More from Faux News affiliate Edmunds.com: Cash for Clunkers

Cash for Clunkers Results Finally In: Taxpayers Paid $24,000 per Vehicle Sold, Reports Edmunds.com

SANTA MONICA, Calif. — October 28, 2009 — Edmunds.com, the premier resource for online automotive information, has determined that Cash for Clunkers cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle sold.

Nearly 690,000 vehicles were sold during the Cash for Clunkers program, officially known as CARS, but Edmunds.com analysts calculated that only 125,000 of the sales were incremental. The rest of the sales would have happened anyway, regardless of the existence of the program.

Ironically, the average transaction price for a new vehicle in August 2009 was only $26,915 minus an average cash rebate of $1,667.

"This analysis is valuable for two reasons," explained Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl. "First, it can form the basis for a complete assessment of the program's impact and costs. Second—and more important—it can help us to understand the true state of auto sales and the economy. For example, October sales are up, but without Cash for Clunkers, sales would have been even better. This suggests that the industry's recovery is gaining momentum."

The chart below sets forth actual SAAR (Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate) compared to Edmunds.com's forecasted rate if the program had never been implemented.



"Our research indicates that without the Cash for Clunkers program, many customers would not have traded in an old vehicle when making a new purchase," Edmunds.com Senior Analyst David Tompkins, PhD told AutoObserver.com. "That may give some credence to the environmental claims, but unfortunately the economic claims have been rendered quite weak."

To conduct the analysis, the Edmunds.com team of PhDs and statisticians examined the sales trend for luxury vehicles and others not included in Cash for Clunkers, and applied the historic relationship of those vehicles to total SAAR to make informed estimates. These estimates were independently verified through careful examination of sales patterns reflected by transaction data. Once the numbers were determined, Edmunds.com's analysts divided three billion dollars by 125,000 vehicles to arrive at the average $24,000 per vehicle.

Coincidentally, a parallel analysis of the first-time homebuyer credit was reported yesterday by MIT Sloan Professor Simon Johnson and Yale law student James Kwak, who both blog about economics at The BaseLine Scenario.

The White House responded quickly. Lumps Edmunds in with Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the KKK: Busy Covering Car Sales on Mars, Edmunds.com Gets It Wrong (Again) on Cash for Clunkers

Edmunds fires back: Edmunds.com Responds to White House Comments on Cash for Clunkers Analysis

It's good to see that the White House has their priorities straight. We must fight the War on Dissent!

Maybe Obama should pose with some more coffins. Those photo ops are really good for his presidential campaign.

$24K per vehicle sold. We need to extent this program! Super efficient government economics! The GDP rose eleventy billion percent this quarter!

'RICH' NEW YORKERS FLEEING AT ALARMING RATE...

'RICH' NEW YORKERS FLEEING AT ALARMING RATE...

Surprise!

New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers -- and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows.

More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country.

The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City -- meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out.

Duh!

47% will pay no federal income tax

An increasing number of households end up owing nothing in major federal taxes, but the situation may not be sustainable over the long run.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most people think they pay too much to Uncle Sam, but for some people it simply is not true.

In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.

The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero -- or less -- is on the rise. The center's original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks.

The issue doesn't get a lot of attention even as lawmakers debate how to pay for policy initiatives like health reform, whether to extend the Bush tax cuts and how to reduce the deficit.

The vast majority of households making up to $30,000 fall into the category, as do nearly half of all households making between $30,000 and $40,000.

As you move up the income scale the percentages drop.

Looks like lord savior Obama actually is taking care of his voters, with our money.

Breaking more campaign promises

Breaking more campaign promises...

President Barack Obama's treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul.

Geithner Won’t Rule Out New Taxes for Middle Class

To get the economy back on track, will President Barack Obama have to break his pledge not to raise taxes on 95 percent of Americans? In a “This Week” exclusive, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told me, "We’re going to have to do what’s necessary.”

Geithner was clear that he believes a key component of economic recovery is deficit reduction. When I gave him several opportunities to rule out a middle class tax hike, he wouldn’t do it.

“We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically,” Geithner told me. “And that’s going to require some very hard choices.”

“We will not get this economy back on track, recovery will be not strong and sustained, unless we convince the American people that we are going to have the will to bring these deficits down once recovery is firmly established,” he said.

Obama says F-22 vote "would have been an inexcusable waste of money"

The Senate voted Tuesday to block expansion of one of the country's most controversial and expensive defense programs, the F-22 fighter jet program.

The vote, which stripped $1.75 billion for an additional seven F-22s from the fiscal year 2010 budget, was a reversal of an earlier Senate committee decision to include money for the program.

1,750,000,000 / 1,840,000,000,000 = 0.000951086957

1 - 0.000951086957 = .999

Now we only need to make up the other 99.9% of this year's deficit.

I'm so glad that our government is against inexcusably wasting money.

California vs Texas

California v Texas

America's future

This is a short article. (its the leader-article to a larger essay)

I just read the whole article in the print addition, pretty much sums everything I've been saying about California.

Damn Democrats and Their Stupid Laws

STRIPPER TAX IS HARD TO 'BARE'

ALBANY - Call it an un-cover charge.

A Brooklyn assemblyman introduced a bill yesterday that would require patrons to pay the state $10 every time they visit a strip club or topless joint.

Felix Ortiz, a Democrat, said the flesh fee could raise as much as $500 million for victims of human trafficking, domestic violence, sexual abuse and child prostitution.

States have increasingly turned to the adult-entertainment industry to help close budget gaps in recent years.

Texas lawmakers are fighting to save a similar $5 "pole tax," which was struck down as unconstitutional by a state judge.

Gov. Paterson, facing a $14 billion budget deficit, has proposed a tax on Internet downloads that would also apply to Web porn.

"The bottom line is, we have to protect people who have been victimized by unscrupulous individuals, and we cannot continue, especially in this economy, to have government pay for everything," Ortiz said.

Only in NY. In NV, silicon boobs are sacred.

Worst Tax Idea EvAR

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/20/driving.tax/index.html

# Mileage tax idea would use GPS in cars to track drivers' usage
# Transportation Secretary LaHood calls it an idea "we should look at"
# Transportation Department says Obama will not pursue the tax
# Oregon carried out a pilot program and deemed it "successful"

It's so bad that even Obama doesn't want to pursue it.

Kojiro, what's up with Oregon doing this? Did you pay GPS tax?

Schools & Couch Potatoes Don't Need More of My Tax Dollars Right Now

BOEHNER ON STIMULUS: 'OMFG'

From NBC's Mike Viqueira

It's on. The $825 billion stimulus package unveiled by Democrats this morning has Republicans literally speechless.

"Oh. My. God," said a stuttering Minority Leader John Boehner moments ago at a news conference. He was reacting after having just read the provisions outlined by Democrats today.

$1 billion for community development block grants. $650 million for digital TV coupons. Billions for universities.

Boehner says that much of it isn't going to do anything to help the economy in the short term. He says the approach by Democrats is to "clean out every dime from the taxpayer," and that the nation can't "borrow and spend it's way to prosperity."

House Republicans held their own forum today in an effort to talk about their ideas for an alternative, which are largely centered around tax cuts and credits.

The Democratic bill will see committee action on Wednesday, or, as Appropriations chairman Dave Obey put it today, "The day after the crown prince is sworn in."

At her weekly presser, Nancy Pelosi, however, asserted that the package will save or create four million jobs.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/01/15/1745799.aspx

How about we let people lose their TV connection in hopes that they will go out and get a DAMN JOB to pass their time.

Maybe then they can afford cable and upgrade their shit ass analog TV.

Secondly, universities are not suffering right now. I've had so many new students lately who have come back to school because they were laid off. Why the fuck do schools need money when they're getting all this new tuition?

San Fran considers congestion pricing

San Francisco Studies Fees to Ease Traffic

Not sure how I feel about this. 

Congestion is bad in many cities (London, NY and Singapore are mentioned in the article) and the only way to deal with it is to build better roads and increase public transportation and to discourage driving on these streets. That takes money. 

If we charge a fee for driving in congested areas we directly tax the users of the roads that cause the congestion, this makes sense to me. The problem with a general tax (income tax , sales tax, gas tax etc)  is that is disproportionally taxes citizens who may or may not be causing the congestion. 

So in many ways I agree with this. 

But part of me thinks that every American has already paid to drive on these roads, it is your right as a tax payer to drive on public roads, just as it is your right to sit in traffic, just as it is your right to change your driving habits to avoid traffic (something I know all too much about living in Atlanta)

Every America/San Franciscan also has a right to vote on if this is an issue and if it is an issue, on how to resolve it. 

An unfortunate consequence of a city road tax is that you are essentially saying you need money to drive to our city. I think civil rights groups will have much to say about this. But being San Francisco maybe if you are smoking pot while going to an organic co-op you can drive for free. 

State tax facts

For Jimmy:

From the eminently balanced CNN

• #3 least tax friendly state = NY
• #4 least tax friendly city = NYC
• #4 most tax friendly = LV
• States w/o income tax: Alaska, FL, NV, NH, SD, TN, TX - Any of those states have bankrupt cities? 
• #4 highest property tax = NY
• Top 5 most expensive counties = All NY and NJ
• #3 Highest Tax Burden = ta da... NY!!
• ... GA is #32 btw

From the NY Post

"New York City's top resident income-tax rate of 3.65 percent is imposed on top of the state income tax of 6.85 percent, and one is not deductible from the other. Thus the best measure of New York's income-tax competitiveness is the combined rate of 10.5 percent - the highest in the region and, in fact, the country."

From Wikipedia:

As of 2007, the highest rate of state income tax is that of California, with a maximum rate of 10.3%. 

In addition, some states allow cities and/or counties to impose income taxes above and beyond the federal and state income taxes. An example is New York City, where there is both a state income tax of up to 8.14%"^[2] and a city income tax, up to 4.00%^[3].

When you look at the facts it is the cities and states that have heavy tax burdens, heavy union membership and anti-business tax policies that are hurting right now. NYC's latest round of taxes is not going to help. 

Still not convinced?

Least business friendly states: Top 2 worst: NY and NJ

According to this study California is the worst

Best and worst states for business: NY and CA = THE WORST

.... Weird, GA is 5th best and NV is 2nd best. 

Are you blind? This is a terrible idea.

Governor Paterson has really blind-sided New Yorkers with his latest tax proposal. State Legislators seem to be turning a blind eye to the troubled financial state of many tax payers. Opponents to Paterson's proposal believe he is blind to the consequences for New York businesses. Many business owners have been thrown into a blind rage.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/12/16/2008-12-16_gov_david_paterson_unveils_dire_new_york.html

Gov. Paterson's proposed $121 billion budget hits New Yorkers in their iPods - and nickels-and-dimes them in lots of other places, too.

...

Movie tickets, taxi rides, soda, beer, wine, cigars and massages would be taxed under Paterson's proposal. It also extends sales taxes to cable and satellite TV services and removes the tax exemption for clothes costing less than $110.

"The governor is nickel-and-diming working class families," said Ron Deutsch, executive director of New Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness, an advocacy group.

State Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long warned that reinstating the sales tax on clothing and shoes will drive people to New Jersey, where they will also gas up their cars and pick up their wine, spirits and soda because the prices are less due to lower taxes. "You're sending notice to the people of New York that we really don't want you here," Long said. "The governor proposed flat spending, but why not actually cut the budget before raising taxes and fees?"

Paterson's 2009-10 budget proposal represents only a 1% increase in total spending from this year's budget - the smallest increase in a dozen years. It also calls for:

* A 3.3%, or $698 million, reduction in school aid.
* $3.5 billion in health care savings, including reductions in payments to hospitals and nursing homes.
* Video slot machines at Belmont Park, more multistate lottery games and expanded hours for the state's Quick Draw lottery game.
* Layoffs for 521 state workers and the elimination of seven state agencies.

High taxes are half the reason people like us move away from NY. Plus all the stupid laws.

I like the part about expanding the slot machines and lottery games, but what's up with taxing the rub and tugs? That's just wrong.

Can I finish? Can I finish?

I stumbled upon this today from Perot Charts.

Everything explained in a couple pie charts with easy to read primary colors. It's like reading USA Today with your Grandfather.  

$4 gas. Then and now.

Headline: Inflated gas prices deter driving, cut down on commutes and save the planet.

I live in an area that has seen gas go from $1.50 up to $4.50 and then fall to $1.99. It should come as no shock, but during that time I used less gas, started carpooling (which we are still doing), convinced our office to start a telework program (which we have 1 day a week now) and traffic was much lighter (though it has since gone back to crappy as the price went to sub-$2)

It should come as no shock… but it was a shock.

I had always been vehemently against artificially raising the price of anything to effect behavior and when gas got to $3 I stuck by that. There had always been talk in congress about taxing the crap out of gas to get people to drive less and buy more fuel efficient cars. When gas hit $3 I remember thinking: “See! At $3 people drive just as much, traffic is just as bad and big engines are awesome! A dollar tax wouldn’t have done anything… stupid liberals!”

But then it hit $4…. Turns out $4 was the magic number and the price of gas wasn’t artificially inflated by taxes, but by oil speculators.

My wife and I found ourselves in traffic last week thinking: “You know, maybe $4 gas was a good thing.”

Which has me pondering, should we tax the crap out of gas to change driving habits?  

If Obama cuts taxes for 95% of ...

It doesn't really matter if Obama plans on cutting taxes on families making less than $250k, or $200k, or $150k. What does matter is just how disproportional our "progressive" income tax really is. I think we have all come to accept the idea of the progressive income tax and the idea that rich people will pay not only more taxes, but a higher percentage as well. Some facts:

• The top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes
  
• But reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income. 
  

So 5% of the population takes on 50% of the tax burden while only accouting for 30% of all income. Something doesn't quite seem progressive there. 

• The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33 % of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.
  

So in the past 20 years the top 1% has been getting taxed faster while accounting for a larger and larger percentage of taxes yet their income wasn't increasing at the same rate. 

• Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
  

8 years ago, half of the tax payers pay 96% of the taxes.

• Final point - 38% of people filing income tax paid $0 in tax. 

I would like a rational explanation as to why we should increase the tax burden on anyone in the top 50%, let alone the top 5% or 1%. 

These number are courtesy of the US Treasury Dept.