Your Smart Car isn’t saving the world

Gas prices too high? Congress will solve the problem, by forcing those greedy car manufacturers (who are in bed with Big Oil, you know) to increase their average gas mileage.

 

 

 

This model of Hummer actually gets NEGATIVE miles per gallon.

Gas prices low? That means people with low-mileage cars will drive more than they otherwise would, polluting our rivers (I think. Rivers might have something to do with it. Okay, oceans then) and keeping us ever more dependent on foreign oil. Which means it’s time for some intervention. Like legislating higher gas mileage.

Gas prices at their historical average? Well, there’s probably something nefarious about that, too.

Let’s go to the helpful folks at AAA for some numbers. AAA, the organization that will replace your flat tire (something any human should be able to do), bring you gas (if you’re dumb enough to run out, which should be practically impossible), give you maps (obsolete c. 2007) and send that godawful monthly magazine with prissy stories about the charming new vineyard taking root (haw!) in Sonoma County. “They make a Cabernet that is to die for. Best enjoyed with roasted squab. Tastings and tours daily.”

Take most of what AAA says with skepticism – they’d have you believe that checking your email at a stoplight is the equivalent of driving over the double yellow with a Stolichnaya bottle balanced on your knee – but we’ll use their estimates.

They claim the average American drives 13,500 miles a year. Meanwhile, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards mandated by federal bureaucrats and legislators require the average passenger car get 30.2 miles per gallon.

(Why they don’t simply legislate that the average car get 10,000 miles per gallon, run on kitchen waste and not be allowed to get into accidents is anyone’s guess.)

Back in the real world, that 30.2 figure is for the current model year. Of course, most of us drive cars from previous years. The mandated average has been constant at 27.5 for the previous two decades, so it’s safe to use that as our bellwether.

That means, grossly simplifying things, that the average driver should use about 447 gallons a year. There are around 250 million cars in the U.S., so that’s 2.7 billion barrels of oil we use every year, you filthy mechanized polluter.

A couple of qualifiers, first being the absurdity of mandating technological “advancement”:

Miles per gallon is easy to measure. Other, more important characteristics of a vehicle – like its ability to withstand fires or protect its occupants in collisions – aren’t so simple to quantify. Nor are they the concern of the particular bureaucrats who implement CAFE standards. Our political betters are collectively self-aware enough to know that they can’t set standards for two disparate variables simultaneously – cars should have at least gas mileage x while having fire retardation y – but that doesn’t stop them from measuring the one variable and enforcing an arbitrary, largely unforceable minimum.

Setting that minimum is a politically palatable way of what can only be described as fixing the market. The result is that auto manufacturers are forbidden from selling as many of their low-mileage vehicles as buyers want. Instead, said manufacturers can only sell a given number relative to the number of high-mileage cars they can sell. Otherwise, the average gas mileage of the cars they sell would decrease. Simply because people, for whatever reason, like to buy cars that burn a lot of gas.

It should be obvious that it’s not the flagrant gas-burning that people like for its own sake.

Honda makes a powerful if unglamorous SUV (the Pilot) that’s strong enough to tow 4500 pounds and roomy enough to carry 87 cubic feet of cargo. Which necessitates it getting 18 miles a gallon. The CAFE standard for “light trucks” is 20.7 mpg, which means Honda has to sell enough 36-mile-a-gallon Civics to raise its corporate mpg average, regardless of what the car-buying public wants (or would want, without government functionaries forcing Honda to meet 3rd-party standards, rather than maximize profit.)

Average fuel economy standards are a joke, created by politicians of both parties to feel good about themselves. If Congress wanted to truly “reduce our dependence on foreign oil*”, they’d order us to drive motorcycles.

The sad part is that more than a few dumb voters nod their heads and reelect these idiots, confident that legislating science is a) possible and b) worthwhile.

When you’re looking at buying a car, obviously you should think about how much you’ll spend on gas. But don’t make it your only criterion. By the way, our book Control Your Cash: Making Money Make Sense devotes an entire chapter to it. Which you can download free.

*Apparently, it’s perfectly fine to depend on foreign food, manufactured goods, software, banking, and cobalt, though. Only oil is sacred.

**This article is featured in the Carnival of Personal Finance #316-Family Edition**

Make more, pay less

Look closely - especially if you're at work - and you can actually see her soul leaving her body.

Dissatisfied in your job? Here’s the time-tested solution: tough it out, be thankful you have one, and come in next weekend just to emphasize the latter point.

Or you can tell The Man which orifice he can shove his company picnic and break-room coffee into, and go out on your own. Incorporate.

There are several volumes’ worth of reasons to do this. We can’t go into all of them now, but one of the best-kept secrets of incorporating is the regressive Social Security tax.

You might not be familiar with the concept of a regressive tax, but it’s easy to grasp. There are 3 species of tax:

-A proportional tax is one levied at a fixed rate. Sales tax, for instance. If your jurisdiction charges 7% sales tax, then any item subject to the tax costs 7% more than the list price whether the item goes for $1 or $100,000.

-A progressive tax means the higher the base amount, the higher the rate. Income tax in the United States (and most everywhere else, as far as we know) is an example.

That leaves the rarest bird in the aviary, regressive taxes.

You mean there are taxes where the greater the amount subject to the tax, the less you pay? That’s absurd. And illegal, right?

It’s cute that you think that. Not only do regressive taxes exist, they’re authorized by the same federal government that you entrust to have your best interests at heart. To fund the 2 biggest and least tenable programs in its tentacles – Social Security and Medicare.

Out of all the confusing, capricious, seemingly arbitrary taxes we pay, Social Security and Medicare taxes might be the most senseless.

The federal tax collectors (sorry, we don’t know most of their names, but Doug Shulman is the Internal Revenue Commissioner) take about 15.3% of your salary in the form of Social Security and Medicare “contributions”. Collectively, these are dubbed FICA – after the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Remember, Social Security was invented because federal officials of a bygone generation decided that Americans were too stupid to save for retirement. Therefore it would take a benevolent government populated by financial geniuses to make those critical investment decisions for our grandparents, our parents, you, me, and our descendants. Medicare is essentially the same thing, but earmarked for a different purpose.

If you never look at anything but the net pay amount on your paychecks, take some time to read the other numbers. Just once. That 15.3% breaks down like this:

-6.2% employee’s Social Security taxes
-1.45% employee’s Medicare taxes
-6.2% employer’s Social Security taxes
-1.45% employer’s Medicare taxes.

Hopefully this is obvious, but you’re wrong if you think your employer pays its share of these taxes as a necessary cost of keeping so wonderful a worker as you on the payroll. She doesn’t pay these taxes, she merely collects them. You pay them. Your employer factors these taxes into your salary when she hires you. If your employer wasn’t required to pour 7.65% of your income into the subterranean trench that is the federal government, she wouldn’t. Instead, she’d much rather attract you and other employees with wage levels that are 7.65% higher than what you think you’re currently making.

How is this regressive? Sounds proportional to me.

The Social Security portion of your FICA taxes is capped once your annual income exceeds $106,800. You pay the 2.9% in Medicare taxes no matter how much you make, but the Social Security portion can’t go above $13,243.20. (Half of that levied directly on you, the other half levied on you via your employer.)

So the higher your salary – past $106,800, anyway – the smaller the proportion of it you pay in Social Security taxes. On the one hand, this gives you incentive to work hard and earn money. On the other, it’s the kind of inequality that French revolutionaries chopped off people’s heads for.

If you’re an independent businessperson, and you structure as an S corporation or a limited liability company, you can run around the system instead of through it. Incorporate, and you can pay out part of your company’s profits to yourself as salary while paying out the remainder as dividends. The former is subject to FICA, the latter isn’t.

What’s the downside?

You’d be surrendering the “certainty” of a regular, constant paycheck. As if there exists an employer who could guarantee such a thing in perpetuity anyway.

Still, it sounds promising. So why doesn’t everyone do this?

The usual reasons: fear of the unknown, lack of faith in themselves, etc. The same negative thinking that’s been holding most human ingenuity back since we figured out fire and the wheel.

Note: Some people blather that sales taxes aren’t proportional because the less you earn, the higher a ratio of your income you pay in sales taxes.
First off, sales taxes aren’t levied on income, they’re levied on sales. See “income tax”, above. Second, there’s no way around this. Unless you think state legislatures and municipal governments should mandate that merchants ask people how much money they make before determining how much tax to collect.

**This article is featured in the Carnival of Wealth #43**

Easy money is harder than it looks

Every deputy assistant vice president has a tell

 

If you’re bad at something, better to find out early than late. Especially if not doing so comes with a price.

At Control Your Cash, it’s not exactly news that we think gambling is for idiots. Technically, we’d argue that poker isn’t gambling in the sense that keno and roulette are. Skill obviously factors into poker, at some level.

Therefore it stands to reason that the most successful poker players are the ones who learned it from an early age and applied themselves to their craft, right? Just like athletes?

Well, there’s one big difference. Serena Williams spent her childhood banging a ball against a wall (or sparring with the ready-made opponent one bed over), but she only paid for her lessons in sweat and bruises. It didn’t cost her anything out of pocket.

Improving at poker, on the other hand, costs money.

Yours truly moved to Las Vegas as an indestructible 20-something, armed with a mathematics degree from a fairly demanding college and convinced that he was going to hit every poker room on the Strip and use his logical mind to leave a gaggle of impoverished opponents in his wake. Sophisticated me would start off methodically, conquer the visitors and send them packing, move up to the locals, vanquish them, build my confidence and my winnings, then eventually go pro and make millions just for playing a game.

(NOTE: This is not a bad beat story we’re making you sit through, we swear. Nor will we tell you about the fish that got away, nor how our fantasy football team got screwed.)

On slow weekday afternoons, the casinos offer “free” lessons. The instruction is free, the stakes are real. I sat down at a learning table that held a dozen rube tourists who didn’t know a railbird from a kitty. The puzzlement in their eyes was all the incentive I needed. When one of them asked the dealer whether a full house beats a straight, I started salivating. That I knew barely knew the rules myself and didn’t know strategy at all was a non-issue.

I bought in for $20 and drew two low, unsuited cards. The flop* came up and I wagered $5, even though I knew I had close to the weakest hand at the table. There’s no point in sitting in a gambling hall and not gambling – I could have done that at home – so I gambled.

The dealer dealt the fourth community card. The card didn’t help my chances, but I placed a relatively gargantuan $10 bet. I went all-in with my remaining money on the fifth and final community card.

I held a pair of sevens. The best possible hand anyone could have held was a flush, and if anyone did, he wasn’t betting heavily enough for someone who had only a small chance of losing.

No one folded, including the two players who held worse hands than me. Our winner held a pair of pocket 10s. Most of the money she won in that pot was originally mine. She looked confused as the dealer pushed the chips toward her. “Really? I can take these? And exchange them for cash if I want? Or walk out of the casino with them and security won’t chase me? You sure?”

I wanted to stand up and scream at my fellow players. “Do any of you understand the concept of folding? Here’s how it works: you look at your cards and know you’re not going to win the hand, so you cut your losses before being obligated to wager more. Oh, and there’s something called ‘bluffing’, too. That’s when someone with a poor hand – me – bets so much that you assume he must have a great hand. Which I was doing. And none of you bought my bluff! Why the hell not? You people can’t possibly be so smart as to know that I was bluffing, given that you were all too dumb to fold. God, you’re exasperating!”

The dealer reminded me that if I wanted to be in on this next hand, I needed to cough up some more. Which would have been impossible. I walked out of the poker room dazed, trying to recalculate my steps. Could I have won that hand? No, because my idiot opponents wouldn’t have folded. Is every hand going to be like this? I always have to hold the best cards to win? Well, I’m not going to hold the best cards more often than anyone else will, so to win I’ll have to rely on my opponents’ psyches. But they don’t have psyches, they’re robots. And they weren’t even programmed to make intelligent decisions, just to bet and bet until the game ends. This is retarded.

I was right about that. It was.

Most players play to the death. Not out of bravado, but because they don’t know any better. Or they assume everyone else will, which means they have no choice but to mimic the crowd if they ever want to win a pot. To get past players like that and advance to the level where people bring math skills and psychoanalysis to the table, you have to be lucky enough to win more than chance would dictate. And that’s a price of entry that most of us shouldn’t be willing to pay.

Leave professional poker to the guys you see on ESPN2 late at night – the ones with the funny nicknames, horrible wardrobes, disjointed personalities and grotesque physiques. If you want camaraderie coupled with a chance to win money, invite your friends over and keep it amateur. In the long run, you’ll neither profit nor lose. And you won’t have to pay a cut to the house.

*Leaving much out, this refers to the first three of five cards the dealer deals face up in the middle of the table. Each player also receives two cards of his own, and creates the best possible five-card hand out of the communal five cards plus his own personal two cards.

**This article is featured is the Totally Money Blog Carnival #16-Easter Edition**