The Inconvenient Truth Of Electric Cars

[tetonper + 17]

8 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Of course not!  Those numbers are the advertising hype 

You mean Tesla is closely related to the government?  Well according to the debates last night we will all be driving one here in a year if a democrat is elected.  Especially booker or castro, they both said that climate change was the #1 issue facing America!  The only reason Inslee didn't say that was because he had to say Trump was being the smart @$$ he is.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 minute ago, tetonper said:

You mean Tesla is closely related to the government?  Well according to the debates last night we will all be driving one here in a year if a democrat is elected.  Especially booker or castro, they both said that climate change was the #1 issue facing America!  The only reason Inslee didn't say that was because he had to say Trump was being the smart @$$ he is.

And now you know why I don't have a television.  Have not had one in years. there's nobody who has anything intelligent to say, on the TV.

[D Coyne + 305]

20 hours ago, AcK said:

No you did not just do that. Compare the use case for a 36k Tesla to 999 iphone. And there are plenty of good cheaper options available.

Plenty of options besides iPhone, in fact until 10 years ago I did not own a smart phone and 20 years before that a cell phone seemed unnecessary.  Fact is sales of plugin vehicles increased by about 64% in 2018 World wide (1.227 million in 2017 to 2.018 million in 2018).  A conservative scenario ( rate of growth slowing to 10% by 2024 and then remaining at a 10% growth rate until 2044) has the plugin vehicle fleet at 651 million in 2044.  The price of EVs will continue to fall over time and the price of oil will rise as oil supply will struggle to grow after 2025-2030.  As more models become available and the charging infrastructure is built out ICEVs will become about as common as riding a horse.  They will become quaint like a horse and buggy ride in Manhatten.

Though no doubt they will be useful in some cases just as horses are probably best for handling a cattle herd.

[Mark Bahner + 4]

On 6/23/2019 at 9:42 PM, Meredith Poor said:

The world is full of transient nuisances. 

Yes, in 20 years, most people will make the drive from LA to Las Vegas and back by taking a fully autonomous (computer-driven) vehicle operating in transportation-as-a-service mode (think Uber or Lyft without the driver). So even if the batteries in the vehicle couldn't go the full distance, the person would simply step out of one vehicle at a rest stop, and step into the other vehicle to complete the trip to the destination.

P.S. And the vehicle will be traveling well over 100 mph on the freeway, so the 540-mile round-trip travel time will be under 6 hours, not the 8 hours claimed for today's gasoline vehicles.

[D Coyne + 305]

21 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Exactly right.  They have no money.  And that, unfortunately, is a large part of the American landscape.

The argument proffered was that, eventually, electrics would become the used-car jalopies that are out there today.  The additional point is that your electric will then require the installation of charging ports at the home or apartment.  The poor people do not have the extra funds to do that.  So for them living hand to mouth, the electric with its ancillary capital costs, no matter how old and how used that car itself might be, stays out of reach.  At least, when the poor boy picks up a used jalopy, he can go put ten gallons of gas in it for thirty bucks - and not have to spend a formidable two thousand to install a charging port.  Which is money that he will never have. 

Electrics will always remain the cars of the well-to-do.  And while those numbers may be large enough to make the manufacture viable, they will never end up becoming the dominant car, due to the "last mile" cost barriers. 

Costs about 300 to put in a 240 V 40 amp circuit when installed by a professional, a lot of poorer folks that might be pretty good with their hands could easily do themselves for $100 bucks.  In many cases don't even ask the landlord, just install it.  Probably a bit more on the side of the house or apartment, maybe $200.  Now for the very poor, they may not even own a car, but in the future oil will be more expensive and eventually it will be hard to find an ICEV or gas station so everyone will have converted to EVs.  Think of it like electricity, at one time few had it, now most people, in developed economies do in fact have electricity.

There may also be public charging stations available or charging stations at work for those that cannot put one in their home.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 minutes ago, Mark Bahner said:

Yes, in 20 years, most people will make the drive from LA to Las Vegas and back by taking a fully autonomous (computer-driven) vehicle operating in transportation-as-a-service mode (think Uber or Lyft without the driver). So even if the batteries in the vehicle couldn't go the full distance, the person would simply step out of one vehicle at a rest stop, and step into the other vehicle to complete the trip to the destination.

P.S. And the vehicle will be traveling well over 100 mph on the freeway, so the 540-mile round-trip travel time will be under 6 hours, not the 8 hours claimed for today's gasoline vehicles.

A bit unlikely, Mark.  Don't you think a simple railroad track with a trainset would do nicely?  Back around 1968 the Canadians had this train powered by two jet turboprop engines, they were the venerable Pratt & Whitney PT-6 at 1,000 hp each,running a trainset of (I think) five cars at 125 mph.  Worked like a charm.  Easy enough to go build; that is all very mature technology.  And if the use of a jet engine is not pure enough, then you could always electrify the trackage!  I mean, why bother with roads and Uber-type cars?  All so complicated.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

15 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

Costs about 300 to put in a 240 V 40 amp circuit when installed by a professional, a lot of poorer folks that might be pretty good with their hands could easily do themselves for $100 bucks.

Most towns in Vermont have at least 38% of the population that could not scrounge up 100 bucks.  I am left with the impression that you go not have a clear picture of just how pervasive and deep rural poverty really is. I live in the countryside of a small town where 38% of the residents are so poor that their children go to school in the winter in flip-flops, wading through the snow, some do not even have outdoor jackets, and none have lunch money.  For example, in Newport, Vermont, nobody pays for lunch in the school any more, so many kids were from utter deep poverty families (up there, at 87%) that it just was administratively easier to dispense completely with the means test for free meals. 

Yet all the people have jalopies.  The reason is that without a car you cannot get to work, and that minimum-wage job is all that stands between you and living in a tent in the woods.  So you have these poor people running in old wrecks that are usually uninsured, and no money to fix, held together literally with duct tape. It is an appalling indictment of society, that rich people and governments allow these situations to exist.  In Barre, Vermont, the Director of the town welfare "community action" non-profit  (who went to Harvard and is very bright, actually ran for Governor in a tight race but did not prevail due to gun-control stance) tells me that she has a family living in a storage container - with three little kids.  Basically, no heat or light, on really cold nights go in the car outside and run the motor and heater.  How can a society claim to be Christian and allow this to exist? 

Edited June 27, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[D Coyne + 305]

15 hours ago, NickW said:

 I was simply making the point that if a consumer wants to plug straight in, in the absence of a 220-240v outlet they are restricted to a half speed charger. 

NickW,

Not really half speed. 120V times 15 amps is 1.8 kW, 240 V times 30 amps is 7.2 KW. 7.2/1.8=4, so it's a one quarter rate charger.

So if one has a 75 kWhr battery as in a Model 3 and you need to charge from 20% to 90 % (typically not good for the battery to charge to 100%) or 52.5 kWhr would need 7.3 hours on the 240 V/30 A (level 2) circuit and 29.2 hours on the 120 V/15 A (level 1) circuit.  In short, the level 1 charger does not work well for a longer range EV, though it might be ok for a short commute.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 minute ago, D Coyne said:

240 V times 30 amps is 7.2 KW

The typical clothes-dryer circuit is breakered for 50 amps, so you could pull a bit more out of that, if you were to run the charge wire from that plug.  If you go to a new installation, then buying a 50-amp  breaker and a spool of 8/4 wire would be perfectly workable.  I set my totally mickey-mouse circuit up for about $130.  Emphatically not recommended, but hey, works for me. 

[D Coyne + 305]

8 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Of course not!  Those numbers are the advertising hype 

The Model 3 goes just as far as claimed.  Let's say one has a car that supposedly gets 35 MPG and has a 16 gallon tank.  Range would be 560 miles, but typically people don't drive the car 560 miles and run out of gas in the process.  They probably drive 500 miles and leave a little gas in the tank when they refill.  An EV is much the same, except shorter range, not as convenient on long trips at present.  Most people would stop anyway on a 500 mile trip, to eat or use the toilet, in an EV you charge your car at those stops. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

10 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Yet all the people have jalopies.  The reason is that without a car you cannot get to work, and that minimum-wage job is all that stands between you and living in a tent in the woods.  So you have these poor people running in old wrecks that are usually uninsured, and no money to fix, held together literally with duct tape. It is an appalling indictment of society, that rich people and governments allow these situations to exist.  In Barre, Vermont, the Director of the town welfare "community action" non-profit  (who went to Harvard and is very bright, actually ran for Governor in a tight race but did not prevail due to gun-control stance) tells me that she has a family living in a storage container - with three little kids.  Basically, no heat or light, on really cold nights go in the car outside and run the motor and heater.  How can a society claim to be Christian and allow this to exist? 

As has been established on this forum all forms of socialisms is evil; a conspiracy to take over the world. Did you not know that perverted capitalism are doing those poor people in the container a favor, teaching them the realities of life etc.

People that believe in any form of humanism are doomed and their societies will eventually perish... 

p.s. I for one would rather pay lots of taxes that accept such atrocities...

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

5 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

p.s. I for one would rather pay lots of taxes that accept such atrocities...

 But you don't have to do either.  All you have to do is organize society so that it continues to move towards greater opportunity and greater prosperity.  You don't have to ensure that everybody is rich; what you do is make a comfortable prosperity the baseline, and then open opportunity lets those with more gumption go farther up that economic ladder.  Yes, it gets abused, and in the USA the persons highest up that ladder are invariably the greatest thieves, the Angelo Mozilos of the world, but that is the price you pay (at least in the short term). 

It is entirely possible to have a comfortable society and zero taxes.  But you have to make up your mind that you want to go that route.  Today, societies do not go that route, so you end up with deep poverty instead. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

34 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Most towns in Vermont have at least 38% of the population that could not scrounge up 100 bucks.  I am left with the impression that you go not have a clear picture of just how pervasive and deep rural poverty really is. I live in the countryside of a small town where 38% of the residents are so poor that their children go to school in the winter in flip-flops, wading through the snow, some do not even have outdoor jackets, and none have lunch money.  For example, in Newport, Vermont, nobody pays for lunch in the school any more, so many kids were from utter deep poverty families (up there, at 87%) that it just was administratively easier to dispense completely with the means test for free meals. 

Yet all the people have jalopies.  The reason is that without a car you cannot get to work, and that minimum-wage job is all that stands between you and living in a tent in the woods.  So you have these poor people running in old wrecks that are usually uninsured, and no money to fix, held together literally with duct tape. It is an appalling indictment of society, that rich people and governments allow these situations to exist.  In Barre, Vermont, the Director of the town welfare "community action" non-profit  (who went to Harvard and is very bright, actually ran for Governor in a tight race but did not prevail due to gun-control stance) tells me that she has a family living in a storage container - with three little kids.  Basically, no heat or light, on really cold nights go in the car outside and run the motor and heater.  How can a society claim to be Christian and allow this to exist? 

No wonder you guys came up with Bernie Sanders. Naturally he's done everything for himself, and nothing for his state, but then again, that's what politicians do. 

[D Coyne + 305]

18 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Most towns in Vermont have at least 38% of the population that could not scrounge up 100 bucks.  I am left with the impression that you go not have a clear picture of just how pervasive and deep rural poverty really is. I live in the countryside of a small town where 38% of the residents are so poor that their children go to school in the winter in flip-flops, wading through the snow, some do not even have outdoor jackets, and none have lunch money.  For example, in Newport, Vermont, nobody pays for lunch in the school any more, so many kids were from utter deep poverty families (up there, at 87%) that it just was administratively easier to dispense completely with the means test for free meals. 

Yet all the people have jalopies.  The reason is that without a car you cannot get to work, and that minimum-wage job is all that stands between you and living in a tent in the woods.  So you have these poor people running in old wrecks that are usually uninsured, and no money to fix, held together literally with duct tape. It is an appalling indictment of society, that rich people and governments allow these situations to exist.  In Barre, Vermont, the Director of the town welfare "community action" non-profit  (who went to Harvard and is very bright, actually ran for Governor in a tight race but did not prevail due to gun-control stance) tells me that she has a family living in a storage container - with three little kids.  Basically, no heat or light, on really cold nights go in the car outside and run the motor and heater.  How can a society claim to be Christian and allow this to exist? 

Jan,

Yes there is a lot of poverty in my state as well.  I am thinking that the poor must get their old cars by paying some money.  So $100 is not a lot of money and in a rural area putting a 240 V outlet on the side of the house is not an issue and a 120V outlet might be enough for a shorter range vehicle.  These will be the last areas that see EVs become common, especially for the poor.

At some point the economics will be better for EVs as oil prices rise and the price of EVs falls.  Right now the economics are favorable only for higher priced new vehicles, but this will change.

[D Coyne + 305]

17 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

 But you don't have to do either.  All you have to do is organize society so that it continues to move towards greater opportunity and greater prosperity.  You don't have to ensure that everybody is rich; what you do is make a comfortable prosperity the baseline, and then open opportunity lets those with more gumption go farther up that economic ladder.  Yes, it gets abused, and in the USA the persons highest up that ladder are invariably the greatest thieves, the Angelo Mozilos of the world, but that is the price you pay (at least in the short term). 

It is entirely possible to have a comfortable society and zero taxes.  But you have to make up your mind that you want to go that route.  Today, societies do not go that route, so you end up with deep poverty instead. 

Jan,

How does the comfortable zero tax society work?  Seems a bit unrealistic.  It is pretty easy to say just organize society so that we get this ideal result, far from easy to accomplish, in my opinion.  If it were easy to accomplish, it would have been accomplished already.

[Mark Bahner + 4]

48 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

A bit unlikely, Mark.  Don't you think a simple railroad track with a trainset would do nicely?  I mean, why bother with roads and Uber-type cars?  All so complicated.

One reason to use roads is that not everyone wants to go all the way from LA to Las Vegas. Another reason to use roads is that one already exists (I-15). Another reason to use roads is that a train that is only partially filled isn't significantly more efficient than a car...especially a car with 2-3 passengers.

As for the likelihood of most passenger vehicles being fully autonomous, electric, and operating in transportation-as-a-service mode in 20 years, it's not "a bit unlikely." It's virtually certain. Computers will unquestionably be vastly better drivers than humans in 20 years, transportation-as-a-service is much less expensive than personally owning a vehicle (since personally-owned vehicles typically stay parked 20+ hours per day), and electric vehicles will be much less expensive (both in capital cost and operating costs) than gasoline vehicles in 20 years.

[D Coyne + 305]

35 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

The typical clothes-dryer circuit is breakered for 50 amps, so you could pull a bit more out of that, if you were to run the charge wire from that plug.  If you go to a new installation, then buying a 50-amp  breaker and a spool of 8/4 wire would be perfectly workable.  I set my totally mickey-mouse circuit up for about $130.  Emphatically not recommended, but hey, works for me. 

Jan,

In my home the dryer circuit is 30 amps and the wall oven and stove top are 40 amp 240 V circuits.  The car charger that plugs into the 240 V 40 A circuit recommended only draws 32 amps, a dedicated wall charger with a 50 A 240 V circuit needed can charge at 40 A (9.6 kW), but that seemed like overkill for my needs (7.68 kW is plenty).  I decided to let a professional take care of it, I am comfortable with simple 120 V/15 A or 20A circuits, it cost only about 300.  The 40 amp breaker was already there (switched the stove top to natural gas), so just wire and outlet and drilling a few holes and connecting to the breaker.  The electrician was done in under an hour.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

13 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

No wonder you guys came up with Bernie Sanders. Naturally he's done everything for himself, and nothing for his state, but then again, that's what politicians do. 

Bernie is no hero of mine.  He is not a native son of Vermont, he is a "flatlander," who parachuted himself in from the Jewish community of Brooklyn, New York.  he is astute enough to know how to manipulate a rather somnolent, sleepy rural community and was elected Mayor of Burlington (VT) by just a sliver, apparently by about three votes, something like that.  He then hung on and off as Burlington Mayor, then ultimately ran for Senator in a vacuum, and managed to hang on to that since.  But remember, for a poor boy, he has astutely used the political system and its connections to make himself a multi-millionaire with several houses and his campaign jet and fleet of new cars, all on a civil servant salary.  I do not view that as purity. 

As for being President, the locals like him because he is like everyone's favorite Grandpa, a nice teddy bear fellow who will never actually win. SO they keep him around. He has no real impact on internal Vermont legislation or Administration.  Personally, I pretty much ignore him. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

15 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

Jan,

How does the comfortable zero tax society work?  Seems a bit unrealistic.  It is pretty easy to say just organize society so that we get this ideal result, far from easy to accomplish, in my opinion.  If it were easy to accomplish, it would have been accomplished already.

The (very) short answer is that govts have goods and services that they can go sell to willing buyers.  That raises the revenue needed to run administrative services, such as road maintenance.  It gets a bit more complicated once schools are factored in, but for the rest, it could be straight-forward enough.

The main reason it is not done this was is psychodynamic:  such an approach would likely eschew bureaucracies, and bureaucratic pyramids are what bureaucrats crave and strive for.  So the approach would get sabotaged from within.  You see that also in efforts to dismantle the Deep State, where the internal players work extra hard to sabotage any effort to limit or dismantle the pyramids. 

Direct taxation is the short-cut used by the unimaginative, basically to coerce funds for favorite projects.  It has become so common that nobody even reacts to it any more.  But it has the perverse effect of perpetuating serious poverty.  And that is an unfortunate result.

[D Coyne + 305]

On 6/26/2019 at 10:39 AM, Bobby P said:

Once you become owner of a Tesla, you become part of a cult. It's as if Tesla is the only car maker in the world and that everyone else should bow down whenever they see a Tesla. 

Bobby P and Doug Buckland,

The article in the top post talks about a trip in a Chevy Bolt, the first relatively long range affordable EV (under 40k) available in the US.  The problem with the Bolt is that there is not a lot of high speed charging infrastructure available.  The other affordable option is the Tesla Model 3 standard range plus (about 3000 more than the low end Chevy Bolt with the fast charge option which raises the price from the lowest cost model by 750 dollars) each of these cars has about 240 miles of range and would probably need two stops to charge for the tesla model 3 which I am familiar with because I own one.

I am simply trying to dispel the myth that every EV would need an extra 7 hours for charging for an 8 hour trip, probably not true for the Chevy Bolt either, but that is not what I drive.  From what I have read there are DC fast chargers for the Bolt which can add 90 miles of range in 30 minutes.  Not familiar with CA or NV, but if we assume these chargers are in good locations, we might expect three stops, one on the way to LV one in LV and one on the way back.  Probably 45 minutes would be enough on each road stop and maybe just a level 2 charger in LV, start with 238 miles on battery, drive 140 miles charge for 45 minutes back to 233 miles drive to LV charge for 4 hours while car is parked and doing whatever you went to LV to do (adds 110 miles back to battery back to 203 miles on battery) drive 140 miles charge for 45 minutes so back to 198 miles on battery, then drive 140 miles home with 58 miles left on battery.  The charging stops for 45 minutes can be used to grab a bite to eat, an extra 1.5 hours added to trip.  A Tesla can be charges a bit faster, maybe 25 minutes rather than 45 minutes and there may be more Tesla chargers (I only look for those so I am unsure of the availability of DC fast chargers for the Chevy Bolt).

Makes no difference to me which EV people buy, supposedly the KIA Kona is nice at 37000 and 260 miles range, though I have never seen one, only available in 10 states, west coast, and Northeast primarily (California, Oregon, New England (except NH), NY, NJ, MD).  There are also some European longer range (over 230 miles) EVs coming soon.

[D Coyne + 305]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

The (very) short answer is that govts have goods and services that they can go sell to willing buyers.  That raises the revenue needed to run administrative services, such as road maintenance.  It gets a bit more complicated once schools are factored in, but for the rest, it could be straight-forward enough.

The main reason it is not done this was is psychodynamic:  such an approach would likely eschew bureaucracies, and bureaucratic pyramids are what bureaucrats crave and strive for.  So the approach would get sabotaged from within.  You see that also in efforts to dismantle the Deep State, where the internal players work extra hard to sabotage any effort to limit or dismantle the pyramids. 

Direct taxation is the short-cut used by the unimaginative, basically to coerce funds for favorite projects.  It has become so common that nobody even reacts to it any more.  But it has the perverse effect of perpetuating serious poverty.  And that is an unfortunate result.

Interesting,

So this ignores some very basic problems like the free rider problem.  So we would pay for courts, police, fire, schools etc in a fee for service type model.  This eliminates poverty in some mythical world where everyone has equal opportunity.

How is the comfortable level of prosperity for everyone established in this utopian vision.  Can you point to any examples of where such a society functions (not in a novel).

Even if schools are eliminated as a problem (which is possibly the root of the problem you seek to address) "the rest" is far from straightforward.  I forgot the military, how exactly does the fee for service work in that case? Is the fee charged in proportion to the wealth one has that is being protected by said military?  Or perhaps charitable donation. 

Edited June 27, 2019 by D Coyne

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, D Coyne said:

Interesting,

So this ignores some very basic problems like the free rider problem.  So we would pay for courts, police, fire, schools etc in a fee for service type model.  This eliminates poverty in some mythical world where everyone has equal opportunity.

How is the comfortable level of prosperity for everyone established in this utopian vision.  Can you point to any examples of where such a society functions (not in a novel).

Even if schools are eliminated as a problem (which is possibly the root of the problem you seek to address) "the rest" is far from straightforward.  I forgot the military, how exactly does the fee for service work in that case? Is the fee charged in proportion to the wealth one has that is being protected by said military?  Or perhaps charitable donation. 

You are missing the critical element.  The fees are not charged for services to the inhabitants of the State.  They are charged for services rendered to willing buyers outside the State.  

States such as Delaware, Nevada and Oklahoma have successfully incorporated this approach  (albeit only partially). Cheers.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, D Coyne said:

The article in the top post talks about a trip in a Chevy Bolt, the first relatively long range affordable EV (under 40k) available in the US. 

Not exactly true. The first affordable EV with indefinite range was the Chevy Volt, with a "V", not the later "Bolt," with a "B". The Volt never ran out of juice as it had this helper-motor inside which switched on when the battery pack ran low.  I know a fellow who drove one from New England to Florida, 1,100 miles, in one shot.  Worked fine, no recharge stops. 

1 hour ago, D Coyne said:

The problem with the Bolt is that there is not a lot of high speed charging infrastructure available

So what if there is no recharge infrastructure?  You build your own!  Take that Bolt and install two channel rail receivers underneath in the back.  Now build a little trailer with two mating prong rails on the front of the trailer, and you slide the trailer rails into the receiver rails, and lock them together with pins.  On that trailer sits one of those little BUKH three-cylinder diesels, very rugged, coupled to a generator, in turn with a flexible cable to the charge port.  When you go on that long trip, you have your little extender with you singing along, pumping in the watts as you take them out to run the auto drive motors.  You are never without charge.  Pull in to a diesel pump, buy yourself six gallons, and off you go.  That is your four-minute recharge. 

You are never without electric power because you make your own. That little 34 hp motor will do you just fine.  And as the extender-trailer has its own support wheels, you are not loading your car suspension, either .  What's not to like?  Your issues are all solved.

[D Coyne + 305]

13 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

You are missing the critical element.  The fees are not charged for services to the inhabitants of the State.  They are charged for services rendered to willing buyers outside the State.  

States such as Delaware, Nevada and Oklahoma have successfully incorporated this approach  (albeit only partially). Cheers.

Correct,

I did miss that.

So there are no taxes of any kind in those states, or just no income tax.  So no tax on fuel for roads, no excise tax paid on vehicles, no real estate taxes.  And are the rates of poverty much lower in those states compared to Vermont?

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

17 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

Correct,

I did miss that.

So there are no taxes of any kind in those states, or just no income tax.  So no tax on fuel for roads, no excise tax paid on vehicles, no real estate taxes.  And are the rates of poverty much lower in those states compared to Vermont?

Not yet, because those guys still have not exploited the model to the full extent.  And I doubt they ever will, mostly because politicians need to be elected, and election candidates rarely put their balls on the line.  Let me give you an example:   Delaware allows you to register your big fancy expensive yacht with no sales tax and no property tax.  To get the Delaware registration you pay a 3% excise tax.  3% on hundreds  of thousands of yachts all over the million-dollar mark is a lot of money.  The registrants are happy to pay it - they then do not expose themselves to a yearly property tax bill, typically around 2% of value, plus the typical 6% sales tax, they would pay is some other jurisdiction.  So Delaware can run with no income tax and no personal property tax, compliments of the ocean of cash coming in from outsiders. 

All government units have something of value to sell, to a willing buyer.  Usually it is a service; sometimes it is a product.  For example, Vermont is an old mining State, with old legacy granite quarries.  The quarries have these vast mountains of boulders strewn around as so much trash, basically old industrial garbage.  The stuff is abandoned, just lying there.  Vermont could sell those boulders to the Feds for a quick billion dollars.  To what end?  To be used to build a massive breakwater and dyke to protect Staten Island from hurricane storm surges, just as Galveston (Texas) did after September 1900.  Galveston was trashed, so they constructed a dike 16 feet high and then pumped in sand from the ocean after jacking up every remaining building, raising the entire town by 16 feet.  Problem solved. 

Now, you can do something similar with Staten Island: build a massive dike around the Southeast part, where it is open to the Lower New York Bay, by placing all that Vermont boulder rubble in there. Vermont sells the boulders to FEMA, which in turn puts it in place, and The Donald, who loves to build Walls, takes all the credit.  Who opposes a Wall to keep the sea surge from wrecking 500,000 homes?  Nobody.  SO you charge FEMA, basically Donald, one billion dollars for your industrial garbage in one invoice.  Nice deal, huh?  Do political entities do these deals?  Nope.  They do not understand the concept of making money.  So they institute taxes instead. 

Now you tell me which is the smart approach.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Jan van Eck