AIArchitect

Finally!

Without comment on Rep. Dingell's history on legislating mileage standards, I think that limiting the mortgage deduction on homes over 3,000sf is a good idea. Sin taxes, such as on tobacco, alcohol, and gambling to discourage dangerous practices are well established and mostly accepted. Why should society encourage, through substantial financial benefits, the waste of building giant homes, many of which are constructed so poorly that their debris will be filling landfills in 20 or 30 years. Home ownership is a great societal benefit, but ostentatious consumption should be decoupled from governmental support.

How ridiculous. When will politicians learn that taxes rarely discourage "bad" behaviour. Think about who will actually bear the impact of a 50-cent gas tax. Will it be the wealthy who will be able to afford the new car technology thereby reducing their gas consumption? No. The bottom tier of wage earners who are driving used, inefficient vehicles will be most HARMED by such taxes. Talk about legislating morality. Sadly, this is typical of liberal philosophy gone awry. Ultimately this type of legislation causes the "haves" to have more while the "have-nots" have less. If you want to encourage "good" behaviour, then incentivise good behaviour. The sin tax model has not worked. More people consume alcohol than ever before; more peole are gambling than ever before, etc.

I am all for reducing pollution, but the gasoline tax would cause even more problems for low and middle income workers trying to make ends meet. Increasing state license fees on low MPG vehicles, say $5,000 annually, would be a more fair way of sending the message. Phasing out mortgage tax deductions for large homes could help, but I would raise the square footage threshold a little and give a break to "green" homes that reduce their carbon footprint by design.

As usual, a ludicrous suggestion from someone who thinks increasing taxes actually helps the situation. In fact increasing taxes is only a way to penalize the poor, plus it has been shown to actually decrease tax revenues. Furthermore, his claim of fairness is completely opposite of reality. It is unfair and not effective. Finally, the whole premise behind taxes on "carbon" is based on pseudo-science, not real science. The rush to reduce carbon footprints is a huge waste of time and money as the science indicates this has NO effect on mitigation of climate change. Those who have jumped on the bandwagon of lowering carbon footprints or reducing carbon dioxide output have joined the "gloom-and-doom" crowd of Chicken Little. The sky is not falling, in spite of the unscientific and unsubstantiated claims that carbon dioxide output by humans is the cause of global warming. I am afraid that the AIA has jumped on that same bandwagon with their 2030 goal. I am very disappointed in the AIA for blindly following the myths that abound regarding this issue.

What? If I want to build a 5000 square foot home, then I am FREE to do so without being penalized. Taxing people who succeed is not the American Way. I am sick and tired of class warfare being instituted by politicians who are wealthier than everyone else AND who have their own planes, several homes, and their elitist attitudes to say that what is good for me is not going to be applied to them. Global Warming, Carbon Footprints, etc. are all B.S. I am so sick of hearing about it that I did some digging to find information about recycling. The only thing I recycle is aluminum. Everything else costs more to recycle, thus using more energy and it is wasteful. it is disgusting how the new RELIGIOUS RIGHT OR LEFT IS THE GLOBAL WARMING MOVEMENT. IT IS THE NEW COMMUNISIM. WHEN WILL PEOPLE WAKE UP!!! IT IS A NEW WAY TO CONTROL PEOPLE AND THEIR SPIRIT. PERIOD.

I am in agreement w/ the mortgage tax interest elimination, not sure that 3000 sf is the magic number, requires some study. This could effectively reduce the size of a family / household or impact some settings such a group homes. However the conditioning of unoccupied space in McMansions is an absured waste of resources not to mention bldg materials and open land. The automobile industry should be treated the same manner w/ a luxury tax applied to huge and inefficient vehicles and Flexfuel vehicles should not be exempt. The little greenleaf affixed to the fender is huge hoax on the American public. Gasoline should be priced at the cost it takes to produce it (which it probably is not) and not taxed like cigarettes.

"increasing taxes is only a way to penalize the poor"

Poor people can't afford to own and operate automobiles, and they don't live in big houses.

This has nothing to do with "greehouse gasses." What a fraud! This has everything to do with funding big government earmarks, the Nanny state, and our rapid downhill slide into socialism. If Dingell really wants to do something beneficial he should work with Congress to cut the size of the federal government by 50% . . . for a start.

John McCormac mirrors my view on all of this global warming scare science. It is truly just a political issue for more taxation and government control on the citizens of this country. It is absurd to believe that anything the human being does will significantly slow the earth from either warming or cooling. Only God and our sun have the wherewithal to significantly affect the climate on this planet. I am also disappointed that the AIA has jumped on this bandwagon. Instead our Institue should be promoting the fact that architects have been tuned in to energy conscious design since day-one. Pushing for legislation based on half-baked science (read Patrick Michaels book titled Meltdown) will only filter down to the municipal levels where most of us practice. This can only lead to unrealistic expectations and the inevitable law suit directed at the professional architect (reference Dallas Morning News, front page article about a local law firm ramping up for global warming litigation).

This is an idiotic proposal.

Excellent idea. Unfortunate that Dingell has been an obstructionist on increasing mileage requirements for cars, but this proposal would be helpful in addressing what most world scientists plainly agree is a global warming problem caused by human activity. Proposal would be improved by directing the tax to funding alternative energy research and related federal tax-credit programs.

Interesting idea but the 3,000 sq ft limit has to be for new homes only. Renovating, restoring, recycling older larger homes is important to our neighborhoods, cities and architectural heritage. The legislation will be designed with so many loopholes for pre-existing homes and for energy conservative larger homes that it may end up useless. Better to give attractive tax incentives for hte small house than to penalize the large one. Mortgage interest exemption is as american as apple pie.

Mr. Dingell is just a few letters short of Dingell-ing.

I whole heartedly agree with Mr. John McCormac and Mr. Walter Anderson. Global Warming is little more than a scare tactic being used for greater government control of our lives. How long have accurate temperatures been recorded in comparison with the age of our earth? Was there a "Global Freezing" scare at the beginning of the Ice Age?
I would like to see AIA divorce themselves from this Global Warming Scare bandwagon immediately! We are all responsible for being good stewards of our earth. As Architect's - good design by employing proper use and implementation of our training in the area of environmental sensitivity should be sufficient.
Carbon footprints? Carbon is the basic building block of all matter! Everything has a carbon footprint.

There is no question that we all need to be conscientious in our design and aware of our material use and energy consumption. But generally we are Architects working on projects with budgets and carbon neutrality in the future is not what sparks the interest of our clients, especially when they are paying their bills. Any change to the tax code on deductions should not be based on a one size fits all home size - this is ludicrous - and deserving of a human stupidity award. Any thoughts of penalizing larger vehicles, because of consumption rates, belong in the trash can. What about large family size, comfort, and storage. My family of six certainly needs a seatbelt for all, and a bedroom to boot, and I should not be penalized because a politician in a limousine can afford to spit at my lifestyle. Shame on Dingell. There has never been a tax that has put a guarantee on a solution. Perhaps incentives for R&D, and reuse of our current infrastructure that is forgotten, and investment in better public education would trump the convenience store mentality of taking the cash from the working people.

There is no question that we all need to be conscientious in our design and aware of our material use and energy consumption. But generally we are Architects working on projects with budgets and carbon neutrality in the future is not what sparks the interest of our clients, especially when they are paying their bills. Any change to the tax code on deductions should not be based on a one size fits all home size - this is ludicrous - and deserving of a human stupidity award. Any thoughts of penalizing larger vehicles, because of consumption rates, belong in the trash can. What about large family size, comfort, and storage. My family of six certainly needs a seatbelt for all, and a bedroom to boot, and I should not be penalized because a politician in a limousine can afford to spit at my lifestyle. Shame on Dingell. There has never been a tax that has put a guarantee on a solution. Perhaps incentives for R&D, and reuse of our current infrastructure that is forgotten, and investment in better public education would trump the convenience store mentality of taking the cash from the working people.

Dingell is nothing more or less than a politician gunslinger posturing himself to hop on the energy stagecoach before it leaves him behind with no gold.