Atlast Shrugged IRL: Connecticuit

[QuantumPion]

Info here:
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9MIT85G1.htm
http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/politics/millstone-owners-fight-new-tax-plan
http://www.dom.com/about/stations/nuclear/millstone/millstone-tax-connecticut-senate-bill-1176.jsp

Due to a budget shortfall, the legislature of Connecticut is proposing a new tax to raise revenue. It is a tax on energy that disproportionally targets the Millstone nuclear power plant, which the Democrats claim earns an unfair amount of profit. The state hopes to raise $330 million in new taxes from the plant. They say the owner can easily afford the tax and that the cost won't be passed on to rate payers.

However, the owner of the plant has stated that if the tax goes into effect, they will have to shut down the plant because it would be uneconomic to operate. So instead of raising $330 million in revenue, the state will lose all the revenue they currently gain, as well as putting thousands of workers out of business and shutting down the plant responsible for 50% of the generating capacity for the state.

This is such a ludicrous real life example straight out of Atlas Shrugged. Incompetent government runs out of money, so they demagogue the companies that produce wealth to loot their earnings. Who is John Galt?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

CT has always been on the side of the citizen. Just look how they evicted people from their homes for the sole purpose of making more money. No wait...

BTW, I think Rand is hoopy, but that doesn't make idiots in government benign.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'd say sorry to the nuke plant, but I'm in favor of the tax just to see the Dems get what they deserve.

 

[QuantumPion]

I'd say sorry to the nuke plant, but I'm in favor of the tax just to see the Dems get what they deserve.

Except that they won't. Democrats never take the blame for their actions, they just blame republicans. The people are the only ones whom suffer.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Wait, I thought that nuclear power would be dead without government subsidies, yet this one is turning "too much" of a profit? Or is it turning "too much" of a profit because of the government subsidies?

 

[ElFenix]

so... how does this tax work?

 

[Jaskalas]

so... how does this tax work?

Assuming you're asking how they'll get away with it:

Figure out the parameters of the specified target. Write a law to tax anyone who matches those parameters. I mean.. how does anything in government work? Because they want it.

Laws and Constitution are merely the equivalent of France's Maginot Line in WW2. A great defense for head on attacks, but absolutely worthless if the opponent simply thinks.

 

[QuantumPion]

Wait, I thought that nuclear power would be dead without government subsidies, yet this one is turning "too much" of a profit? Or is it turning "too much" of a profit because of the government subsidies?

They don't receive government subsidies. The plant is highly profitable because it is in an unregulated electric market that has high demand and price for energy. So a large nuclear power plant makes a lot of money in that situation because it gets to directly compete with more expensive fossil fuel plants instead of having the price fixed at a certain profit level.

so... how does this tax work?

From the dom.com link above:

The tax on nuclear power is $0.02 per kilowatt-hour (kwh) while the tax on oil is $0.0005 kwh and the tax on coal is $0.005 kwh. Additionally, the tax on coal is only collected during peak generation periods. Other forms of energy generation, including natural gas, would not be taxed.

This bill aims to generate $340 million of state tax revenue. Millstone’s portion of that total is approximately $330 million. The state will see little or no actual revenue from this tax on Dominion. If this bill passes, Millstone will be shut down and will produce zero electricity.

 

[ElFenix]

Assuming you're asking how they'll get away with it:

Figure out the parameters of the specified target. Write a law to tax anyone who matches those parameters. I mean.. how does anything in government work? Because they want it.

no, i'm asking how this in particular works. not generally.

From the dom.com link above:

The tax on nuclear power is $0.02 per kilowatt-hour (kwh) while the tax on oil is $0.0005 kwh and the tax on coal is $0.005 kwh. Additionally, the tax on coal is only collected during peak generation periods. Other forms of energy generation, including natural gas, would not be taxed.

so they're not even hiding the fact that they're targeting the nuke plant. that's pretty terrible right there.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Just like allowing the mohegan sun and foxwoods casinos were supposed to end our budget woes. That tax revenue was misappropriated as this would surely be.

 

[PokerGuy]

Government should never be in the business of determining market outcomes. That in itself is complete stupidity. I'd love to see the plant just pull the plug and make everyone in that area have to pay 5x as much for electricity. Perhaps that and the thousands out of work etc might be enough for the people to finally start holding the idiots in government accountable.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Government should never be in the business of determining market outcomes. That in itself is complete stupidity. I'd love to see the plant just pull the plug and make everyone in that area have to pay 5x as much for electricity. Perhaps that and the thousands out of work etc might be enough for the people to finally start holding the idiots in government accountable.

no thanks.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Screw em, feed em fish heads and rice!!

 

[dfuze]

Just like allowing the mohegan sun and foxwoods casinos were supposed to end our budget woes. That tax revenue was misappropriated as this would surely be.

I think I was still in HS when they allowed them to open by sharing the millions with the state, but didn't they claim that the money would go to the schools to get popular approval?

 

[werepossum]

Reagan said it: If it moves, tax it. If it still moves, regulate it. When it stops moving, subsidize it.

New York had its own John Galt moment as well, raising taxes on high earners to such an extent that those high earners merely relocated to less greedy states. After a week or so of crowing over their "accomplishment", eventually even New York progressives figured out that they now had less of other people's money to spend.

 

[Scotteq]

I think I was still in HS when they allowed them to open by sharing the millions with the state, but didn't they claim that the money would go to the schools to get popular approval?

It goes to the same place as the gasoline taxes which are supposed to fund infrastructure repairs and public works. :'(

 

[IceBergSLiM]

It goes to the same place as the gasoline taxes which are supposed to fund infrastructure repairs and public works. :'(

this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Reagan said it: If it moves, tax it. If it still moves, regulate it. When it stops moving, subsidize it.

Reagan also believed in "do as I say, not as I do." As a political motivator he has no contemporary equal, but perhaps an acting career helped. Certainly selling policies to the public has a great deal of that.

 

[fskimospy]

Reagan said it: If it moves, tax it. If it still moves, regulate it. When it stops moving, subsidize it.

New York had its own John Galt moment as well, raising taxes on high earners to such an extent that those high earners merely relocated to less greedy states. After a week or so of crowing over their "accomplishment", eventually even New York progressives figured out that they now had less of other people's money to spend.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/02/23/new-yorks-vanishing-millionaires-and-other-myths/

It was a John Galt moment, in that it was fictional. Once again we see your ideas about what progressives are doing to be based in delusional fantasy.

Specifically, the study that made this ridiculous claim noted that New York lost 9% or so of its millionaires from 2007 to 2009. Sounds terrible, right? There's a few problems with that. Not only is that projection covering the years BEFORE the tax was ever implemented (oops!), but it neglects to mention that the nation as a whole lost about 14% of its millionaires during that time due to the stock market crash. So, the rich person hating bastion of New York actually lost FEWER millionaires than average. Oops again!

 

[werepossum]

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/02/23/new-yorks-vanishing-millionaires-and-other-myths/

It was a John Galt moment, in that it was fictional. Once again we see your ideas about what progressives are doing to be based in delusional fantasy.

Specifically, the study that made this ridiculous claim noted that New York lost 9% or so of its millionaires from 2007 to 2009. Sounds terrible, right? There's a few problems with that. Not only is that projection covering the years BEFORE the tax was ever implemented (oops!), but it neglects to mention that the nation as a whole lost about 14% of its millionaires during that time due to the stock market crash. So, the rich person hating bastion of New York actually lost FEWER millionaires than average. Oops again!

Seems your last two Democrat governors didn't get the talking points.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/10/07/tax_the_rich_hows_that_working__97440.html

Speaking to reporters recently in Albany, Paterson noted that revenue from tax increases was running 20 percent below projections and that, in particular, the wealthy were not paying up. So far, the state had only collected about half of an expected $1 billion in income tax revenues from the state's wealthiest residents. "You heard the mantra, 'Tax the rich, tax the rich,"' Paterson said. "We've done that. We've probably lost jobs and driven people out of the state."

In a story about New York's tax woes, the Associated Press noted that other states that had enacted so-called millionaires' taxes (most of which, like New York's, start well under $1 million in annual income) were squirming upon hearing the New York's numbers. Actually, some of these states have been squirming for a while.

New Jersey enacted its half millionaire millionaires' tax in 2004. Pitched by the state's unions as the cure for Jersey's budget woes, the state collected $9.5 billion in personal income taxes in fiscal 2005. Last year, four budget cycles later, the state collected only $10.3 billion and this year it's estimating just $9.4 billion from the same tax. Revenues have fallen so far below projections that Jersey has actually had to cut its spending (not just its rate of spending, like most states) by more than $3 billion this year despite $2 billion in federal stimulus aid for the state budget. And even so, Jersey had to skip payments to its pension system. If it were a business Jersey would be insolvent, a remarkable achievement in a place whose residents boast the highest personal income in the nation.

Maryland enacted its millionaires' tax in the fall of 2007. Earlier this year the state scrambled to enact mid-year budget cuts because of a sharp shortfall in revenues. Year-to-date personal income tax collections are off by about $650 million, and the Maryland comptroller has said, "It seems reasonable to assume...that there will be a significant decline in the number of returns with taxable income over $1 million and a substantial decline in the income reported on those returns."

In each of these states there has been a debate about whether high taxes have driven the rich to relocate. Shortly after the New York State budget passed, Tom Golisano, a former Independent Party candidate and the owner of the Buffalo Sabers hockey team, said he was moving to Florida to escape the Empire State's high taxes, which amounted to $13,000 a day in his case. The head of the Working Families Party, the New York party founded by the state's unions and Acorn that had lobbied for the tax increases, said good riddance to Golisano. The New York Times, meanwhile, observed that people don't relocate because of high taxes, although at $13,000 a day the motivation for leaving seems pretty high.

But the issue goes beyond very rich guys like Golisano with a big nest egg and lots of personal mobility. Many small and mid-sized businesses that organize as sole proprietorships, partnerships and s-corporations report their earnings through the personal income taxes of the partners or owners, and hence they pay taxes at individual income tax rates. In fact, small business owners and partners are the main target of tax increases at the top rates. A 2003 study by the Tax Foundation found that two-thirds of taxpayers in the highest tax bracket report income from businesses on their tax forms. So it's not surprising that high individual tax rates discourage entrepreneurship, reduce investment and slow hiring at small firms. You don't have to scour a state to find rich people mad enough to leave in order to understand the impact of high income tax rates on a local economy.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/millionaires_tax_is_already_si.html

Currently, Cuomo calls for a $1.5 billion cut in school aid — equal to 7.3 percent — partly to address a $10 billion deficit. The Senate proposes restoring $280 million and the Assembly proposes restoring $200 million, which could grow if the millionaire’s tax is approved. Cuomo and the Senate call the tax counterproductive because it could drive the wealthy — many of them employers — out of state, further reducing revenue growth in a slow economic recovery.

I'm sure this can all be cleared up if you just personally visit these politicians and explain to their unenlightened little minds that rich people actually want to be taxed more and therefore not only don't leave, but actually flock to those areas where they can be forced to "pay their fair share." Silly Tea Party Democrats, harping on reality and ignoring a perfectly good study!

 

[fskimospy]

Seems your last two Democrat governors didn't get the talking points.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/10/07/tax_the_rich_hows_that_working__97440.html


http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/millionaires_tax_is_already_si.html


I'm sure this can all be cleared up if you just personally visit these politicians and explain to their unenlightened little minds that rich people actually want to be taxed more and therefore not only don't leave, but actually flock to those areas where they can be forced to "pay their fair share." Silly Tea Party Democrats, harping on reality and ignoring a perfectly good study!

And nowhere in any of those stories is there actually any evidence that these revenue shortfalls were caused by the millionaires tax, as tax receipts are influenced by a million factors. You also claimed that millionaires were leaving the state, something that is also not supported by the evidence. In fact, I provided you with evidence that falsified your hypothesis. You believed a study because it told you what you wanted to hear, and it was full of shit. Just admit it.

Can you explain how New York lost millionaires at a rate almost 50% lower than the rest of the country if this tax were driving them out? Can you explain how these millionaires looked into the future and decided to leave 2 years before the tax was passed, and why that should be evidence for it?

Anything? Anything at all to actually prove what you stated as a fact? Just one shred of evidence?

 

[Thump553]

I think I was still in HS when they allowed them to open by sharing the millions with the state, but didn't they claim that the money would go to the schools to get popular approval?

It does. The state sends out a big chunk of money to the towns in revenue sharing. The casinos are the source for most of that money.

Given the costs associated with shutting down a nuclear plant, coupled with the near-impossibility of getting a new plant built elsewhere, I think righties are buying Dominion's line of BS public relations like a bunch of Chicken Littles. The chance of Dominion shutting this plant down regardless of what happens with the tax is probably down in the single digit probabilities.

However both of my electric accounts have Dominion as the provider. Time for me to exercise my rights as a consumer to select a more respectable electric supplier.

 

[werepossum]

And nowhere in any of those stories is there actually any evidence that these revenue shortfalls were caused by the millionaires tax, as tax receipts are influenced by a million factors. You also claimed that millionaires were leaving the state, something that is also not supported by the evidence. In fact, I provided you with evidence that falsified your hypothesis. You believed a study because it told you what you wanted to hear, and it was full of shit. Just admit it.

Can you explain how New York lost millionaires at a rate almost 50% lower than the rest of the country if this tax were driving them out? Can you explain how these millionaires looked into the future and decided to leave 2 years before the tax was passed, and why that should be evidence for it?

Anything? Anything at all to actually prove what you stated as a fact? Just one shred of evidence?

I'd never even heard of that study, nor have I read it, so I feel no great need to defend it. I have heard quite a few Democrat politicians admit that the "millionaire's tax" has been a failure and is driving people out of the state. Also heard a couple of the millionaires who straight out said that New York's high taxes caused them to leave the state. I'd say the "millionaire's tax" is to some degree a red herring, as taxes without that are very high in New York and, especially, in New York City.

Must suck to have all that pure ideology bubbling inside and have your own party's governors fail to live up your standards. Since the last two Democrat governors agree with me, I'm going to borrow a page from the progressive playbook and label this study a strawman.

 

[jonks]

I'd never even heard of that study, nor have I read it, so I feel no great need to defend it. I have heard quite a few Democrat politicians admit that the "millionaire's tax" has been a failure and is driving people out of the state. Also heard a couple of the millionaires who straight out said that New York's high taxes caused them to leave the state. I'd say the "millionaire's tax" is to some degree a red herring, as taxes without that are very high in New York and, especially, in New York City.

Must suck to have all that pure ideology bubbling inside and have your own party's governors fail to live up your standards. Since the last two Democrat governors agree with me, I'm going to borrow a page from the progressive playbook and label this study a strawman.

WP, you're losing this one. You are attempting to rebut facts with anecdotal statements by politicians. Did you read eskimo's link to the WSJ?

“It’s a very difficult thing to measure,” she said. “We get a lot of it anecdotally. Our evidence is from conversations with lots of high earners and there is an increasing tendency to gravitate to lower-tax places.”

She is absolutely right. Measuring the precise movements of the wealthy is difficult without data. It is even harder to measure the reasons for their movements. And that is why we should take all of these studies for what they are–political talking points with very little supporting data.

It is very possible rich people are leaving New York because of high taxes. But there is little or no supporting evidence."

Yet here you are taking the political talking points cautioned about in the article and citing to them as factual support in the face of contravening evidence. As to ideology, the WSJ isn't known as a bastion of liberalism.

 

[werepossum]

WP, you're losing this one. You are attempting to rebut facts with anecdotal statements by politicians. Did you read eskimo's link to the WSJ?

“It’s a very difficult thing to measure,” she said. “We get a lot of it anecdotally. Our evidence is from conversations with lots of high earners and there is an increasing tendency to gravitate to lower-tax places.”

She is absolutely right. Measuring the precise movements of the wealthy is difficult without data. It is even harder to measure the reasons for their movements. And that is why we should take all of these studies for what they are–political talking points with very little supporting data.

It is very possible rich people are leaving New York because of high taxes. But there is little or no supporting evidence."

Yet here you are taking the political talking points cautioned about in the article and citing to them as factual support in the face of contravening evidence. As to ideology, the WSJ isn't known as a bastion of liberalism.

Honestly hadn't read the article, I'm coming up on thirty hours working and just popping in for a moment as my photometric calculations are running. But again, I had never heard of the study; I'm going by what the Democrat governors are saying (plus what some of the actually millionaires & billionaires leaving have said.)

It is unarguable that these taxes are not performing as intended.

It is unarguable that SOME New York millionaires & billionaires have left New York due to high taxes. (Doesn't take a lot of smarts to figure out that if millionaires & billionaires really wanted to be paying a higher rate, they would be; they control their own check books, after all.)

The last two Democrat governors are on my side, being on record as saying that high taxes in general (and perhaps this one tax in particular) are causing millionaires & billionaires to leave New York. Again, I am arguing high taxes in general, not necessarily this "millionaires' tax" that Eskimospy brought up.

Unfortunately I can't argue any more, have to ride home, do my taxes, watch "How I met your mother". (Alyson Hannigan is incredibly hot.) If I'm losing the argument, then I suppose it's just as well.