Is $245 too much to Pay for the Environment?
- Thread starter gonzo8402
- Start date
1) in answer to the question - YES, it is TOO much to pay
2) never trust govt estimates!
3) this tax is based upon 'questionable' science.
4) This does not contribute, in any way, to a economic recovery
5) When the income tax was proposed, they started at 1%. Yeah, while it may not seem like much now, it sets the precedent that the govt can tax you for this scheme. And it will increase over time. If you are tired of taxes, oppose these measures to surpress freedom
2) never trust govt estimates!
3) this tax is based upon 'questionable' science.
4) This does not contribute, in any way, to a economic recovery
5) When the income tax was proposed, they started at 1%. Yeah, while it may not seem like much now, it sets the precedent that the govt can tax you for this scheme. And it will increase over time. If you are tired of taxes, oppose these measures to surpress freedom
Seriously, I'd like to read what you have to say, if/when you can actually respond to the issue -- instead of the unrelated, irrelevant, knee-jerk response. The O.P. asked a good question (and I don't know the answer). Your response (and I'm not throwing bricks) is par for you but doesn't address the question. For example:
- 2) never trust govt estimates! - does not address whether the cost is or is not too much, based on the presumed benefit.
- 3) this tax is based upon 'questionable' science. - Now this one comes close -- because if the science is faulty and unlikely to produce the results promised, the cost would probably be too high or, unnecessary.
- 4) This does not contribute, in any way, to a economic recovery. - Totally unrelated to the question; and totally not relevant to whether the costs is too much to help clean up the environment. Economic recovery is important, of course, but it coexists with every other problem that we face. If there is no planet, there is not economy.
- 5) When the income tax was proposed, they started at 1%. - Again, totally unrelated to the question and absolutely not relevant to whether the cap & trade cost is or is not too high.
If fact, you're only about a word or two from saying your favorite words "Federal Reserve". Show that you are more than a One-Issue ("Federal Reserve") poster. Your Federal Reserve issue is worthy (whether or not I agree with your conclusions), but ITS NOT the whole deal.
- Yeah, while it may not seem like much now -- Why didn't you just say this to start ? LOL. You made all of that comment that is unrelated or irrelevant to the question, just to admit that the costs does not seem like much ??? -- LOL -- and you didn't even give that comment a number
QueEx
I think you're under estimating the true cost of this.
On the CBO's Director blog I noted what seemed to be contradictions, so I followed the link to the actual analysis and came across this jewel on page 4:
.........As noted, firms would generally pass the cost of reducing their emissions—or of
acquiring offset credits or emission allowances—on to their customers, and their
customers’ customers. (Indeed, assuming that higher costs are passed into prices
is customary in distributional analyses.) Households and governments would bear
those costs through their consumption of goods and services. Because households
account for the bulk of spending, they would bear most of the costs. The federal government and state and local governments would bear the remainder (an
estimated 13 percent) through their spending on goods and services.............
So if I'm reading this correctly not only would the public be responsible for their own cap and trade allowances but industry is going to pass on their cost to the consumer.
I'll reserve judgement on this, for now, because I haven't read the entire analysis. Hopefully some more eyes can be put on it to see how they interpret it.
here's the link to the actual analysis
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10327/06-19-CapAndTradeCosts.pdf
On the CBO's Director blog I noted what seemed to be contradictions, so I followed the link to the actual analysis and came across this jewel on page 4:
.........As noted, firms would generally pass the cost of reducing their emissions—or of
acquiring offset credits or emission allowances—on to their customers, and their
customers’ customers. (Indeed, assuming that higher costs are passed into prices
is customary in distributional analyses.) Households and governments would bear
those costs through their consumption of goods and services. Because households
account for the bulk of spending, they would bear most of the costs. The federal government and state and local governments would bear the remainder (an
estimated 13 percent) through their spending on goods and services.............
So if I'm reading this correctly not only would the public be responsible for their own cap and trade allowances but industry is going to pass on their cost to the consumer.
I'll reserve judgement on this, for now, because I haven't read the entire analysis. Hopefully some more eyes can be put on it to see how they interpret it.
here's the link to the actual analysis
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10327/06-19-CapAndTradeCosts.pdf
QueEx, whats with the negativity this beautiful Saturday afternoon? I simply responded to the question. Yes, the cost is too much! I may not not have outlined my responses to your liking, but nevertheless, all the points are consistent with the bigger picture of govt. coming up with yet another way to stifle the "little" guy.
And it may be a knee-jerk response, but damn, aren't we all tired of all these taxes?
There is just no use. LOL. Not a damn thing you said in response has to do with whether the costs is too high. We could all be tired of taxes; but that has nothing to do with whether what a proposed tax is reasonable, or not, i.e., you can not want to pay any taxes, but it would be hard to deny that a tax of 1 penny per year on gasoline is too much to receive the same level of interstate maintenance and construction.
Enjoy the beautiful day.
QueEx
Enjoy the beautiful day.
QueEx
OK dawg, nit-pik all you want but I see no evidence that the tax is reasonable. Not until someone can explain what we are gettin' for $245.
I been lookin at govt inefficiencies and misallocation of funds for a long time and this proposed tax is no different from any others. Since you bring up gasoline tax, the Federal govt gets 18.4 cents per gallon and the state of Michigan gets 19. The interstate and the streets are mo' jacked up than they were last year, even with the additional revenue generated from the $4.50 gas.
Na playa, when these taxes are introduced, it's always the little guy that ends up gettin' hit the hardest
The rebuttal:
I like the fact that there seems to be a discourse going on about this.Heritage Foundation said:
Some points:
- Based on the figures of provided by Heritage, they're right. The numbers don't add up. But I feel like both the CBO and Heritage are leaving information out. Is the government expected to sell 5.056 bil in 2020? Why, why not?
- None of the figures used about the June 5 analysis are actually in the CBOs June 5 analysis. Kind of makes me question Heritage a little...
- There may well be a decrease in GDP as a result of the bill. But Heritage doesn't explain how they got their $1,870 figure.
No one will have exact numbers at this time.
The CBO analysis estimates a gross cost of $810.00 a year per family. How they got down to a net cost of $245.00 a year per family i don't know.
What they are assuming, I guess, is that once this carbon marketplace get's started people will buy and sell their allowances to get down to the $245.00 mark.
From what you have posted neither the Heritage foundation nor the CBO have factored in the cost to the consumer that industry will pass on to them.
In short, nobody knows what the hell this is gonna cost.
What is clear to me is the $245.00 figure is a joke. The true cost will be substancially more.
The CBO analysis estimates a gross cost of $810.00 a year per family. How they got down to a net cost of $245.00 a year per family i don't know.
What they are assuming, I guess, is that once this carbon marketplace get's started people will buy and sell their allowances to get down to the $245.00 mark.
From what you have posted neither the Heritage foundation nor the CBO have factored in the cost to the consumer that industry will pass on to them.
In short, nobody knows what the hell this is gonna cost.
What is clear to me is the $245.00 figure is a joke. The true cost will be substancially more.
Last edited:
The CBO said in 2020 it'd cost about $890 per household. It gets to $245(for the highest quintile) because
Under H.R. 2454, allowances would be allocated among businesses, households, and governments, and the value of most of those allowances would ultimately be conveyed to households in various ways.
Under H.R. 2454, about 30 percent of the allowance value—$28 billion would
be allocated in a fairly direct manner to U.S. households to compensate them for their increased expenditures.
Under H.R. 2454, about 30 percent of the allowance value—$28 billion would
be allocated in a fairly direct manner to U.S. households to compensate them for their increased expenditures.
From the Wall Street Journal
JUNE 25, 2009 The Cap and Tax Fiction
Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.
Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.
Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.
Associated Press
Henry Waxman
For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.
To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.
The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."
The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.
When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.
Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.
Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.
The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.
Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A14
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
JUNE 25, 2009 The Cap and Tax Fiction
Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.
Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.
Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.
Associated Press
Henry Waxman
For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.
To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.
The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."
The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.
When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.
Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.
Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.
The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.
Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A14
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
So.....the sponsors and supporters of this legislation agree with the CBO that costs will ULTIMATELY be passed on to consumers
at a rough split of 85% for households and 15% for government at $28.00 a ton initially then rising after 2020.
Being as the government gets it's funding through the taxpayer this means households will ULTIMATELY bear 100% of the costs,either directly or indirectly,so it really doesn't matter by what means they get there.
The 30% offset is basically giving us our money back....Thanks
I believe this is going to cost a lot more than what the supporters of this are saying and that they know it but threw this number out to the public to dampen any opposition to the bill. Also, taking that kind of discretionary money out of the hands of households has to have a negative effect on the economy.
You'd just be spending that $245 on fried chicken and malt liquor anyway. Least you can do is put something toward the future of the several little nigglets that you've spawned and abandoned. Fuck outta here with your bullshit.
Bruh, or what/who ever you are; don't ever write that word on this
board, again. If you do, find yourself another username, right away.
Qx
even though you attacked me personally, your post was pretty funny. Don't drink, don't smoke, no kids, I just don't like to spend $$$, seriously!
What are we supposed to get for this $245? How would you know this measure is working? I'd rather take the position China took when they said they'd rather grow their economy. This move will only stifle the economy and surpress human activity. Once again, the only ones that will benefit are Al Gore's fatazz when he's selling you "carbon credits". Don't ya'll get it, these cats are tryin to charge you for the air you breath
These baffoons are legislating a permanent depression!
Imposing New taxes do not stimulate economics, The reason the economy is jacked up now is because people can't afford the burdens placed on them by the govt.
I will predict this will go down as legislation worse than anything Bush ever did. You will see a significant decrease in your standard of living.
These are the same people that said NAFTA is gonna create more jobs for the US
Imposing New taxes do not stimulate economics, The reason the economy is jacked up now is because people can't afford the burdens placed on them by the govt.
I will predict this will go down as legislation worse than anything Bush ever did. You will see a significant decrease in your standard of living.
These are the same people that said NAFTA is gonna create more jobs for the US
How did Clinton pull the economy out of the Bush/Reagan recession of the early 1990s?
Clinton & Greenspan did it by creating EZ money & EZ credit in technology, which in 2000-01, led to the NASDAQ Bubble, it busted. See, Bush inherited a declining economy too. Instead of allowing the recession to happen then, "Bubbles" Greenspan & Bush conspired to spread the easy $$$ & credit to the housing market (right about the time Glass / Steagall took effect, thus leading to the housing bubble. There are no more bubbles to create. Let this phony "service sector" economy crumble so we can get back to manufacturing and producing, we could see wealth return back to the country within 18 months, Guaranteed!
The move was also Pre-NAFTA, so our manufacturing base was still intact. People could afford the higher taxes Clinton proposed because there was a strong "middle" class. I was a Clinton supporter then, (I know, I was seriously sleepwalkin through life, shoulda voted 4 Perot) but I learned that taxes and regulation don't hurt the wealthy or large corporations because the cost is always passed on to the consumer. Large corporations like regulation because it discourages competition from entering the marketplace.
If you lighten the tax burden on citizens, people can do whatever they want with their $$$, New Taxes = Handcuffs, we, as a people, can't afford the old ones. Make any sense?
Not defending Clinton. As you know I have my issues with him, however the dot com bubble was nothing like what we are experiencing now. The Dow is lower now then it was when GW took office and when Clinton left office the economy was strong than when he entered office. Greenspan and the Wall Street gang had not implemented all of their programs until 2001. Clinton’s tax increases of 1992 combined with the republican majority of 1994, in which republicans would not pass any of Clintons bills resulted in higher revenue and lower spending, which spurred the 1990s economy. Look it up.
The dot com bubble wasn't as large but nonetheless, the bubble was created by EZ $$$ & credit. The bubble we're experiencing currently, is larger because we had more participants (home owners instead of tech firms). The Clinton economy had the appearance of success because there was still a manufacturing base (middle class).
Your right, wall street didn't become Wall Street until Glass / Steagall was repealed in 2000. That allowed the investment banks and commercial banks engage in their unsavory practices.
But check this out Thought, when the repups gained power in Congress, they handcuffed Clinton. The gridlock resulted in lower spending, hell, Clinton even went along with Welfare reform. In your words, the lower spending spurred the economy. I'm in agreement. When Dubya enters the picture, spending doubles, the economy falters. The only answers Bernanke/Bush/Obama can come up with is extending more $$$ and more credit. Thats why I say that all Obama is doing is trying to re-inflate a bubble! So my question is this: How can the Dems and their supporters think for one second, that more spending is the answer? especially since our middle class has been destroyed? My same argument, We can't afford any new taxes, we can't afford the old ones. Remember, I'm not (D) or (R)
You get no argument from me on those amylases. Obama has yet to disempower the corporate structure that has caused this mess. The republicans are/have blamed Obama for the economy, forgetting what GW did last September. But my prediction his that we will have an even worse crash in the fall and the GOP will have field day. It took radical changes over the last 30 years to create it, we need radical changes to fix it.
This is soooo much bigger than Obama!
"If the American people ever allow private banks
to control the issue of their money,
first by inflation and then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will
grow up around them (around the banks),
will deprive the people of their property
until their children will wake up homeless
on the continent their fathers conquered."
- Thomas Jefferson
I'm going to try to keep it simple.
1. AGW has never been proven, not to either the classic scientific certainty (95%), or the dumbed down scientific "likely" standard of 90%.
2. Several of the key factors that are part of the backbone of AGW have not happened, or have happened far beyond the range predicted (see Arctic cap melt, and Antarctic Ice Cap thickening).
3. Even if we did what Kyoto called for, we would have a barely percetible change in the climate (if the change would happen at all).
4. The second and third largest polluters, China and India would keep on increasing thier carbon output, more than offsetting any improvement we would make.
5. The CBO estimate is extremely inaccrate, by several orders of magnitude, as has been with most government estimates on costs of government action.
6 This tax would mean less money left for the living of our lives.
7. Higher taxes mean lower employment rates, and slower economies, especially when there is no corresponding rise in services provided.
Sooooooo, what sense does it make to put a certain further strain on our society for an uncertain problem and outcome ?
1. AGW has never been proven, not to either the classic scientific certainty (95%), or the dumbed down scientific "likely" standard of 90%.
2. Several of the key factors that are part of the backbone of AGW have not happened, or have happened far beyond the range predicted (see Arctic cap melt, and Antarctic Ice Cap thickening).
3. Even if we did what Kyoto called for, we would have a barely percetible change in the climate (if the change would happen at all).
4. The second and third largest polluters, China and India would keep on increasing thier carbon output, more than offsetting any improvement we would make.
5. The CBO estimate is extremely inaccrate, by several orders of magnitude, as has been with most government estimates on costs of government action.
6 This tax would mean less money left for the living of our lives.
7. Higher taxes mean lower employment rates, and slower economies, especially when there is no corresponding rise in services provided.
Sooooooo, what sense does it make to put a certain further strain on our society for an uncertain problem and outcome ?
Energy shouldn't be considered cheap, there is serious cost when it is produced. You pay $100 but its real cost is incalculable to the damage to the environment.
If they push the carbon tax to consumer, good. there will be an cheap investment in efficiency by consumers and businesses. More jobs, and investment.
Invest in building coal mines or clean energy jobs.
If they push the carbon tax to consumer, good. there will be an cheap investment in efficiency by consumers and businesses. More jobs, and investment.
Invest in building coal mines or clean energy jobs.
You make it seem that if you make a problem, there will automatically be a solution that would be beneficial to those the problem is given to. That is a bad assumption. For example, if you give children the problem of not enough food, do you think thier bodies become more efficient ? Or do they simply suffer the damage of not enough food ?
If you give an adult the problem of fewer jobs, do they automatically become better workers, or do some of them end up staying unemployed ?
The problem given is not an organic one, but an artificial one (being your desire to rule others by making thier lives more difficult for your percieved benefit).
I also find it interesting that you make no mention of what the "incalcuable" damage is being done to the enviroment.
How do you manage China ? or India? How do you manage the other costs of making life more expensive, such as increased poverty which puts even more of a strain on the productive ?
Don't you know that we are not even addressing the real and more critical immediate threats to the enviroment with the cap and trade nonsense?
Corporations have so many lawyers to evade paying for they damage they do.
Yes it's too much. They can take it out of what they've already stolen from me!
Similar threads
