OT: Cap and Tax. Maybe One of the Largest Tax Increases in a Long While?

[afx114]

[quote=SD Realtor]Why can’t all countries implement the same plan?[/quote]

I don’t disagree with you. That would be great. But look at it from their perspective. The US has been the largest per-capita emitter of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. Much of our dominance in the world can be attributed to that. Now that we’ve solidified our dominance at the expense of the environment, do we really have the right to turn around and require that everyone else stop their CO2-fueled growth?

Or should we maybe invest and develop the next generation of technology that can fuel growth more efficiently and cleanly (and then sell it to growing nations to make a nice profit on the side)? Why not look at it like an investment rather than a burden? Like any technology, it requires early adopters who are willing to purchase expensive, unproven technology in order to fuel the next round of improvements. Remember when cell phones were $15,000? That’s a ridiculous price, but if it weren’t for those wasteful idiodic people who paid that much for their phones back then, we wouldn’t have the free/throwaway phones we have now. The US is in a position to be an early adopter of these new technologies, which will help drive prices down and increase innovation. And if we’re smart, we’ll own these technologies. If not, who will? It’s inevitable that they are coming. Might as well try to make a little money from them.

Then guess what happens when China/India come crawling to us to help clean up their nasty environment? “Oh, we have these clean power plants we can sell you.. want to buy a couple or a hundred or a thousand? We’ve also developed these solar panels that you can install on remote farmers’ roofs to bring them power and improve their standard of living. Oh, and we have these cars that emit no nasty crap into your air, so if you want to have the Olympics in your city you won’t have to worry about athletes complaining about how polluted your air is.”

This is an issue that we have to think long-term on.

[SD Realtor]

Afx I think conceptually your idea is okay but in a practical sense it is not.

First off, why should tax dollars be used? Doesn’t it follow that in a capitalistic society enterprising people should be able to come up with splutions that make money shouldn’t they. If I extend your argument should we use tax dollars to support car companies to build more efficient cars? Should tax dollars be used to generate investment in any and all emerging technology that will help the world or promise profits?

Where do you draw the line?

****

Unfortunately I am not going to be an apologist for our advancement. The argument that my children should be indebted to pay for our advancement makes no sense. Should they pay reparations for slavery? Should german kid be penalized because their relatives of the past killed millions of people? It does not wash.

***

Finally to think that countries like india or China are going to rush to buy this made in america exclusive technology is wishful thinking. First off shouldn’t the taxpayers get the money? Second off there is this little company in China called wawei… You would think that as chinese and indian countries develop they would buy all of our electronics right? After all we developed them right?

Let me ask you has it worked out that way?

No it has not.

Again in the real world I believe it doesn’t work out how you want it to. The real world competes.

[SD Realtor]

Afx I think conceptually your idea is okay but in a practical sense it is not.

First off, why should tax dollars be used? Doesn’t it follow that in a capitalistic society enterprising people should be able to come up with splutions that make money shouldn’t they. If I extend your argument should we use tax dollars to support car companies to build more efficient cars? Should tax dollars be used to generate investment in any and all emerging technology that will help the world or promise profits?

Where do you draw the line?

****

Unfortunately I am not going to be an apologist for our advancement. The argument that my children should be indebted to pay for our advancement makes no sense. Should they pay reparations for slavery? Should german kid be penalized because their relatives of the past killed millions of people? It does not wash.

***

Finally to think that countries like india or China are going to rush to buy this made in america exclusive technology is wishful thinking. First off shouldn’t the taxpayers get the money? Second off there is this little company in China called wawei… You would think that as chinese and indian countries develop they would buy all of our electronics right? After all we developed them right?

Let me ask you has it worked out that way?

No it has not.

Again in the real world I believe it doesn’t work out how you want it to. The real world competes.

[SD Realtor]

Afx I think conceptually your idea is okay but in a practical sense it is not.

First off, why should tax dollars be used? Doesn’t it follow that in a capitalistic society enterprising people should be able to come up with splutions that make money shouldn’t they. If I extend your argument should we use tax dollars to support car companies to build more efficient cars? Should tax dollars be used to generate investment in any and all emerging technology that will help the world or promise profits?

Where do you draw the line?

****

Unfortunately I am not going to be an apologist for our advancement. The argument that my children should be indebted to pay for our advancement makes no sense. Should they pay reparations for slavery? Should german kid be penalized because their relatives of the past killed millions of people? It does not wash.

***

Finally to think that countries like india or China are going to rush to buy this made in america exclusive technology is wishful thinking. First off shouldn’t the taxpayers get the money? Second off there is this little company in China called wawei… You would think that as chinese and indian countries develop they would buy all of our electronics right? After all we developed them right?

Let me ask you has it worked out that way?

No it has not.

Again in the real world I believe it doesn’t work out how you want it to. The real world competes.

[SD Realtor]

Afx I think conceptually your idea is okay but in a practical sense it is not.

First off, why should tax dollars be used? Doesn’t it follow that in a capitalistic society enterprising people should be able to come up with splutions that make money shouldn’t they. If I extend your argument should we use tax dollars to support car companies to build more efficient cars? Should tax dollars be used to generate investment in any and all emerging technology that will help the world or promise profits?

Where do you draw the line?

****

Unfortunately I am not going to be an apologist for our advancement. The argument that my children should be indebted to pay for our advancement makes no sense. Should they pay reparations for slavery? Should german kid be penalized because their relatives of the past killed millions of people? It does not wash.

***

Finally to think that countries like india or China are going to rush to buy this made in america exclusive technology is wishful thinking. First off shouldn’t the taxpayers get the money? Second off there is this little company in China called wawei… You would think that as chinese and indian countries develop they would buy all of our electronics right? After all we developed them right?

Let me ask you has it worked out that way?

No it has not.

Again in the real world I believe it doesn’t work out how you want it to. The real world competes.

[SD Realtor]

Afx I think conceptually your idea is okay but in a practical sense it is not.

First off, why should tax dollars be used? Doesn’t it follow that in a capitalistic society enterprising people should be able to come up with splutions that make money shouldn’t they. If I extend your argument should we use tax dollars to support car companies to build more efficient cars? Should tax dollars be used to generate investment in any and all emerging technology that will help the world or promise profits?

Where do you draw the line?

****

Unfortunately I am not going to be an apologist for our advancement. The argument that my children should be indebted to pay for our advancement makes no sense. Should they pay reparations for slavery? Should german kid be penalized because their relatives of the past killed millions of people? It does not wash.

***

Finally to think that countries like india or China are going to rush to buy this made in america exclusive technology is wishful thinking. First off shouldn’t the taxpayers get the money? Second off there is this little company in China called wawei… You would think that as chinese and indian countries develop they would buy all of our electronics right? After all we developed them right?

Let me ask you has it worked out that way?

No it has not.

Again in the real world I believe it doesn’t work out how you want it to. The real world competes.

[afx114]

[quote=SD Realtor]Again in the real world I believe it doesn’t work out how you want it to.[/quote]

Again I agree with everything you’ve said, but it all goes back to my original point that it’s impractical to think that all countries can implement the same plan. In an ideal world all countries would be on the same playing field and a universal plan would make sense. But not all countries put out the same amount of CO2 (whether you use the total output or per capita). It only makes sense that the countries who put out the most CO2 should have to work harder to reduce their output than those countries who put out less CO2. It is a heck of a lot easier for developed countries to transition towards cleaner technologies than it is for developing countries. You see these types of improvements as an unfair expense on the developed countries, but to me it’s only fair to pay for what you put out. I guess our definition of “fair” is what differs here.

As for whether tax dollars should be used, I say yes. Either the problem is too big for the private sector to solve — think the Interstate Highway system, or putting a man on the moon — or it is too cost prohibitive for the private sector to consider. I think that in this situation we have a little of both. The whole point of public investment is to drive down the initial costs to the point that the private sector can jump in and take the ball and run with it — for example the Internet, researched and developed by our precocious tax dollars (I’d say that was a good investment). Another example: satellite technology. Clearly developed by taxpayer investment, but currently used to generate billions in the private sector. I think people tend to believe that public/private operate at the extremes, but there are many examples where they have worked together in a strange synergy with amazing results.

Otherwise, why would private industry ever even consider environmental improvements when all it does is harm their bottom line? At what point is the environment destroyed enough so that private industry puts the well being of the environment above company profits? It never does, and I think you’d be hard pressed to find a case in history where it ever has. The whole point of private industry is to make money — not protect the environment. And if private industry won’t protect the environment, who will? The government will — it’s their job.

I think where you and I will both agree is that the optimal setup is to be able to protect the environment and make money doing it. Unfortunately I don’t think that private industry has the foresight or the will to get that ball rolling. It just needs a little push from the mean old taxman to get it started. Sucks for us, but hopefully it will pay off in the long run — like the expensive Interstate Highway system and satellite technology of yore.

[afx114]

[quote=SD Realtor]Again in the real world I believe it doesn’t work out how you want it to.[/quote]

Again I agree with everything you’ve said, but it all goes back to my original point that it’s impractical to think that all countries can implement the same plan. In an ideal world all countries would be on the same playing field and a universal plan would make sense. But not all countries put out the same amount of CO2 (whether you use the total output or per capita). It only makes sense that the countries who put out the most CO2 should have to work harder to reduce their output than those countries who put out less CO2. It is a heck of a lot easier for developed countries to transition towards cleaner technologies than it is for developing countries. You see these types of improvements as an unfair expense on the developed countries, but to me it’s only fair to pay for what you put out. I guess our definition of “fair” is what differs here.

As for whether tax dollars should be used, I say yes. Either the problem is too big for the private sector to solve — think the Interstate Highway system, or putting a man on the moon — or it is too cost prohibitive for the private sector to consider. I think that in this situation we have a little of both. The whole point of public investment is to drive down the initial costs to the point that the private sector can jump in and take the ball and run with it — for example the Internet, researched and developed by our precocious tax dollars (I’d say that was a good investment). Another example: satellite technology. Clearly developed by taxpayer investment, but currently used to generate billions in the private sector. I think people tend to believe that public/private operate at the extremes, but there are many examples where they have worked together in a strange synergy with amazing results.

Otherwise, why would private industry ever even consider environmental improvements when all it does is harm their bottom line? At what point is the environment destroyed enough so that private industry puts the well being of the environment above company profits? It never does, and I think you’d be hard pressed to find a case in history where it ever has. The whole point of private industry is to make money — not protect the environment. And if private industry won’t protect the environment, who will? The government will — it’s their job.

I think where you and I will both agree is that the optimal setup is to be able to protect the environment and make money doing it. Unfortunately I don’t think that private industry has the foresight or the will to get that ball rolling. It just needs a little push from the mean old taxman to get it started. Sucks for us, but hopefully it will pay off in the long run — like the expensive Interstate Highway system and satellite technology of yore.

[afx114]

[quote=SD Realtor]Again in the real world I believe it doesn’t work out how you want it to.[/quote]

Again I agree with everything you’ve said, but it all goes back to my original point that it’s impractical to think that all countries can implement the same plan. In an ideal world all countries would be on the same playing field and a universal plan would make sense. But not all countries put out the same amount of CO2 (whether you use the total output or per capita). It only makes sense that the countries who put out the most CO2 should have to work harder to reduce their output than those countries who put out less CO2. It is a heck of a lot easier for developed countries to transition towards cleaner technologies than it is for developing countries. You see these types of improvements as an unfair expense on the developed countries, but to me it’s only fair to pay for what you put out. I guess our definition of “fair” is what differs here.

As for whether tax dollars should be used, I say yes. Either the problem is too big for the private sector to solve — think the Interstate Highway system, or putting a man on the moon — or it is too cost prohibitive for the private sector to consider. I think that in this situation we have a little of both. The whole point of public investment is to drive down the initial costs to the point that the private sector can jump in and take the ball and run with it — for example the Internet, researched and developed by our precocious tax dollars (I’d say that was a good investment). Another example: satellite technology. Clearly developed by taxpayer investment, but currently used to generate billions in the private sector. I think people tend to believe that public/private operate at the extremes, but there are many examples where they have worked together in a strange synergy with amazing results.

Otherwise, why would private industry ever even consider environmental improvements when all it does is harm their bottom line? At what point is the environment destroyed enough so that private industry puts the well being of the environment above company profits? It never does, and I think you’d be hard pressed to find a case in history where it ever has. The whole point of private industry is to make money — not protect the environment. And if private industry won’t protect the environment, who will? The government will — it’s their job.

I think where you and I will both agree is that the optimal setup is to be able to protect the environment and make money doing it. Unfortunately I don’t think that private industry has the foresight or the will to get that ball rolling. It just needs a little push from the mean old taxman to get it started. Sucks for us, but hopefully it will pay off in the long run — like the expensive Interstate Highway system and satellite technology of yore.

[afx114]

[quote=SD Realtor]Again in the real world I believe it doesn’t work out how you want it to.[/quote]

Again I agree with everything you’ve said, but it all goes back to my original point that it’s impractical to think that all countries can implement the same plan. In an ideal world all countries would be on the same playing field and a universal plan would make sense. But not all countries put out the same amount of CO2 (whether you use the total output or per capita). It only makes sense that the countries who put out the most CO2 should have to work harder to reduce their output than those countries who put out less CO2. It is a heck of a lot easier for developed countries to transition towards cleaner technologies than it is for developing countries. You see these types of improvements as an unfair expense on the developed countries, but to me it’s only fair to pay for what you put out. I guess our definition of “fair” is what differs here.

As for whether tax dollars should be used, I say yes. Either the problem is too big for the private sector to solve — think the Interstate Highway system, or putting a man on the moon — or it is too cost prohibitive for the private sector to consider. I think that in this situation we have a little of both. The whole point of public investment is to drive down the initial costs to the point that the private sector can jump in and take the ball and run with it — for example the Internet, researched and developed by our precocious tax dollars (I’d say that was a good investment). Another example: satellite technology. Clearly developed by taxpayer investment, but currently used to generate billions in the private sector. I think people tend to believe that public/private operate at the extremes, but there are many examples where they have worked together in a strange synergy with amazing results.

Otherwise, why would private industry ever even consider environmental improvements when all it does is harm their bottom line? At what point is the environment destroyed enough so that private industry puts the well being of the environment above company profits? It never does, and I think you’d be hard pressed to find a case in history where it ever has. The whole point of private industry is to make money — not protect the environment. And if private industry won’t protect the environment, who will? The government will — it’s their job.

I think where you and I will both agree is that the optimal setup is to be able to protect the environment and make money doing it. Unfortunately I don’t think that private industry has the foresight or the will to get that ball rolling. It just needs a little push from the mean old taxman to get it started. Sucks for us, but hopefully it will pay off in the long run — like the expensive Interstate Highway system and satellite technology of yore.

[afx114]

[quote=SD Realtor]Again in the real world I believe it doesn’t work out how you want it to.[/quote]

Again I agree with everything you’ve said, but it all goes back to my original point that it’s impractical to think that all countries can implement the same plan. In an ideal world all countries would be on the same playing field and a universal plan would make sense. But not all countries put out the same amount of CO2 (whether you use the total output or per capita). It only makes sense that the countries who put out the most CO2 should have to work harder to reduce their output than those countries who put out less CO2. It is a heck of a lot easier for developed countries to transition towards cleaner technologies than it is for developing countries. You see these types of improvements as an unfair expense on the developed countries, but to me it’s only fair to pay for what you put out. I guess our definition of “fair” is what differs here.

As for whether tax dollars should be used, I say yes. Either the problem is too big for the private sector to solve — think the Interstate Highway system, or putting a man on the moon — or it is too cost prohibitive for the private sector to consider. I think that in this situation we have a little of both. The whole point of public investment is to drive down the initial costs to the point that the private sector can jump in and take the ball and run with it — for example the Internet, researched and developed by our precocious tax dollars (I’d say that was a good investment). Another example: satellite technology. Clearly developed by taxpayer investment, but currently used to generate billions in the private sector. I think people tend to believe that public/private operate at the extremes, but there are many examples where they have worked together in a strange synergy with amazing results.

Otherwise, why would private industry ever even consider environmental improvements when all it does is harm their bottom line? At what point is the environment destroyed enough so that private industry puts the well being of the environment above company profits? It never does, and I think you’d be hard pressed to find a case in history where it ever has. The whole point of private industry is to make money — not protect the environment. And if private industry won’t protect the environment, who will? The government will — it’s their job.

I think where you and I will both agree is that the optimal setup is to be able to protect the environment and make money doing it. Unfortunately I don’t think that private industry has the foresight or the will to get that ball rolling. It just needs a little push from the mean old taxman to get it started. Sucks for us, but hopefully it will pay off in the long run — like the expensive Interstate Highway system and satellite technology of yore.

[Arraya]

1) We are probably screwing up the planet through overpopulation, overconsumption, and pollution. This will impact the quality of life on earth for a lot of people.

It’s called population overshoot. You can look it up in an 8th grade biology book or google search. All animals do it. Exponentially increasing consumption of dwindling resources and the subsequent pollution and degradation of carrying capacity via destruction of life sustaining systems. We have our fancy economic theories though.

Of course taxing and technology can fix this.

Go green with Monsanto!

[Arraya]

1) We are probably screwing up the planet through overpopulation, overconsumption, and pollution. This will impact the quality of life on earth for a lot of people.

It’s called population overshoot. You can look it up in an 8th grade biology book or google search. All animals do it. Exponentially increasing consumption of dwindling resources and the subsequent pollution and degradation of carrying capacity via destruction of life sustaining systems. We have our fancy economic theories though.

Of course taxing and technology can fix this.

Go green with Monsanto!

[Arraya]

1) We are probably screwing up the planet through overpopulation, overconsumption, and pollution. This will impact the quality of life on earth for a lot of people.

It’s called population overshoot. You can look it up in an 8th grade biology book or google search. All animals do it. Exponentially increasing consumption of dwindling resources and the subsequent pollution and degradation of carrying capacity via destruction of life sustaining systems. We have our fancy economic theories though.

Of course taxing and technology can fix this.

Go green with Monsanto!

[Arraya]

1) We are probably screwing up the planet through overpopulation, overconsumption, and pollution. This will impact the quality of life on earth for a lot of people.

It’s called population overshoot. You can look it up in an 8th grade biology book or google search. All animals do it. Exponentially increasing consumption of dwindling resources and the subsequent pollution and degradation of carrying capacity via destruction of life sustaining systems. We have our fancy economic theories though.

Of course taxing and technology can fix this.

Go green with Monsanto!

[Author]

Posts