Best/Worst Mustachian Legislation

[Cheddar Stacker]

I don't want to start a political debate here so I hope this doesn't head in that direction. Keeping that in mind, what are the best and worst laws/political decisions/legislation for the Mustachian. Here's what I've been thinking:

BEST
1) ACA/Obamacare. Clearly going to make long-term individual coverage more affordable for the early retiree.
2) 0% tax on Qualified Dividends and Long-Term Capital gains for the 10% and 15% tax brackets.

WORST
1) Cash for Clunkers. What a terrible waste of natural resources, government assets, and (some) perfectly usable automobiles.
2) Keystone XL Pipeline. I don't know exactly where this stands, but last I heard they decided it wouldn't harm the environment. Whaaaaa?

I'm sure I missed some obvious ones, so what u got?

[marty998]

Oz had a cash for clunkers scheme. Derided as a poor waste of taxpayers money.

Come to think of it, anything to do with the car industry in general.

Aussie taxpayers have subsidised Holden (GM), Ford and toyota to the tune of $30 billion over the last 20 years. We've got fuck all out of it apart from keeping union officials in jobs and then we have to buy those overpriced cars out of some form of misguided patriotism. Meanwhile, Detroit and Tokyo have run off with our money.

Every Prime Minister and every Government of ours declares that they are a Government that is for Infrastructure. This is never rail, or renewable energy or anything that could remotely be classed as "green". It's always roads, roads, motorways, roads, coal fired power stations, roads, freeways and roads.

Ok thats the bad,

Now in terms of the best things...let me see, I suppose credit where credit is due we have a strong economy with high enough wages and real wage growth that most people have the opportunity to retire early if they choose to take that path. Most countries in the world you don't have the choice, you work till you die.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the ideal place for a mustachian is where there is a stable non-corrupt, elected government where the rule of law is fair and just for all.

[chasesfish]

Best:  We were born in America, where you can actually keep enough of your money to achieve early retirement.  We have not yet abused our populous with a VAT tax and until recently, you still got to keep half your earnings if you're a high achiever.

Worst:  GM/Chrysler Bailout - The capacity would have been taken over by the more efficient automakers that actually made fuel efficient cars people want to buy.

[sheepstache]

Best: China's one child policy?

[jordanread]

Low-Information-Diet fail on my part. I just heard about some new legislation in Colorado/Denver that takes $10,000,000 from the vehicle registration fees, and uses it to connect multiple different public transit systems. I think it's awesome, but there are some in an uproar about it. Complainypants statements like: "I paid this because I want nicer roads and less congestion."

Although wouldn't more people riding public transit be good for congestion?

[MPAVictoria]

"I don't want to start a political debate here so I hope this doesn't head in that direction"

I do not think that you will get what you want on this one. My two cents:

-Universal Medicare in Canada as it covers everyone and lowers overall costs for society.

[arebelspy]

I don't want to start a political debate here so I hope this doesn't head in that direction.

Hah.  I love your optimism.  But don't be surprised if it gets heated and shut down at some point.

WORST
...
2) Keystone XL Pipeline. I don't know exactly where this stands, but last I heard they decided it wouldn't harm the environment. Whaaaaa?

Wait, you openly admit you both heard it's okay and don't know where it stands, yet still put it on your "worst" list?  This is a great example of one of the biggest problems towards improving America the world today.  People form opinions without a basis in reality, then stick to them (despite evidence to the contrary).  No open mindedness, no fact based research, just "OPINION!  Evidence?  No!  OPINION!"

I have no opinion on the pipeline in particular.  It could be great, or terrible.  But putting it on a "worst" list with your explanation sentence being "I don't know the deal with this, but last I heard it's not that bad."  This is the first time I can recall typing this, ever, but... SMH.

:)

[jordanread]

WORST
...
2) Keystone XL Pipeline. I don't know exactly where this stands, but last I heard they decided it wouldn't harm the environment. Whaaaaa?

Wait, you openly admit you both heard it's okay and don't know where it stands, yet still put it on your "worst" list?  This is a great example of one of the biggest problems towards improving America the world today.  People form opinions without a basis in reality, then stick to them (despite evidence to the contrary).  No open mindedness, no fact based research, just "OPINION!  Evidence?  No!  OPINION!"

I have no opinion on the pipeline in particular.  It could be great, or terrible.  But putting it on a "worst" list with your explanation sentence being "I don't know the deal with this, but last I heard it's not that bad."  This is the first time I can recall typing this, ever, but... SMH.

:)

I thought that at first, too arebelspy. But I think what was meant was that they don't know where the decision is at, but thinks it's a bad idea. Or maybe I'm just optimistic :-)

[arebelspy]

I thought that at first, too arebelspy. But I think what was meant was that they don't know where the decision is at, but thinks it's a bad idea. Or maybe I'm just optimistic :-)

Ah, okay, fair enough.  :)

[Cheddar Stacker]

I thought that at first, too arebelspy. But I think what was meant was that they don't know where the decision is at, but thinks it's a bad idea. Or maybe I'm just optimistic :-)

Ah, okay, fair enough.  :)

Yeah, sorry for the confusion, and for the poorly formed argument (that one was a last minute add on to my original thoughts). To clarify, jordanread was correct, I think it's a bad idea in general, but it hasn't happened yet and I think it will.

I heard recently the EPA performed a study and their conclusion was building the pipeline would not harm the environment. Their argument was, "well they're going to extract the oil from the tar sands anyway, so lets just build the pipeline to make it easier to move around." If we don't build it, someone else will get the oil.

This report came out within the last month, and I don't know where the legislation process stands. My general point was "I think"/"my opinion" is that it will be another drain on natural resources in the name of big oil, which is anti-mustachian. In hind sight, I shouldn't have mentioned it since it's really not official yet.

Arebelspy, sorry to make you shake your head. I'm not trying to spread my opinion as fact, just trying to start a conversation. Clearly this entire question is a matter of opinion. I'm sure some could argue cash for clunkers was great for mustachians somehow. We'll see.

[arebelspy]

I heard recently the EPA performed a study and their conclusion was building the pipeline would not harm the environment. Their argument was, "well they're going to extract the oil from the tar sands anyway, so lets just build the pipeline to make it easier to move around." If we don't build it, someone else will get the oil.

I read that as well.  Basically they argued that the oil will be moved by rail otherwise, so the pipeline is the less damaging method to move it.

It's sad, but probably right.  What we need is to reduce our oil consumption, rather than do the "least damaging" (but still damaging) option.  In other words, we don't need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but on all oil.

Arebelspy, sorry to make you shake your head. I'm not trying to spread my opinion as fact, just trying to start a conversation. Clearly this entire question is a matter of opinion.

No, it's fine, and thanks for clarifying.  :)

[greaper007]

What, you guys are against the keystone pipeline?!?!?!

Why try to conserve resources by building better biking, walking and public transportation infrastructure when we can keep going after inexpensive, dirty energy products.    Come on, we all need to drive V8 powered suv's and run 2 ac units in our 5000 sq ft houses.

[smalllife]

Worst: Infrastructure funds in my state are allocated on a per road mile basis to the localities.  Bike lanes don't count as vehicle lanes even though they are vehicles according to the laws of the state, nor are walking paths or bus only lanes.  Hence there are no incentives to support alternate methods of transportation and it creates a monetary incentive to create sprawling highways and car-centric models and makes it cost prohibitive to create multi-use transportation infrastructure at the local level.   

I have a bunch of other worsts, but for the sake of continued discussion I will not light those fires.

Best: saver's credit, Roth IRA contributions taken out with no penalty, itemized charitable contributions.

[hownowbrowncow]

Worst: any legislation that reduces family planning funding.  Studies show every $1 that goes to family planning (education, access to contraceptives, medical services)  saves the state about $4-6 (depending on the state) down the line

[iwasjustwondering]

Best: the mortgage interest deduction, the health savings account, Obamacare's preventing insurers from denying insurance to those with pre-existing conditions.

Worst: support for charter schools, which don't have to meet the rigorous testing standards faced by public schools.  So a public school will "fail," be shut down, and the kids will be sent off to charter schools, sometimes long, painful commutes away, and end up with a much worse education.  It's one way to dismantle the public school system in this country, and it sucks, IMO.

How's that for not getting political?

[senecando]

Worst:

I can get a ticket for not driving my car every 48 hours in this city.

[Cheddar Stacker]

Worst:

I can get a ticket for not driving my car every 48 hours in this city.

Why? Limited parking spaces? That sounds crazy.

[nawhite]

Best: the mortgage interest deduction ...

Have to disagree here and so does every economist not employed by the National Association of Realtors - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120668836

The mortgage interest deduction makes houses more expensive, encourages people to buy more house than they need, and is a "regressive" force on taxes (those less well off don't get the subsidy). Overall I see it as one of the worst government subsidies out there (even for mustacians).

Other worsts for mustacians: Self employment taxes higher than normal employment taxes, farming subsidies (they already get subsidized drought insurance), and hybrid car subsidies that will subsidize a Ford Escape hybrid but not a 50 mpg gas civic of 60mpg diesel Volvo.

[senecando]

Worst:

I can get a ticket for not driving my car every 48 hours in this city.

Why? Limited parking spaces? That sounds crazy.

Because, they say, after 2 days it starts to look like an "Abandoned Vehicle". I understand not being able to park a car without an engine for 6 months--but two days?!

[Cheddar Stacker]

Best: the mortgage interest deduction ...

Have to disagree here and so does every economist not employed by the National Association of Realtors - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120668836

The mortgage interest deduction makes houses more expensive, encourages people to buy more house than they need, and is a "regressive" force on taxes (those less well off don't get the subsidy). Overall I see it as one of the worst government subsidies out there (even for mustacians).

Other worsts for mustacians: Self employment taxes higher than normal employment taxes, farming subsidies (they already get subsidized drought insurance), and hybrid car subsidies that will subsidize a Ford Escape hybrid but not a 50 mpg gas civic of 60mpg diesel Volvo.

Good point on the mortgage interest. Many mustachians would prefer a small, less expensive house and might not even be able to itemize their deductions. Many others would prefer to rent and they receive no benefit at all.

On the SE tax, it does suck you have to pay both halves of the tax, but it's no different in that the total rate paid is the same, you are just picking up the employee portion and the employer portion.

On the car subsidies, I'm not sure how I would feel if our government was subsidizing the purchase of foreign cars, and I drive a foreign car. I get that it's a global economy, but I think it's better to spend our tax money in our country. I guess you could also argue there are many other ways we spend our tax money elsewhere, and that American car companies have foreign factories or foreign ownership. Tough one IMO.

[CanuckExpat]

Best: the mortgage interest deduction ...

Have to disagree here and so does every economist not employed by the National Association of Realtors - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120668836

The mortgage interest deduction makes houses more expensive, encourages people to buy more house than they need, and is a "regressive" force on taxes (those less well off don't get the subsidy). Overall I see it as one of the worst government subsidies out there (even for mustacians).

Other worsts for mustacians: Self employment taxes higher than normal employment taxes, farming subsidies (they already get subsidized drought insurance), and hybrid car subsidies that will subsidize a Ford Escape hybrid but not a 50 mpg gas civic of 60mpg diesel Volvo.

Most other countries also don't provide the amount of government backing that makes thirty year fixed rate mortgages possible. People love them, but it keeps you indebted for a longer time, pay more interest overall, is horrible for banks unless the tax payer assumes the risk, and ultimately it is another form of housing price inflation. Of course, since the government has been backing these loans for so long, there's no easy way (politically and practically) to get out of the situation:
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/who-thought-30-year-mortgages-were-good-thing
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/opinion/06mclean.html?pagewanted=all

[the fixer]

Best: the mortgage interest deduction ...

Have to disagree here and so does every economist not employed by the National Association of Realtors - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120668836

The mortgage interest deduction makes houses more expensive, encourages people to buy more house than they need, and is a "regressive" force on taxes (those less well off don't get the subsidy). Overall I see it as one of the worst government subsidies out there (even for mustacians).

Other worsts for mustacians: Self employment taxes higher than normal employment taxes, farming subsidies (they already get subsidized drought insurance), and hybrid car subsidies that will subsidize a Ford Escape hybrid but not a 50 mpg gas civic of 60mpg diesel Volvo.

Agreed with everything except the self employment tax. If you're working for an employer, they're responsible for paying the other half of the tax that you don't see. The only difference between the two halves is that one shows up on your paystub and the other does not, instead it's a tax deduction for the employer. If social security and medicare didn't exist, companies could afford to give everyone a 6% raise.

It's possible that splitting up payroll taxes between employer and employee has economic effects based on individuals' irrational behavior, but to a Mustachian it shouldn't make a difference.

[hybrid]

I don't have the Keystone Pipeline anywhere near my worst Mustachian legislation.  Oil is already being produced in Canada, the only question becomes how to move it from point A to point B.  A pipeline may rupture in the same sense that a train may derail or an 18 wheeler may flip or a supertanker may run aground.  Quite simply, there is always going to be a low and unavoidable risk when extracting and transporting oil.  If you don't own a car you get a pass here, for everyone else the gas you burn comes from somewhere, and there will be the occasional spill.

To me the worst (lack of) legislation regarding automobiles is the constant resistance the GOP exerts whenever CAFE (fuel efficiency) standards are pushed.   

[Cromacster]

Worst:  Small business deduction for a utility vehicle.  I believe this was started for farmers to be able to deduct the trucks they used for work on their farm.  I had a family friend who drove a Porsche Cayanne, and since it is classified as a utility vehicle he was able to deduct it.  (Inform me if I am way off base here, but I am pretty sure this is real, or does this apply to any vehicle that is used for business purposes?)

Best:?  ACA maybe.  Otherwise legislation that improves public transit infrastructure.

[hybrid]

Among the best legislation in my book is the advent of the 401K and, even better, the Roth 401K.  Both of these vehicles create incentive to save money in the here and now.

Among the worst legislation were the "rebate checks" (AKA middle class welfare checks) issued in the early 2000s in an effort to stimulate consumer spending post 9/11 (and largely did not).

If I had my druthers the best piece of legislation which has often been floated but never been passed is the Balanced Budget Amendment.  Politicians can argue all day long over prioritites for tax revenue as long as it stays within a defined budget as far as I am concerned.  In Virginia, at the state level, this has been in place for a very long time and it's no surprise our state is fiscally healthier than others without that control mechanism in place.  When deficit spending is permitted it is no wonder that neither side of the aisle has proven themselves capable of anything other than large deficits for almost all fiscal years going back decades.   

[jordanread]

If I had my druthers the best piece of legislation which has often been floated but never been passed is the Balanced Budget Amendment.  Politicians can argue all day long over prioritites for tax revenue as long as it stays within a defined budget as far as I am concerned.  In Virginia, at the state level, this has been in place for a very long time and it's no surprise our state is fiscally healthier than others without that control mechanism in place.  When deficit spending is permitted it is no wonder that neither side of the aisle has proven themselves capable of anything other than large deficits for almost all fiscal years going back decades.

That sounds way too logical to get passed. :-)
I'll definitely have to look more into that.

[Unionville]

Worst:

I can get a ticket for not driving my car every 48 hours in this city.

good point!  (I assume it's to do with parking.), but still an interesting way to look at it.

[Unionville]

Worst:

I can get a ticket for not driving my car every 48 hours in this city.

Why? Limited parking spaces? That sounds crazy.

Because, they say, after 2 days it starts to look like an "Abandoned Vehicle". I understand not being able to park a car without an engine for 6 months--but two days?!

Does your car look ratty?  I bet if is was a Lexus, you wouldn't get a ticket :)

[jordanread]

Worst:

I can get a ticket for not driving my car every 48 hours in this city.

Why? Limited parking spaces? That sounds crazy.

Because, they say, after 2 days it starts to look like an "Abandoned Vehicle". I understand not being able to park a car without an engine for 6 months--but two days?!

Does your car look ratty?  I bet if is was a Lexus, you would get a ticket as much :)

I'm assuming this is on street parking, otherwise I'd be befuddled.

[avonlea]

Worst: support for charter schools, which don't have to meet the rigorous testing standards faced by public schools.  So a public school will "fail," be shut down, and the kids will be sent off to charter schools, sometimes long, painful commutes away, and end up with a much worse education.  It's one way to dismantle the public school system in this country, and it sucks, IMO.

Before having a child in school, I might have agreed with this.  There are a lot of people, especially within the Democratic party, who are against charter schools.  I usually side with Democrats.  Not on this issue, though.  Our family has tried mainstream schooling.  It is not all that it's cracked up to be.  Our child's charter school is by far the most "mustachian" public school in town, and all of the children who attend are there b/c their families want them to be.  We are happy with the challenges our child is given there, and no district schools have been shut down due to its existence.  I'm not saying that those instances haven't occurred elsewhere.  I really don't know.  Just saying, not the case here.  But, I'm not trying to start a battle or anything. Just offering up a voice of experience.  You are free to disagree with me.  No hurt feelings. :)

[senecando]

jordanread,meteor: It is street parking. And it's a--cough well maintained I think cough--22 year old car. Old, but not a rest bucket.

[jordanread]

jordanread,meteor: It is street parking. And it's a--cough well maintained I think cough--22 year old car. Old, but not a rest bucket.

That's ridiculous. I am sorry for you.

[bacchi]

Worst:  Small business deduction for a utility vehicle.  I believe this was started for farmers to be able to deduct the trucks they used for work on their farm.  I had a family friend who drove a Porsche Cayanne, and since it is classified as a utility vehicle he was able to deduct it.  (Inform me if I am way off base here, but I am pretty sure this is real, or does this apply to any vehicle that is used for business purposes?)

It's any vehicle but large chassis vehicles have special depreciation rules because, as you noted, it was meant for people who actually need trucks.

Best: Solo 401k by far. ACA and no pre-existing conditions.

Worst: States borrowing billions for more roads for more cars instead of raising the gas tax. As a Mustachian, I'm paying for commuting lanes I'll never use.

[jordanread]

Worst: States borrowing billions for more roads for more cars instead of raising the gas tax. As a Mustachian, I'm paying for commuting lanes I'll never use.

Good point. That would make sense.
One thing I would add, is that I didn't drive my car for a year, so I let the registration lapse (so I didn't need insurance either). When I started up again, the cost was tripled for late fees.
It makes sense if it were a couple of months, and people didn't plan ahead, but a full 11 months usually indicates the vehicle isn't on the road. Why wouldn't it cost just like a newly registered vehicle? Not the worst, but definitely an annoying one.

[MissPeach]

Pro: ACA, solo 401K, 401K/IRA/ROTH, backdoor roths

Con: mortgage interest deduction, high income and sales tax in the same state

I disagree with the mortgage deduction being good universally.

I ran the numbers where I live as a single filer in the 25% tax bracket. I live in a high COL area where $500K buys you a shoe box. The same shoe box would rent around $2,000/month. HOAs average $500/month. Property taxes are about 1%.

Assuming a 1st year 30 year loan with no points it only saved me something like $2000 in taxable income over the standard deduction. At a 25% tax bracket the savings was small and I had a huge cash outlay. So looking at a cash flow perspective it was something like - $25,000 (I ran this a while ago and forgot the exact numbers). The standard deductions doesn't require any cash outlay. Rents in many high COL areas (including mine) do not compare with the costs of owning once you factor in HOAs, property taxes, mortgage, etc. I came out over $1,200 ahead per month renting and I saved even more cash once you took the deduction into account.

[the fixer]

If I had my druthers the best piece of legislation which has often been floated but never been passed is the Balanced Budget Amendment.  Politicians can argue all day long over prioritites for tax revenue as long as it stays within a defined budget as far as I am concerned.  In Virginia, at the state level, this has been in place for a very long time and it's no surprise our state is fiscally healthier than others without that control mechanism in place.  When deficit spending is permitted it is no wonder that neither side of the aisle has proven themselves capable of anything other than large deficits for almost all fiscal years going back decades.

According to Wikipedia, every state except Vermont has one of these in some form or another. Indiana's is a debt prohibition but it does not put restrictions on the budgets themselves (I assume this means they can spend down trusts or something).

Considering how messed up the finances of a lot of the states are, I don't exactly see this as an improvement over the federal government's situation. The problem is that revenue sources for governments are highly variable with fluctuations in the economy, but most expenditures of any large entity (government or business) are going to be fixed costs that are expensive in the long run to keep cutting and reintroducing.

I'd be more in favor of some kind of restriction that requires a budget to be within a few percent of long-term averaged revenue. Whether you look back, forward via projections, or a combination of both would be a big detail to work out.

[Thegoblinchief]

Worst: the incredibly complex way the US has used the tax code to incentivize certain kinds of behavior.

Best: I guess I'll go with states like WI that don't regulate/restrict homeschooling.

[soccerluvof4]

Worst: Auto bailout, low interest rates for mortgages. ( I too think its time to get rid of the 30 year mortgage)

Best: Still waiting,  ACA  has no legs yet but its a start.

Tweener....Pipeline i would rather figure away for it to work than buy foreign oil as we still are in need of it. 

[Baron235]

Best:  Tax Deferred retirement accounts

Worst:  Only allowing deductions for employer provided health insurance/tying health insurance to your job / Subsidized Student Loans/  (Not necessarily Mustachian but absurd just the same: Non Profit status for profit seeking entities (NFL Bowl Games etc)  /  Public subsidizing Professional Stadiums (I am saying this as a sports fan))   

[greaper007]

Worst: support for charter schools, which don't have to meet the rigorous testing standards faced by public schools.  So a public school will "fail," be shut down, and the kids will be sent off to charter schools, sometimes long, painful commutes away, and end up with a much worse education.  It's one way to dismantle the public school system in this country, and it sucks, IMO.

Before having a child in school, I might have agreed with this.  There are a lot of people, especially within the Democratic party, who are against charter schools.  I usually side with Democrats.  Not on this issue, though.  Our family has tried mainstream schooling.  It is not all that it's cracked up to be.  Our child's charter school is by far the most "mustachian" public school in town, and all of the children who attend are there b/c their families want them to be.  We are happy with the challenges our child is given there, and no district schools have been shut down due to its existence.  I'm not saying that those instances haven't occurred elsewhere.  I really don't know.  Just saying, not the case here.  But, I'm not trying to start a battle or anything. Just offering up a voice of experience.  You are free to disagree with me.  No hurt feelings. :)

My son is in a charter school also, one that beats every mainstream public school in the entire area and many of the private ones.    There is a catch though, as a charter school they can basically pick who they allow to attend.    There's a lottery, but it's weighted towards kids who went to certain kinds of pre-schools along with a few other things.   They don't have to take kids with lots of problems, and the kids that do attend have to have parents that are really up on the whole lottery process.   That denies a lot of poor kids who's parents might not be savy enough to get them into a great school.    Based on my informal survey, I think my wife and I are probably on the low end of spectrum for both parental education and income.   She has a PhD and I have a lowly undergraduate degree and we just break 6 figures.    The majority of parents have at least a masters degree and are probably $200k+ for family income.

Still, our school is great.   But it's already in one of the best districts in the state, it's supported by parent volunteers (the greatest indicator of a successful school) and even if my son went to our neighborhood school he'd still get a great education.    That's not the same as an inner city charter school.   Often these school are run as for profit organizations that are only allowed to come in because the previous public school failed.    Why did the public school fail in a poor urban environment?   The kids have horrible home lives with inconsistent parental supervision.   The parents are often young, uneducated and sometimes immigrants that don't even speak the language so they're unable to advocate for their children.   The parents also often have a checkered past with authority that makes them even less able to advocate.   So slick talking corporate types can come in and use their kids as another investment vehicle.

Now, these schools move in and cherry pick the best and the brightest and send kids, who through no fault of their own, have behavior and learning problems to be further concentrated in failing public schools.   Thus more for profit charter schools move in and the process continues.    Often, the people running these schools don't have an educational background and don't understand or care about the difficulties facing low wage, often new teachers dealing with this challenging population.   They simply care about appeasing their board and making a big salary.   In these cases, charter schools are awful and they're contributing to our permanent lower socioeconomic population that seems to grow every year.

[hownowbrowncow]

This new "refuse service based on religious beliefs" legislation is Arizona is not just idiotic but anti Mustachian.  It will likely be ruled unconstitutional but not before the state loses a lot of business and taxpayers get to pay for expensive lawyers to defend this in court.

[avonlea]

Worst: support for charter schools, which don't have to meet the rigorous testing standards faced by public schools.  So a public school will "fail," be shut down, and the kids will be sent off to charter schools, sometimes long, painful commutes away, and end up with a much worse education.  It's one way to dismantle the public school system in this country, and it sucks, IMO.

Before having a child in school, I might have agreed with this.  There are a lot of people, especially within the Democratic party, who are against charter schools.  I usually side with Democrats.  Not on this issue, though.  Our family has tried mainstream schooling.  It is not all that it's cracked up to be.  Our child's charter school is by far the most "mustachian" public school in town, and all of the children who attend are there b/c their families want them to be.  We are happy with the challenges our child is given there, and no district schools have been shut down due to its existence.  I'm not saying that those instances haven't occurred elsewhere.  I really don't know.  Just saying, not the case here.  But, I'm not trying to start a battle or anything. Just offering up a voice of experience.  You are free to disagree with me.  No hurt feelings. :)

My son is in a charter school also, one that beats every mainstream public school in the entire area and many of the private ones.    There is a catch though, as a charter school they can basically pick who they allow to attend.    There's a lottery, but it's weighted towards kids who went to certain kinds of pre-schools along with a few other things.   They don't have to take kids with lots of problems, and the kids that do attend have to have parents that are really up on the whole lottery process.   That denies a lot of poor kids who's parents might not be savy enough to get them into a great school.    Based on my informal survey, I think my wife and I are probably on the low end of spectrum for both parental education and income.   She has a PhD and I have a lowly undergraduate degree and we just break 6 figures.    The majority of parents have at least a masters degree and are probably $200k+ for family income.

Still, our school is great.   But it's already in one of the best districts in the state, it's supported by parent volunteers (the greatest indicator of a successful school) and even if my son went to our neighborhood school he'd still get a great education.    That's not the same as an inner city charter school.   Often these school are run as for profit organizations that are only allowed to come in because the previous public school failed.    Why did the public school fail in a poor urban environment?   The kids have horrible home lives with inconsistent parental supervision.   The parents are often young, uneducated and sometimes immigrants that don't even speak the language so they're unable to advocate for their children.   The parents also often have a checkered past with authority that makes them even less able to advocate.   So slick talking corporate types can come in and use their kids as another investment vehicle.

Now, these schools move in and cherry pick the best and the brightest and send kids, who through no fault of their own, have behavior and learning problems to be further concentrated in failing public schools.   Thus more for profit charter schools move in and the process continues.    Often, the people running these schools don't have an educational background and don't understand or care about the difficulties facing low wage, often new teachers dealing with this challenging population.   They simply care about appeasing their board and making a big salary.   In these cases, charter schools are awful and they're contributing to our permanent lower socioeconomic population that seems to grow every year.

What you are describing does sound bad.  I believe those issues can be taken care of without getting rid of charter schools entirely.  Our school cannot cherrypick.  The only children given preference in the lottery are those who have siblings that are already enrolled.  This is for the convenience of the families.  Not even the teachers' kids get to be bumped up in line.

[avonlea]

I know that I am a little late in adding this info, but I also wanted to say that no children with special needs are turned away from our school.  The only requirement for applying to our charter school is that the child must be living in our state.  In fact, the school welcomes children who have special needs with open arms.  Our school has a higher percentage of kids with special needs than other schools* in town and a percentage that is 50% higher than the average of the schools in the state.  Our other child has special needs and we are homeschooling him.  The director the charter school has asked me a few times if I would be interested in having him join the school community because they would love to have him attend.  At the performance level where he currently is, he would not be improving their test score rates.  They don't care about that.  We have our own reasons for homeschooling him (mostly b/c it's hard for our son to concentrate with other people around), but each year we do consider having him join the school. I am not worried about the school blacklisting him at all.  Anyway, I hope that you might believe that not all charter schools are bad, iwasjustwondering.

*ETA:  I just realized that there is one other public elementary school in town with a higher percentage of children in special education than our charter school and one public elementary school has the same percentage as our school.  I personally don't like to judge a school based on test scores, but for those who do, both of these schools ranked lower than our school.
The other twelve public schools in town have a lower percentage of special needs kids than our charter school.  Note: the elementary schools with the highest test scores have a lower-than-average percentage of special needs kids in their schools, pretty much the lowest in the entire district.
Source: greatschools.org

[hybrid]

If I had my druthers the best piece of legislation which has often been floated but never been passed is the Balanced Budget Amendment.  Politicians can argue all day long over prioritites for tax revenue as long as it stays within a defined budget as far as I am concerned.  In Virginia, at the state level, this has been in place for a very long time and it's no surprise our state is fiscally healthier than others without that control mechanism in place.  When deficit spending is permitted it is no wonder that neither side of the aisle has proven themselves capable of anything other than large deficits for almost all fiscal years going back decades.

According to Wikipedia, every state except Vermont has one of these in some form or another. Indiana's is a debt prohibition but it does not put restrictions on the budgets themselves (I assume this means they can spend down trusts or something).

Considering how messed up the finances of a lot of the states are, I don't exactly see this as an improvement over the federal government's situation. The problem is that revenue sources for governments are highly variable with fluctuations in the economy, but most expenditures of any large entity (government or business) are going to be fixed costs that are expensive in the long run to keep cutting and reintroducing.

I'd be more in favor of some kind of restriction that requires a budget to be within a few percent of long-term averaged revenue. Whether you look back, forward via projections, or a combination of both would be a big detail to work out.

In Virginia the cure for that ill was the Rainy Day Fund.  In a nutshell, the government is permitted to have some extra money on the books to help cover a shortfall during economic downturns.  In recent years this fund was tapped and as times have improved it is being fleshed back out again.  Much like an individual keeps some money in savings to cover the unexpected bill, the Virginia government does the same to offset a downturn.  This helps minimize the disruption considerably.  I believe the maximum limit for this fund is 10% of the state budget.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/mcdonnell-rainy-day-fund-on-track-to-hit-1-billion/2013/08/16/e414be9c-06ac-11e3-88d6-d5795fab4637_story.html

When states leverage loopholes to get budgets "balanced" (like tapping pension funds) they run into trouble.  A good BBA should be written to avoid loopholes like that.  All I can say is it works well in Virginia.  Our state is consistently ranked as one of the best managed.   

[norvilion]

Worst:

I can get a ticket for not driving my car every 48 hours in this city.

Why? Limited parking spaces? That sounds crazy.

Because, they say, after 2 days it starts to look like an "Abandoned Vehicle". I understand not being able to park a car without an engine for 6 months--but two days?!

Does your car look ratty?  I bet if is was a Lexus, you would get a ticket as much :)

I'm assuming this is on street parking, otherwise I'd be befuddled.

Suggestion- Keep an log of how many miles you bike/walk each day and the amount of money you save doing so, then tape it to the inside of the window facing the road (updating every day or two with pen/pencil of course). This way you constantly have a relevant date as to when the car was last interacted with and a small nudge to any readers toward car-lite living.

[Cheddar Stacker]

I still don't think anything is official yet on the pipeline, so let me start with that caveat, and I hope it isn't built.

My general point is that a Mustachian by MMM's definition should care about the environment. I believe building this pipeline would condone, if not encourage the extraction of oil that is very harmful to the environment. Yes they will likely extract it anyway, but that doesn't mean supporting it is a good idea. A better Mustachian law would be even higher MPG reg's, or additional bike lanes, or higher mass transit subsidies rather than encouraging depletion of additional fossil fuels.

I don't think "well, if we don't deplete the oil China will" is a good reason for us to deplete oil. If we use less oil by creating alternative fuels or alternative transportation methods it reduces the overall pollution in the world. If we build the pipeline and keep producing cheap gas, what motivation do we have to create cleaner fuels/methods? Obviously it would be nice if the entire world played along, but we can only control ourselves (I think?).

[Cheddar Stacker]

I would rather get our oil from Canada (or inside the US but fracking is a whole other can of worms) than the middle east. I just want our country to need/use less oil. The more we push for decreased use of fossil fuels, the lower the demand for them which effectively increases the supply keeping the cost down.

For those choosing to use less /none of them the cost will virtually become irrelevant. If Mustachians all use less, there's more for the poor Americans to use cheaply.

My point on mass transit was less related to building subway systems and rails, and more about decreasing/eliminating tax deductions for utilizing mass transit. I don't know the details since I don't have access in my area, but some NYers were commenting on these benefits disappearing in 2014 and it seems counterproductive.

[Cheddar Stacker]

I don't know what a fair subsidy would be, I just prefer the encouragement of "better" methods over effectively subsidizing cheap gas. I know it's not the same, and yes tax revenues from gas purchases pay for some roads, but the government is also doing many things to keep gas prices very low. We maintain large oil reserves to hedge worldwide price spikes, we fight wars (good reason to get away from middle east dependence as you stated), and the federal government foots a large part of the bill for the massive infrastructure that supports the road system without paying for it with higher gas taxes.

I saw you just posted on Cecils' "critique my budget" post where either Cecil or the first responder quoted a gas price of $5.50/gallon in Canada. I don't know what the US national average is right now, but it tends to be 10-20% higher than where I live ($3.20) so I'll guess about $3.90?? We are clearly doing something to subsidize the gas price as well if we can beat Canada's price by about 40%.

[Cheddar Stacker]

I guess I can't say we fought any specific war strictly for oil, my apologies. My greater point was that part of our motivation for many of our "interests" in the middle east have a stinky undertone of protecting our strategic oil allies.

I consider lower gas taxes a form of subsidy. I realize this is why our costs tend to be lower than many other countries. That was sort of my point.

[RootofGood]

Pipelines = most efficient form of transportation for a commodity like oil.  Cheaper than tankers, rail, truck, car, air, sherpa, well, everything.  It's also the safest. 

Is it possible for leaks to occur?  Yes.  But we should play the odds and choose the best alternative.  I'm not saying don't also focus on alt energy, transportation demand reduction, or market based financial incentives to shift demand away from hydrocarbons.

As for cash for clunkers - what a waste.  I would add the new home buyer's incentive to the shit list.  And the mortgage interest deduction.  And all the education deductions.  And exclusion of health insurance from income for employees.  They are all market distorting pieces of the tax code.