Science & Technology News

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by newhaul

It's not battery range it's a matter of high speed charging infrastructure.

Well yes, but if the battery range was greater, they would be less need for more charging stations. All factors in the equation.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by geoleo

The US?/ Do you dislike the US? Were you oppressed in the US?

I am happy as a US citizen. That doesn’t mean that I ignore it’s flaws.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...Flat tax is one of those profoundly brilliant, fundamentally just things, like basic minimum income. Simplicity, fairness, interfering less with real life.

It's certainly simple, and cheaper to administer. But fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. A progressive tax system recognizes that x% means a lot more to the person who makes $100 vs the person who makes $1,000. Taxes may be paid as a percentage of income, but stuff is bought based on actual dollar value, so the loss of 13% means more to the person at the bottom of the rung than at the top.

A progressive system means those with the least can pay the least because those with the most pay the most. But perhaps a combination of the two would be the best. Apply a flat tax to all those above a certain cut off, with those below having a zero rate.

This is the problem with regressive tax systems like sales taxes. Everyone is treated the same (for tax purposes), even though they're not.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The vid does suggest (or imply anyway) that the first should happen. Seems like a no-brainer. I didn't even realize there were different standards. This happens over and over again... Why can't we learn... .

The second also sounds reasonable if the info presented is accurate. The vid claims both range and cost are near or at the tipping point of adoption in the US. So incentives may not be needed -- not unless you want to move even more people quicker. But the barrier (according to the vid) is charging stations, so sure ... incentivising that makes sense.


I would love to have seen data on Canada. Russia and Canada are similar in having massive distances with little population. Plus we're colder, so I bet the whole EV calculus is quite different compared to the US and Europe.


As I say, purely from direct observation, I see a rapid and massive increase in charging stations across Canada. But this is far from authoritative.

At some point government will step in and mandate a limited number of standard charging connectors if industry doesn’t manage to do it in their own.

This happened in Europe with phone charging connectors.
In the US iPhone is holding onto their proprietary lightning connector.

The following video has a very good breakdown regarding charging time. This guy makes the point that since battery capacities vary widely a better way to come at the different charging levels is how many miles of range can each system put in the car per hour of charging.
The basic 110v household service can put in about 5miles/hr. The lowest 220v service 12mi/hr.

At about 6m30s is the breakdown.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TcoLCTkM0ys&vl=en

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Yep and that's why they will never do it
Gotta love the government bureaucracy machine

That be the "DEEP STATE"

[sv_pelagia]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It's certainly simple, and cheaper to administer. But fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. A progressive tax system recognizes that x% means a lot more to the person who makes $100 vs the person who makes $1,000. Taxes may be paid as a percentage of income, but stuff is bought based on actual dollar value, so the loss of 13% means more to the person at the bottom of the rung than at the top.

A progressive system means those with the least can pay the least because those with the most pay the most. But perhaps a combination of the two would be the best. Apply a flat tax to all those above a certain cut off, with those below having a zero rate.

This is the problem with regressive tax systems like sales taxes. Everyone is treated the same (for tax purposes), even though they're not.

exactly... beat me to it!

Person A making $10k/yr
Person B making $100k/yr

10% flat tax leaves A with $9k, whereas B has $90k. A lot easier for B to survive and be happy; not so much for A.

OF COURSE B likes the flat tax!

B could still happily survive on $80k with a 20% tax, whereas 0% tax and only $10k for A is still rough.

[Lazy1]

The batteries should be standardized and be hot swapable. You could set up stations where you pull in and swap your dead batteries for charged ones for some fee. A fee could be added to ensure that the batteries get replaced at the stations when they get too tired and that would also help avoid the battery replacement cost that causes the old EV to become almost valueless.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

EVs are a no-brainer for urban/suburban driving, and for road travel through populated corridors with lots of towns and other stops for recharging.

For cross-Canada driving - most people aren't doing that very often, so this market could be well-served by rental vehicles with IC (gas/diesel) engines. It would also make sense if most of the owned EVs are small and light (therefore not always great for long trips); the rental fleet could be bigger and more roomy, sporty maybe, or even minivans or small RVs.

For long distance travel: Auto Trains.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_Train

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

exactly... beat me to it!

Person A making $10k/yr
Person B making $100k/yr

10% flat tax leaves A with $9k, whereas B has $90k. A lot easier for B to survive and be happy; not so much for A.

OF COURSE B likes the flat tax!

B could still happily survive on $80k with a 20% tax, whereas 0% tax and only $10k for A is still rough.

That's why I am an advocate of step tax rates with no deductions save something like 3 or 4k per child tax credit up to 4 kids

[Midnight Son]

Originally Posted by geoleo

That be the "DEEP STATE"

Not at all, just the Billionaires, or some of them, figure they can't keep their serfs indebted to them. THAT will never do. So put up the smoke screen, about UBI.

There is a reason they bought the souls,of almost every politician, and this is not restricted to the US, by any stretch of the imagination.
Best wishes all.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

exactly... beat me to it!

Person A making $10k/yr
Person B making $100k/yr

10% flat tax leaves A with $9k, whereas B has $90k. A lot easier for B to survive and be happy; not so much for A.

OF COURSE B likes the flat tax!

B could still happily survive on $80k with a 20% tax, whereas 0% tax and only $10k for A is still rough.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It's certainly simple, and cheaper to administer. But fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. A progressive tax system recognizes that x% means a lot more to the person who makes $100 vs the person who makes $1,000. Taxes may be paid as a percentage of income, but stuff is bought based on actual dollar value, so the loss of 13% means more to the person at the bottom of the rung than at the top.

A progressive system means those with the least can pay the least because those with the most pay the most. But perhaps a combination of the two would be the best. Apply a flat tax to all those above a certain cut off, with those below having a zero rate.

This is the problem with regressive tax systems like sales taxes. Everyone is treated the same (for tax purposes), even though they're not.

People earning more do pay more, with a flat tax.

Fairness, certainly is in the eyes of the beholder, and people have all kinds of different views.

Flat taxes with no deductions are not only much more efficient to collect and to pay, they create better incentives -- less disincentive for people to earn more, less wasteful economic distortions by people chasing deductions. Flat taxes are better altogether and produce prosperity and growth. There is a much higher rate of compliance and collection with flat taxes, and the lower the rate, the higher the compliance and collection, such that all countries I am aware of which switched to flat taxes saw an INCREASE in revenues after the switch.

The Nordic countries have some of the least progressive tax systems in the world. In Finland, the national income tax maxes out at 31.25% on income of only €80 500, and the regional taxes on income are flat. So it means that everyone from middle class and up pays the same rate, there is some remission for people earning less than that. Sweden's income taxes are even less progressive. Estonia, widely considered to have the best designed tax system in the world, has a totally flat tax on income of 20%. All of these countries have low corporate taxes (20% in Finland and Estonia, about half of the rate in the U.S. even after the recent reduction), reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains, and zero wealth or inheritance taxes. They have heavy taxes on consumption -- 23% VAT in Finland. No one considers that "regressive". Health care and education are covered by your tax payments, housing is cheap (because of radically pro-development city planning) except in Stockholm, and people have everything they need. There is practically no poverty of the kind we know in North America. There is almost no crime, by our standards -- there are only 2 910 people in Finnish prisons (which don't have gates or walls) -- an incarceration rate per capita 12x less than the U.S. Finnish prison guards are unarmed and don't even wear uniforms. So, people don't mind paying taxes, and don't resent the rich or mind that the rich pay taxes at the same rate.

Very complex and steeply progressive tax systems like the U.S. system are driven by politics, and pandering to middle class voters, exploiting class envy and hatred, not by any good economic sense. The rich don't actually end up paying a much higher effective rate than the middle class because of the complex system of deductions. But the whole society loses because of the immense amount of time and work lost in filing tax returns and doing the complex accounting required to do them, plus the economic distortions from tax-driven economic behavior and perverse incentives. And paying taxes is altogether a bad deal because we don't get anything for our taxes.

[GordMay]

Beer Drinking Study
Researchers, from Bristol University’s school of experimental psychology, have found that people drinking beer from curved glasses tend to drink it faster, than those with straight glasses.
This might be so because it’s harder to calculate the amount of beer in the curved glasses.
The researchers picked up 159 individuals, men and women aged 18-40, and asked them to drink around 0.35 litres (12 fl oz) of lager or soft drink, either from a straight glass, or a curved one. Also, they were showed pictures of glasses, and asked to determine how full they were.
In the case of people with soft drinks, there was not much difference between drinking from a curved glass, or a straight one (around 7 minutes). But in the case of beer, people with curved glasses tended to drink it in 7 minutes, against the 12 minutes of people with straight glasses.
Drinking time is slowed by almost 60%, when an alcoholic beverage is presented in a straight glass, compared with a curved glass, they write in the study. The conclusion is that ‘glass shape appears to influence the rate of drinking of alcoholic beverages,’ which ‘may represent a modifiable target for public health interventions.’


“Glass shape influences consumption rate for alcoholic beverages” ~ by Angela S Attwood et al
➥ https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0043007

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Flat taxes with no deductions

Health care and education are covered by your tax payments,

housing is cheap

people have everything they need.

There is practically no poverty of the kind we know in North America.

There is almost no crime, by our standards

I doubt that passing a flat tax in the US would result in all (or any) of the above happening. But I would love to be proved wrong!

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

... Flat taxes with no deductions are not only much more efficient to collect and to pay, they create better incentives -- less disincentive for people to earn more, less wasteful economic distortions by people chasing deductions...

Well argued, Dockhead.
God [& a flat tax] keep us from those nasty disincentives to earn more.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

People earning more do pay more, with a flat tax.

Fairness, certainly is in the eyes of the beholder, and people have all kinds of different views.

Flat taxes with no deductions are not only much more efficient to collect and to pay, they create better incentives...

The Nordic countries have some of the least progressive tax systems in the world. ...[Nordic] people don't mind paying taxes, and don't resent the rich or mind that the rich pay taxes at the same rate.

Very complex and steeply progressive tax systems like the U.S. system are driven by politics, and pandering to middle class voters, exploiting class envy and hatred, not by any good economic sense. The rich don't actually end up paying a much higher effective rate than the middle class because of the complex system of deductions. But the whole society loses because of the immense amount of time and work lost in filing tax returns and doing the complex accounting required to do them, plus the economic distortions from tax-driven economic behavior and perverse incentives. And paying taxes is altogether a bad deal because we don't get anything for our taxes.

One of the reasons I favour UBI is because of its bureaucratic simplicity, so if I'm to be consistent about all this, I have to concede that a truly flat tax system makes sense in that regard as well.

We are still left with the social disparities between these two regions. So the remaining conclusion is that the Nordic system collects enough taxes, and the US system doesn't. Data analysis and some simple math will identify what segment(s) of US society isn't contributing enough tax. Buffett, Gates and Romney have already highlighted this. And Trump's $750 tax bill shows how far the US tax system can be gamed, despite its alleged progressiveness.

So I think we know who'd push the hardest against a US flat tax.