Buffett - Cap & Trade 'Huge, Regressive Tax'

cawacko

Well-known member
Is the deal with cap and trade there's supposedly going to be massive tax credits for the poor to offset the rise in their electricity costs?

If tax credits are available:

A) Will these tax credits cover all the increase in cost?

B) What percentage of the poor will apply for and receive these tax credits?


http://www.cnbc.com/id/31526130
 
Is the deal with cap and trade there's supposedly going to be massive tax credits for the poor to offset the rise in their electricity costs?

If tax credits are available:

A) Will these tax credits cover all the increase in cost?

B) What percentage of the poor will apply for and receive these tax credits?


http://www.cnbc.com/id/31526130

I agree with you and this is one of those hidden nuances that Obama doesn't like to talk about.

We should assume he's got it covered .. because he's The One.
 
Cap & trade looked to be 'done' for this term. Suddenly it comes back with 300+ pages added, still not in final form and coming up for a vote tomorrow.

Whether or not Obama is a socialist or any other ist, I know that he and Axelrod and Emanuel are all Chicago pols. So, how does Mayor Daley handle things when he can't build the consensus he needs? The only thing that seems to have perhaps knocked him 'off' is the parking meters. People needed to bring like $25 in quarters to keep feeding the suckers, then started vandalizing them. But until then? Look what's happened-and these are not the run-of-the-mill crap he dishes out:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/1610333,CST-NWS-rebel07.article

Parking-meter mess might pit City Council vs. Daley

ANALYSIS * Parking-meter mess might give City Council the guts to stand up to Daley

Comments
June 6, 2009
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter/fspielman@suntimes.com
Chicago's parking meter mess could be the tipping point that awakens the sleeping giant otherwise known as the City Council.

No issue in recent memory -- not even the Hired Truck scandal or Mayor Daley's infamous midnight destruction of Meigs Field -- seems to have resonated as much with voters as the aftermath of the city's 75-year, $1.15 billion lease of its parking meters and the steep schedule of rate hikes that came with turning them over to private hands.

It was bad enough that drivers had to stuff their pockets with quarters to pay the higher meter rates.

But then, when the transition to the private company got bogged down by broken pay-and-display boxes and overstuffed and improperly calibrated meters that overcharged, Daley and aldermen who gave the deal quick approval had a crisis on their hands.

Inspector General David Hoffman piled on by concluding that the city could have gotten nearly $1 billion more if it had held on to the meters and just raised the rates itself.....

Meig's Field:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_M._Daley

...
Controversies

[edit]Meigs Field
One of Daley's first major acts upon re-election on February 25, 2003 was the demolition of Meigs Field on March 30, 2003. A small lakefront airport adjacent to Soldier Field, it was used by general aviation aircraft and helicopters. Bulldozers carved large Xs into the runways to disable them, with work starting just as local news was going off the air, and with high powered lights being shone towards Lake Shore Drive to blind security cameras. Since the airport was still operating when this happened, this left planes trapped with no way of flying out. Daley planned to make a prairie preserve and bandshell. A unilateral decision by the mayor without approval from the Chicago City Council or Federal Aviation Administration, the act resulted in public debate. Aviation interest groups unsuccessfully attempted to sue the city into reopening the airport, claiming Daley had been trying to close Meigs Field with non-safety-related reasons since 1995. Some claimed that his wife had requested the park to drive up the property values of her nearby condominiums.

Despite these objections, Daley's decision to replace the airport appeared to be popular with the public, who agreed with Daley that the airport only benefited "fat cats." Daley and his supporters also argued that the airport was a threat to Chicago's high-rise cityscape and its high profile skyscrapers, the Sears Tower and the John Hancock Center. Daley defended his decision with the now-infamous quote "Mickey Mouse has a no-fly zone", referring to the restrictions in place over Orlando, and it was his belief that Chicago should have similar restrictions. In reality, closing the airport made the airspace less restrictive. When the airport was open, downtown Chicago was within Meigs Field's Class D airspace, requiring two-way radio communication with the tower.[5] The buildings in downtown Chicago are now in Class E/G airspace, which allows any airplane to legally fly as close as 1,000 feet (300 m) from these buildings with no radio communication at all.[6] Daley also argued that the lakefront needs to be opened to all residents of Chicago, not just the relatively small portion of the population who have the necessary resources to operate an aircraft.

After this episode, the only citation handed over to the city concerned a failure to notify the federal agency of the plans within a thirty-day time period, as required by law. The city was fined $33,000, the maximum allowable. There were no other citations, as the courts noted it was well within Daley's executive powers and jurisdiction to make the decision he made. The city has since agreed to a settlement with the FAA, the terms of which include both the $33,000 fine and the repayment of $1 million from taxes to federal airport development grants. The city admits no wrongdoing under this settlement. Daley defended his actions by claiming that the airport was abandoned, in spite of the fact that the Chicago Fire Department had several helicopters based on the field at the time in addition to the dozens of private aircraft left stranded.[7]

This closure led to the development of the current Northerly Island park venues, including the concert staging area, prairie preserve, and bird rehabilitation center....

Hired truck scandal, same Wiki:

Main article: Hired Truck Program

The Hired Truck Program involved hiring private trucks to do city work. A six-month investigation by the Chicago Sun-Times resulted in a three-day series of articles in January 2004 that revealed that some participating companies were being paid for doing little or no work, had mob connections or were tied to city employees. Truck owners also paid bribes in order to get into the program. The program was overhauled in 2004 (and phased out beginning in 2005).[8]

[edit]Patronage

The hired truck scandal eventually sparked a Federal investigation into hiring practices at Chicago City Hall, with Robert Sorich, Mayor Daley's former patronage chief, facing mail fraud charges for allegedly rigging city hiring to favor people with political connections. On July 5, 2006, Sorich was convicted on two counts of mail fraud for rigging city jobs and promotions.[9] Daley said that "It is fair criticism to say I should have exercised greater oversight to ensure that every worker the city hired, regardless of who recommended them, was qualified and that proper procedures were always followed."[10]....
 
Obviously, this man doesn't remember what he has said in the past.. Damn

Obama: Electric Bills to “Skyrocket”; Power Plants to Go “Bankrupt”
by Hans Bader
November 03, 2008 @ 12:06 pm

climate change, coal, Electricity, global warming, Obama
In a January 17, 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Senator Obama said that “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” under his plan to fight global warming. He also said that under his plan, “if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them.” “An Obama spokesperson said that Obama’s remarks were taken out of context.”
Is there something in the water in San Francisco that makes officials utter explosive disclosures? Earlier, Obama attracted controversy for saying at a San Francisco fundraiser that people in “small towns in Pennsylvania” and Ohio “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”

Click here
 
Is the deal with cap and trade there's supposedly going to be massive tax credits for the poor to offset the rise in their electricity costs?

If tax credits are available:

A) Will these tax credits cover all the increase in cost?

B) What percentage of the poor will apply for and receive these tax credits?


http://www.cnbc.com/id/31526130

Thanks Warren Buffet. I'm sure you have performed a rigorous analysis of the bills pending before Congress in reaching your conclusion, but the CBO ran the numbers and, well, you're full of shit:

On that basis, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or about $175 per household. That figure includes the cost of restructuring the production and use of energy and of payments made to foreign entities under the program, but it does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in GHG emissions and the associated slowing of climate change. CBO could not determine the incidence of certain pieces (including both costs and benefits) that represent, on net, about 8 percent of the total. For the remaining portion of the net cost, households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020, while households in the highest income quintile would see a net cost of $245. Added costs for households in the second lowest quintile would be about $40 that year; in the middle quintile, about $235; and in the fourth quintile, about $340. Overall net costs would average 0.2 percent of households’ after-tax income.


Not only is it not a huge tax (0.2% of after-tax income) but it is quite progressive (lowest quintile gaining a net benefit of $40 per year while top quintile has $340 tax). And this doesn't factor in any opf the benefits of cap and trade legislation.

Here's a chart:

capandtradecosts.jpg




It' s pity that CNBC didn't bother to correct Buffet. It's even more of a pity that Buffet's comments get repeated as though they are authoritative.


http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/files/06-19-CapAndTradeCosts.pdf
 
Thanks Warren Buffet. I'm sure you have performed a rigorous analysis of the bills pending before Congress in reaching your conclusion, but the CBO ran the numbers and, well, you're full of shit:




Not only is it not a huge tax (0.2% of after-tax income) but it is quite progressive (lowest quintile gaining a net benefit of $40 per year while top quintile has $340 tax). And this doesn't factor in any opf the benefits of cap and trade legislation.

Here's a chart:

capandtradecosts.jpg




It' s pity that CNBC didn't bother to correct Buffet. It's even more of a pity that Buffet's comments get repeated as though they are authoritative.


http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/files/06-19-CapAndTradeCosts.pdf

You are free to allow Buffett to carry as much weight as you would like. As I recall during the election Buffett was an Obama supporter and I remember some of those supporters using Buffett as a source when backing Obama's economic proposals. Now Buffett says something that doesn't go along with what many Obama supporters like and we should all of a sudden start questioning him? This is not to imply anyone is right all the time because they aren't. But right or wrong Buffett's word tends to carry a lot of weight.
 
Last edited:
Is the deal with cap and trade there's supposedly going to be massive tax credits for the poor to offset the rise in their electricity costs?

If tax credits are available:

A) Will these tax credits cover all the increase in cost?

B) What percentage of the poor will apply for and receive these tax credits?


http://www.cnbc.com/id/31526130

Why don't we just lower income/payroll taxes on the poor to make up the difference?
 
You are free to allow Buffett to carry as much weight as you would like. As I recall during the election Buffett was an Obama supporter and I remember some of those supporters using a Buffett as a source when backing Obama's economic proposals. Now Buffett says something that doesn't go along with what many Obama supporters like and we should all of a sudden start questioning him? This is not to imply anyone is right all the time because they aren't. But right or wrong Buffett's word tends to carry a lot of weight.

He has earned a respectable position in the area of finance & economics. That said, his words should never take precedence over actual facts.
 
Obviously, this man doesn't remember what he has said in the past.. Damn

Obama: Electric Bills to “Skyrocket”; Power Plants to Go “Bankrupt”
by Hans Bader
November 03, 2008 @ 12:06 pm

climate change, coal, Electricity, global warming, Obama
In a January 17, 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Senator Obama said that “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” under his plan to fight global warming. He also said that under his plan, “if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them.” “An Obama spokesperson said that Obama’s remarks were taken out of context.”
Is there something in the water in San Francisco that makes officials utter explosive disclosures? Earlier, Obama attracted controversy for saying at a San Francisco fundraiser that people in “small towns in Pennsylvania” and Ohio “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”

Click here

ZOMG it makes alternative energy competitive with coal fired energy? What a tragedy?!
 
You are free to allow Buffett to carry as much weight as you would like. As I recall during the election Buffett was an Obama supporter and I remember some of those supporters using a Buffett as a source when backing Obama's economic proposals. Now Buffett says something that doesn't go along with what many Obama supporters like and we should all of a sudden start questioning him? This is not to imply anyone is right all the time because they aren't. But right or wrong Buffett's word tends to carry a lot of weight.


What the fuck are you babbling about? That has to be the weakest defense I've seen short of Dixie's rantings. Jesus. You call that an argument?

This is how the argument has progressed so far:

A. Buffett says X.

B. The CBO, having studied the issue has concluded not X and has issued a report specifying just how wrong X actually is.

C. Well, Buffett said X and he's really smart.

C is not a rebuttal of B. It's a restatement of A. And as long as anyone is talking out of their ass without a clue what they are talking about, as Buffett did here, you should question them.
 
What the fuck are you babbling about? That has to be the weakest defense I've seen short of Dixie's rantings. Jesus. You call that an argument?

This is how the argument has progressed so far:



C is not a rebuttal of B. It's a restatement of A. And as long as anyone is talking out of their ass without a clue what they are talking about, as Buffett did here, you should question them.

I have no problem with people questioning Buffett and encourage it as well just as I would encourage people to question the CBO numbers because those are by no means the final say and authoritative truth.

Buffett is a person a lot of people respect and he received a lot of pre-election support from those who voted for Obama when he supported Obama's economic policies. This happens to be an example of a policy he doesn't support yet by posting it I'm claiming Buffett's all authoratative? I apologize your man's position is being questioned and it makes you all sensitive.
 
I have no problem with people questioning Buffett and encourage it as well just as I would encourage people to question the CBO numbers because those are by no means the final say and authoritative truth.

Buffett is a person a lot of people respect and he received a lot of pre-election support from those who voted for Obama when he supported Obama's economic policies. This happens to be an example of a policy he doesn't support yet by posting it I'm claiming Buffett's all authoratative? I apologize your man's position is being questioned and it makes you all sensitive.


Well, right now we have Buffett's word without any support and the CBO study. You can feel free to question the CBO numbers, but equating the CBO study and Buffett's musings is, well, stupid.

And Buffett supporting Obama's economic policies as a general matter is a whole hell of a lot different for Buffett opining about the effects of specific policy proposals. There's a big difference between "I like Obama's economic proposals" and "Obama's policy on X will result in Y."

And as I have said ad nauseum on this board, there are plenty of good reasons for plenty of people, one the left and the right, to question Obama's positions on plenty of issues. Because Warren Buffett said so is not a good reason.
 
Back
Top