Want to pay $100 more per year in energy costs?

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: Darwin333

But some industry-cited studies have put the cost much higher, some claiming possible added costs of as much as $3,000.

If that happens I will become a multimillionaire damn near overnight. It would create jobs, hell I would have to hire at least 20 new field hands and 3 or 4 office personnel but I am curious as to how many jobs would be lost in other industries.

I don't agree with a lot of the bill but I doubt I will be all that vocal against it

The only people that will be making money are those managing the carbon credits. It's just a tax on the bottom feeders being shuffled up to the top. (Al Gore and his cronies)

Oh hell, it's time for a Dennis Miller quote.

"Beware of prophets seeking profits."

The brokers will probably make billions but I will be more than satisfied with the millions I would make off of producing and selling those credits (more specifically SRECS). Not to mention the increase to the already booming solar industry. Gotta love free government money.

It is pretty damn nice to not have to worry about them trying to jack up my electric bill. I already produce the majority of my own power and I got 80% of the installed cost back from the tax credits.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
OMG OMG! I totally understand the fear and gnashing of teeth. It's like the nightmare world of paying $8/month to help clean up our energy production (at minimum) and maybe helping stave off climate change and creating tons of new jobs (at best) is coming true! Oh the humanity . . .

:roll:

If it were only $8/month, I would gladly pay double. However, it's all the other crap I have to pay for. How many taxes and fees are we aready paying on our utilities? They are just hidden taxes now.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
"If you are a family making less than $250,000.00, my plan will not raise your taxes. Period..." but...

grrrRRR :|

Income taxes.

Funny how I never heard him say "I won't raise your income taxes" the many times I heard him talk about taxes on the campaign trail. Naw, he wasn't being intentionally misleading at all.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
OMG OMG! I totally understand the fear and gnashing of teeth. It's like the nightmare world of paying $8/month to help clean up our energy production (at minimum) and maybe helping stave off climate change and creating tons of new jobs (at best) is coming true! Oh the humanity . . .

Where will the new jobs come from, exactly? What new wealth that will make us all wealthier will be produced?

If you're going to answer, "electricity" or "energy", scratch that off your list because we already have electricity. So what will this plan accomplish? Will it create new jobs by raising everyone's electricity and energy costs? If so, that isn't the actual creation of new jobs! It's merely a tax on the populace to create these alleged new jobs at the cost of jobs that will be lost in other sectors.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
"If you are a family making less than $250,000.00, my plan will not raise your taxes. Period..." but...

grrrRRR :|

Income taxes.

Actually, the quote above shows his exact words. But, even admitting that the implication was obvious, it was still entirely bullshit; because, the only reason he can avoid raising income taxes, specifically, is by calling it something different each and every time he hits Joe Sixpack with another bill.

In Washington DC, the word "tax" seems to have more than a million synonyms, but they certainly all mean the exact same thing at the end of the day -- more money taken from you and I by the Government.

What's in a name? That which we call a tax by any other name would smell as foul.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
"If you are a family making less than $250,000.00, my plan will not raise your taxes. Period..." but...

grrrRRR :|

Income taxes.

Funny how I never heard him say "I won't raise your income taxes" the many times I heard him talk about taxes on the campaign trail. Naw, he wasn't being intentionally misleading at all.

Well there you go. Look at the total tax changes and see if there is a net increase or decrease on a family making $250K or less before you accuse anyone of intentionally misleading. Otherwise that accusation may come back around to you.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
OMG OMG! I totally understand the fear and gnashing of teeth. It's like the nightmare world of paying $8/month to help clean up our energy production (at minimum) and maybe helping stave off climate change and creating tons of new jobs (at best) is coming true! Oh the humanity . . .

:roll:

Those two words say it all.

I was trying to be generous to the anti-MMGW crowd.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
OMG OMG! I totally understand the fear and gnashing of teeth. It's like the nightmare world of paying $8/month to help clean up our energy production (at minimum) and maybe helping stave off climate change and creating tons of new jobs (at best) is coming true! Oh the humanity . . .

Where will the new jobs come from, exactly? What new wealth that will make us all wealthier will be produced?

If you're going to answer, "electricity" or "energy", scratch that off your list because we already have electricity. So what will this plan accomplish? Will it create new jobs by raising everyone's electricity and energy costs? If so, that isn't the actual creation of new jobs! It's merely a tax on the populace to create these alleged new jobs at the cost of jobs that will be lost in other sectors.

Someone's got to build alternate energy sources, right? They don't just poof into existence overnight.

 

[sandorski]

Just over a year ago Energy Costs increased and as I recall it was far greater than $8/month. So much angst over such a piddly amount.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: ebaycj
Really? All this bitching over an extra 8.33 per month on your combined total of electricity + natural gas ?

I guess there are a lot of broke-asses out there, though.

Don't forget the sin taxes and everything else they'll nickle and dime us for.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ebaycj
Really? All this bitching over an extra 8.33 per month on your combined total of electricity + natural gas ?

I guess there are a lot of broke-asses out there, though.

You've heard the story about boiling a frog starting with cold water, right?

Isn't that the truth. By the time the Party of Death gets around to dealing with Global Warming we are ALL going to be dead.

 

[Moonbeam]

Any of you cheap ass fuck heads figure up what global warming is going to cost you when we get the full effects?

 

[ebaycj]

Not to mention the fact that this is not a TAX in any way, shape or form.

This is increased restrictions on emissions, that is levied on heavily polluting companies (usually electric / gas / oil etc..). It costs them more to be cleaner.

So this is just more of the "pass the costs on to the client" BS that you guys love.

Don't blame the government, blame the companies who are passing on their pollution bill to you.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: DealMonkeySomeone's got to build alternate energy sources, right? They don't just poof into existence overnight.

But we could also continue to use coal and nuclear power, whatever is cheapest. My point is that finding an alternative and more expensive way to produce electricity does not create new wealth; rather it's similar to a make-work project. Now, we might want to invest in alternative energy for other reasons such as environmental reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not going to generate new wealth.

We can always "generate" new jobs by taxing people and then spending the money on infrastructure projects but that doesn't mean that jobs won't be lost in other areas as a result.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Any of you cheap ass fuck heads figure up what global warming is going to cost you when we get the full effects?

Point taken, but can we even deal with it? Can we alone as a nation deal with it? How do you propose to get China and India and other nations to cut their emissions? In a way it's a tragedy of the commons situation--it isn't in any one nation's interest to do it unless all of the other nations are doing it.

What about addressing one of the huge underlying drivers of pollution--population explosion?

 

[IronWing]

$100/yr? Hell, deregulation cost a hell of a lot more than that.

 

[ebaycj]

-

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Any of you cheap ass fuck heads figure up what global warming is going to cost you when we get the full effects?

I don't know, but when you talk like that it sends a thrill up my leg.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: ebaycj
Not to mention the fact that this is not a TAX in any way, shape or form.

This is increased restrictions on emissions, that is levied on heavily polluting companies (usually electric / gas / oil etc..). It costs them more to be cleaner.

So this is just more of the "pass the costs on to the client" BS that you guys love.

Don't blame the government, blame the companies who are passing on their pollution bill to you.

Has the administration contacted you with a job offer yet? That's a pretty good spin you've come up with.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: ebaycj
Not to mention the fact that this is not a TAX in any way, shape or form.

This is increased restrictions on emissions, that is levied on heavily polluting companies (usually electric / gas / oil etc..). It costs them more to be cleaner.

Just out of curiosity, how do you think it's being "levied" on them?

Please pay particular attention to definitions 2 and 5...

tax
Pronunciation: \'taks\
1 : to assess or determine judicially the amount of (costs in a court action)
2 : to levy a tax on
3 obsolete : to enter (a name) in a list <there went out a decree?that all the world should be taxed ? Luke 2:1(Authorized Version)>
4 : charge, accuse <taxed him with neglect of duty>; also : censure
5 : to make onerous and rigorous demands on

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: ebaycj
Not to mention the fact that this is not a TAX in any way, shape or form.

This is increased restrictions on emissions, that is levied on heavily polluting companies (usually electric / gas / oil etc..). It costs them more to be cleaner.

Just out of curiosity, how do you think it's being "levied" on them?

Please pay particular attention to definitions 2 and 5...

tax
Pronunciation: \'taks\
1 : to assess or determine judicially the amount of (costs in a court action)
2 : to levy a tax on
3 obsolete : to enter (a name) in a list <there went out a decree?that all the world should be taxed ? Luke 2:1(Authorized Version)>
4 : charge, accuse <taxed him with neglect of duty>; also : censure
5 : to make onerous and rigorous demands on

They are forced to comply with emissions requirements. Making those requirements more strict is NOT a tax increase.

Taxes are amounts of money paid to the government. Making emission requirements more strict does NOT increase the amount of money the company pays to the government.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: ebaycj
Not to mention the fact that this is not a TAX in any way, shape or form.

This is increased restrictions on emissions, that is levied on heavily polluting companies (usually electric / gas / oil etc..). It costs them more to be cleaner.

Just out of curiosity, how do you think it's being "levied" on them?

Please pay particular attention to definitions 2 and 5...

tax
Pronunciation: \'taks\
1 : to assess or determine judicially the amount of (costs in a court action)
2 : to levy a tax on
3 obsolete : to enter (a name) in a list <there went out a decree?that all the world should be taxed ? Luke 2:1(Authorized Version)>
4 : charge, accuse <taxed him with neglect of duty>; also : censure
5 : to make onerous and rigorous demands on

They are forced to comply with emissions requirements. Making those requirements more strict is NOT a tax increase.

Taxes are amounts of money paid to the government. Making emission requirements more strict does NOT increase the amount of money the company pays to the government.

Maybe you should speak to Mr. Webster and Mr. Merriam. They might listen and change the definitions for you.

Have you ever looked at any version of this Cap& Trade bill? Can you even begin to comprehend just how much money this is going to cost some industries over the next few decades in penalties and other costs levied against them by the Government? The entire fucking thing is a tax on industry. To view it as anything other than that is pure ignorance.

Hell, the House version also has a subsection with special subsidies for those people who lose their jobs as a direct result of the bill itself! HA! Ya just gotta love that!

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: DealMonkeySomeone's got to build alternate energy sources, right? They don't just poof into existence overnight.

But we could also continue to use coal and nuclear power, whatever is cheapest. My point is that finding an alternative and more expensive way to produce electricity does not create new wealth; rather it's similar to a make-work project. Now, we might want to invest in alternative energy for other reasons such as environmental reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not going to generate new wealth.

We can always "generate" new jobs by taxing people and then spending the money on infrastructure projects but that doesn't mean that jobs won't be lost in other areas as a result.

Well gee, we could keep on doing the same stupid crap we've been doing for decades (the official motto of the conservative party, from what I hear), or we can fix things the way they deserve to get fixed.

 

[classy]

LOL.
Look we have a situation with our climate. Now whether or not its as bad as some we have us believe is irrelvant. We have to make some changes and unfortunately to get a cleaner enviroment may cost everyone a few dollars more. Having a safer and cleaner enviroment does not come for free. And anyone who just posted in this thread will never ever miss $100 a year and you know it. If this was several hundred or into the thousands then its an issue. $10 a month please. If $10 a month is such a huge problem, you should not have an internet connection.

 

[thegimp03]

Heh, the extra $100 a year will go towards paying for all these "czars" that the administration thinks are actually going to help. Oh, plus paying off the liberal news media for sucking on the White House's collective wang.