NationStates Jolt Archive

This is one of the more absurd things I have heard. This congressman from Michigan wants to punish one for owning a home over 3000 sq ft. Also he would love to add on .50 to the US federal gas tax all in the name of Global Warming. What do you think?

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/08/dingells_energy_plan_would_hik.html

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/2007/08/24/dingell-plans-attack-homeowners

By Dan Gainor | August 24, 2007 - 09:44 ET
Own a big house? Well, watch out because Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) wants to bankrupt you.

According to the August 24 Baltimore Sun, Dingell plans to propose a "cutoff of mortgage-interest tax deductions for all houses with more than 3,000 square feet."

The culprit is, of course, global warming. Dingell heads the House Energy and Commerce Committee and has been looking for ways to appease the Gore wing of the party without hurting the auto manufacturers Dingell represents. "In order to address the issue of climate change, we must address the issue of consumption," he said in the article.

Dingell is also embracing left-wing class warfare attitudes with this new initiative. The Sun story explained he wants to "remove the mortgage interest deduction on McMansions -- homes over 3,000 square feet." He doesn't say where this number came from. Maybe he owns one that is 2,999.

Like most of the left wing's plan to handle the economy, this would hurt everyone, the industry noted.

"The senior economist for the National Association of Realtors, Lawrence Yun, produced preliminary estimates that terminating mortgage interest tax deductions for all single-family dwellings larger than 3,000 square feet would result in a national median house price decline of 4 percent -- on all homes, not just large houses," concluded the Sun.

The association also questioned who would do the measurements. Perhaps a whole new federal agency of Tapes and Measures.



Dingell's energy plan would hike gas taxes
by William Neikirk

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) has a plan for combating global warming. He would slap a 50-cent per gallon tax on gasoline, end the mortgage tax deduction for so-called "McMansions," and tax and put a cap on carbon dioxide emissions.

Proposals by a single congressman are usually not so noteworthy, but Dingell happens to be the powerful chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and accustomed to getting his way in Congress.

But the question is whether the House Democratic Leadership will go this far. He and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are often at odds on energy policy. But when Congress comes back this fall, legislation to combat climate change will be considered by the House.

He outlined his ideas in a town hall meeting in Ann Arbor Tuesday, according to a story in today's Detroit Free Press.




"These are all new ideas," Dingell said. "I know I'm going to ctach hell for them." But he added if the nation is serious about global warming, "we need to reduce consumption by making it more expensive. We need to do things that are difficult."

In addition to the 50-cent per gallon tax on gasoline, he would impose an economy-wide levy of about $100 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions. And he would call for a cap-and-trade system in which companies could trade clean-air credits.

He said homes larger than 3,000 square feet would not be eligible for the mortgage tax deduction. That proposal drew applause and cheers, according to the newspaper.

By contrast, Dingell is expected to take a softer approach on fuel-economy standards to save automobile jobs in his native state. He has indicated he will go along with some increase in mileage standards, but not as far as an already-passed Senate bill would go.

His proposals are expected to enliven the debate over climate-change proposals when Congress comes back to town. They could give Republicans, who have accused Democrats of wanting to raise taxes, some new ammunition.

Now, on the other hand, I would love a policy that would benefit every American who lives in a home under 3000 square feet. Specifically one that would give every American who did such a thing, say, $1.00 a foot. So, that would give me...$2,760.00. A year.

Perfect.

Hopefully that money is used to develop and fund research for the better development of alternative fuel sources and sustainable agriculture/harvesting/resource use.

Then it is actually doing something other than punishing people for buying a house...which is hardly going to make most people buy a smaller house..which also doesn't necessarily mean they will use less energy.

More Tax, YAY.

Seriously, 50 fucking cents, not counting the taxes on it already?

Hopefully that money is used to develop and fun research for the better development of alternative fuel sources and sustainable agriculture/harvesting/resource use.

Then it is actually doing something other than punishing people for buying a house...which is hardly going to make most people buy a smaller house..which also doesn't necessarily mean they will use less energy.

Except this is the US government. The money will go to something else eventually.

Except this is the US government. The money will go to something else eventually.

Like first class plane tickets.

Like first class plane tickets.

I dislike flying.

So I do not approve that budget. Even for White House 'dignitaries'.

The ever-larger growth of houses does seem to indicate that something like that would be a good idea.
I'm not quite certain why house prices across the board would drop - I suppose people could be afraid of a slippery slope.
The gas tax is fine if and only if it is used to increase public transportation.

I would change it to so much for each square ft of land that was used. We need to get rid of the 5-10 acres and a horse thing that is eating up the land.

Yes, just what we need MORE taxes, and people wonder why I don't like the Democrats or the Republicans.

What we need is proper allocation of current spending rather than pissing it away in Iraq.

But this is ridiculous...does it even bother to take into account why someone would own a home like that? We do because we have SIX FREAKING PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE!

So lowering mortgage subsidies for some wealthy homeowners, placing a tax to internalize the the cost drivers impose on others, and using market based regulations to lower the amount of pollution the US produces are bad things?

What we need is proper allocation of current spending rather than pissing it away in Iraq.

But this is ridiculous...does it even bother to take into account why someone would own a home like that? We do because we have SIX FREAKING PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE!

I'm just under the 3000 limit with 2 people..I know.. I know I do my part...:D

F*%$ you Ozone layer!

Some links that give reasons why the gas tax should be raised. Proponents include Alan Greenspan and Gary Becker

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/business/yourmoney/08view.html?fta=y
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-manifesto.html
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_archive/2006/12/01/8395106/index.htm

I dislike the idea of punishing larger families for having a house that meets their needs.

Any such law must take family size into account.

The funniest thing is that bigger houses might actually have lower greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption because they are almost always much newer than older, smaller ones. Especially if those older houses burn heating oil rather than natural gas and haven't seen any upgrades to their insulation or heating systems since their construction. I would not be surprised if a 1,500 square foot house built in the 1950's consumes more energy and produces more greenhouse gases than a 3,000 square foot house built in 2007.

You know, it really doesn't surprise me that Michigan has one of the weakest state economies in the US...

Now, raising the gas tax would be a good idea. However, it would also have to coincide with tax credits for low-income people to reduce an unfair penalty on those least able to afford it. Also, tax credits for improving energy efficiency are a must.

The mortgage interest tax deduction isn't bad because it subsidizes pollution, it just subsidizes in an inequitable fashion. Or in other words while promoting home ownership may be a good thing, subsidizing the mansions and/or summer homes of the is silly. The deduction should be capped at some reasonable level and available for one's primary residence.

This is one of the more absurd things I have heard. This congressman from Michigan wants to punish one for owning a home over 3000 sq ft. Also he would love to add on .50 to the US federal gas tax all in the name of Global Warming. What do you think?

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/08/dingells_energy_plan_would_hik.html

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/2007/08/24/dingell-plans-attack-homeowners

The thing about taxing gasoline is not that it's a bad idea - if governments were serious about reducing dependency on gasoline then this isn't a bad way of doing it - that is, make alternatives cheaper and therefore in more demand.

The problem is that the one thing that is guaranteed to inspire a riot is gasoline, which has been seen time and time again.

What ignited the recent Myanmar revolt?

Increased gasoline prices.

Saluton,

Actually, solely speaking to the fuel tax it would not be bad at all. Europe has higher prices, and they have clean/er air.

Their economy has not been destroyed with high fuel prices. instead vehicles that get sane milage are used. none of the stupid 9 or 12 miles/gallon thing anymore.

my 2001 honda gets 35 miles/gallon (56.315km/3.785 liters):fluffle:; mebbie that is why i do not mind the tax.

*need conversion :headbang:*

muscle car? keep it, it is a classic, now you get to drive as rarely as one :p

i hear your point though, so dont think im b-slapping you, my brother and his 91 camero r.s. gets 12mi/ga; he delivers pizza, its not easy on him.

-OOC
Rafe

This is one of the more absurd things I have heard. This congressman from Michigan wants to punish one for owning a home over 3000 sq ft. Also he would love to add on .50 to the US federal gas tax all in the name of Global Warming. What do you think?

-trimmed-

Well. US gets more gay.

FUCK THAT SHIT!

Sorry about the yelling, but I felt that was a statement that needed to be yelled.

FUCK THAT SHIT!.

Some of us don't wish to know about your weird fetishes .;)

I'm italian, so i should shut up about US taxes or whatever (i can see the post after mine quoting me and sayin' "SO SHUT UP!!" :p ), but i've got some questions:
how much this tax "raise" (in fact's not a new tax or an augmenting one, is a "non-reduction" of an existing one) would affect people's income?
I would obviously be with the idea that this tax shouldn't affect families larger than 4 people (or something like that), they would already have larger fixed charges than family groups of 2 or even 1.
But anyway, why should people go on complicating and messing things up?!
You want to punish the ones who waste energy?! Fix some rates and make the ones who consume more energy pay more, according to family structure and energy use (larger families and family businesses are less affected).
This would hit the point, isn't it?
And for gas raise, i would always say yes if alternatives could come at a lower price (and with a smaller smug production!! eheh South Park docet!).

I'm italian, so i should shut up about US taxes or whatever (i can see the post after mine quoting me and sayin' "SO SHUT UP!!" :p ), but i've got some questions:
how much this tax "raise" (in fact's not a new tax or an augmenting one, is a "non-reduction" of an existing one) would affect people's income?
I would obviously be with the idea that this tax shouldn't affect families larger than 4 people (or something like that), they would already have larger fixed charges than family groups of 2 or even 1.
But anyway, why should people go on complicating and messing things up?!
You want to punish the ones who waste energy?! Fix some rates and make the ones who consume more energy pay more, according to family structure and energy use (larger families and family businesses are less affected).
This would hit the point, isn't it?
And for gas raise, i would always say yes if alternatives could come at a lower price (and with a smaller smug production!! eheh South Park docet!).

SO SHUT UP!!

Obviously, after buying a house of over 3000 sq feet, you can't expect those people to have enough money left to support themselves without those mortgage tax deduction.. They'd starve, the poor people..

The idiots who buy McMansions are already being punished for their idiocy, as the housing market tanks and they find that it costs more to heat their giant waste of a home than they could make if they sold it.

maybe they should just give tax-cuts to smaller homes? And subsidize (or give loans without interest) for stuff like better insulation, sun-boilers, solar panels, green roofs or building a passive-house?

We are talking about a house like this one (or bigger) :

http://www.summithandcrafted.com/Floor_Plans/2500-3000/Whitehorse_2953_sq_ft_/Whitehorse_2953_sq_ft_.htm


So those poor people complain about a tax of probably nothing?

So all Americans live in such house?

'Cause according the article...

"...Like most of the left wing's plan to handle the economy, this would hurt everyone, the industry noted..."

...I'm wondering why I saw a lot of such things in USA:

http://www.gothamgazette.com/graphics/homeless_06.jpg

Or this:

http://finleysinc.com/Trailerpark2.jpg

2500 - 3000 sq ft! People are complaining because they wouldn't get tax exemptions?! They're pretty large properties and if you can afford one why would you need help with paying the tax, it's not as if the person (or people) would be on a low income.

I would change it to so much for each square ft of land that was used. We need to get rid of the 5-10 acres and a horse thing that is eating up the land.

Removing tax deductions for such land would also help. The environmental costs of pretty landscaping are enormous. Also, many municipalities would need to change their laws to allow for lawns that don't look like everyone else's.

What we need is proper allocation of current spending rather than pissing it away in Iraq.

But this is ridiculous...does it even bother to take into account why someone would own a home like that? We do because we have SIX FREAKING PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE!

Really? We are four people living in 1000 sq. ft. Perhaps you need to learn how to do more with less.

The funniest thing is that bigger houses might actually have lower greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption because they are almost always much newer than older, smaller ones. Especially if those older houses burn heating oil rather than natural gas and haven't seen any upgrades to their insulation or heating systems since their construction. I would not be surprised if a 1,500 square foot house built in the 1950's consumes more energy and produces more greenhouse gases than a 3,000 square foot house built in 2007.

You are confusing several things here. First of all, bigger houses take more energy to heat than small ones, all other things being equal. Other variables include the exterior wall composition and its level of thermal resistance, amount of glazing, occupancy and use, geometry, proximity of vegetation and surrounding buildings, and even the colour of the roof. This is assuming that the two buildings are in roughly the same geographic location.

The age of the building is not one of the variables, though the age of the building may indicate that the quality of some of the variables above.

Therefore, any law or policy targetting energy consumption in buildings should address these variables rather than the age of the building. You will also notice that the size of the building is the only variable that is easily comparable. It is easy to compare square footage. Not so easy to compare glazing ratios and their amount of solar gain, as these depend on the building design. Square footage does not.

maybe they should just give tax-cuts to smaller homes? And subsidize (or give loans without interest) for stuff like better insulation, sun-boilers, solar panels, green roofs or building a passive-house?

They have given a tax cut to smaller homes, and bigger ones too. Now the Congressperson involved is proposing to get rid of the one for the bigger houses. It is not a new tax.

I think everyone should go to their local realtor’s websites, do a search for houses for sale in a good large area around them, then set the search limit to be 3000 sq feet and higher, and then look at the results from low price to high price....

I think many of you will be surprised how many 'poor people' houses are 3000 square feet and larger.

Square feet is not a solid indicator of house value and shouldn't be used to set mortgage income tax benefits.

While we're taxing houses over 3000 square feet, we should also tax churches(God's House). Why should divinity exempt Him from paying His taxes? :)

This is one of the more absurd things I have heard. This congressman from Michigan wants to punish one for owning a home over 3000 sq ft. Also he would love to add on .50 to the US federal gas tax all in the name of Global Warming. What do you think?

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/08/dingells_energy_plan_would_hik.html

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/2007/08/24/dingell-plans-attack-homeowners

I fail to see a problem... :confused:

You know, it really doesn't surprise me that Michigan has one of the weakest state economies in the US...

It doesn't help that our Congressmen are wasting their time on things like this and not spending it garnering pork for the auto industry.

I think everyone should go to their local realtor’s websites, do a search for houses for sale in a good large area around them, then set the search limit to be 3000 sq feet and higher, and then look at the results from low price to high price....

I think many of you will be surprised how many 'poor people' houses are 3000 square feet and larger.

Square feet is not a solid indicator of house value and shouldn't be used to set mortgage income tax benefits.

Considering that the 4-bedroom, 2-livingroom massive house we're renting now is 1600 sqft, I wonder how on earth you'd come to that conclusion.
I'm from a more than well-off family, and this is by far the biggest house I've ever lived in...

This is one of the more absurd things I have heard. This congressman from Michigan wants to punish one for owning a home over 3000 sq ft. Also he would love to add on .50 to the US federal gas tax all in the name of Global Warming. What do you think?

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/08/dingells_energy_plan_would_hik.html

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/2007/08/24/dingell-plans-attack-homeowners

He's a Democrat. He's used to saying stupid things and getting away with it. I suspect this latest outburst is because he hasn't used up his quota of stupid, yet.

While we're taxing houses over 3000 square feet, we should also tax churches(God's House). Why should divinity exempt Him from paying His taxes? :)

I think churches should have to sign up as non-profits and if they can come out at the end of the year and still qualify for the no tax thing, than cool, but if not...they should have to pay taxes.

He's a Democrat. He's used to saying stupid things and getting away with it. I suspect this latest outburst is because he hasn't used up his quota of stupid, yet.

What's stupid about punishing pollution? I understand it's common practice, even in the US.

I am sure that this is exactly the sort of law that the founding fathers had in mind when they created Congress (sarcasm). I am an environmentalist but even I see this as entirely too much government intrusion into our lives.

3000 square feet is pretty bloody huge. How could you need more than that?

Oh, by the way, your source sucks. It links to a page sells this kind of shite, ffs :

http://jitcrunch.cafepress.com/jitcrunch.aspx?bG9hZD1ibGFuayxibGFuazoxMTFfRi5qcGd8bG9hZD1MMCxodHRwOi8vaW1hZ2VzLmNhZmVwcmVzcy5jb20va W1hZ2UvMTI3MDA3ODVfNDAweDQwMC5qcGd8fHNjYWxlPUwwLDEyOCwxNjAsV2hpdGV8Y29tcG9zZT1ibGFuayxMMCxBZGQsMTYyL DExMHxjcD1yZXN1bHQsYmxhbmt8c2NhbGU9cmVzdWx0LDAsNDgwLFdoaXRlfGNvbXByZXNzaW9uPTk1fA==[

I agree, 3000 square ft is huge unless you have a big family, to which I would say... stop breeding!

Considering that the 4-bedroom, 2-livingroom massive house we're renting now is 1600 sqft, I wonder how on earth you'd come to that conclusion.
I'm from a more than well-off family, and this is by far the biggest house I've ever lived in...


Did you do what I asked?

Here's what I found:
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/poor_house.jpg

I am sure that this is exactly the sort of law that the founding fathers had in mind when they created Congress (sarcasm). I am an environmentalist but even I see this as entirely too much government intrusion into our lives.

On the contrary... since we're all sharing this planet, it's about time some of the real criminals took a fair share.

Next up, how about actually doing something about industrial pollution...

I agree, 3000 square ft is huge unless you have a big family, to which I would say... stop breeding!
It isn't that big on single floor plans. We have a ~2500sq ft house, single story, not that big.


I'm not sure how you would get 4 bedrooms in 1600sq ft, unless its 1600 per floor...

It isn't that big on single floor plans. We have a ~2500sq ft house, single story, not that big.


I'm not sure how you would get 4 bedrooms in 1600sq ft, unless its 1600 per floor...

If each bedroom is about 200 sq.ft., that's 800. Assuming a combined area of 600 sq. ft. for a living room, dining room, and kitchen, that leaves another 200for bathrooms. You could have one large one, or two smaller ones.

Did you do what I asked?

Here's what I found:


No, I explicitly said "the house we arerenting at the moment". And that bulk thing is an awful lot bigger than our house. If poor people in the US live in houses like that, the country must be extremly well off indeed.

It isn't that big on single floor plans. We have a ~2500sq ft house, single story, not that big.


I'm not sure how you would get 4 bedrooms in 1600sq ft, unless its 1600 per floor...

A cape. 3 bdrms upstairs, 1 on first floor, which could be used as a bedroom, office or den. Looked at a lot of these when I was buying my house. My house which is more like 1700 sq ft. has a living room and a family room on the first floor. I currently use the living room as a study but it could easily be converted into a bedroom if I needed/wanted it.

No, I explicitly said "the house we arerenting at the moment". And that bulk thing is an awful lot bigger than our house. If poor people in the US live in houses like that, the country must be extremly well off indeed.

A lot of poor people in the US do live in houses like that, but you must remember that housing is rather cheaper here than in Europe. My one bedroom apartment here is the upper half of a house roughly as large as the one pictured and I pay $435 (305 Euros). Space here isn't at a premium the way it is in much of Europe and land isn't too terribly expensive.

However, it should be noted that I'm talking about the poor in suburban or rural areas. The poor in urban areas generally don't live in houses that large, or even houses at all.

If poor people in the US live in houses like that, the country must be extremly well off indeed.
*coughs*

Credit crunch...

Did you do what I asked?

Here's what I found:
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/poor_house.jpg

Unless my sense of perspective is way off, and that door is more than a standard size that foundation looks like it's about 30 by 30. Do they include subgrade space in total square footage? (we don't here) Is there an annex or addition off the side we can't see? That really doesn't look like a 3000 sq ft house to me, unless you consider basement space.

It isn't that big on single floor plans. We have a ~2500sq ft house, single story, not that big.


I'm not sure how you would get 4 bedrooms in 1600sq ft, unless its 1600 per floor...

Well, easily enough really. With masses of room to spare.
It's not exaclty a mansion, but it is one of the bigger houses in the neighbourhood, and most certainly the biggest one I ever lived in.
We're actually using 2 bedrooms mostly for storage, and keep the doors to them closed, to save on heating.

A lot of poor people in the US do live in houses like that, but you must remember that housing is rather cheaper here than in Europe. My one bedroom apartment here is the upper half of a house roughly as large as the one pictured and I pay $435 (305 Euros). Space here isn't at a premium the way it is in much of Europe and land isn't too terribly expensive.

However, it should be noted that I'm talking about the poor in suburban or rural areas. The poor in urban areas generally don't live in houses that large, or even houses at all.

I'm aware of that, but to be perfectly honest I don't really see why you would live in a big house and then moan about the fact that people increase the heating costs.
Insulate the place, and you'll need less and pay less.

What's stupid about punishing pollution? I understand it's common practice, even in the US.
Why compound stupidity with more stupidity? In other words, why not reward conservation instead of punishing anyone?

Build a green house -- get a tax credit, but don't make it unaffordable for those living in large houses to continue living there. We've already gone through a large number of evictions because of poor lending and borrowing practices, why should we force another round with bad tax policy.

Square footage is not a measure of conservation. Energy use is. I guarantee I can build a better 5000 sf house, in terms of energy consumption, than a 1500 sf house that is built with low cost as a primary requirement. Why should I be punished and the cheapskate allowed to get his mortgage interest deducted?

Better yet, do away with this income tax thing all together and keep the government from doing more stupid things like this.

Unless my sense of perspective is way off, and that door is more than a standard size that foundation looks like it's about 30 by 30. Do they include subgrade space in total square footage? (we don't here) Is there an annex or addition off the side we can't see? That really doesn't look like a 3000 sq ft house to me, unless you consider basement space.

If that door is 84" high (standard), then you may be correct about the square footage of the foundation. But it is more likely that the 1572 is approximately correct, as photos tend to distort lengths according to the type of lens.

Buit they did calculate the overall square footage by simply doubling the foundation, which is dumb because the second floor is smaller than the foundation. It is very possible that the actual square footage is less than 3000 sq.ft.

Why compound stupidity with more stupidity? In other words, why not reward conservation instead of punishing anyone?

They are rewarding conservation. By continuing an existing tax credit.

Build a green house -- get a tax credit, but don't make it unaffordable for those living in large houses to continue living there. We've already gone through a large number of evictions because of poor lending and borrowing practices, why should we force another round with bad tax policy.

Show me how removing a part of a tax credit is going to suddenly make such a home unaffordable for a large quantity of people.

Square footage is not a measure of conservation. Energy use is. I guarantee I can build a better 5000 sf house, in terms of energy consumption, than a 1500 sf house that is built with low cost as a primary requirement. Why should I be punished and the cheapskate allowed to get his mortgage interest deducted?

I already discussed how square footage is one of the variables involved in calculating heating and cooling loads upthread. Read it.

Also, the larger the house, the more materials are required. Processing and transporting these materials uses energy. The bigger the house, the higher the energy use.

Also, both the larger house and the smaller house are going to be built by the lowest bidder and as cheaply as possible.

Better yet, do away with this income tax thing all together and keep the government from doing more stupid things like this.

Why compound stupidity with more stupidity? In other words, why not reward conservation instead of punishing anyone?


Because someone has to pay for the damage already done, and people left to their own devices are usually selfish assholes.


Better yet, do away with this income tax thing all together and keep the government from doing more stupid things like this.

Better yet, do away with money completely... etc

Wow 3,000 sq ft - that really is a home big enough for the deer and the buffalo to roam in.

I think we should tax all people with a SUV as well.

Just for their bad taste.

And fat people! People above 200 pounds, pay $10,000 tax for each extra pound they carry!

America will be healthy again!

So lowering mortgage subsidies for some wealthy homeowners, placing a tax to internalize the the cost drivers impose on others, and using market based regulations to lower the amount of pollution the US produces are bad things?
I'm sorry but you don't get it, most of those who buy around a 3,000 sq ft house would be simi well to do families that are mortgaged up to their eyeballs that is who this would hurt, doubt bill gates even cares.
And then how many of you are willing to pay a extra $1.00 at the store for EVERYTHING you buy, because I can tell you the trucking companies will not give up their profits, and this tax will double by the time it is passed on to you, so the tax will not be internalized. And what happens to the jobs when it becomes cheaper to set up factories in countries where the regulations are set up to be pro factory and not pro enviroment. We are allready combating this now. So yes this would be a bad thing.

If that door is 84" high (standard), then you may be correct about the square footage of the foundation. But it is more likely that the 1572 is approximately correct, as photos tend to distort lengths according to the type of lens.

Buit they did calculate the overall square footage by simply doubling the foundation, which is dumb because the second floor is smaller than the foundation. It is very possible that the actual square footage is less than 3000 sq.ft.

could be. it just looks an awful lot like the classic turn of the century mid-western "L" farmhouse with the traditional porch enclosed. like this... (http://www.searsarchives.com/homes/images/1908-1914/1908_0115.jpg)

Unless my sense of perspective is way off, and that door is more than a standard size that foundation looks like it's about 30 by 30. Do they include subgrade space in total square footage? (we don't here) Is there an annex or addition off the side we can't see? That really doesn't look like a 3000 sq ft house to me, unless you consider basement space.

It would depend on if that was a finished basement or not.

I think we should tax all people with a SUV as well.

Just for their bad taste.

And fat people! People above 200 pounds, pay $10,000 tax for each extra pound they carry!

America will be healthy again!

http://img503.imageshack.us/my.php?image=owllolno2nx.jpg

Is there a federal tax credit for the money spent on energy bills?

I was thinking about it and Myrmidonisia is correct. What is important is energy use, not size of building. Cutting off a federal tax credit for buildings that use a certain amount of energy would make more sense than this proposal.

The proposal based on building size is rational, but the same measures adopted for energy use (rather than size) would be more so.

No, I explicitly said "the house we arerenting at the moment". And that bulk thing is an awful lot bigger than our house. If poor people in the US live in houses like that, the country must be extremly well off indeed.

You have to remember the reason for the thread.

The question is, should these people be punished for the size of their home, and the answer has been that they must be well off so why not. But I’m showing that these houses are occupied by people that are NOT well off, in fact, people that are below average household incomes are living in these old houses out in the rural areas and they would be wrongly punished for not being rich enough to live in a newer house.

That first house was $50,000 LESS than the average value of a house in the same area, Here's another house LINK (http://www.edinarealty.com/Listing/ListingDetail.aspx?Search=f8ac2b3d-66d3-4cdb-8069-9e264308f134&Listing=25492987&IRPAgentID=&Image=1&First=11&Last=20&pagesize=10&SearchType=map&ListingDistrictTypeID=&FirstLetter=&Sort=1&Cookies=&UseColorBar=false) that is LESS than the average house will cost in it's state. It is taxed as a 3000 square feet house, if the government were to punish the people that live there (average or more likely below average income for the region) then the government is taxing the wrong people. Punishing them because everyone 'thinks' they must be rich because of the Square footage of their home would be an injustice.

The homes I’m talking about will be occupied by service workers, janitors, mechanics, farmers, nurses and store clerks, some line production and dairy workers etc., not college educated professionals and the middle management people in urban houses that are over 3000 square feet. The difference between who is rich and wasting resources vs. who is poor and living where they can afford, is NOT defined by the square footage of their homes and the government shouldn’t try to use that as a luxury tax definition in the US.

Square footage of a house is a terrible way to measure this particular issue. For example...

This does not take into account several things:
1. Energy Use
Size of a house does not determine how much energy you use on heating/cooling/any other. Its your lifestyle (and thermostat settings). Also, a house with proper insulation (and energy efficient appliances/electronics, if applicable) definitely waste a whole lot less energy than those that don't have proper insulation.

2. Occupants
Size of a house does not determine the lifestyle, number, and impact an individual has.

3. Carbon Dioxide
Not a major issue in this discussion, but once again Carbon output is not dependent on the size of your house.

4. Source of Energy
Large houses do require more energy, yes, but nobody said anything about where this energy comes from. If you obtain your energy independent of the grid, even a small portion (And don't give me B.S. about price, if you can afford a 3000 foot house you can afford solar panels. Personal choices.) will dramatically help. Solar cells (many, many people have them, including my parents, who have a sizable house), Geothermal (for those lucky enough to have it, but not common), Hydroelectric (small stuff, my friends and I actually tapped the power of a small creek to generate some electricity), Wind (windmills, anyone?), or simply going without.

Oh, and by the way, simply because people are well off and have a large house is not the reason to tax them (we already have income tax...); instead we should tax environmental impact on both individuals and businesses. This solves two problems: 1, since environmental pollution violates basic rights of people (consider this: dumping your smog into the air conflicts with people's right to breathing and living, you cannot simply exhaust it unless it stays on your property the entire time, or you interfere with other's rights), we have to intervene somehow to fulfill government duty of protecting the rights of the people, 2. We cannot intervene directly without stirring up great resentment and writing several new laws, and having everyone break them because they are built into our society, and thus have to accomplish this by manipulating economics by taxing citizens on their degree of harming others, and by so doing progressively reduce peoples impact, and 3. Provide funding for public environmental projects. (Note that I do not agree with this unless the taxes go straight to environmental programs, instead of a war.)

I think we should tax all people with a SUV as well.

Just for their bad taste.

And fat people! People above 200 pounds, pay $10,000 tax for each extra pound they carry!

America will be healthy again!

We do... petrol is taxed, and those things swallow immense quantities.
Although personally, I'd like to see taxes on petrol increased drastically.

I'm sorry but you don't get it, most of those who buy around a 3,000 sq ft house would be simi well to do families that are mortgaged up to their eyeballs that is who this would hurt, doubt bill gates even cares.

Eh, I do not see why the semi-well to do should be given incentives to get bigger houses than they would otherwise. I do however think that square footage is a stupid way to lessen housing subsidies to those who don't need it.

And then how many of you are willing to pay a extra $1.00 at the store for EVERYTHING you buy, because I can tell you the trucking companies will not give up their profits, and this tax will double by the time it is passed on to you, so the tax will not be internalized. And what happens to the jobs when it becomes cheaper to set up factories in countries where the regulations are set up to be pro factory and not pro enviroment. We are allready combating this now. So yes this would be a bad thing.

In the long run prices for gas are elastic. With the tax people will eventually use more fuel efficient cars, alternative sources may arise, whatever. Prices may rise in the short-run but will fall in the long-run.

I do not see why its a bad thing if polluting industries move off-shore. This seems like a good thing. With trade it will make the US more productive. Also, with a healthy environment being a luxury good, we spend a higher percentage of our incomes on it as our incomes rise, speeding up economic growth in poor countries seems like a good thing to me.

... The difference between who is rich and wasting resources vs. who is poor and living where they can afford, is NOT defined by the square footage of their homes and the government shouldn’t try to use that as a luxury tax definition in the US.

Er... No. If you read your own source :

He would slap a 50-cent per gallon tax on gasoline, end the mortgage tax deduction for so-called "McMansions," and tax and put a cap on carbon dioxide emissions.

He doesn't plan to tax these houses, he plans to remove tax deductions on mortgages for these houses. He is simply making them pay their full mortgage. Nothing else.
Other than that, he's planning to target polluters by making them pay for polluting. I personally have not the least problem with this.

Er... No. If you read your own source :



He doesn't plan to tax these houses, he plans to remove tax deductions on mortgages for these houses. He is simply making them pay their full mortgage. Nothing else.
Other than that, he's planning to target polluters by making them pay for polluting. I personally have not the least problem with this.

You seem to have a misunderstanding how it works in the US and what we are talking about. Mortgage tax breaks in the US means, you pay your mortgage, THEN you determine your income for income taxes at the end of the year after deducting your mortgage payments from your earned income.

IF you take that away from poor people then the person has to pay income taxes on the money they spent on their mortgages as well as their other income. Thus, their total tax burden is raised and it decreases their ability to afford housing. The mortgage tax benefit was designed to increase home ownership. They always have to pay their entire mortgage.

You seem to have a misunderstanding how it works in the US and what we are talking about. Mortgage tax breaks in the US means, you pay your mortgage, THEN you determine your income for income taxes at the end of the year after deducting your mortgage payments from your earned income.

IF you take that away from poor people then the person has to pay income taxes on the money they spent on their mortgages as well as their other income. Thus, their total tax burden is raised and it decreases their ability to afford housing. The mortgage tax benefit was designed to increase home ownership. They always have to pay their entire mortgage.
Actually it's mortgage interest that's deductible. It reduces your gross income dollar for dollar and the tax burden according to the progressive rate. Don't let me minimize it's importance in home ownership, though. In the early years of home ownership, much of what you pay is interest, thus the $1000 per month house payment, is mostly interest. And that comes straight off your gross income at tax time. In my bracket, that would result in about $4000 savings in tax payments.

Compare that to someone who rents for a similar amount. They have no corresponding deduction. So you see why the mortgage interest deduction is such a popular tax break.

Er... No. If you read your own source :



He doesn't plan to tax these houses, he plans to remove tax deductions on mortgages for these houses. He is simply making them pay their full mortgage. Nothing else.
Other than that, he's planning to target polluters by making them pay for polluting. I personally have not the least problem with this.
Doesn't it bother you that it also seems to be retro-active. I don't see that he exempts anyone already living in a large house.

Still, reward is the best way to go. There is nothing in the proposal that would encourage builders and owners of smaller houses to be more efficient.

First of all in south Florida at least the average home is around 3000sq ft. And trust me all this will do is cause the economy to become worse than it already is. Considering most south Floridians already pay more in taxes and insurance than they do mortgages I don't think the strain of penalties for their homes will be a good thing.

Secondly is this including the garage? Considering a 2 car garage adds around 700sq ft to a home put isn't usually air conditioned/heated

Thirdly size of the home has little to do with energy consumption. Considering I moved into a home that was more than double the size of my previous one and the energy use did not increase very much.

If you really want to decrease pollution give tax breaks breaks and subsidies for people who put things like solar panels on their house or do something really insane and give away free florescent light bulbs.

*snip*

But this is ridiculous...does it even bother to take into account why someone would own a home like that? We do because we have SIX FREAKING PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE!

Yep. Six people in a big house make better use of resources (less per person) than six people living in their own small houses.

Several people have mentioned the arbitrary nature of a size cutoff. Yes to that too. Also that floor space is not a sensible measure of how energy efficient a house is to keep or build.

The only thing I can think to add is that penalties and rewards should be applied WHEN THE HOUSE IS BUILT. That's a fairer way -- no-one can point to a struggling family who lose their mortgage, and say it was because of a law change. Big houses become more expensive and therefore less attractive, but there's no incentive to knock existing ones down (which is an energy disaster if the house is still quite new.)

This is proof that global warming is being used by the government to enforce insane policies in the name of the common good.

What is that, like 280 square metres in a sane system? Meh.

This is proof that global warming is being used by the government to enforce insane policies in the name of the common good.

Yes, since subsidizing mortgages is 100% compatible with libertarian free markets.

We do... petrol is taxed, and those things swallow immense quantities.
Although personally, I'd like to see taxes on petrol increased drastically.

I know that fat Americans swallow immense quantities. But tax them extra!

Sq ft has relatively little impact on how energy efficient a home, building or household is. Building materials, energy sources, climate control, insulation and so on, that's what counts.

But it's symptomatic, I think, of the insane way we run our societies. Government should play the role of consultants and management. When there's a need to legislate about climate-affecting shit, specify the goals and leave it to specialists to detail how those goals are best achieved. It's of course horribly unreasonable to expect some dumbfuck politician to know enough to detail such legislation on his own. He'd have to be an expert in several fields to have that kind of knowledge. It's much worse though, that the guy apparently thinks his igorance shouldn't stop him from trying.

You seem to have a misunderstanding how it works in the US and what we are talking about. Mortgage tax breaks in the US means, you pay your mortgage, THEN you determine your income for income taxes at the end of the year after deducting your mortgage payments from your earned income.

IF you take that away from poor people then the person has to pay income taxes on the money they spent on their mortgages as well as their other income. Thus, their total tax burden is raised and it decreases their ability to afford housing. The mortgage tax benefit was designed to increase home ownership. They always have to pay their entire mortgage.

Well, guess what? This is exactly how it works the world over : you pay your income tax, and get to spend the rest of the money. You don't get to deduct your mortgage payments before you pay taxes.
This is what's called a tax break, and it's up to the government to grant one or not. And personally, I don't see the merit in rewarding people with a tax break for buying houses that will have a serious environmental impact due to their energy consumption.

Doesn't it bother you that it also seems to be retro-active. I don't see that he exempts anyone already living in a large house.

Still, reward is the best way to go. There is nothing in the proposal that would encourage builders and owners of smaller houses to be more efficient.

Well, yes and no.
He said he was going to increase taxation on heating fuel, so people already living in big houses that swallow massive amounts of energy to heat will also have an incentive to come up with ways to reduce their consumption.
And it discourages people from going for buying houses with unused space that'll cost them.

What is that, like 280 square metres in a sane system? Meh.

1 000 square meters, I reckon.

The thing that strikes me as incredibly insane here is that the average German household (flat or house, depending), is about 70 square meters..

1 000 square meters, I reckon.

Is that right?

My apartment, at about 60sq.m is about 550 sq.ft - with squaring, to get metres from feet, do you have to divide by 3 and divide by 3 as opposed to simply taking feet to metres.

:confused:

Is that right?No it isn't. 3,000 Square feet is ca. 280 square meter.

1 000 square meters, I reckon.

The thing that strikes me as incredibly insane here is that the average German household (flat or house, depending), is about 70 square meters..

About three feet to a metre. Therefore, about nine square feet to a square metre.

To be more precise (squaring quantities blows out the approximation):

One square metre = 10.76 square feet.

About three feet to a metre. Therefore, about nine square feet to a square metre.

To be more precise (squaring quantities blows out the approximation):

One square metre = 10.76 square feet.

Oh... hang on, now I need to do some maths....

Here's the thing, my apartment is miniscule so I can't really see 280 sq.m or 3, 000 sq.ft being extraordinarily large - is that just base level - it just doesn't seem that large to me.

Well, guess what? This is exactly how it works the world over : you pay your income tax, and get to spend the rest of the money. You don't get to deduct your mortgage payments before you pay taxes.
This is what's called a tax break, and it's up to the government to grant one or not. And personally, I don't see the merit in rewarding people with a tax break for buying houses that will have a serious environmental impact due to their energy consumption.

I'm glad you mentioned income tax, because in that case most people are OK with a progressive tax, where higher income earners pay not only more tax, but a higher rate of tax.

This is similar, even if very clumsy. Above some threshold of big-expensive-house, people are considered not to need a tax-break.

I object to the clumsiness.
Imagine a similar situation with income tax. Below 80,000 cfsh you pay no tax. Above that, you are subject to a tax on all your income. That will lead to everyone even approaching that magic number devising clever plans to stay under the threshold and taking their benefits in other forms. It will lead to cheating, damn lies and statistics.

Similar situation here. Under this proposal, I can build an all-glass, air-conditioned mansion of 2,999 sq feet, with a spa bath and plasma TV in every room, and still get a tax break for it.

Daft.

Silliest thing of all is that all the energy costs of that house would already be taxed by the proposed carbon tax of $100 a ton.

1 000 square meters, I reckon.

The thing that strikes me as incredibly insane here is that the average German household (flat or house, depending), is about 70 square meters..
You'd reckon wrong. I think you're inability with numbers is at the root of your misunderstanding of the rest of this problem.

I see the correct answer is already out there. One thing about Fass, he's almost always factually correct.

I know that fat Americans swallow immense quantities. But tax them extra!

Not all Americans are fat, ass.

Why do we use so much gas? Because our towns are all spread out.

Here's the thing, my apartment is miniscule so I can't really see 280 sq.m or 3, 000 sq.ft being extraordinarily large - is that just base level - it just doesn't seem that large to me.You're approaching it the wrong way, just like the silly politician.

What's needed are overall goals for energy efficiency. Naturally efficiency decreases as the inhabited area increases, but not proportionally and there's a hell of a lot of variables involved, including geographical location and environment. Buildings are more energy efficient in dense urban areas, for example, due to something called UHI. They're also more polluting...

Point is, it's really fucking complicated and a simplistic nonsense approach only targeting a single and fairly minor aspect of the problem one's trying to deal with, isn't going to work. A 80-120 year old 250 sq ft flat that hasn't been modernised, as is the case in a great many European cities, for example, is almost guaranteed to be less energy efficient than an average, modern 3,000 sq ft home.

What's needed is new building codes, forcing industry and homeowners both to adopt the best practices. The EU countries sort of do this a little. The US never has.

Of course, it takes time for that kind of legislation to have an effect. Perhaps that's why the bonehead politician went for sq footage. Instant gratification sort of thing. But that kind of policy doesn't have the desired effect, in fact, it can't possibly have the desired effect. Even if you removed the upper middle class and upwards and their homes from the US, it would make almost no difference in terms of environmental impact from housing. Sure, some of those really use a lot of energy, but they'll never be more than a drop in an ocean of people who all use too much. A 30% reduction over a 50 year timescale - or better yet, over a 30 year timescale - is the magnitude we're talking about. Taxing a few people in above average sized villas won't help achieve that. It's not even a start. And giving people and incentive to buy smaller, but at least as deficient homes doesn't address the problem either, assuming it'd even be enough of an incentive, which I strongly doubt.

Sq footage of homes is an entirely predictable thing. There's no great problems in projecting housing trends (it's already done, even in the US), and thus there's no great problem in correcting for it in properly constructed policy. That makes the whole sq footage thing completely irrelevant to the issue.

You're approaching it the wrong way, just like the silly politician.

Wait....is that insulting me :confused:

:)

Understand the point - I'm just being miserable about my miniature apartment.

Derek Zoolander: What is this? A center for ants? How can we be expected to teach children to learn how to read... if they can't even fit inside the building?
Mugatu: Derek, this is just a small...
Derek Zoolander: I don't wanna hear your excuses! The building has to be at least... three times bigger than this!

Wait....is that insulting me :confused:No, I'm sorry. Didn't mean it that way at all. I wrote earlier that I don't blame the politician for being ignorant, but for acting as if he wasn't. That's where the silly came from. It wasn't aimed at you at all, I'm just being inarticulate as usual.

No, I'm sorry. Didn't mean it that way at all. I wrote earlier that I don't blame the politician for being ignorant, but for acting as if he wasn't. That's where the silly came from. It wasn't aimed at you at all, I'm just being inarticulate as usual.

No, you misread me, I take no offense at all, hence the smiley.

There's a great book and I can't remember his name except he small caps his surname in tribute to e.e. cummings, which talks about how inane politicians are in trying to appeal to people.

I feel this politician is silly for reasons beyond your point. In trying to appeal to the common vote, he's just wiped out all those people with houses over 3, 000 sq.ft - which is probably a large section of the voting, middle class.

If he'd simply said mansions, perhaps he'd invoked the dislike for moguls but by putting such a small figure on it, well....silly really.

You'd reckon wrong. I think you're inability with numbers is at the root of your misunderstanding of the rest of this problem.

Yeah. A factor of three is fairly significant in house size.

But I asked a school-teacher how many cubic centimetres there are in a cubic metre, a few days ago. It took five guesses for her to get it right.

Some people get squares and cubes. Some don't. It really helps to have played with the blocks in kindie.

You'd reckon wrong. I think you're inability with numbers is at the root of your misunderstanding of the rest of this problem.

I see the correct answer is already out there. One thing about Fass, he's almost always factually correct.

Well, despite the fact that my reckoning was out far enough to make me doubt most people's sanity here, even 280 square meter seems ridiculously and unnecessarily large.
As I said, the house I live in now is 1600 sqft, and I'm still having difficulties getting to grips with how large it is.
I grew up in an 80 square meter apartment with my mother, two brothers and a cat, and considered it to be on the large side.

Well, despite the fact that my reckoning was out far enough to make me doubt most people's sanity here, even 280 square meter seems ridiculously and unnecessarily large.
As I said, the house I live in now is 1600 sqft, and I'm still having difficulties getting to grips with how large it is.
I grew up in an 80 square meter apartment with my mother, two brothers and a cat, and considered it to be on the large side.

Really? You're screwing with my head!

Having said that you're in Ireland, not America (neither am I in fact, HK, the world's smallest, most expensive apartments), so maybe your definition of large is different.

I have the spatial awareness of bull in a china shop - can someone post a picture of a 3, 000 sq.ft house - is it a basic suburban house or a total mansion.

Really? You're screwing with my head!

Having said that you're in Ireland, not America (neither am I in fact, HK, the world's smallest, most expensive apartments), so maybe your definition of large is different.

I have the spatial awareness of bull in a china shop - can someone post a picture of a 3, 000 sq.ft house - is it a basic suburban house or a total mansion.

I think there's one earlier in the thread... although it's been argued that for that house to actually have 3000 sqft, the estate agent must have calcualted the basement as well as the living space.

And I grew up in Germany, not in Ireland. Ireland on the whole is a good deal more spacious than Germany ;)

Of all the places I have lived, I think my favourite was a tiny upstairs room with one window and one door. I remember that the bed reached from one wall to the other, so it couldn't have been more than 6 square metres.

EDIT: I also used the kitchen, immediately below. It was larger. Add in the bathroom and the back yard, and it's probably 30 square metres. My point being, that if you share a house there is no need to count it all as your space.

Where I am now isn't so different. Almost everything is within sitting-down reach of the desk in the middle of the room. Like that little upstairs room, it stays warm from my body-heat (now I have a computer to help that along), but it has good ventilation for when it's hot.

Am I virtuous for using no heating or cooling power? No. I just like it this way and aren't living where a cold night is life-threatening.

Having lots of empty space where you live might be gratifying for some, but I've never understood it.

Still, he's wiping out a large section of his voter base to be honest:

The average American house size has more than doubled since the 1950s; it now stands at 2,349 square feet. Whether it's a McMansion in a wealthy neighborhood, or a bigger, cheaper house in the exurbs, the move toward ever large homes has been accelerating for years.

Link (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5525283)

I'd have said at least 4-5, 000 sq.ft if I was trying to buy me some votes, as posters have said, he should be helping to modernise efficiency.

I'd have said at least 4-5, 000 sq.ft if I was trying to buy me some votes, as posters have said, he should be helping to modernise efficiency.That large, eh? Then he almost has a point, though in a decidedly roundabout sort of way. Housing that large massively decreases infrastructure efficiency, for example in the form of more traffic and trips of longer duration.

The proper way to address such an issue, though, is through city planning. Taxing square feet won't help change the situation. It wouldn't, even if the arbitrary limit was sufficiently low to hurt everyone in suburbia, instead of just a few percent of them. And of course, it is punishing people for a problem they can't possibly be blamed for. It's not like suburban US have been educated in the problems associated with the lifestyle and rejected sensible policy changed meant to address them.

That large, eh? Then he almost has a point, though in a decidedly roundabout sort of way. Housing that large massively decreases infrastructure efficiency, for example in the form of more traffic and trips of longer duration.

The proper way to address such an issue, though, is through city planning. Taxing square feet won't help change the situation. It wouldn't, even if the arbitrary limit was sufficiently low to hurt everyone in suburbia, instead of just a few percent of them. And of course, it is punishing people for a problem they can't possibly be blamed for. It's not like suburban US have been educated in the problems associated with the lifestyle and rejected sensible policy changed meant to address them.
Portland, Oregon has done the best job in controlling sprawl of any city I've visited. Better than Europeans, even, because it was intended from the beginning. Very, very pleasant city to walk through.

Sq ft has relatively little impact on how energy efficient a home, building or household is. Building materials, energy sources, climate control, insulation and so on, that's what counts.

But it's symptomatic, I think, of the insane way we run our societies. Government should play the role of consultants and management. When there's a need to legislate about climate-affecting shit, specify the goals and leave it to specialists to detail how those goals are best achieved. It's of course horribly unreasonable to expect some dumbfuck politician to know enough to detail such legislation on his own. He'd have to be an expert in several fields to have that kind of knowledge. It's much worse though, that the guy apparently thinks his igorance shouldn't stop him from trying.

Of course, the only thing worse than 'some dumbfuck politician' is the average person - who doesn't give a shit, and knows practically nothing, but thinks himself (or herself) wise enough to make decisions that will affect themselves, and everyone around them.

The politician who knows nothing consults... the average person who knows nothing tends to speak louder on the issues on which they are least expert. When pushed, their answer is usually a variant on 'meh, I don't know'. Apathy and wanton ignorance are the reasons why people REALLY need government.

Portland, Oregon has done the best job in controlling sprawl of any city I've visited. Better than Europeans, even, because it was intended from the beginning.

One assumes you've never been to Milton Keynes.

You're being a stereotypical 'American'....

First of all, despite many people's claims to the contrary, bigger houses do require more energy, if all the other variables are equal.

3,000 square feet equals 278.7091 square meters.

Since the politician is trying to address the issue of energy use, it would be more sensible to remove tax deductions for income spent on energy bills above a certain amount. Does such a tax deduction exist? If not, it would be sensible to create a tax deduction based on this that rewards low energy consumption.

As for building codes, Canada has several codes. There is the Model National Energy Code of Canada, which has been adopted by one city and one province. Other jurisdictions have their own building codes that require a certain minimum energy efficiency. Here in Quebec, we have our own provincial code.

Here is a recent article about the situation in Canada. (http://www.csrwire.ca/read.php?ID=798)

First of all, despite many people's claims to the contrary, bigger houses do require more energy, if all the other variables are equal.

3,000 square feet equals 278.7091 square meters.

Since the politician is trying to address the issue of energy use, it would be more sensible to remove tax deductions for income spent on energy bills above a certain amount. Does such a tax deduction exist? If not, it would be sensible to create a tax deduction based on this that rewards low energy consumption.

As for building codes, Canada has several codes. There is the Model National Energy Code of Canada, which has been adopted by one city and one province. Other jurisdictions have their own building codes that require a certain minimum energy efficiency. Here in Quebec, we have our own provincial code.

Here is a recent article about the situation in Canada. (http://www.csrwire.ca/read.php?ID=798)
There are some federal tax credits (http://www.energy.gov/taxbreaks.htm) for alternative energy use. Also for buying and installing various kinds of conservation materials -- insulation, etc. There is also a cert called "Energy Star" that is applied to whole houses because of the materials and methods that are used.

Then, if you're a believer in the market, the prices of energy will force these same conservation methods without government intervention.

T
Then, if you're a believer in the market, the prices of energy will force these same conservation methods without government intervention.

If you're a beliver in the market you'd scrap the mortgage tax credit subsidy all together.

Portland, Oregon has done the best job in controlling sprawl of any city I've visited. Better than Europeans, even, because it was intended from the beginning. Very, very pleasant city to walk through.

How often and for how long have you been there? Portland is so large that each of its quadrants would be the size of a compact city of a couple of hundred thousand on the east coast or in Europe. It has swallowed up suburbs like Milwaukie and Clackamas and spreads across three counties. So no. The downtown area if reasonably compact, to be sure. The city itself is huge -- largest in the PNW save for possibly Spokane. I think it's about 140 square miles.

3,000 sq ft isn't even that large to begin with... bigger than the average home, yes, but not vastly enormous. 4,000 and up is more like it.

If you're a beliver in the market you'd scrap the mortgage tax credit subsidy all together.
No, not as long as income tax exists. I'd scrap that, too, but it's outside the scope of this discussion.

How often and for how long have you been there? Portland is so large that each of its quadrants would be the size of a compact city of a couple of hundred thousand on the east coast or in Europe. It has swallowed up suburbs like Milwaukie and Clackamas and spreads across three counties. So no. The downtown area if reasonably compact, to be sure. The city itself is huge -- largest in the PNW save for possibly Spokane. I think it's about 140 square miles.
Well, the last time I spent _any_ time there was in the early '90s. Lot's can happen in a couple of decades. Back then, though, it was mainly the compact downtown.

Did the Californians ruin Portland like they ruined Seattle and the San Juan Islands?

Did the Californians ruin Portland like they ruined Seattle and the San Juan Islands?

Yeah they are fully on their way to destroying Oregon too. It is sad really. The Washington state population for example has grown nearly 5x since I was born.

Of course, the only thing worse than 'some dumbfuck politician' is the average person - who doesn't give a shit, and knows practically nothing, but thinks himself (or herself) wise enough to make decisions that will affect themselves, and everyone around them.

The politician who knows nothing consults... the average person who knows nothing tends to speak louder on the issues on which they are least expert. When pushed, their answer is usually a variant on 'meh, I don't know'. Apathy and wanton ignorance are the reasons why people REALLY need government.You're going way beyond the topic of the thread, but what the hell.

The average citizens in this case, are not the ones failing to consult, and are not the ones who, through understandable ignorance, proposes to screw with each others' livelihood for no reason. The very opposite is true of the politician.

Insulting the intelligence of the average citizen, purely because they aren't all-knowing, is completely unwarranted. Humans have a decidedly finite capacity for learning. In the context of topic of this thread, no single human has the capacity to know what's needed to address the problem the politician wishes addressed. Further, a society simply cannot function if all its individuals specialize in the same handful of fields. They'd thirst or starve to death.
Similarly, it is completely understandable the politician lacks the information to properly assess and address the problem. He'd have to be superhuman to do so. It is the height of incompetence, however, that he doesn't recognise his own limitations and leave it to competent people to detail possible solutions.

I agree ignorance is part of the reason we need organisation, but I disagree it is the primary one. The way I see it, organisation primarily exists to empower individuals to achieve goals and solve problems they cannot accomplish on their own. I also disagree "governments" are the best tool for the job. John Dingell is a perfect example of oppressive and inefficient government in action.

If governments were just management and consultant bodies, with the sole purpose of empowering people and solving problems, I'd agree with you. Alas, by and large, they're anything but.

Yeah they are fully on their way to destroying Oregon too. It is sad really. The Washington state population for example has grown nearly 5x since I was born.
Damn.

I spent 1987-1990 in Oak Harbor, Whidbey Island. It was the nicest place I had ever been. In fact, we owned a house there and planned to retire there. But, just as we were leaving, the Californians discovered the place.

There were dozens of houses that sold for way more than they were worth. The P-I had a columnist that just hated the new wave of Californians and it was fun reading about it, but I'm sorry to see the mess that it turned out to be.

Last time I was in Oak Harbor was just a few months ago and I don't recognize the place. The Roller-Barn is still a good landmark, but almost everything else is new or remodeled, with empty space replaced by one strip mall after another. I'm glad we left.

You're going way beyond the topic of the thread, but what the hell.

The average citizens in this case, are not the ones failing to consult, and are not the ones who, through understandable ignorance, proposes to screw with each others' livelihood for no reason. The very opposite is true of the politician.

Insulting the intelligence of the average citizen, purely because they aren't all-knowing, is completely unwarranted. Humans have a decidedly finite capacity for learning. In the context of topic of this thread, no single human has the capacity to know what's needed to address the problem the politician wishes addressed. Further, a society simply cannot function if all its individuals specialize in the same handful of fields. They'd thirst or starve to death.
Similarly, it is completely understandable the politician lacks the information to properly assess and address the problem. He'd have to be superhuman to do so. It is the height of incompetence, however, that he doesn't recognise his own limitations and leave it to competent people to detail possible solutions.

I agree ignorance is part of the reason we need organisation, but I disagree it is the primary one. The way I see it, organisation primarily exists to empower individuals to achieve goals and solve problems they cannot accomplish on their own. I also disagree "governments" are the best tool for the job. John Dingell is a perfect example of oppressive and inefficient government in action.

If governments were just management and consultant bodies, with the sole purpose of empowering people and solving problems, I'd agree with you. Alas, by and large, they're anything but.

I disagree that it was anything like "beyond the topic of the thread".

The attacks on the politician seem to centre around the idea that his approach is wrong for two reasons. One argument seems to be that he knows too little... to which I present the counter that most people know less, and won't commission a committee (or worse, do their own research) to correct it.

The other argument is more of the libertarian lack-of-touch stupidity - the idea that random ignorant man-on-the-street is somehow going to be the best person to decide any issue.

Governments are needed almost entirely because, collectively, people are somewhere between bone-idle, and thick as shit.

The evidence for that argument? The fact that 'governments' even exist.

No, not as long as income tax exists. I'd scrap that, too, but it's outside the scope of this discussion.

Mortgage subsidies cause people to buy expensive housing than they otherwise would driving the prices still higher. It a from of interference in the market because it gives preference to mortgages above other goods.

Damn.

I spent 1987-1990 in Oak Harbor, Whidbey Island. It was the nicest place I had ever been. In fact, we owned a house there and planned to retire there. But, just as we were leaving, the Californians discovered the place.

There were dozens of houses that sold for way more than they were worth. The P-I had a columnist that just hated the new wave of Californians and it was fun reading about it, but I'm sorry to see the mess that it turned out to be.

Last time I was in Oak Harbor was just a few months ago and I don't recognize the place. The Roller-Barn is still a good landmark, but almost everything else is new or remodeled, with empty space replaced by one strip mall after another. I'm glad we left.

We use to go up to the San Juans all the time as kids. The place was nice and pristine with small villages really. Now it is full of hippies with million dollar homes everywhere.

So were you stationed at the naval air station up there?

We use to go up to the San Juans all the time as kids. The place was nice and pristine with small villages really. Now it is full of hippies with million dollar homes everywhere.

So were you stationed at the naval air station up there?
Yep. At that time, you either had to be Dutch or Navy to live in Oak Harbor. It was the best duty station, ever.