that person...
. so where does he not pay for his/her medical care exactly?
Unless he is paying for his medical care directly than others are subsidizing his life style. Although if you get private insurance by yourself and you drink a lot they will charge you more, but if you are part of some group policy then everyone is getting charged for it.
Quote:
There is no such thing as cleaning up smog... well, what are you charging them for?
Firstly, there are plenty of measures that can help with smog. Secondly, smog has many secondary effects such as on ones health.
Unless he is paying for his medical care directly than others are subsidizing his life style. Although if you get private insurance by yourself and you drink a lot they will charge you more, but if you are part of some group policy then everyone is getting charged for it.
Last time I check that group policy is..... voluntary... where do you get off making it mandatory? If you don't like the policy and how much it costs, then you have the option of leaving. Unfortunately, you have no such option. I don't get why you keep insisting in comparing apples and oranges. If you want to talk about, talk about SUVs and health care.
Quote:
Firstly, there are plenty of measures that can help with smog. Secondly, smog has many secondary effects such as on ones health.
What measures do you know that ACTIVELY cleans smog? As in taking smog in and converting it into something harmless. Sure smog has bad health effects and last time I check, that is treated with a different kind of payment. If you clean smog, then your point is moot about secondary effects.
If you don't like the policy and how much it costs, then you have the option of leaving.
There are two problems here. 1.) Your employer is not going to give you the money they would've spent on your health benefits if you don't receive the benefits. 2.) Unless you are self employed your health insurance is not tax deductible.
The system is created in such a way where you are pretty much forced to pay for others bad choices via group rates.
Quote:
What measures do you know that ACTIVELY cleans smog?
Its not about "cleaning" smog its about reducing it and that takes a lot of effort. Its hard to get a business to become more environmentally friendly. Their actions only have a marginal effect on the problem, so how exactly do they benefit from it? What if their competitors don't do it? So, one has to create incentives for these businesses to be more environmentally friendly that usually means tax breaks and things of that nature. The same issue exists on the personal level. Someone with a SUV contributes very little to the problem, so from their point of view there is little point in changing their behavior.
But creating such tax breaks can create budgetary problems, so you'll have to raise taxes else where. And that is just the point, you raise taxes on the people doing the pollution and reduce them on the people who are making an effort to be environmentally friendly. The end result: 1.) People that pollute pay for it, 2.) There is no net increase in taxes, 3.) The planet will be much cleaner.
There are two problems here. 1.) Your employer is not going to give you the money they would've spent on your health benefits if you don't receive the benefits. 2.) Unless you are self employed your health insurance is not tax deductible.
The system is created in such a way where you are pretty much forced to pay for others bad choices via group rates.
Again I am not going to compare apples and oranges..
Quote:
Its not about "cleaning" smog its about reducing it and that takes a lot of effort. Its hard to get a business to become more environmentally friendly. Their actions only have a marginal effect on the problem, so how exactly do they benefit from it? What if their competitors don't do it? So, one has to create incentives for these businesses to be more environmentally friendly that usually means tax breaks and things of that nature. The same issue exists on the personal level. Someone with a SUV contributes very little to the problem, so from their point of view there is little point in changing their behavior.
But creating such tax breaks can create budgetary problems, so you'll have to raise taxes else where. And that is just the point, you raise taxes on the people doing the pollution and reduce them on the people who are making an effort to be environmentally friendly. The end result: 1.) People that pollute pay for it, 2.) There is no net increase in taxes, 3.) The planet will be much cleaner.
Last time I check, smog wasn't due to low MPGs but total distance traveled. The longer you are in your car, the more smog you create.. so blaming the SUV driver is erroneous... asking taxes for reducing pollution? So then I guess you will NOT ask the SUV driver but those who elect to driver more often then... or was that a bunch a crap to attack SUV drivers.. another thread has also observed that TRUCKS and MINI-VANS had worse MPG than SUVs... so I guess you are advocating taxing every vehicle that is not a compact... is that right? Are you just targeting a lot of rhetoric?
The longer you are in your car, the more smog you create.. so blaming the SUV driver is erroneous... asking taxes for reducing pollution?
You should be taxed by how much pollution you create, I've said that many times now. So, someone that drove a car with 30/mpg and drove 20k miles a year would be taxed the same as someone with a SUV with 15/mpg that drove 10k miles a year.
I would also suggest giving tax breaks to businesses for buying alternative energy and/or very high MPG vehicles. I'm not sure if such a tax break would work good for personal cars though, it would more than likely just drive the cost of them up.
Quote:
.. so I guess you are advocating taxing every vehicle that is not a compact... is that right?
No, I've already stated that the best way I know of doing this is by raising fuel taxes. This has worked pretty well in Europe. You'll have to do different things to deal with polluting industry though.
There are two problems here. 1.) Your employer is not going to give you the money they would've spent on your health benefits if you don't receive the benefits. 2.) Unless you are self employed your health insurance is not tax deductible.
The system is created in such a way where you are pretty much forced to pay for others bad choices via group rates.
Not so with my employer at least...
All employees "Must" have health insurance... however, we have a choice of declining the company sponsored health plan in exchange for approximately $200 per month in increased wages if any one of the following apply:
1. You can prove coverage under a spouse's health insurance policy
2. You can prove coverage through a pre-existing employee paid plan
3. You are enrolled in Medicare...
My company has a few employees that fall into the above categories...
The best is when a spouse has government or military coverage... it's just like getting a $2400 a year raise :
Yeah, some companies are better than others with this. But do they let you go out and buy a private policy? And even if they do you'll have to pay for it with after-tax dollars which makes it anywhere from 20~40% more expensive depending on your tax bracket. I believe John McCain wants to change this, instead everyone will get a tax deduction for health insurance.
Anyhow, the health insurance issue is a bit complex though. On one hand people that take their health seriously shouldn't have to subsidize the health care for people that want to eat McDonald's every day. But on the other hand you have people with diseases that are very expensive to treat and they can't reasonably be expected to pay for the care. So in this case the care has to be subsidized either by group policies or taxes. Right now its largely subsidized by group policies, I think its far better to use tax dollars and then use the funds to subsidize private policies for these people.
Having health care attached to your employer is just a really bad idea on many levels.
Yeah, some companies are better than others with this. But do they let you go out and buy a private policy?
Um.. not exactly... but if you already have a plan in force, you have the choice to keep it when you become eligible for benifits. I only know one employee with a private plan she kept... but I know several that have taken the cash that are covered under their spouses government or military plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanoid
Having health care attached to your employer is just a really bad idea on many levels.
When I worked in Europe... it was standard practice NOT to have Health Care tied to a particular employer... only that you are either a student, employed, disabled or retired... or pay into it yourself if none of the above.
You need to qualify your statement to make it correct. The small SUV's (Honda CRV for example) will get better mileage than mini-vans. A Ford Explorer, Nissan Armada, Chevy/GMC Yukon or Tahoe WILL NOT get better mileage than a mini-van.
I scoff at the mid to large SUV's and call them STUPID URBAN VEHICLE because of how some people use them. No towing, no work needs just an urban/suburban people hauler. But I cannot buy a more fuel efficient mini-van to haul the kids and our camping gear because mini-vans are UNCOOL. But this is America. You have the right to scoff at my un-cool mini-van and I have the right to scoff at your vehicle choice. I will however be laughing all the way to the bank with my lower overall operating costs. If I did'nt need the van to haul furniture samples for my job, I would get a more fuel efficient sedan or a micro-van like the Mazda 5.
I do sense a tide turning where the "coolness" factor is more in staying debt free, building retirement savings and lowering consumption/spending instead of the type of clothes we wear, the car we drive or the house we live in(increasing consumption/spending). And the SUV's represent increased consumption with a perception that it's a want not a need. My parents depression/WW II mentality of spending less than you earn and saving like crazy makes so much more sense now at 44 than it did at 24.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
:
