Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which makes it a remarkably regressive redistribution for liberals to promote.
Nonsense. It doesn't redistribute wealth and it certainly is not regressive. It prices the right to pollute. The poor end up being most affected by pollution.
Nonsense. It doesn't redistribute wealth and it certainly is not regressive. It prices the right to pollute. The poor end up being most affected by pollution.
Don't the poor end up being most affected by necessarily skyrocketed energy prices? And isn't that regressive?
That assumes that those taxes would go to help renewable energy development.
Since it is a tax and that tax is collected by the government, what are the chances it would help at all?
When a business is taxed, say an oil company, it doesn't pay the tax, customers do. Same with fines, the business always recovers the fine monies from customers.
500 millon dollars went to solyndra, was that a good investment of taxpayer money.
Solyndra was a manufacturer not a research org.
Solyndra was the tip of the iceberg that sunk so much taxpayer funds.
The carbon tax seems more of a money laundering scheme under the current administration.
Which makes it a remarkably regressive redistribution for liberals to promote.
ummmm. Actually it is kind of goofy to even think it is a "Liberal (v. Conservative?)" Thing.
Where is your major New Source(s)? Rush Limbaugh or Fox or something? Real question, there.
No one in Real Business thinks along these goofy concepts. The whole Liberal v. Conservative routine is for the uneducated bottom masses to have rally points and be manipulated due to lack of Critical Thinking Skills. About like Professional Wrestling -- or the Blue Power Ranger v. the Red Power Ranger.
The Cap and Trade concept was about trying to use money and markets to guide US away from Torching the Atmosphere.
Much more Neo-Liberal or Neo-Conservative (which are neither Liberal nor Conservative -- but more Corporate).
Real practice -- whether viewed as Liberal or Conservative -- would have been simpler . . . . just cease to issue / re-new the Government Issued Licenses to Pollute -- and Coal, Oil, and even Nukes would have died on the vine. To everyone's long-term benefit.
I know enough to understand that when electricity costs are by design necessarily skyrocketed by government regulation, the price goes up.
That is what the Utility MBAs thought they "knew" as well.
And were licking their chops waiting for it to happen. Remember, they make their money as a Percentage of Gross Prices and Revenue. They care not about costs.
BUT, what really happened was Electricity when Surplus and the Prices Collapsed -- without regard to their Expenses.
Such is the Market.
Same lesson the Oil and Gas Frackers are (not really) learning.
I know enough to understand that when electricity costs are by design necessarily skyrocketed by government regulation, the price goes up.
Since that isn't true, your entire premise is down the toilet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
