|
Forum: Internet Links Topic: Cap and Trade is a Massive Tax Hike started by: TheCatt Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 15 2009,18:50
< Administration concludes it will be like a 15% tax increase. >QUOTE The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.
A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year. A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation." Posted by GORDON on Sep. 15 2009,19:45
You don't say.
Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 16 2009,05:10
Ditto.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 16 2009,06:06
Interesting ending to that article. I wonder why such cover ups aren't bigger news...? Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 16 2009,11:17
(Leisher @ Sep. 16 2009,09:06) QUOTE Interesting ending to that article. I wonder why such cover ups aren't bigger news...? Because ends justify means. Reporters think things are like that are OK cuz it's in support on something they agree with. Posted by GORDON on Sep. 16 2009,11:26
Goodness, that sounds like a fascist philosophy.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 16 2009,13:43
If you give a shit only about the results, then the ends do justify the means.
Posted by Mommy Dearest on Sep. 16 2009,14:30
Well surprise surprise a tax increase. Like someone finally decided that we better start paying as we spend instead of the new found Republican philosophy to just spend it and not worry where the money would come from.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 16 2009,14:49
How about not spending so much of my money in the first place?
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 16 2009,14:55
There's a flaw in your statement: the money isn't yours. It says right there on it that it's the property of The United States of America. They just let you keep some of it for them.
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 16 2009,15:06
(Mommy Dearest @ Sep. 16 2009,17:30) QUOTE Well surprise surprise a tax increase. Like someone finally decided that we better start paying as we spend instead of the new found Republican philosophy to just spend it and not worry where the money would come from. To be fair, I hardly think this is an issue where either party "wins" Posted by GORDON on Sep. 16 2009,15:20
This is an arbitrary tax on energy production based on "carbon production."A rich person might pay .05% of their income on energy needs. A poor person might pay 10% of their income on energy needs. Increase each of those numbers by any percentage, and who does this increase hurt more? "People who make less than $200k will not pay a dime of extra taxes." I knew at the time he said it he was a lying sack of shit, I said so in these forums, and I have scorn for those who were stupid enough to believe him. Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 16 2009,15:56
(Mommy Dearest @ Sep. 16 2009,17:30) QUOTE Well surprise surprise a tax increase. Like someone finally decided that we better start paying as we spend instead of the new found Republican philosophy to just spend it and not worry where the money would come from. I know you're not mocking anybody in this forum, because there's not a single person here who advocates government spending. In fact, this stupid carbon crap isn't about paying for spending; it's about punishing us for our environmental sins. Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 16 2009,16:10
It is indeed regressive, which is why they're doing tax credits for poor people. Yay.
Posted by Mommy Dearest on Sep. 16 2009,18:59
(GORDON @ Sep. 16 2009,18:20) QUOTE This is an arbitrary tax on energy production based on "carbon production." A rich person might pay .05% of their income on energy needs. A poor person might pay 10% of their income on energy needs. Increase each of those numbers by any percentage, and who does this increase hurt more? "People who make less than $200k will not pay a dime of extra taxes." I knew at the time he said it he was a lying sack of shit, I said so in these forums, and I have scorn for those who were stupid enough to believe him. no a 10% increase in tax may not hurt the poor person so much. I think 0 times 10% still equals ? Posted by Mommy Dearest on Sep. 16 2009,19:00
(Mommy Dearest @ Sep. 16 2009,21:59) QUOTE (GORDON @ Sep. 16 2009,18:20) QUOTE This is an arbitrary tax on energy production based on "carbon production." A rich person might pay .05% of their income on energy needs. A poor person might pay 10% of their income on energy needs. Increase each of those numbers by any percentage, and who does this increase hurt more? "People who make less than $200k will not pay a dime of extra taxes." I knew at the time he said it he was a lying sack of shit, I said so in these forums, and I have scorn for those who were stupid enough to believe him. no a 10% increase in tax may not hurt the poor person so much. I think 0 times 10% still equals ? But I will go back and read the bill and see what it is all about. And no I am not mocking any single member of this forum. I for one was a Republican before they dropped fiscal responsibilty from the platform. Posted by Leisher on Sep. 16 2009,19:54
QUOTE I for one was a Republican before they dropped fiscal responsibilty from the platform. True story, but that doesn't make the Dems better by default. Posted by GORDON on Sep. 16 2009,20:19
(Mommy Dearest @ Sep. 16 2009,21:59) QUOTE (GORDON @ Sep. 16 2009,18:20) QUOTE This is an arbitrary tax on energy production based on "carbon production." A rich person might pay .05% of their income on energy needs. A poor person might pay 10% of their income on energy needs. Increase each of those numbers by any percentage, and who does this increase hurt more? "People who make less than $200k will not pay a dime of extra taxes." I knew at the time he said it he was a lying sack of shit, I said so in these forums, and I have scorn for those who were stupid enough to believe him. no a 10% increase in tax may not hurt the poor person so much. I think 0 times 10% still equals ? It will equate to an increase on their energy bills, which they still pay. I don't know why you seem to be a fan of this. Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 16 2009,20:40
But the consumers won't be taxed, those evil energy companies will. So the poor won't pay any more than they are now, silly!
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 17 2009,05:42
Riiiight. And people think corporations actually ever pay tax. It makes me sad.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 17 2009,06:30
QUOTE But the consumers won't be taxed, those evil energy companies will. So the poor won't pay any more than they are now, silly! It truly disturbs me that the voter base for the Dems still haven't figured out that as costs increase to corporations (whether they be government induced or otherwise), those corporations increase the prices of their goods, meaning we pay for those cost increases, not the corporations' bottom lines. Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 17 2009,06:46
I'm sorry, Leisher, but I don't understand what you are saying. Does it involve free health care and puppies for everyone?!
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 17 2009,06:46
The next logical step is a gov't-imposed freezing of prices.
Posted by Mommy Dearest on Sep. 17 2009,08:58
(GORDON @ Sep. 16 2009,23:19) QUOTE (Mommy Dearest @ Sep. 16 2009,21:59) QUOTE (GORDON @ Sep. 16 2009,18:20) QUOTE This is an arbitrary tax on energy production based on "carbon production." A rich person might pay .05% of their income on energy needs. A poor person might pay 10% of their income on energy needs. Increase each of those numbers by any percentage, and who does this increase hurt more? "People who make less than $200k will not pay a dime of extra taxes." I knew at the time he said it he was a lying sack of shit, I said so in these forums, and I have scorn for those who were stupid enough to believe him. no a 10% increase in tax may not hurt the poor person so much. I think 0 times 10% still equals ? It will equate to an increase on their energy bills, which they still pay. I don't know why you seem to be a fan of this. I am not a fan of any of the govt ways, but, there does need to be a tax on something. I feel an income tax increase across the board would be the best thing, but then people would know how much tax they pay instead of having it hidden in their utilities bills or whatever. This would be honest. Oh scratch that I said tax, govt and honest in the same post. Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 17 2009,09:03
I'm afraid I can't agree there. Income taxes are pretty well hidden for most people these days, too, if they are just a working schlub filing a 1040EZ. If you want honest taxation, dump income taxes completely and go to a 25% national sales tax. Exempt unprepared food, clothing below a very minimal dollar threshold, and basic housing expenses. Everything else gets taxed, and by law the taxes must be shown in bold on the receipt, preferably underlined and with a little note saying "This is how much Uncle Sam just took from you. Remember to vote!" Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 17 2009,09:08
Screw taxes, just sell votes: one dollar, one vote.
Posted by Mommy Dearest on Sep. 17 2009,11:21
(TPRJones @ Sep. 17 2009,12:03) QUOTE I'm afraid I can't agree there. Income taxes are pretty well hidden for most people these days, too, if they are just a working schlub filing a 1040EZ. If you want honest taxation, dump income taxes completely and go to a 25% national sales tax. Exempt unprepared food, clothing below a very minimal dollar threshold, and basic housing expenses. Everything else gets taxed, and by law the taxes must be shown in bold on the receipt, preferably underlined and with a little note saying "This is how much Uncle Sam just took from you. Remember to vote!" Well that will certainly exempt a lot of people from taxes. Remember the luxury tax? Lots of people out there will not spend their money if it will be taxed at that time. Would blow this economy totally out of the water. And the working schlub has a pretty hefty standard deduction and personal exemption these days even if they just file an ez. Posted by GORDON on Sep. 17 2009,11:26
I don't think I personally know anyone who is getting screwed more by taxes than MD. Multiple properties, multiple concerns, multiple energy bills that will increase with cap & trade, too much income to qualify for most corporate welfares, and not rich enough for the taxes to not hurt. Yet she is the only one saying we need more taxes.Time to start the process to get her committed. Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 17 2009,12:39
I almost want to see a flat tax imposed on a small scale somewhere. Just for amusement if nothing else.
Posted by Mommy Dearest on Sep. 17 2009,19:03
(GORDON @ Sep. 17 2009,14:26) QUOTE I don't think I personally know anyone who is getting screwed more by taxes than MD. Multiple properties, multiple concerns, multiple energy bills that will increase with cap & trade, too much income to qualify for most corporate welfares, and not rich enough for the taxes to not hurt. Yet she is the only one saying we need more taxes. Time to start the process to get her committed. Not the federal taxes that are killing me but the locals. Real Estate in counties townships and cities where I have no vote yet I own property, etc. Taxation without representation. Tea Party. Posted by Mommy Dearest on Sep. 17 2009,19:05
(Mommy Dearest @ Sep. 17 2009,22:03) QUOTE (GORDON @ Sep. 17 2009,14:26) QUOTE I don't think I personally know anyone who is getting screwed more by taxes than MD. Multiple properties, multiple concerns, multiple energy bills that will increase with cap & trade, too much income to qualify for most corporate welfares, and not rich enough for the taxes to not hurt. Yet she is the only one saying we need more taxes. Time to start the process to get her committed. Not the federal taxes that are killing me but the locals. Real Estate in counties townships and cities where I have no vote yet I own property, etc. Taxation without representation. Tea Party. And PS. I say once again that we have to pay for what we believe in. Want to have a war? Who is going to pay for it? Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 17 2009,19:16
Fine. But do I have to pay for the stuff I DON'T believe in, too? Because I imagine we're paying enough to have a war; we're just not paying enough to have a war AND give money to "community organizers."edit - are thib's post invisible to anyone else unless they quote, or something? Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 17 2009,20:02
0% of my federal tax dollars is spent on things I believe in.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 17 2009,20:36
(thibodeaux @ Sep. 17 2009,22:16) QUOTE Fine. But do I have to pay for the stuff I DON'T believe in, too? Because I imagine we're paying enough to have a war; we're just not paying enough to have a war AND give money to "community organizers." edit - are thib's post invisible to anyone else unless they quote, or something? test Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 17 2009,21:09
I see him fine.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 17 2009,21:13
His posts are blank to me unless I edit or quote his posts.Maybe relogging. Posted by GORDON on Sep. 17 2009,21:14
Oh, i accidentally had him on "Ignore."Double dumbass on me. Posted by Mommy Dearest on Sep. 18 2009,06:31
Well unfortunately or fortunately depending on which side you take as a society we do often support agendas that we personally do not agree with. I was probably not raised right when I was taught that my vote counts and to make myself heard to my local reps.And another little bit of history, I know that many here think the federal govt should stay out of it and we should have more local govt for roads and schools and whatnot. Back in 1999 Bush was thinking this way when he cut taxes quite dramatically. Everyone thought that was great and wow look at me now. However in doing this he forced the States and Cities to take a larger burden to support the infrastructure. However the Local Govt was hesitant to raise taxes to support these things because then they were the bad guys. Hence most of our local, or I should say what I personally know is that Ohio and Ohio Cities are in dier(sic?) straits because they did not raise taxes and things are just going to hell here. Drop in property values has drasticaly hurt the counties and the Schools. So did Bush have the right idea? Absolutely. Do people really understand what it means when the feds cut taxes and thus money to the states? I don't think so. And as a final thought. When I say people I am not usually referring to the participants on this board. I do not think that most here are of average inteligence but far superior. The bigger problem is how to relate to those of average inteligence and help them to understand this quagmire. That is all. Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 18 2009,09:00
All because most people are idiots doesn't mean I should have to pay for roads in Utah when I live in Texas. Freedom includes the freedom to fail, and we seem to be trying to protect everyone from failure by gradually removing everyone's freedoms. That's quite contrary to the ideals this country was based on, and if there were anywhere that still believed in individual freedoms I would try to move there.There's only two ways that I can see people thinking about federal taxation versus local and state taxation. One - and the honest way to think about it - is that raising tax dollars on the federal level allows one to steal from the rich states to pay for the poor states. The other - and I'm afraid this is probably the more common way of thinking - is the belief that the sum is somehow greater than the parts, and there's more money overall to be taxed by the federal government in total than there is cumulatively in the individual states. I'm afraid too many people are unable to think rationally, and somehow believe in this bottomless well of tax dollars at the federal level when compared to the local and state levels. I just don't understand that mindset. It makes no sense to me. Posted by GORDON on Jun. 16 2010,12:56
Obama tells senate to put cap and trade up for vote in the lame duck session, so it doesn't hurt democrats in mid-term elections.< http://www.nationalreview.com/campaig....trategy > Sigh. Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 16 2010,13:12
Like he's the first one that's used that loophole to his advantage.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 16 2010,13:25
Oh that makes it fine then, my bad.
|