Clem Kadiddlehopper - 04 March 2008 08:48 AM

I’ll read that again. I’m curious how a 366 billion annual cost to taxpayers is going to PUT $4500 in every family’s pocket

Because its not a “cost” to taxpayers - it’s a carbon tax that is paid to the government that provides an additional revenue stream that does not come directly out of the taxpayers pockets.

That whole “cost” argument was a deliberate obfuscation by desperate anti-environmentalists who knew all the illiterates would never figure out for themselves.

ConcernedCitizen - 14 March 2008 11:08 PM

Clem Kadiddlehopper - 04 March 2008 08:48 AM

I’ll read that again. I’m curious how a 366 billion annual cost to taxpayers is going to PUT $4500 in every family’s pocket

Because its not a “cost” to taxpayers - it’s a carbon tax that is paid to the government that provides an additional revenue stream that does not come directly out of the taxpayers pockets.

That whole “cost” argument was a deliberate obfuscation by desperate anti-environmentalists who knew all the illiterates would never figure out for themselves.

Who pays this tax?  If it is a business, you can bet that it will be passed on to the consumer.  Profit margins are not going to suck up that kind of increase.

cavedog - 14 March 2008 11:51 PM

ConcernedCitizen - 14 March 2008 11:08 PM

Clem Kadiddlehopper - 04 March 2008 08:48 AM

I’ll read that again. I’m curious how a 366 billion annual cost to taxpayers is going to PUT $4500 in every family’s pocket

Because its not a “cost” to taxpayers - it’s a carbon tax that is paid to the government that provides an additional revenue stream that does not come directly out of the taxpayers pockets.

That whole “cost” argument was a deliberate obfuscation by desperate anti-environmentalists who knew all the illiterates would never figure out for themselves.

Who pays this tax?  If it is a business, you can bet that it will be passed on to the consumer.  Profit margins are not going to suck up that kind of increase.

I scanned over the MIT document again. Basically, IF the Moon is in the seventh house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars, and a few dozen other cosmic events concur at exactly the same moment, the taxpayers will receive credits.

Of course, as cavedog alludes, the taxpayer is going to take it in the you know what, not only for the cost to administer all this, estimated in the billions, but the dramatic increase in goods and services.

I was reading a magazine this morning which says that in Switzerland, the government is going to require that everyone use only approved, environmentally friendly bags to place their garbage out for pickup. The cost of the bags.....$4.50 each. Guess how much garbage is going to start appearing along the roadsides.......

cavedog - 14 March 2008 11:51 PM

ConcernedCitizen - 14 March 2008 11:08 PM

Clem Kadiddlehopper - 04 March 2008 08:48 AM

I’ll read that again. I’m curious how a 366 billion annual cost to taxpayers is going to PUT $4500 in every family’s pocket

Because its not a “cost” to taxpayers - it’s a carbon tax that is paid to the government that provides an additional revenue stream that does not come directly out of the taxpayers pockets.

That whole “cost” argument was a deliberate obfuscation by desperate anti-environmentalists who knew all the illiterates would never figure out for themselves.

Who pays this tax?  If it is a business, you can bet that it will be passed on to the consumer.  Profit margins are not going to suck up that kind of increase.

I hear that argument a lot, but in the real world it has little merit.  There is no 100% transfer of business cost to customer.

When a cost goes up, for example oil, that cost is absorbed 3 ways. 

As the operational costs increase, the profits decline, so the shareholders and owners get lower returns on their capital.  They often respond by initiating the next step:

The second absorbtion occurs when the business applies improved efficiency to operations, financing and support functions.  In this step, the business will adopt green initiatives to reduce it’s carbon tax burden.

Only after those efforts fail do the companies jeopardize their competitive position by raising their prices.

In the real world, it is far more likely that the business will reduce its carbon emissions to stay competitive, and the cost is NOT passed on to the customer.

The only exceptions that have been prosecuted in the past few years are gasoline stations that raise their prices a lot when oil prices rise a little (gouging).

How do you feel about tax breaks and subsidies to oil companies while they are posting record-breaking profits?  Did the oil companies pass along their savings 100% to the consumer?

Corporate welfare is anti-captialistic and anti-taxpayer and anti-consumer.

Clem Kadiddlehopper - 15 March 2008 10:53 AM

cavedog - 14 March 2008 11:51 PM

ConcernedCitizen - 14 March 2008 11:08 PM

Clem Kadiddlehopper - 04 March 2008 08:48 AM

I’ll read that again. I’m curious how a 366 billion annual cost to taxpayers is going to PUT $4500 in every family’s pocket

Because its not a “cost” to taxpayers - it’s a carbon tax that is paid to the government that provides an additional revenue stream that does not come directly out of the taxpayers pockets.

That whole “cost” argument was a deliberate obfuscation by desperate anti-environmentalists who knew all the illiterates would never figure out for themselves.

Who pays this tax?  If it is a business, you can bet that it will be passed on to the consumer.  Profit margins are not going to suck up that kind of increase.

I scanned over the MIT document again. Basically, IF the Moon is in the seventh house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars, and a few dozen other cosmic events concur at exactly the same moment, the taxpayers will receive credits.

Of course, as cavedog alludes, the taxpayer is going to take it in the you know what, not only for the cost to administer all this, estimated in the billions, but the dramatic increase in goods and services.

I was reading a magazine this morning which says that in Switzerland, the government is going to require that everyone use only approved, environmentally friendly bags to place their garbage out for pickup. The cost of the bags.....$4.50 each. Guess how much garbage is going to start appearing along the roadsides.......

The cost of the bags.....$4.50 each. Guess how much garbage is going to start appearing along the roadsides......

In Switzerland? None.

Now that’s national pride.

Exxon has pretty much made 9% profit every year for a long time.  Doesn’t seem to matter what crude oil costs or how they are taxed, they seem to be on an even keel.

So last year with thier biggest gross profits ever what was their earnings percentage.....

9%

so it’s clear if we tax them more they will and do just include that as part of their cost do doing business and it somehow gets passed to the consumer. 

As a business owner I can tell you that all my taxes are part of the cost of business and all get passed on to the customer, any business that doesn’t pass it’s costs on to the customer won’t be in business long.  Most oil companies have been around a long time, they pass all their costs to the consumer and maintain profitability or go out of business. 

How come it gross profits for Exxon to earn 9% and not gross profits for Microsoft to earn better than 12% ???????

2bfree - 17 March 2008 10:27 PM

so it’s clear if we tax them more they will and do just include that as part of their cost do doing business and it somehow gets passed to the consumer. 

I studied this in college, and I can tell you that of the hundreds of businesses in several industries we researched, variable costs were not passed on to consumers in a linear fashion, especially among publicly traded companies.

You say you own a company.  How do you determine the amount to increase your products, and how quickly do you pass along tax increases?

My work showed that the owners initially accepted lower profits and initiated a variety of other internal cost-cutting measures BEFORE they raised prices.  Even once the decision was made, the businesses delayed hiking prices as long as possible to avoid losing their competitive position.  See my comments above.

You can tell me I’m wrong if you’ve never absorbed a utility, tax or materials cost increase.

Global Warming...er....Global Cooling....er....Climate Change...oh, whatever! It’s a great way to pile more taxes on everybody.

http://www.desertdispatch.com/common/printer/view.php?db=desertdispatch&id=3006

ConcernedCitizen - 21 March 2008 06:53 PM

2bfree - 17 March 2008 10:27 PM

so it’s clear if we tax them more they will and do just include that as part of their cost do doing business and it somehow gets passed to the consumer. 

I studied this in college, and I can tell you that of the hundreds of businesses in several industries we researched, variable costs were not passed on to consumers in a linear fashion, especially among publicly traded companies.

You say you own a company.  How do you determine the amount to increase your products, and how quickly do you pass along tax increases?

My work showed that the owners initially accepted lower profits and initiated a variety of other internal cost-cutting measures BEFORE they raised prices.  Even once the decision was made, the businesses delayed hiking prices as long as possible to avoid losing their competitive position.  See my comments above.

You can tell me I’m wrong if you’ve never absorbed a utility, tax or materials cost increase.

Now that gas is three and a quarter per gallon, tell me how much transportation costs publix is absorbing.

If the tax is applied across a industry, then the industry as a whole will react.  Sure, there may be one or two low watt bulbs that think they can skim by on a thinner margin, but the first time they get hit with a large expense, the doors close.  The smart business owner maintains his margins.  He may put the increases out slowly, but they will come.

Clem Kadiddlehopper - 08 April 2008 09:04 PM

Global Warming...er....Global Cooling....er....Climate Change...oh, whatever! It’s a great way to pile more taxes on everybody.


http://www.desertdispatch.com/common/printer/view.php?db=desertdispatch&id=3006

California.  Land of Granola.  If your not a fruit or a flake, then your a nut.