Page 1 of 3
Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:50 pm
by TheCatt
Administration concludes it will be like a 15% tax increase.
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: Tue Sep 15, 2009 10:45 pm
by GORDON
You don't say.
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:10 am
by thibodeaux
Ditto.
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:06 am
by Leisher
Interesting ending to that article.
I wonder why such cover ups aren't bigger news...?
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:17 pm
by TheCatt
Leisher wrote: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: Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:26 pm
by GORDON
Goodness, that sounds like a fascist philosophy.
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:43 pm
by Malcolm
If you give a shit only about the results, then the ends do justify the means.
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:30 pm
by Mommy Dearest
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: Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:49 pm
by Malcolm
How about not spending so much of my money in the first place?
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:55 pm
by TPRJones
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: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:06 pm
by TheCatt
Mommy Dearest wrote: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: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:20 pm
by GORDON
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.
Edited By GORDON on 1253141645
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:56 pm
by thibodeaux
Mommy Dearest wrote: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: Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:10 pm
by TheCatt
It is indeed regressive, which is why they're doing tax credits for poor people. Yay.
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:59 pm
by Mommy Dearest
GORDON wrote: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: Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:00 pm
by Mommy Dearest
Mommy Dearest wrote:GORDON wrote: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: Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:54 pm
by Leisher
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: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:19 pm
by GORDON
Mommy Dearest wrote:GORDON wrote: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: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:40 pm
by TPRJones
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: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:42 am
by GORDON
Riiiight. And people think corporations actually ever pay tax. It makes me sad.