24 replies to this topic

[Shortpoet-GTD]

They're calling it a environmental protection tax. Coal producers, and others will pay higher taxes.
Article

[E3 wise]

Just seem the US is lagging behind, people bring up China as an example of a non progressive country yet they are developing wind, solar, hydro, biofuels and hydrogen almost as fast as the US, now they will have a carbon tax but we don't, might be time to stop pointing fingers at other countries and get our own country in order.
I just wish China would stop stealing the technology to make this happen.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Looking at the pictures in this story about "cancer villages"-they have to do something.
They are one of the top 3 of polluters, after all.
Article

[E3 wise]

Oh yea Shortpoet you are absolutely correct, they must do something and I am forced to wonder if this action will result in any real change or is just a media ploy for a global audience.  This is not the first time i have seen foreign press stories referring to the air quality as a cancer soup of chemical, heavy metals, and particulates.

I have said in public and private talks at conferences where we have spoken, that when those who want to roll back our clean air and water acts that they should look to China as an example of we're the United States would have been had not the legislation been past.  Both you and I are old enough to remember how bad thing had gotten before the 1972 laws were past.  Had we gone on we would have been in the same boat that China is now. Major refinery towns, steel production, coal processing had all made many part of the United States black sooty messes that filled the Air with carcinogenic material.

It really makes me angry when big polluters still try to water down or do away with those Laws because many of us fought hard to get the public support for those laws and now thanks to many people's short memories they want to blame those clean air and water standards for their economic hardships.  Make me wonder if they even consider public health as an economic factor.

Our push is to make the Clean Water and Air Acts stronger and provide the EPA with the ability to regulate other substances that were not a part of the original acts, for the Supreme Court to strike down some of the EPAs rule is a travesty in my opinion.
China will be an open question for enforcement for a while, I want the United States to pass a Carbon Tax on energy providers and other big CO2 produces to spur faster adoption of renewables and cleaner production standards, which is why I keep getting up on the Soap Box of clean air and water.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

At the moment, we're ham strung because of the baggers. They don't want any government, even if it
means that government put's rules in place for clean air/water and fewer emissions.
I'm hoping people are smart enough in 2014 to kick them all to the curb, and we can get back to business.
They are hurting this country in so many ways; it's unbelievable.

But no one wants a huge government either, so there has to be a balance. But giving all the breaks to
the wealthy, and hurting poor and middle incomes folks is not the way.
I think Obama will try and do as much as he can via executive order regarding emissions but that
only goes so far.
We have to get serious about and right now. (Even though many in public office still believe it's a hoax.)

I don't think the government in China is cranking out solar and wind-turbines for cleaner air for their
citizens. It's all about the money.
They could care less about their people.
But maybe they are thinking that if thousands do start dying because of pollution, they won't have
enough workers around to crank out their plastic crap that they import to us. Who knows?

The big shots there have to breathe that same toxic air as the rest of em'.

[Phil]

"But giving all the breaks to the wealthy, and hurting poor and middle incomes folks is not the way."

That is exactly what a carbon tax does.  The upper class just pays the higher prices while the poor and middle class see their standard of living reduced even more.

[yoder]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 20 February 2013 - 06:44 AM, said:

They're calling it a environmental protection tax. Coal producers, and others will pay higher taxes.
Article

This is exactly what China needs at this point if they are ever to have any hope of turning things around environmentally as well as being economically stable for the long haul.  Short term gain from fossil fuels does not help anyone except the wealthy who do not live in the areas they are destroying.

[yoder]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 24 February 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

At the moment, we're ham strung because of the baggers. They don't want any government, even if it
means that government put's rules in place for clean air/water and fewer emissions.
I'm hoping people are smart enough in 2014 to kick them all to the curb, and we can get back to business.
They are hurting this country in so many ways; it's unbelievable.

You are correct that the Rabid Chihuahua Party has outlived any possible usefulness that they may ever have had, and have never lifted themselves above being a detriment to the stability and long term viability of the US economy.  That said, I don't think we have seen the last of them because the corporate interests stand to make significant gains if they can keep buying them off and putting them in places of power in government.

Most Americans are fully capable of seeing that the US economy is in trouble, it has only been a tiny percentage who have wanted to destroy the foundation of our government in order to rebuild in their own image.  And that image looks nothing like us (the 99%).

[Phil]

Actually cheap energy helps the poor far more than the rich.  The rich can just pay the higher price, the poor are screwed by higher prices.  Again an economics lesson, no corporation pays taxes, their customers do.  You double the price of coal energy and they double their rates, you pay, and the poor sees their standard of living degraded even further.
The foundation of our government is not a cradle to grave nanny state, it is economic freedom.  That is what is being destroyed.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Phil, on 02 March 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

Actually cheap energy helps the poor far more than the rich.  The rich can just pay the higher price, the poor are screwed by higher prices.  Again an economics lesson, no corporation pays taxes, their customers do.  You double the price of coal energy and they double their rates, you pay, and the poor sees their standard of living degraded even further.
The foundation of our government is not a cradle to grave nanny state, it is economic freedom.  That is what is being destroyed.

Not when the poor have to factor in all the additional health issues. If they can't pay the ER or the Dr. we do.

[yoder]

We do need to get rid of the Nanny State, that is a given.  Corporate interests have been sucking the country dry for far too long.  They have been given free reign to the point that the government that is supposed to protect the people, has been perverted to instead protect corporate interests over the people.

[yoder]

When corporate power over our government and our people is finally limited, the tax resources that have gone into perpetuating the debilitating corporate inefficiency, waste and graft that the taxpayers have been subsidizing for all these years will finally go to the people.

[LouisseSantos]

This is exactly what China needs at this point if they are ever to have any hope of turning things around environmentally as well as being economically stable for the long haul.  Short term gain from fossil fuels does not help anyone except the wealthy who do not live in the areas they are destroying.

[Phil]

We do need to scrap crony capitalism and get back to free market capitalism.  No more capitalizing gains and socializing losses, no more central planning picking winners and losers, no more too big to fail.  Government's job is to prevent monopolies, set the rules, make sure everyone obeys them, then get the hell out of the way.  One of the biggest arguments for a flat tax is to get rid of all the special breaks various industries have managed to get included in tax law over the years.

That being said, anything you slap on corporations just gets passed on to it's customers resulting in higher prices.  That hits the poor the worst.  If anything we need to lower corporate taxes to compete on the world stage.

China may have no other choice, but a better idea is just to set pollution limits and lower them over time as we've done.  Here we rejected the carbon tax and have instead increased controls on emissions and increased fleet mileage.  That does not allow corporations to just continue to pollute and pass costs on to consumers as a carbon tax would.  Our method is working as we have been lowering our carbon footprint for years.

We'll have to agree to disagree because cheap energy favors the poor the most since it keeps costs down which keeps the economy healthy.  That has allowed us to clean the environment because a humming economy brings in the tax revenue to support a cleaner environment.  It also creates jobs which gets more people out of poverty.

Again, our country has been doing it right.  By far our biggest health concern is not the environment, it is obesity.  Nothing else even comes close.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Phil, on 16 March 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

By far our biggest health concern is not the environment, it is obesity.

Powerful lobby's at work once again that hurt us.

[yoder]

Phil, on 16 March 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

We do need to scrap crony capitalism and get back to free market capitalism.  No more capitalizing gains and socializing losses, no more central planning picking winners and losers, no more too big to fail.  Government's job is to prevent monopolies, set the rules, make sure everyone obeys them, then get the hell out of the way.  One of the biggest arguments for a flat tax is to get rid of all the special breaks various industries have managed to get included in tax law over the years.

We are certainly in agreement here.  Usually when I hear free market, it's without the qualifier of preventing monopolies and setting rules.  I agree with your definition because it fosters true competition and sustainable growth of markets.

Phil, on 16 March 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

That being said, anything you slap on corporations just gets passed on to it's customers resulting in higher prices.  That hits the poor the worst.  If anything we need to lower corporate taxes to compete on the world stage.

I understand that corporations pass costs on to customers, that is not new, and it is not necessarily bad.  I also understand that there are countries out there that will lower their corporate taxes to zero, just to lure corporations in.  In the end though, the lowballing countries do not help their people.  They help the wealthy, but they do not raise the standard of living for the rest of their country.  Also, on the business side, lowballers rarely if ever provide quality.  They are the WallyWorld's, or Dollar General's of products and services.  US businesses are far too busy racing China and India to the bottom instead of letting them race each other to the bottom and themselves competing with the quality producers through innovation, education and the mass production of highly educated and highly skilled people.

Phil, on 16 March 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

China may have no other choice, but a better idea is just to set pollution limits and lower them over time as we've done.  Here we rejected the carbon tax and have instead increased controls on emissions and increased fleet mileage.  That does not allow corporations to just continue to pollute and pass costs on to consumers as a carbon tax would.  Our method is working as we have been lowering our carbon footprint for years.

China has painted themselves into a corner, but that does not mean that what we're doing is acceptable.  Rejecting the carbon tax was just giving into the those businesses racing to the bottom with their golden parachutes.  Giving into businesses just because they demand it is not a brave solution, but a cowardly excuse.  And as we have found, our government is full of cowards looking for excuses.

Phil, on 16 March 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

We'll have to agree to disagree because cheap energy favors the poor the most since it keeps costs down which keeps the economy healthy.  That has allowed us to clean the environment because a humming economy brings in the tax revenue to support a cleaner environment.  It also creates jobs which gets more people out of poverty.

Cheap energy favors the cheap energy industry that sucks billions in corporate welfare out of taxpayer's wallets.  If cheap energy is destructive to the environment (which hits the poor the hardest), then it is not doing them any favors.  Those billions of tax dollars that are going into cheap energy's offshore accounts would be much more productive as incentives to new technology and as energy vouchers (did a progressive just suggest a voucher system?) for the poor to use to pay temporarily higher energy costs.

Phil, on 16 March 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

Again, our country has been doing it right.  By far our biggest health concern is not the environment, it is obesity.  Nothing else even comes close.

Obesity is costing our country far too much, but it isn't even close to being our top concern.

[Phil]

Lowering corporate taxes has nothing to do with screwing the poor, just the opposite.  Again, if corporate costs are passed to the consumer, it means if you cut costs to corps that cuts costs to the consumer, and that allows better competitiveness internationally.  If you raise corporate costs, that raises prices.   It is competition that keeps corporations in check, not taxes.  If corps pay less taxes and individuals pay more, that helps the poor since they do not pay federal taxes but will see price controls on consumer items.  "Corporate welfare" is really poor welfare, those who do pay taxes pay a little more so the poor can have lower prices.

Put simply, corporations do not benefit from lower taxes, their customers do.  It is not giving in to business to allow them to be more competitive internationally.

Obesity is indeed our top health concern.  Not our top national concern, but our top health concern.

I beg to differ with the carbon tax.  Again, all it does is allow corporations to continue to pollute and raise prices to cover the costs.  That screws the poor.  Pollution limits, on the other hand, do have direct effects.  Raising the fleet MPG does have a direct effect.  There is no getting around hard limits.  The only ones making out on carbon credits are the carbon traders.

[yoder]

"Lowering corporate taxes has nothing to do with screwing the poor"

Yes it does because the poor and middle class use infrastructure, public education, public assistance for health care and other social services that are currently being shrunk until "Norquist can drown them in a bathtub".  Corporate avoidance of paying their fair share in taxes harms the poor and middle class every day in many ways.  As long as there is a legitimate market for a product or private service at a legitimate price, there will be a business more than happy to provide it, as long as entrenched corporate interests do not block them.  When corporate interests set their own prices through collusion and then punish the poor with high prices for voting for fair taxes, they do not deserve to continue making a living.  It is precisely this reason that effective regulations of powerful industries is absolutely necessary.

And concerning the carbon tax and pollution limits.  They are not mutually exclusive.  And again, if businesses are going to punish consumers for voting "incorrectly" by raising prices, then as long as there is a healthy competitive environment, the consumers will gravitate to businesses that are not punishing them.  And, like now, when there is not a healthy competitive environment then the carbon tax just needs to be tied to rules that ensure that the carbon tax cannot be tied to price increases.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

yoder, on 19 March 2013 - 04:41 AM, said:

until "Norquist can drown them in a bathtub

Exactamundo.

[Phil]

Sorry, that is dead wrong.  Corporations do not have some magic fund they can pay those taxes out of.  ANYTHING to stick to them ends up in their pricing and YOU pay.  If gas goes to $6/gal does Norquist care?  Does Gore care? Hell no!  How about the poor and middle class?  Again, corporate taxes are highly regressive hitting the poor the worst.

Suppose instead, corporate taxes were reduced to zero and that lowered the price of electricity and gas?  Would that help Norquist or Gore?  Not much.  How about the poor and middle class? A lot!

Collusion, price fixing, etc. are a part of our current crony capitalism, we need to return to free market capitalism where corporations must compete.

Anyhoo, Exxon, etc. do not collude to fix prices, they are determined at the commodities exchange.  Anyone can invest, it's no different from corn, wheat, pork bellies, cotton, etc.  The government makes far more off a gallon of gas than the oil companies do.  If I recall, oil companies make about 8 cents/gal

I own a ton of Exxon stock, it's OK for it's decent dividend, but it has only grown about 4%/year, not exactly a barn burner.  People who don't understand economics confuse raw profit with ROI.  Exxon makes billions because it is a huge company supplying huge amounts of product all over the world. When you break those billions down to a per share basis it's no Apple or Visa by any stretch.

Norquist has one vote.  Just reported today, the latest poll shows 68% believe we have an immediate debt problem that must be addressed now. That is a ton of votes!  It would be wonderful if we could afford everything, we cannot.  Right now we are stealing our recovery from future generations, the democrat budget has us still running trillion deficits a decade from now.  That is insane, (great for buying votes though!).

It's all relative, from a fiscal conservatives point of view YOU are drowning the poor in a bathtub! Do you think the rich are going to suffer all that debt?  Not a chance.  It's the middle class, and especially the poor that will see their standard of living reduced to third world status.  It is liberals that have run this government for the last six years, not conservatives.  When conservatives ran government unemployment averaged 5% and deficits were no where near half what they are now.

Did I mention I'm libertarian? :<)