Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
So taking the higher number (from an internal memo based on 9 month old information) of what could be the revenue and simply dividing it among tax payers, even though this isnt a direct tax and everyone would have to pay the costs, reach a number that is quite a bit less than what you said originally?
And fyi, no, that is not how you calculate the cost of the program to the average person. You have to take into account the economic impacts of higher costs, the benefits of additional investments, how much of the costs will be diluted in the exports of good produced in the US, and so on. Because yes, the US exports quite a bit of what it produces, so the costs of this program will affect people outside the US as well.
That is why the latest official word on the costs of the program come from the CBO, which puts the cost at 175 per person. You might not like it, you might prefer the heritage foundation estimates, but that is what the administration has estimated the cost to be.
|
As an aside, the only reason it is 9 month old information is because it required a freedom of information act to get. It is based on the Bill which was written back then and passed the House 3 or 4 months back - so you are really being quite nitpicky, but that's just what you do.
I don't know what the Heritage Foundation is. I will look it up.
Finally, your number...I mean the CBO's number...times 300M people = $52.5B in federal tax receipts. Of course, you are assuming our government will actually COLLECT $175 from every person which is absurd, but even if they do: Somehow, you think that the other $147.5B is going to be made up in export tariffs and increase in prices to foreign consumers?? I'm the one that's not based in reality? Hmm.
---------- Post added at 01:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
This doesn't change the fact that it will be more expensive to make things more environmental, it will be more expensive when labour gets more costly, it will be more expensive when energy gets more costly...resources more costly....etc. It doesn't matter how complicit or not the end user is in the environmental matters of producers. The end user will need to pay more if it will generally cost more to produce.
America's way of life will be punished mostly by the market. And there is little that government can do to stop it. Raising taxes, making cuts. Either way, it won't make anyone happy.
|
I agree with everything you said. However, as far as the Cap and Trade bill goes - it represents a tax directly on the American people and American production. At the consumer level, it represents our government sticking it to us for buying goods that were not made in America under the standards that they(the environmentalists and the government) expect. Doesn't that seem unjust? As far as American production is concerned, the companies will do what they have always done - move to a place they can make money. So on the American production side, the environment will actually get worse since the standards where the production will move will be less than what the U.S. currently has.