Bob Jones University Press…
The dumbing down of America continues.
3 Likes
Hmm, 2.5 stars and a lot of the 5 star reviews are sarcastic, so really not even 2.5 stars. But it does seem to be a real book… good Lord. 
2 Likes
First review i read was that it was a great book to teach kids how to do their own research because what was in it was so wrong. 4 stars!
1 Like
Income-based electricity bills on the way in CA.
If it is a flat surcharge it won’t affect the economics of EV home chargers. If it is a rate change, it may push more folks off the grid entirely.
So, $40/month more? Big deal! I can simply save more on electricity by not running the A/C (though I hardly ever run the A/C).
Q: How do they find out each household’s income? I mean, that’s not public info.
Tax Return
Again, where are they going to get that? This is not your foreign government we are talking about. This is #Murica.
Lolz, i imagine it (the authority to do so) is in the enabling legislation. I mean it isn’t as if you can say to your state “I won’t give you info about my FIT”.
Just tell them you’re going through an audit
1 Like
Maybe you just pay the maximum rate unless and until you prove your income, that would work.
Great… let’s provide an even greater incentive for people to cheat on their income taxes.
A slight incentive to retire, too.
Again, it’s $40/month. I think high-income people can afford it. $500/$180,000 = 0.3% effective increase in income tax.
Now, I know most people, even rich people, don’t think Presently-Valued (See: Neuwirth, the actuary, not his sister actress), but going off the grid will cost a shit-ton more than $40/month. 100 years of $500 costs at 5% interest is less than $10,000 PV.
Just another marginal item. You are paying $0.40 / kWh today, but that might go to $0.60 or $0.80 over the next 20 yrs. That 500 flat might also grow too. Even at reasonable discount rate 20 years of 500 is 5K.
Best way to stop people from using too much of anything is to raise the price.
–Page 1 of any Econ text.
I think I’d rather raise the rates a lot and give each household a flat rebate.
Simpler, progressive (except for the poor household of ten with eight window-mounted A/C units), doesn’t pry into each household’s income and make more unproductive work for someone.
This whole idea of progressive pricing based on income offends me to the core.
First of all, your ratio is off. A person may have to earn an extra $800 or $900 or $1000 to have a net $500 to pay the increase in price. So the real increase might be double your suggestion on 0.3% because utilities are not paid on a pre-tax basis.
The government is already taxing our income in a somewhat progressively haphazard manner, in which the wealthiest people pay lower taxes than the middle to upper middle classes… Public utilities should not be an avenue to more progressive implicit taxation.
You can add a surcharge so that the higher the increase in electricity usage, the higher the price per KWH. They could tax the wealth and/or income of crypto currencies, given that crypto is one of the leading electricity consumption industries.
But of one industry such as utilities starts to progressively price products, an avalanche will happen and many more industries will attempt to follow.
1 Like
Um, that’s not Progressive at all, Flo.
How can any industry that doesn’t have regulated rates possibly price based on income?
Well, they do, but they give discounts to people with higher incomes, they don’t charge surcharges. If you give a discount for buying more at once you are effectively charging not to those who can’t afford to pony up a lot of cash. But no unregulated industry is going to charge the wealthy more.
1 Like
LVMH says “hold my champagne” 
ETA you plebian lot can’t even spell!
1 Like
I’ll have you spell my descriptor as plebeian, tank you very much!
Volvo launching a small hatchback/SUV at $36k. At least at first, made in China, so unlikely to qualify for a tax credit.