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.
This name "cap and trade" didn't go over well so they will rename it and it will be passed in the still of the night. Don't kid yourself. We will see this happen.
This name "cap and trade" didn't go over well so they will rename it and it will be passed in the still of the night. Don't kid yourself. We will see this happen.
There is not need to pass this in the dark of night. Follow the bill through Congress. I predict it will pass in the next month. It's only controversial among Republicans and they can't affect the buying of paper clips anymore.
That's what I said above. Depends on how you want interpret it but it's certainly not completely bunk. The figures the GOP is citing are in the MIT study plain as day. What the author is saying is that some of that money will be given back to each household or business's which will lower the $3100 figure.
The study's author says they are misrepresenting things.
It's bunk.
......Options for use of the revenue include lump-sum distribution to households, reducing labor or capital taxes, or spending the funds for other purposes (e.g., R&D or low-income fuel assistance). In Section 6.4 we explore the potential effects of revenue recycling. Here our interest is in the gross amount of potential revenue generated, or alternatively the size of the asset transfer involved in a lump sum distribution.
As can be seen from Table 6 the potential revenue streams are substantial, ranging in just the first period of the policy from $130 billion in the 287 bmt case to $366 billion in the 167 bmt case. Potential revenue rises most rapidly in the 287 bmt case; the annual allowances distributed are the same in each year and the allowance price rises at 4% and so revenue necessarily rises at 4%. While the allowance prices are also rising at 4% in the 203 and 167 bmt cases, the number of allowances distributed each year is falling, thus revenue necessarily rises at less than 4% per year. In the 167 bmt case, revenue peaks around 2030 and declines by about 40% from this peak by 2050, ending up almost 32% below the 2015 level, and at about one-half the 2050 level of the other two cases. Table6 also shows the potential tax disbursement to a family-of-four household
each year. For this purpose we have simply divided the population by 4 as if the population were divided into four-person households and then divided the total revenue by this artificially constructed number of households. The amount ranges from about $1630 to $4560 in 2015, and ranges from about $2520 to $5190 in 2050.
Table 6 on page 24 is where the $3100 comes from, suggest you read it yourself. The author is not disputing the numbers as he produced them himself, how much of the $3100 you pay assuming the estimate is right would depend on how much Uncle Sam decides to give back to you. That's his argument that you're going to get it back, I'll ask why take it in the first place?
Do you think if the Democrats get their paws on $3100 from every household they are going to give it back other than to low income families? This is essentially just another socialist program to boot with the redistribution of wealth.
Table 6 on page 24 is where the $3100 comes from, suggest you read it yourself. The author is not disputing the numbers as he produced them himself, how much of the $3100 you pay assuming the estimate is right would depend on how much Uncle Sam decides to give back to you. That's his argument that you're going to get it back, I'll ask why take it in the first place?
Fine, I'll humor you.
Do you mean page 25?
I do see a number 3100, under a column heading 2035.
Now I have some reading for you.
Quote:
That should have put an end to things, as even “mainstream publications” like Congressional Quarterly, The Hill, Politico, McClatchy, and the Wall Street Journal reported on “the falsity of the $3,100 per household cap-and-trade estimate,” as Weekly Standard deputy online editor John McCormack put it in his silly article.
Yes page 25. Again there's a wide range of estimates. This is only one of them. Final costs to any household will depend on how the bill is written and if they get any rebates. The Reps. may be fudging what the estimate says but only because lowering it will require rebates.
Do you understand? the $3100 is based on a scenario which I believe closely resembles the current real scenario. We have a base where every household costs rise by $3100. Either through their electric bill, groceries or whatever else they consume.
The lowering of the $3100 depends on the redistribution of that wealth. Now maybe some will get it back in energy rebates if you're a low income family, everyone in the country may get some of it back if they subsidize a key industry like cement etc.
Let's put it into a different context, let's say food stamps cost every household in the U.S. $50 a year. We'll say 1 in 10 get the $500 collected. Since the tax collected is being redistributed back to the populace the overall cost has dropped to $450 because the recipient got their $50 back but you still have 9 out of ten households paying $50. That's what the author is disputing, his argument is that that the money collected through Cap and Tax will be redistibuted so it lowers the overall costs. Tell that to the people paying the $50 that don't get anything.
Assuming the estimate is correct the point is the U.S. government is going to control $3100 and will decide where it goes.
I'll ask again do you think the Democrats are going to give that back? No they are going to pump it into social programs, health care or whatever the case may be. The middle class is going to see very little of that money returned that will directly bnefit them.
Yes page 25. Again there's a wide range of estimates. This is only one of them. Final costs to any household will depend on how the bill is written and if they get any rebates. The Reps. may be fudging what the estimate says but only because lowering it will require rebates.
Do you understand? the $3100 is based on a scenario which I believe closely resembles the current real scenario. We have a base where every household costs rise by $3100. Either through their electric bill, groceries or whatever else they consume.
The lowering of the $3100 depends on the redistribution of that wealth. Now maybe some will get it back in energy rebates if you're a low income family, everyone in the country may get some of it back if they subsidize a key industry like cement etc.
Let's put it into a different context, let's say food stamps cost every household in the U.S. $50 a year. We'll say 1 in 10 get the $500 collected. Since the tax collected is being redistributed back to the populace the overall cost has dropped to $450 because the recipient got their $50 back but you still have 9 out of ten households paying $50. That's what the author is disputing, his argument is that that the money collected through Cap and Tax will be redistibuted so it lowers the overall costs. Tell that to the people paying the $50 that don't get anything.
Assuming the estimate is correct the point is the U.S. government is going to control $3100 and will decide where it goes.
I'll ask again do you think the Democrats are going to give that back? No they are going to pump it into social programs, health care or whatever the case may be. The middle class is going to see very little of that money returned that will directly bnefit them.
The silly $3100 estimate has been completely discredited. Given the current proposal to allocate of 85% of the required allowances to utilities for free, the likely cost will be ZERO. Utilities can achieve a 10% reduction by just cofiring their boilers with biomass, something that several do already. The rate of growth in renewables, some redispatch, and a little conservation will solve the rest of the problem.
This is just the RW running around crying the sky is falling, the sky is falling.
The silly $3100 estimate has been completely discredited.
I don't know if it's accurate or not and I don't think we can rely on any estimate until after the bill is passed and further down the road can determine the impact to individuals based on how much of it is returned. The point is it's going to cost something. Having said that this study was written by an economist so it certainly has some validity. His estimates are only slightly higher than what the Obama administration is suggesting. Highlight is mine:
See section 6.4 on "Revenue Recycling" to see why the author is disputing his own figures.
I don't know if it's accurate or not and I don't think we can rely on any estimate until after the bill is passed and further down the road can determine the impact to individuals based on how much of it is returned.
The author - you know, the guy involved in writing the study - says the republican's 3100 estimate is nonsense.
They know more than the guy who wrote the thing?
They can interpret his meaning, better than he can?
Besides, what is the point of hanging onto the long-discredited 3100 estimate?
CBO's estimates won't bring enough outrage?
Keep repeating, "I will not be the child left behind. I will learn to read." By switching to renewable electricity, which raise the average electricity rate by 0.06 cents per kWh, we meet the 20% RES and as proposed we will be below the cap. Below the cap: no allowances to buy. Not much of an issue is it.
Let me try to dumb it down. You don't care how much the state charges for speeding tickets if you don't speed.
I already pay more if I use more electricity.
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.
