PDA

View Full Version : Economics obamas Tax for All, not just the rich this time


HonestChieffan
09-16-2009, 04:34 PM
Will the Obots start to come around if they see enough? My God, the man is a liar beyond all proportion.


Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year

(AP)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."

The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.

These disclosures will probably not aid the political prospects of the Democrats' cap and trade bill. The House of Representatives approved it by a remarkably narrow margin in June -- the bill would have failed if only six House members had switched their votes to "no" -- and it faces significant opposition in the Senate.

One reason the bill faces an uncertain future is concern about its cost. House Republican Leader John Boehner has estimated the additional tax bill would be at $366 billion a year, or $3,100 a year per family. Democrats have pointed to estimates from MIT's John Reilly, who put the cost at $800 a year per family, and noted that tax credits to low income households could offset part of the bite. The Heritage Foundation says that, by 2035, "the typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year."

One difference is that while Heritage's numbers are talking about 26 years in the future, the Treasury Department's figures don't have a time limit.

"Heritage is saying publicly what the administration is saying to itself privately," says Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who filed the FOIA request. "It's nice to see they're not spinning each other behind closed doors."

"They're not telling you the cost -- they're not telling you the benefit," says Horner, who wrote the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. "If they don't tell you the cost, and they don't tell you the benefit, what are they telling you? They're just talking about global salvation."

The FOIA'd document written by Judson Jaffe, who joined the Treasury Department's Office of Environment and Energy in January 2009, says: "Given the administration's proposal to auction all emission allowances, a cap-and-trade program could generate federal receipts on the order of $100 to $200 billion annually." (Obviously, any final cap-and-trade system may be different from what Obama had proposed, and could yield higher or lower taxes.)

Because personal income tax revenues bring in around $1.37 trillion a year, a $200 billion additional tax would be the equivalent of a 15 percent increase a year. A $100 billion additional tax would represent a 7 or 8 percent increase a year.

One odd point: The document written by Jaffee includes this line: "It will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX." The Treasury Department redacted the rest of the sentence with a thick black line.

The Freedom of Information Act, of course, contains no this-might-embarrass-the-president exemption (nor, for that matter, should federal agencies be in the business of possibly suppressing dissenting climate change voices). You'd hope the presidential administration that boasts of being the "most open and transparent in history" would be more forthcoming than this.

Update 9/16/2009: The Environmental Defense Fund has responded to the documents' release with a statement saying, in part:
Even if a 100 percent auction was a live legislative proposal, which it's not, that math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers. It only looks at one side of the balance sheet. It would only be true if you think the Administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire.

The bill passed by the House sends the value of pollution permits to consumers, and it contains robust cost-containment provisions. Every credible and independent economic analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (such as those done by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Energy Information Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency) says the costs will be small and affordable -- and that the U.S. economy will grow with a cap on carbon.

petegz28
09-16-2009, 04:35 PM
I used less energy in August than I did in July and my bill was higher in August. And htis bill hasn't even passed yet.

Donger
09-16-2009, 04:40 PM
Yeah, but it's for "the environment," so that makes it okay. Aren't YOU willing to fork over more of your cash in order to save the world?

jiveturkey
09-16-2009, 04:40 PM
Cap and trade really seems like the wrong approach. Tax intensives for tech development and emission reduction makes more sense IMO.

Saul Good
09-16-2009, 05:06 PM
Cap and trade really seems like the wrong approach. Tax intensives for tech development and emission reduction makes more sense IMO.

The wrong approach to what? If it were really about being better stewards of our environment, you would be right. Of course, that's not what this is really about.

HonestChieffan
09-16-2009, 05:15 PM
Taxing everyone will fix the environment how?

banyon
09-16-2009, 05:32 PM
Trying to be environmentally responsible has certainly bankrupted Europe, that's for sure.

HonestChieffan
09-16-2009, 05:41 PM
You have been to Europe recently? Talked to people? Saw the impact on every day folks?

Oh.

No, I guess not.

In Italy, they would probably like to keep the 1700 bucks and spend it on their own. But you would know thats a bad idea. Stupid people. Silly taxpayers. Even the poor need to contribute right? I mean who should pay to save the polar bear?

banyon
09-16-2009, 05:44 PM
You have been to Europe recently? Talked to people? Saw the impact on every day folks?

Oh.

No, I guess not.

In Italy, they would probably like to keep the 1700 bucks and spend it on their own. But you would know thats a bad idea. Stupid people. Silly taxpayers. Even the poor need to contribute right? I mean who should pay to save the polar bear?

You got anything besides naysaying? Economic data? Reports? Evidence? Anything?

STFU then

Go find some more drivel out of your inbox to cut and paste without reflection.

Brock
09-16-2009, 05:48 PM
What is done in Europe isn't really relevant. I don't want anything they've got, except maybe the new VW Golf Turbo concept.

HonestChieffan
09-16-2009, 05:49 PM
Thats your position? Europe, where you have not been, is somhow your way to defend taxing every energy user in the nation to support some bad science backed taxation scam? And you say "link?"


God son, your shit gets weaker as Obama tanks.

Saul Good
09-16-2009, 05:49 PM
You got anything besides naysaying? Economic data? Reports? Evidence? Anything?

STFU then

Go find some more drivel out of your inbox to cut and paste without reflection.

Take a look at the birth rate in Europe for starters.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html?_r=1

banyon
09-16-2009, 05:56 PM
Thats your position? Europe, where you have not been, is somhow your way to defend taxing every energy user in the nation to support some bad science backed taxation scam? And you say "link?"


God son, your shit gets weaker as Obama tanks.

Who said I haven't been to Europe?

There is no energy tax being proposed on ordinary taxpayers in your article, it's a stretch to imply that there will be increased costs which are being compared to taxes. Did you even read your own article?

Good grief, why does anyone ever waste words trying to discuss anything with you?

Donger
09-16-2009, 05:57 PM
You got anything besides naysaying? Economic data? Reports? Evidence? Anything?

STFU then

Go find some more drivel out of your inbox to cut and paste without reflection.

You are aware what gasoline costs in Europe in comparison to here, yes?

banyon
09-16-2009, 05:58 PM
You are aware what gasoline costs in Europe in comparison to here, yes?

Yes, I'm pretty aware of that, having purchased petrol there by the liter.

HonestChieffan
09-16-2009, 06:08 PM
Is there some connection to buying metric and cost? Or was that just a sidestep?

banyon
09-16-2009, 06:10 PM
Is there some connection to buying metric and cost? Or was that just a sidestep?

Are you still not able to follow the conversation? Of course it is a tangential detail. You made a correlation between the metric system and cost based on my post? Do you read anything other people type in this forum, or just imagine what you hoped they typed and then respond stream-of-consciousness style?

Saul Good
09-16-2009, 06:24 PM
Is there some connection to buying metric and cost? Or was that just a sidestep?

In the interest of not derailing the thread, that was his way of saying that he has, in fact, been to Europe.

Donger
09-16-2009, 06:26 PM
Yes, I'm pretty aware of that, having purchased petrol there by the liter.

Would you be in favor of paying such exorbitant taxes on gasoline here in order to have such environmentally-friendly bliss?

HonestChieffan
09-16-2009, 06:26 PM
In the interest of not derailing the thread, that was his way of saying that he has, in fact, been to Europe.

OHhhhh. Then I understand.

HonestChieffan
09-16-2009, 06:27 PM
Are you still not able to follow the conversation? Of course it is a tangential detail. You made a correlation between the metric system and cost based on my post? Do you read anything other people type in this forum, or just imagine what you hoped they typed and then respond stream-of-consciousness style?

I seldom follow much of any value in the content of your posts.

***SPRAYER
09-16-2009, 06:49 PM
You have been to Europe recently? Talked to people? Saw the impact on every day folks?

Oh.

No, I guess not.

In Italy, they would probably like to keep the 1700 bucks and spend it on their own. But you would know thats a bad idea. Stupid people. Silly taxpayers. Even the poor need to contribute right? I mean who should pay to save the polar bear?

Naples Italy is a polluted shithole. You can walk on the water in the harbor.

banyon
09-16-2009, 08:37 PM
Would you be in favor of paying such exorbitant taxes on gasoline here in order to have such environmentally-friendly bliss?

No, and no one is proposing such taxes here.

banyon
09-16-2009, 08:39 PM
I seldom follow much of any value in the content of your posts.

If you're involved in the thread, it's a pretty rare occasion when content with value is able to be discussed without getting derailed by having to hold your hand through your obtuse distractions and confusions, much like this thread.