A knock I hear frequently about electric vehicles (EVs) is that they require government subsidies to sell well rather than letting the “free market” decide. I’m assuming “free market” refers to dealer network and government collusion and externality benefits of petrol fueled vehicles. However, I usually have to distinguish between a tax credit (which is NOT a subsidy) and a tax rebate (which is a subsidy). The federal tax credit afforded to EV owners is often (incorrectly) labeled a “subsidy” by anti-EV folks. However, the federal tax credit for an EV purchase is limited to the buyer’s federal tax burden.

If you have no federal taxes, Uncle Sam does not cut you a check for $7,500. If you only have $5,000 federal taxes owed at the end of the year, you also don’t get a $2,500; you just don’t have to pay the $5,000 in federal taxes. In short, it’s you keeping more of your own money (which is why it’s called a tax incentive) rather than you getting someone else’s money (which is why it’s NOT a subsidy).

State issued tax rebates are subsidies. Not having to pay for the health problems caused by driving a petrol powered car is a subsidy.

Anyone following the rise of electric car transportation has often heard gripes from anti-EV folks about a “dirty grid”, “subsidies”, or even how EVs allegedly produce more pollution during their manufacturing than what is produced for the entire life of an internal combustion engine. Wired magazine even go into the mix with their (bunk) article talking about how EVs aren’t as green as you think they are. I’m not going to link to any of these “articles” because they are, quite frankly, gibberish. They often make claims such as lithium being a rare earth material (it’s not) or that Tesla uses permanent magnets in their motors (they’re AC induction, so they don’t; and Tesla gets all of it’s cobalt in North America).

Instead, I’m going to link to articles that provide insight into an often overlooked topic of internal combustion engines (ICE): externality economic benefits afforded to ICE manufacturers. As is turns out, driving in rush hour traffic is potentially twice as hazardous to your health than currently believed. This externality benefit is afforded to car manufacturers who are making ICE. They incur relatively zero cost for developing a product that produces emissions that the manufacturer has zero responsibility for. This is a tremendous economic benefit afforded to ICE manufacturers. While they are responsible for containing the pollution produced during the manufacturing of their product, they have zero responsibility for the pollution created during the usage of their production AND there is no way to use their product without producing pollution (unless you put the car in a museum).

One might argue that the driver should be responsible for that pollution or that the driver is responsible for the pollution because of paying taxes on gas. Let’s not pretend that the taxes on gasoline are even used for their intended purpose of rebuilding roads let alone healthcare costs incurred from the pollution caused by refining and burning gasoline. Also, the manufacturers of ICE don’t provide (or even have) the ability to collect pollution, so we’re stuck with tailpipe emissions spread to someone else’s property and effecting their lives. These effects are very costly, and the burden (as detailed in the RAND report I’ve linked to) is on health insurance companies, or government, and individuals deprived of their health liberty due to no action of their own! Certainly, one’s own rush hour car pollution is enough to kill them dozens of times over, but I digress… Perhaps the health insurance companies could lobby to get their money back?

The solution is fairly simple. Place a health insurance tax on the manufacturer of ICE vehicles that cannot be passed along to the consumer unless that consumer is a government agency. This tax would be paid to companies and individuals paying for health insurance to help offset their increased medical costs due to the products developed and sold by ICE manufacturers. The tax would be based upon the pollution (we’re not just talking about CO2 but ALL air pollution) produced by a vehicle from driving it 10K miles per year with the average life being 10 years for the vehicle and adjusted annually for the increased pollution that an ICE produces as it ages (which is the opposite of what happens with EV since grids are becoming cleaner each year).

The results from this would be reduced out of pocket medical costs for individuals since they are no longer subsidizing ICE manufacturers, a likely bankrupt automobile industry as electric cars would suddenly become significantly less expensive than ICE, and we can finally get rid of those tax incentives for electric vehicles that anti-EV folks love to complain about! Joking aside, there are considerable health costs that ICE manufacturers are causing by continuing to manufacture products that have no method to avoid. Taxing the manufacturers for their externality benefit they receive at our expense is a potential way to provide those manufacturers with incentives to make better products that are less detrimental to our health and puts the financial burden on the industry directly responsible for substantial increase in healthcare costs over the last half century.

“Behind every great man is a great woman”

We hear that statement (or some variant: “Behind every successful man is a woman”) so often, particularly in politics. It’s so popular that with the rise of successful women in business and politics we hear the gender role reversal: Behind every great woman is a great man. Regardless of the gender roles, the statement has an underlying tone that the spouse of a great/successful person is hidden “behind” the successful person.

Maybe we see the significant other on the stage… Maybe the great wo/man is mentioned in an acceptance speech… Maybe in the memoirs…

The reality is that *Beside* every great wo/man is a great wo/man. It’s just a preposition, but this preposition swap accurately reflects the true spirit of this popular idiom. The spouse of a successful person stands besides them, not behind them. When they walked down the isle, they walked beside each other. No one individual was behind or in front of the other, and it’s the same in success and greatness.

When I achieve success in business or life, my wife is always beside me; not behind me. And I know that the same holds true for her. We’re on this adventure together. One of us certainly takes the lead depending on what obstacle is in front of us, but when we cross that finish line… When we achieve success, it’s beside one another.

Google’s Project Sunroof has estimates on a lot more rooftops than it did a year ago! My house didn’t have a sqft roof estimate last year, and now it does: 2,001 sqft with 2,009 hours of usable sunlight per year! Most of my neighbors have between 1,700 and 2,500 sqft of roof space available for solar panels according to Google’s estimates.

My wife and I are quite conservative when it comes to energy usage. We haven’t gone full-home energy efficient, but our thermostat settings are optimized, windows are shaded, and we even went tankless (and gas) on our water heater. Our typical electric bill is between $100-200, and that’s even having a Volt that is typically in need of a full charge 3-4 times per week.

On the low side, Google estimates that using 247 square feet for solar would save 98% of our electricity costs. That’s 12.34% of my available rooftop. On the high side, Google estimates that using 423 square feet for solar would save 100% of our electricity costs. That’s still less than 1/4 of my total roof space. In other words, I could generate enough solar power for slightly more than 4 houses in my neighborhood. More importantly, my entire neighborhood could generate enough solar power for 4x as many houses! I postulated this idea years ago but didn’t have the tools until now to show how easy it would be.

That’s roughly 588 houses (similar to my very average house) worth of energy that my grid-tied neighborhood could produce! While this one neighborhood won’t be able to power the entire planet, it’s pretty easy to see how blanketing rooftops could be a giant leap forward for solar energy. Instead of building small solar arrays to cover the individual homes’ energy needs, an entire city’s homes can be powered by roughly 25% of it’s homeowners.

However, there is very little incentive for a property owner to blanket their rooftop with solar panels to generate excess electricity. Without getting into details about all the legal aspects of it, economically it doesn’t make any sense, and net metering ends up limiting this as an option anyway. But it shouldn’t.

Utilities have a cost associated with maintaining their network, and self sustaining homes eat into their ability to cover the entire costs of the utilities’ network. Net metering has energy companies overpaying for energy. If net metering was limited to the going wholesale cost of energy, that erases any incentive for homeowners to put a larger solar array on their rooftop. Still, homeowners could be persuaded with stronger tax rebates, with the goal being to make the tax rebate enough to help turn the wholesale rate of electricity into something the property owner makes her/his money back on within 7-10 years.

That long term ROI wouldn’t be much of an incentive for a house flipper, but it would be a great incentive for someone living in their lifetime home. It would likely increase the value of a rental property as the properly owner could get more money in rent due to the fact that the renter would never have to pay for electricity!

This could help drive down the cost of electricity for everyone while creating a boon for the home energy efficiency and roofing & solar installation industries.

The following two pictures represent both what is great about the Chevy Volt and what is disappointing about the Chevy Volt.

Photo Sep 16, 6 26 56 PMPhoto Sep 16, 6 27 06 PM

This comes from starting with a full charge, almost getting to my destination without using any gas, recharging on a Level 2 for four hours and then driving home.

The Good
3.765 mi/kwh is pretty efficient given that this was all freeway driving in North Los Angeles County (that means a fair amount of hills and mostly 60+mph with the occasional slow-and-go). On the flip side, 3 miles on 0.1 gallons is a measly 30mpg. However, the gas wasn’t really used until the end of the first leg of my trip, which went from 768ft above sea level to 1200ft above sea level.

Great thing about the Chevy Volt is that you have that generator to take you the extra miles. Plus, 97 degrees at 6 at night… It was a hot day outside but plenty cool on the inside with the AC set way down.

That 210 lifetime MPG is really nice too!

The Bad
Obviously, 30MPG isn’t great. However, it was going uphill, which is actually really good. However, it was completely unnecessary given the true size of the Chevy Volt battery. After all, the 2014 Volt has 17.1 kwh battery, which is only 3 wkh less than this total trip that included a second charge.

I was fortunate enough to have access to 240 charging during this trip. Had I only had the trickle charger (8 hour recharge) that GM claims is perfectly acceptable, I would have been blowing fumes for the vast majority of the second leg of my trip. I charged for four hours between legs. The Volt’s measly 3.3 charger didn’t give me a full charge before I had to leave. Were GM to offer a 6.6 charger, I would have been recharged completely and used even less gas than I ended up using on this two legged trip.

Of course, if I needed to run errands after I got back home, I’d be blowing fumes out the back of my Volt unless I waited for hours and hours for my trickle charger at home to get me enough juice to go a few extra miles electric.

Chevy Volt fanboys might look at this and see only the great thing about the fact that the generator allowed me to make this trip with minimal gas usage. Sure, that definitely points to a great feature of the Volt. However, it also points to an annoying feature of the Volt: no extended electric setting. Aside from the painfully slow charge rate of the Volt (which I believe will cost GM thousands of customers with the Volt 2.0), the reality is that this trip didn’t require the use of any gasoline.

If the Volt gave you the ability to set an extended EV range (like the Leaf, Tesla, and every other EV) that gives you an extra 1-3 kwh of battery usage, the gas generator would have never been needed on this trip. Even with just an extra 1kwh, I would have gotten the extra 3 miles I needed to stay 100% electric. I have plenty of other trips that I have taken that far exceed this range, so it’s not like I’m expecting every trip I take to be 100% electric. However, when frequent trips are right outside the cusp the Volt’s 60% battery utilization, it’s plain to see that something as simple as an extended EV setting would be a simple software upgrade for the Volt that would make it all that much more appealing and satisfying to Volt owners.

Better in Every Way
Larry Nitz from GM mentioned some interesting stats the other day when talking about the Volt. A few of the numbers are particularly interesting to me because I think GM interpreted them the wrong way:

  • 60% of volt customers only charge on 110v rather than 240v.
    GM seems to think that this is consumers saying that they are okay with 8 hour charge times. That’s not the case. This is consumers not being willing to invested thousands of dollars for 240 charging when they reap little benefit. Most homes don’t have a 240 that you can just plug your ClipperCreek into and call it a day. Would Volt owners like faster charge times if it wasn’t a multi-thousand dollar investment? Of course. The use of 110 at home is merely because the car sits there for more than eight hours at night most days. Take it out to the beach on the weekend and get ICEd at the public chargers, and your Volt if blowing fumes like any other car.
  • 50% of all volts are at home at any one particular time.
    Well, when it takes you 8 hours to recharge, where else is the Volt going to be. This would also indicate that the Volt isn’t a highly used vehicle. Despite the notion that the Volt is a commuter car, this number would indicate that the Volt is more of a run the local errands car or a secondary to an EV family that uses it for road trips.
  • “Volts plug in on average 10 times per week, not 7. That surprised us. We figured a once a day charge but customers charge more”
    How GM hasn’t interpreted this to mean that a 6.6 charger is needed and 8 hour charge times is NOT completely acceptable is beyond me. My guess is that there is someone at GM who really has a thing for 3.3 chargers and is doing everything they can do to interpret the data to mean that 8 hours of charging is acceptable.
    If the Average Volt is charging more than 7x a week that means that there is data that is significantly skewing the data upwards. It would be interesting to actually see what the standard deviation is on number of weekly charges as well as a scatter chart.

While, I don’t actually have the raw data that GM has, I can easily make a guess as to what the data actually looks like. My guess is that Volt fit into three major categories: 1) Garage Space Consumption, (2) Everyday Local Commuter, and (3) The Work Horse.

The Garage Volt is what makes up the majority of that 50% of all volts are at home number. The Everyday Local Commuter are the people that are okay with the 8 hour charge time because they drive 15 miles to work and 15 miles back at 40 mph and have plenty of range to spare for the gym visit and grocery store. The Work Horse Volts are what skew the plug-in numbers to 10 plug-ins/week vs 7 plug-ins. This isn’t going to be as high as a percentage of the Volt customer base as the other two, but I believe these are the customers that GM should really be courting.

GM has missed their 30K Volts/year sales goals by a gap roughly the size of the Grand Canyon. I believe that’s because the Volt caters to the first two groups rather than the Work Horse Group. If GM wants to see the 30K/year sales volume, they need a Volt that provides more range and a more efficient generator for roughly $40K before tax incentives. That’s entirely possible with a slightly larger battery, an 80% battery utilization instead of 60-65% like the Volt has now, and a more efficient generator with smaller gas tank. Of course, if GM made the 80% battery utilization a software upgrade for current Volt owners, then they could retain a lot of Work Horse customers. Instead, it seems that GM is going to double down on the first two segments. This should net GM roughly the same results they have achieved so far: missed sales goals, new to GM customers, and low repeat.

Dan Snyder can easily solve his naming controversy AND add to the legacy of his brand with one simple change. Rename the “Redskins” to the “Americans”. Keep the iconic logo of a strong Native American, along with the burgundy, gold, and white color scheme and font. Color scheme and font are just as important to branding as an actual name. Snickers is the best resent example of this where they didn’t use the name “Snickers” in print advertisements but just the font and color scheme that are distinctly Snickers. Washington has the same level of recognition of it’s logo, color, and font.

Snyder has made it clear that he believes the Redskins name honors a heritage of Native Americans, despite numerous Native American tribes’ claims to the contrary. By keeping the logo and changing the name to Americans, Snyder would truly be honoring the native forefathers he believes his current team name honors. It would be a tremendous recognition of the original Americans, and I highly doubt that it would harm the brand in anyway. I’m willing to bet that it would strengthen the brand considerably. Snyder appears to be adamant about NOT being forced to change his team’s name, but the Washington Americans is a stronger brand than what he has now.

Development of the 2016 Chevy Volt is well under way, and it doesn’t seem like GM is giving many hints as to what is going to change with the v2.0 of the Volt. The latest Volt production has slightly more battery range than the first version of the Volt, but there is no guarantee that will remain the case. There have been suggestions of adding a fifth seat and reducing overall battery capacity, among many other rumors (including a minivan version). The only thing that seems to be guaranteed with the 2016 Volt is that it will retain it’s signature look (which means it’s not going to look like a weird space ship like the Nissan Leaf).

Here’s what I think GM should do with the Volt that would make it the most popular electric car in the world!

  1. Ignore the vocal minority about the fifth seat. Sure, there are people who will swear they’d buy the Volt if they just had that magical fifth seat. I’m calling BS on that. Most commuters are driving by themselves. So, this idea that Volt sales will have a massive leap forward by reducing battery capacity to fit a fifth seat is a farce.
  2. Reduce the engine size and increase efficiency. From what it looks like, GM is already on this. The reduced weight and better efficiency will make for better electric range in the first place!
  3. Increase the regenerative braking. Anyone who has driven a Volt in traffic knows that dropping the Volt into L will make your range that much better as well as reduce brake usage significantly. Take it a step further, GM! Give a regen option like the Tesla Model S where it’s so aggressive that you turn the brake lights on. Allow the customer to turn it on or off because there are a ton of drivers that don’t understand regenerative braking and will be bringing it into the dealerships over and over because they think something is wrong with the car.
  4. Ditch the flywheel transmission. Yes, the Volt does have a flywheel that will engage when going up a hill and the vehicle is in mountain mode. The idea is that it gives just that much more oomph that will help you get up a steep hill faster. Outside the Grapevine in Southern California, I can’t think of many other places that have hills that are so steep for so long.

    Here’s an example: You can drive from Santa Cruz to Pleasonton, CA on a fully charged Volt! Again, insane, right? That’s more than 50 miles, and there’s a giant mountain in your way! The Volt only goes 38 EPA electric. Except that the real world and EPA are completely different. I have made that drive in a Volt before. In fact, I almost made it to Dublin from Santa Cruz, and I’ve been able to go nearly 60 miles on a single charge (on several occasions) without driving 20 mph. You drive up the mountain from Santa Cruz and the downhill is so long that by the time you pass the Cat Tavern, you’ll realize that all the battery it took to get up the hill is coming back to you and then some!

    Ditch the flywheel, GM! The electric motor is plenty.

  5. Offer an option with triple (or preferably quadruple) battery range. Sounds completely insane, right!??! Here’s the great news. The Volt uses 10.9 kWh of it’s 16.5 kWh battery capacity (roughly 66%). My understanding is that this was done to avoid the horrors of battery degradation, but batteries are getting better and better for both capacity and less degradation. Given the current EPA rating of 38 miles electric, the Volt’s true electric range is roughly 57 miles before becoming a brick. Of course, real-world scenarios (like the Santa Cruz to Pleasanton drive I mentioned above) could mean range upwards of 90 miles!

    GM should stick with at least a little bit of cushion on their battery for warranty reasons alone, but 33% is definitely too much. Take it down to 20% on the existing battery configuration. That’s a software upgrade, so even existing Volt owners could get an electric range of roughly 46 miles by just getting a software upgrade.

    What will capacity be with battery technology for 2016 production? Most likely at least another 4 miles EPA with the existing 33% battery reserve. That means we could be looking at roughly 50 miles when we combine battery efficiency improvements with the software update I’m talking about.

    Back to increasing total battery capacity… Chevy Volt batteries are on the market to consumers for just over $2600, which means that GM is paying significantly less than that for the battery packs they’re putting into the Volt during production. The trick would be to figure out the proper configuration for being able to triple physical capacity. There’s a limited amount of space to work with, but I’m betting that the Volt can definitely be made to support 3-4x the battery capacity. Reduce the size of the gas tank or even take it out all together (which would then mean you can get rid of the gas generator completely, and could likely get up to 5x). Even if we took the $2600 retail price of the battery price, it would add $7800 to $10400 to the sticker price of a Volt to have 3-4x the battery capacity. Sans a motor and gas tank, and that would theoretically drop costs for GM as well.

    Is there a market for a $45000 electric car that can go nearly 200 miles (the additional battery weight will reduce mileage, so it’s not just a projected electric range x4)?

    I’m betting there’s a HUGE market for that type of car at that price point! If GM can still keep a small engine and 2-3 gallon gas tank to give you the extra 90+ miles you might need from time to time, then you really have an amazing electric car offering! No, it’s not the performance of a Tesla Model S, but it’s also a fraction of the price.

    Going with the increased battery capacity and smaller gas range extender, this Volt configuration would likely net buyers the full federal and state rebates. So, the out of pocket cost on this type of Volt would be roughly $35000 ($45000 minus $7500 federal and now $2500 state) in a state like California. Seems like an excellent option to me!

  6. Offer an option to have a 6.6KW charger with the larger battery capacity and utilization. Studies are showing that DC fast charging doesn’t have much of an impact on battery life. The Volt takes roughly 4 hours to charge with it’s existing battery setup. Recharging a fully depleted battery would then take 16 hours… Not a good thing. The larger battery capacity would need at least double the charging rate. Better yet, quadruple the charge rate at the same time! 180 miles in 4 hours would be phenomenal, and probably unnecessary.

    One need only look at the stats that you can find in the Volt smartphone app to see that there are plenty of people pushing over 2000 miles per month in EV miles. That’s roughly 67 EV miles per day, which means that Volt owners are pushing their Volts’ EV range daily! There’s clearly demand for more electric range, more so than a fifth seat.

  7. Offer the Traverse as a Volt. Don’t go with the small MPV that many have been suggesting is going to happen or something small like the Equinox. The Traverse is a legit SUV rather than a crossover. It seats 7-8 people, and GM could easily get 5-6x the battery capacity of a current Volt into something the size of the Traverse. Sure, the weight will mean that the Traverse Volt doesn’t go 300+ miles, but imagine an SUV that goes over 200 miles electric with another 90+ miles range extension that starts at roughly $50k! That’s going to be nearly half the price of a Tesla Model X. Sure, it won’t be as cool, but $40K is a lot to pay for cool.

It’s been suggested that GM doesn’t make any money on the Volt right now. That might be the case, but I’m betting that with everything I list above GM would be making a profit on these types of Volts!

Naturally, Mitt is being called a flip-flopper by those who disagree with him about raising the minimum wage. I understand where he’s coming from, and I believe he needs to think outside the box about this topic more. Take a walk with me. This will be a good read!

When you really think about it, raising minimum wage is also an increase in Federal and State income at the cost of business and employee wellbeing. Sure, people say that 47+% of people don’t pay taxes, but that’s not entirely accurate as all employers AND employees must pay Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment (all of which are related to the amount the employee is paid), not to mention sales taxes and the litany of other fees (i.e. vehicle registration fees) that varying government entities charge. Go rent a car, and you’ll see you’re paying more in taxes than the actual cost of the vehicle. But I digress.

There have been some arguments recently that paying such a low minimum wage means that more money is paid in welfare. It’s debatable, but certainly a reasonable argument. In short, the argument means that taxpayers/consumers are substituting higher prices (which is what many people say will be the result of raising the minimum wage) with higher taxes. In other words, raising the minimum wage would result in higher prices by businesses to offset the increase costs of employment, but it would reduce the reliance on government welfare programs. Since government welfare programs are paid with taxes, our taxes are higher because companies are paying minimum wages that equal income that’s below the poverty level. Ultimately, taxpayers are subsidizing companies that don’t pay a higher wage. Of course, it can’t be argued that the welfare programs shouldn’t even exist, but that’s not something I’m going to get into in this blog.

Here’s an alternative to minimum wage.

First, change the federal tax brackets so that anyone making less than $22K/year (excluding deductions) doesn’t need to pay any of the federal taxes. That means, no federal income tax, no Social Security, and no Medicare. That’s a significant jump in the current lowest tax bracket.

If politicians are really interested in minimum wage earners having more money in their pockets, then they should stop taking so many taxes from them! Social Security is a massive tax that has no regard for income level. In fact, Social Security taxes stop being taken once your income exceeds $117K. So, the impact on low wage earners is significantly higher than with high income earners.


Second, put the entire tax of low wages on the employer. If the employer wants to pay less than $10.10, they must pickup the entire tab for the entire current federal income tax, Social Security, and Medicare. Employers already pay half of the Social Security and Medicare taxes. In essence, the tax brackets remain the same, the 10-15% is now paid by the employer instead of the employee, and rather than the employer just matching the employee Social Security it is paid entirely by the employer for anyone making less than $10.10/hour.

This will provide an incentive to employers to pay a higher wage, and if they don’t at least the low wage earner isn’t burdened by the federal government with a disproportionate tax burden.

Ultimately, the low wage earner will have take home income equal to their actual pay as opposed to 10+% less than what they make from federal taxes draining their take home pay. If the goal is to raise the living standards for low wage earners, then the government needs to stop taking tax money out of their pockets at a disproportionate rate. It also simplifies tax filings for low wage earners, saving them money and reducing overhead on the IRS. They have a W2 (or more, as is often the case) that shows they earned less than $22K/year and don’t have to file anything other than a tax return with a signature. No going through deductions, tax credits, etc. They simply have a zero % and zero $ tax burden. They receive 100% of all the money the earn.

Employers already have payroll systems in place that make all the tax deductions from an employee’s paycheck, so there is really limited tax filing overhead by the employer. The only thing they would need to deal with is what I outline in the fourth item.


Third, pressure states to erase their state income tax on anyone making less than $10.10. This is pretty easy to do for the federal government. If the states don’t increase their lowest tax bracket, they don’t get federal funding. It’s has been used often in the past and works well. The states could also lessen the burden on low wage earners by completely eliminating their unemployment tax. Put the entire burden on the employer.

The bottom line would be that someone being paid today’s minimum wage of $7.25 would take home that entire $7.25. That’s roughly $15K/year in take home pay or $1280/month, which is above the poverty line. And remember, that’s with today’s minimum wage of $7.25. With two income earners making $7.25, that would put the take home income at roughly $30K/year, which our Federal government states is enough for 6 people to be in a household and be at the poverty level.


Fourth, provide employers with a reduced tax burden with higher wages.

This is the opposite of the graduated tax system we have in place now. One of the ideas behind the graduated tax is that higher wage earners are subsidizing lower wage earners, so they need to pay higher taxes. With the changes I outline above, it goes the opposite direction because the money is going directly to the lower wage earners rather than first going through the middleman known as Uncle Sam. This means reduced government overhead and spending with a larger amount of money going directly into the pockets of those who need it the most. It stands to reason that as the employer gets more and more towards the $10.10 federal goal, the amount of employer paid “employee tax” should decrease.

This also would lead to lower taxes at each of the current tax brackets as the welfare subsidization would go away on income taxes. It would be interesting to see just how much federal income taxes would decrease for everyone else by removing Uncle Sam as the middleman.


Of course, you might be thinking that this is just a rose by another name. This just puts more of a burden on the employer and will lead to fewer jobs, higher prices, and everything else that’s been thrown out over the years when raising the minimum wage comes up, right? Ultimately, the cost is higher to the employer, and the employer must figure out some way to offset that cost. There’s no escaping that. However, this deals with increased costs to the employer in a very different manner as you will see below.

If you examine a mandatory increase in minimum wage, you find that this increases the burden on both the employer and the employee in a larger amount than with what I have outlined above. Increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 means that all the overhead taxes (Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment) increase for both the employer and the employee. The employee has a nominal increase in their take home pay (since the government is still taking the same percentage of money out of their pockets). This means that government welfare is needed on a larger scale than with what I outlined above.

Given what I have outlined, anyone working a full-time minimum wage job (under today’s minimum wage of $7.25, not even the increased $10.10) is no longer under the poverty level. The additional cost to the employer is roughly 10-15% plus 15.3% (that’s the current federal tax brackets for lower wages and Social Security and Medicare being fully paid by the employer as opposed to split).

What I have outlined is roughly a $9.09/hour to $9.45/hour cost to the employer.

Depending on what the states do, it would increase more, but even California (with some of the highest income taxes on everyone) won’t get the cost to an employer over $10.10 for low wage earners.  Also, don’t forget about the “overhead taxes” I mentioned earlier that mean a $10.10 minimum wage is really much higher for the employee and the employer.

Ultimately, what I have outlined is considerably less than the goal of $10.10/hour, yet it pulls every full time minimum wage employee above the poverty line and a family of six with two full time minimum wage earners above the poverty line.

This also doesn’t take into account the rapid lack of qualification (and realistically, demand) for welfare programs. Since the government is taking less money out of the pockets of low wage earners, they are now above the poverty line and able to improve their standard of living without taking money from welfare programs. Important programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment are still funded. Still, the cost is less than $10.10/hour for the employer, and as the employer raises their employee wages above $10.10/hour, their total tax burden decreases.

Also, the tax burden on other taxpayers (the elusive middle class) would go down. Take this to mean that tax bracket percentages decrease or that federal debts are paid down and budgets balanced or anything else that make sense with a reduced total tax burden. This system requires less IRS and less federal and state government welfare, while putting more money in the hands of low wage earners and all others who are paying taxes.

One last benefit! This solves one of the biggest issues for the perception of the “1 percenters” in that “they don’t pay their fair share of taxes”. Despite the reports that show that top income earners pay a disproportionate percentage of the total income taxes, it is often stated that the “1%” doesn’t pay their fair share. With this setup the lowest wage earners pay no share of income taxes, so it stands to reason that the top 1% would certainly be paying an even greater share of the taxes.

Had I stayed away from the news websites, I wouldn’t have even noticed the federal government shutdown. Funny part about that is that I have a family member who works for the federal government, but she didn’t get furloughed since she works in a government agency that actually turns a profit with its services. Naturally, when an organization makes a profit it doesn’t have to furlough people when the rest of the federal government does.

I’m not going to debate whether one side is right or wrong or worse than the other in this blog. I’m just going to post a solution to the one problem that I saw most in the news and on social media: shutting down our national parks. I’m not going to debate if a 1000 square mile range of the ocean in Florida needs our federal government to stay open to fishermen or whether Mt. Rushmore needs federal employees to be open. This solution solves the debate. Here it is…

Have the National Park service issue multiple denomination certificates for the full amount of its annual budget that are a tax credit for those who purchase them and never have to be paid back. In essence, it’s a donation to our National Parks, but rather than just being a tax deduction like a charity, this is a tax credit because our federal government is using tax dollars to pay for the National Parks. It’s a $ for $ in tax money.

Obviously, the National Park service would incur some minor overhead for building and maintaining this system, so it can just add it to its budget. I’m betting that if you put it into an open bidding process you could easily find thousands of companies capable of building this platform.

This would help ensure that our National Parks remain open regardless of federal government wrangling. It would also serve as a model for other government entities for how they can become self sufficient and immune to federal government budgetary gridlock. There are numerous other benefits to this model such as helping to keep spending inline with revenue for the government as a whole and providing citizens with a greater say in how our tax dollars are spent. This idea isn’t just about avoiding shutdown furloughs that are back paid anyway. It’s a solution to an ongoing budget (or lack thereof) with our federal government.

Here are added incentives for our National Parks:

  1. Want that budget increase you could never get? Increase your budget and see if taxpayers are willing to pay for it
  2. If Congress acts now, there will be a flood of taxpayers willing to cover your entire fiscal calendar budget since there are just 2.5 months left in the tax year

Edit: Why not make a petition out of it? https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/taxpayer-direct-funding-national-parks/csP0c6Bh

Strange experience on the freeway last night. I was heading home from my office and I’m driving along when a car comes up behind me and goes to pass me. They change lanes and then disappear into my blind spot. Then they just decided to sit in my blind spot for a few miles. If it wasn’t for the fact that it was dark so I saw their headlights, I would have never known they were there until I needed to change lanes. But that wasn’t the strange part. If I sped up, they would speed up. If I slowed down, they would slow down.

I pulled a Maverick. Hit the brakes, and they flew right by. I changed lanes so I could make my way towards my exit. Then things got really weird… They kept slowing down and speeding up so that I was in their blind spot! I’m guessing this has something to do with it being dark and they wanted the extra set of headlights, but this driver was pretty weird.

Next Page »