When I bought three MegaMillions tickets before everyone and his relatives gummed up the machines on Friday, I got more and more aggravated at people - not because of the size of the jackpot, but at the cavalier attitudes of people who had never played the lottery before, thinking they were going to be the ones with the winning ticket.
Outraged Liberal brings up a great question: why are people so willing to avoid taxes, but when a lottery offers a huge jackpot, people have no qualms in paying hundreds of dollars in tickets?
Purely for the entertainment value, lotteries are far easier and far less painless way to pay taxes (which lotteries really and truly are) than writing a check to either the IRS or the Massachusetts Department of Revenue every month - especially those who pay that 5.85% optional tax. Conversely, the lure of winning the jackpot prize is designed by the states to extract as much money from the starry-eyed hopeful as possible, while certain taxes can be avoided by not doing the prescribed activity that activates those taxes.
That's also why some people blindly overpay their taxes intentionally - to get
as big a refund as possible from the government. That parallels when people pay the
lottery so much without paying attention to the odds - to win the biggest jackpot they can. A smarter thing to do is make sure the playing field is equal. When people pay their taxes, the goal should be to have a refund as close to zero as possible, meaning your withholdings to the government is equal to what the government is expecting from you (you've had $2,000, they calculate you owe $2,010, you overpaid by $10). The same thing applies to lotteries: forget the jackpot and try to break even. If you play $10, winning $10 is optimal; anything extra is just gravy.
3/10/2012
"[R]edistributing wealth — to the wealthy"
Somewhere, critics of the electric car are not merely smiling broadly, they're laughing out loud, because they know that a sucker with too much money and guilt on their hands will front $107,000 for a new "green" toy, that later on turns out to be a huge brick.
It's circular thinking once again - take high taxes from the rich with a wink and a nod, give to the poor through entitlements, retake the entitlements from the poor through high gasoline and food prices, and return that money to the rich through guilt-soothing gimmicks such as $100K+ electric cars, affirmation of wacky utopian theories, and the simple fact that these guilt-riddled aristocrats will have no problem donating to their favorite politician's re-election campaigns, all the while bleating like goats that they're the so-called "99%."
The serfs and commoners will be left to fend for themselves - they get ground by the millstones of de facto taxation and inflation. That is, until the serfs and commoners discover what breaks millstones are chisels, mallets, and hammers - something that was done in 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down.
It's circular thinking once again - take high taxes from the rich with a wink and a nod, give to the poor through entitlements, retake the entitlements from the poor through high gasoline and food prices, and return that money to the rich through guilt-soothing gimmicks such as $100K+ electric cars, affirmation of wacky utopian theories, and the simple fact that these guilt-riddled aristocrats will have no problem donating to their favorite politician's re-election campaigns, all the while bleating like goats that they're the so-called "99%."
The serfs and commoners will be left to fend for themselves - they get ground by the millstones of de facto taxation and inflation. That is, until the serfs and commoners discover what breaks millstones are chisels, mallets, and hammers - something that was done in 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down.
3/05/2012
The GM Edsel? Not quite, but close
Jon Keller comes out with an interesting take on why the public - save some really die-hard greenies with some money to burn - won't buy a $40,000 electric plug-in automobile.
The Volt is not the modern-day Edsel by a longshot, but even though electricity is cheap and plentiful and we can plug in any other device to recharge without a second thought, the thoughts of getting stuck in the middle of nowhere without any power - say, a busy highway - scares people. That's what also killed the GM EV-1 - not the fact that it didn't emit noxious fumes, but the prospect of finding a plug where there wasn't one and running out of battery power.
Furthermore, where there are far more fuel-efficient vehicles out there for a fraction of the price of a Volt, it's little wonder why, even with a $7,500 energy credit, why people are hesitant to buy them. Sure, buying gas would be expensive, but it would certainly beat having to call AAA for a charge back home. However, those that can afford the $32,500 are likely more affluent and can afford to buy a Volt (or a Leaf or even a Honda Prius). The Volt is a niche car, a novelty for the smug, something you show your friends in the hopes they get jealous because they're driving around in their less fancy car.
It was the same thing with calculators in the '70s - even the most basic calculator cost $100, which in today's dollars would be around $600 - but now that calculators are mass produced, that same $100 can buy a calculator with far better power and functions - I had a TI-85 that I used for fifteen years - and a basic calculator can be had for under a dollar in some places, thanks to cheaper costs in technology and the ability to mass produce. It also explains why when in the '90s, 2GB of flash memory cost over $100; now a thumb drive with the same amount can be had for less than $10 - again, thanks to mass production.
If the car companies can mass-produce electric vehicles, you will then see the price of an electric vehicle decrease appreciably. Then you'll have the $15,000 electric car that can charge from no battery power to 100% in 2 hours, run 250 miles on a single charge, and have the MPG equivalent of 150. It isn't here yet, but give it time and it will be.
The Volt is not the modern-day Edsel by a longshot, but even though electricity is cheap and plentiful and we can plug in any other device to recharge without a second thought, the thoughts of getting stuck in the middle of nowhere without any power - say, a busy highway - scares people. That's what also killed the GM EV-1 - not the fact that it didn't emit noxious fumes, but the prospect of finding a plug where there wasn't one and running out of battery power.
Furthermore, where there are far more fuel-efficient vehicles out there for a fraction of the price of a Volt, it's little wonder why, even with a $7,500 energy credit, why people are hesitant to buy them. Sure, buying gas would be expensive, but it would certainly beat having to call AAA for a charge back home. However, those that can afford the $32,500 are likely more affluent and can afford to buy a Volt (or a Leaf or even a Honda Prius). The Volt is a niche car, a novelty for the smug, something you show your friends in the hopes they get jealous because they're driving around in their less fancy car.
It was the same thing with calculators in the '70s - even the most basic calculator cost $100, which in today's dollars would be around $600 - but now that calculators are mass produced, that same $100 can buy a calculator with far better power and functions - I had a TI-85 that I used for fifteen years - and a basic calculator can be had for under a dollar in some places, thanks to cheaper costs in technology and the ability to mass produce. It also explains why when in the '90s, 2GB of flash memory cost over $100; now a thumb drive with the same amount can be had for less than $10 - again, thanks to mass production.
If the car companies can mass-produce electric vehicles, you will then see the price of an electric vehicle decrease appreciably. Then you'll have the $15,000 electric car that can charge from no battery power to 100% in 2 hours, run 250 miles on a single charge, and have the MPG equivalent of 150. It isn't here yet, but give it time and it will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)