Obama's Greatest Tax - Cap and Trade

Obama's not leading us to economic collapse. You conservatives already have us there.

 

Hey, I've got a better idea! Instead of increasing the cost of fossil fuels to pay for improved efficiency and alternative sources of energy, let's spend about 10 times that much in a war on the other side of the earth to protect the foreign oil supply. I mean, God forbid that we should use market forces to encourage intelligent reinvestment that will give us a lead vs. other nations.

What? We already did that? Of course, the doctor didn't notice because the war has been waged off budget with IOU's and no intent of ever paying the bills. The result is that the currency must be diluted, inflation is the stealth tax that hits everyone.

 

Hmm... prices in the EU have not increased dramatically since they started using this system. I wonder why they would do so here? Oh, that's right, as good conservatives we believe the claim that businesses just pass all taxes on to the consumer. If that is so, why do businesspeople think new taxes will put them out of business? New taxes could put some folks out of business. Like the troglodytes at one our Colo. rural electricity coops that refuses to use anything but coal even when wind or hydro are cheaper- just on principle.

The bottom line is that carbon intensive industry is creating a cost for all of us- trillions of dollars in engineering works to save our coasts and increased immigration and/or war over diminished land worldwide. Anything that might slow it down is worth a shot.

 

Inflation is the result of an increasing money supply. With the banks not making any loans, the primary source of "new money" is diminished. If the Fed Reserve hadn't started making loans, our deflation would have been even worse in the last quarter of 08. Deflation (not surprisingly) makes people wait to buy things cheaper and speeds up an economic decline, just like inflation makes people want to buy things for the price goes up and speeds up a temporary boom (until people have all they can consume, i.e. the housing market to 2006!).

 

You want to keep everything you can acquire? Move to Somalia; all you'll need to keep what you have is a lot of guns, and some people you can trust while you're asleep.

Do please recall that in the glory days of Eisenhower Republicanism the top marginal income tax rate was 91%. Now it's 35%. Long term capital gains are taxed at 15%. Warren Buffet pays a smaller tax rate overall than does his chauffeur. Paying the real cost of the energy we use, including all the previously hidden costs, is the least we must do.

 

Too bad he was obligated to go with cap and trade instead of a revenue neutral carbon tax, which is much more efficient and fair, but unfortunately hard to sell even though it would be much better for all.

 

OP.
you want it all, don't you?
you just don't wanna pay for it...

 

I'll take cap&trade over status quo any day, but I agree wholeheartedly with Fibb: simple taxation is a much better idea. The theoretical arguments that cap&trade is more efficient ignores the scale of regulatory bureaucracy and gaming that will happen (and is already happening) in systems outside the US attempting to limit carbon emissions.

I love it when libertarians 'stand up' for the weak. It's always good for a laugh.

 

I agree with the above, cap & trade is not my first choice. Direct carbon taxes make much more sense. But cap & trade is better than the conservative alternative: spending egregious sums on ever escalating oil imports and producing more CO2 every year.

 

You can't forget that this is the US, and while Obama can change some things, he will have a very hard time changing the entrenched industrial interests that various members of Congress share.

Most people don't realize that there is already a robust cap/trade system in the US for various emissions (including one for CO2 that just came online this year). So in terms of the industry POV, while they would obviously prefer no CO2 regulation, they already have experience with cap/trade, and they know that it's a system that has some flexibility (aka loopholes).

From the non-industry POV, supporters of the plan can point to Europe, as robbyr2 did. While some people will not accept that as an argument (due to their hatred of all things Europe), those people are unlikely to support CO2 regulation anyway.

 

Let's not forget the main plank of status-quo oil economics: WAR

 

How does one figure this out? What is the criteria, figured out beforehand, that we can apply a decade from now? 95% of everyone I know points to their political party of choice as the creater of the good and the opposite party as the cause of the bad. Even history books carry this bias. Some state that FDR avoided a disaster, others state that it was WWII which overcame FDR's ineffective efforts. So again, what is the criteria for evaluating?

I'll keep repeating, it is totally dependent on what the tax is spent upon. Spending it all on a) Failed Banks or b) Sustainable Energy Sources would have vastly different outcomes.

The global warming issue is rather independent of the tax issue. (It's very much like states claiming lottery money is for the schools, when in fact the lottery is a revenue source independent of the education budget.)

Let's not overlook a big picture. Sooner or later some administration/Congress has to stop increasing the debt. I ultimately care more about a total approach that achieves a needed balance rather than looking exclusively at the tax side or the expenditure side.

 

Well, one could look at annual GDP and unemployment throughout the 1930's and it would be pretty obvious that the authors of the latter couldn't tell their heads from their asses (and are also conservatives.) There is so much conservative mythology about the Great Depression, that they would be in shock if they looked at the actual numbers. I have looked through the numbers and anyone else can do the same. I doubt anyone with functioning gray matter would draw the same conclusions that conservatives have.

 

Hmm,

We have a 1.75 trillion dollar deficit. Does it not make sense to do this? It a gradual, bite-off-as-much-as-you-can-chew tax. You will have the power to minimize or maximise its impact on you by conservation. Would you rather just have a $1000 Citizenship tax that everybody has to pay? That deficit has to get taken care of.

As far as if its worth it or not, just ask yourself if it was. Because WE have already spent this money, and now the bill needs to come due.

Now the idea of Cap and Trade is that entities that can provide energy without CO2 can trade the lack of CO2 emissions to those that must generate CO2. This can be setup to be revenue neutral. But there will be an adjustment period until enough CO2 free energy sources come on-line. This is probably where the revenue comes from. The CO2 generators will then have a strong motivation to do CO2 free projects. Its the best way to finance a change to better energy sources, over time, without funding directly out of something like a flat tax on energy usage.

And if it turns out to be some sorta hidden gasoline tax - I am all for it!

 

Cap 'n Trade has apparently worked quite well with SOx emissions. I'm not a huge fan because I think it's easy to game the system and it's more complex than a simple tax scheme. It's better than nothing. If we want to be competetive in the global market we're going to have to be much more efficient. This country losses more energy through inefficient production methods than the entire Japanese economy uses. that's got to change.