Carbon tax that aids both renewables and fracking

[laska]

Or they just stop producing oil which then limits the supply which then shoots the price up. futures trading is weird business you would see oil prices skyrocket easily.
on this you punch working people in the mouth with high gas prices to get back and forth to work.

not only that but you affect every aspect of the economy. as all major shipping and transportation is tied to oil.
for that A you got you didn't follow the bell curves of everything.

You affect more than just 1 thing which is the price of oil. you affect the entire economy.

but socking it to big oil is more important.

Who would stop producing oil? As long as there are profits, unlikely. My plan saves the fracking industry. They have a hard time competing with gas pump prices below like $3. By raising the price of foreign oil to $4 a gallon, and taxing the domestic frackers less so that they can slightly undersell it, they'll sell all they can produce for the foreseeable future. Electric semis and the hyperloop are new technologies that will lower the cost of freight(and with that consumer prices of goods) even lower than now without my carbon tax at real cost. The carbon tax at real cost speeds up the transition.

 

[Juggernaut]

Policy thought:

Tax carbon closer to real cost. Goal of $4 a gallon retail at the pump. Also get rid of carbon subsidies

Lessen sales taxes on domestic oil just enough to give it an advantage in the market over foreign oil with goal of as quickly as possible domrestic production gaining 100% of U.S. market.

High corporate rate(possibly up to 90%) on domestic oil production

The goal behind this policy is to quicken the pace of transforming the economy to 100% renewable by raising the cost of carbon at real cost( hidden cost of subsidies, environmental, and health costs) while using domestic instead of foreign oil in the transition as even in a fast transition oil will be needed for years. By using domestic instead of foreign oil, it creates U.S. jobs and adds much needed revenue to government coffers to pay off debt and needed infrastructure.


I could be convinced against this policy as I am not knowledgeable on the environmental impact of fracking. I know a lot of people are against it, and there are all kind of things out there I have no idea are true or not like poisoning water supplies and causing earthquakes. If true, obviously I'd be against it. If in reality fracking can be done safely, and it is controlled to areas that are not like really beautiful, why wouldn't this be good public policy? Left/Right synergy.

I like some of you tax plan. But, you seem to be circling your carbon argument around Big Oil and gasoline. Carbon just isn't gasoline. A few gorillas-in-the-corner I see you are missing are Natural Gas Fired heaters (electricity production), Kerosene (home heating oil),propane (household gas), propylene (plastics), Diesel (mechanized farming, rail/truck shipping), and AV gas/Jet fuel (anything dealing with flight), just to name a few. Taxing carbon is de facto blanket tax on the entire economy. So. how would American businesses stay competitive? Are we going to shred every Free Trade agreement unless those countries submit to the same carbon tax? If not, you would just flush the american economy further down the toilet.

 

[laska]

no I am reading your intent correctly and you just did it again.
now you are adding an ad hominem into it as well which shows well your argument
wasn't as strong as you think if you have to insult people.

In my response in post #25 I meant to say "I am not saying you are not smart or that smart people may not disagree with me."

And how can you know my intent better than me?

 

[ludin]

In my response in post #25 I meant to say "I am not saying you are not smart or that smart people may not disagree with me."

And how can you know my intent better than me?

because what you say and type betrays your supposed intent. if you didn't intend it that way then why did you type it that way?
that is the bigger question.

 

[laska]

I like some of you tax plan. But, you seem to be circling your carbon argument around Big Oil and gasoline. Carbon just isn't gasoline. A few gorillas-in-the-corner I see you are missing are Natural Gas Fired heaters (electricity production), Kerosene (home heating oil),propane (household gas), propylene (plastics), Diesel (mechanized farming, rail/truck shipping), and Jet fuel (anything dealing with flight), just to name a few. Taxing carbon is de facto blanket tax on the entire economy. So. how would American businesses stay competitive? Are we going to shred every Free Trade agreement unless those countries submit to the same carbon tax? If not, you would just flush the american economy further down the toilet.

No on the shredding free trade agreements. Tariffs on foreign goods is different than adding cost to ones own products, and I try and offset these costs by much lower business costs in other areas in lowering corporate rate to 15%, eliminating bad regulations that add unneeded costs, and eliminating the need for businesses to provide health insurance. If I thought it was politically possible I'd have a 0% corporate rate.

Taxing negative externailities allows you to lower taxes in other areas. Eliminating carbon subsidies and taxing carbon at real cost corrects the market that artificially under prices carbon and imo the market winner will be renewables and the electric economy which also imo is superior in every facet including costs( I favor eliminating renewable subsidies also).

 

[laska]

because what you say and type betrays your supposed intent. if you didn't intend it that way then why did you type it that way?
that is the bigger question.

Uh because I just accidentally wrote it wrong. And you made the accusations before I wrote it about my intent, and i corrected it before you responded.

 

[ludin]

Who would stop producing oil? As long as there are profits, unlikely. My plan saves the fracking industry. They have a hard time competing with gas pump prices below like $3. By raising the price of foreign oil to $4 a gallon, and taxing the domestic frackers less so that they can slightly undersell it, they'll sell all they can produce for the foreseeable future. Electric semis and the hyperloop are new technologies that will lower the cost of freight(and with that consumer prices of goods) even lower than now without my carbon tax at real cost. The carbon tax at real cost speeds up the transition.

what profits? they are getting hit with a 90% tax on their profits.
why would someone frak to pay 90% to the government?

GAS prices are based on the cost of oil. as the price of oil goes up then so does the gas price.

There is no such things as foreign oil and domestic oil. that is only measured in terms of production.
there are not separate prices for them they are all under 1 price which is oil.

electric semis and hyperloops are fantasy land at this point. desiel will reamin supreme for both semi- and rail.

you are dealing in fantasy land not reality.

 

[ludin]

Yes I do. I don't give a preference to short or long term. If someone invests in an ipo type stock offering and whether they sell it the next day or 20 years later, they pay 15%. Either way the company got their money on the original offering.

If you did then you would already know that day traders are taxed at normal income levels not at the long term rate.

short term capital gains is taxed as income. That is any capital that is held for < 1 year and sold.
so if you buy a stock for 100 dollars and 364 days later sell it for 150 then you pay income on 50 dollars.

only long term capital gains which are those that are held for over 1 year are taxed at 15% or whatever the current rate is.
there is no reason to charge someone 30%. people wouldn't sell their stocks or couldn't and other people wouldn't buy them.

 

[laska]

what profits? they are getting hit with a 90% tax on their profits.
why would someone frak to pay 90% to the government?

GAS prices are based on the cost of oil. as the price of oil goes up then so does the gas price.

There is no such things as foreign oil and domestic oil. that is only measured in terms of production.
there are not separate prices for them they are all under 1 price which is oil.

electric semis and hyperloops are fantasy land at this point. desiel will reamin supreme for both semi- and rail.

you are dealing in fantasy land not reality.

Time will tell if the electric long haul semi and hyperloop are fantasy. A lot of people thought it was fantasy that EV's would ever have 200+ miles per charge, charge in about a half an hr, the ability to land rockets, and autonomous driving. Musk recently stated Tesla will be revealing their electric Semi within a year that will save truck owners huge on fuel/maintenance/bottom line. Why would they reveal it if their engineers are not confident the technology is there. It may take 2 to 5 years before they start hitting the streets but I think it is beyond the fantasy stage. According to SpaceX engineers, and the two companies working on the hyperloop, there are no new technology needed and they are confident it can be built in the next few years. Nations such as Russia are already signing contracts. I think both are coming.

On the oil, I realize that. i am talking about adding tariffs to imported oil. duh.

 

[Juggernaut]

Tariffs on foreign goods is different than adding cost to ones own products

How are we going to stop other countries that have the luxury of dirty production from undercutting prices on EVERYTHING?

I try and offset these costs by much lower business costs in other areas in lowering corporate rate to 15%, eliminating bad regulations that add unneeded costs, and eliminating the need for businesses to provide health insurance. If I thought it was politically possible I'd have a 0% corporate rate.

I believe offsetting the cost your carbon tax with a 15% to 0% drop in corporate tax wouldn't be a drop in the bucket compared to the impact on the economy. IMO, the magnitude of this would take the US standard of living back 100 years.

No Taxing negative externailities allows you to lower taxes in other areas. Eliminating carbon subsidies and taxing carbon at real cost corrects the market that artificially under prices carbon and imo the market winner will be renewables and the electric economy which also imo is superior in every facet including costs( I favor eliminating renewable subsidies also).

Well this is what I'm getting at, How will you produce all this "electricity" for the electric economy without natural gas or coal? Are we going Nuclear? Solar isn't there yet and I'm not aware of a renewable that come close to the availability and BTU/dollar value of oil or coal.

 

[ludin]

Time will tell if the electric long haul semi and hyperloop are fantasy. A lot of people thought it was fantasy that EV's would ever have 200+ miles per charge, charge in about a half an hr, the ability to land rockets, and autonomous driving. Musk recently stated Tesla will be revealing their electric Semi within a year that will save truck owners huge on fuel/maintenance/bottom line. Why would they reveal it if their engineers are not confident the technology is there. It may take 2 to 5 years before they start hitting the streets but I think it is beyond the fantasy stage. According to SpaceX engineers, and the two companies working on the hyperloop, there are no new technology needed and they are confident it can be built in the next few years. Nations such as Russia are already signing contracts. I think both are coming.

On the oil, I realize that. i am talking about adding tariffs to imported oil. duh.

I am sure at some point in time they might come into production but it will be another 50+ years.
very few people buy tesla's. It takes 40 minutes at their super charger to get it to 80%. 75 minutes
to get it to 100%. Those are about 16x faster than your typical public charging station.

connected to a 240v line which is what most homes have it takes 9.5 hours to charge fully.


Tesla has major problems getting their cars out on the road let alone semi's.
why would they reveal it? hype to keep their stock up since other than that their
stock should be floundering. right now they are hope and dreams that is about it.

they have only had 1 profitable quarter in 10 years. their autonomous driving has taken a huge
hit with a couple of accidents that have occurred.

I know people that work at space X they are friends of mine I talk with them every day. they are still testing to
see if the landed rockets can be used. they have yet to actually re-use one of them.

You realize that we send out oil outside the US to have it refined and then shipped back right? because it is cheaper amazingly enough.

we actually export the majority of our oil.

 

[laska]

If you did then you would already know that day traders are taxed at normal income levels not at the long term rate.

short term capital gains is taxed as income. That is any capital that is held for < 1 year and sold.
so if you buy a stock for 100 dollars and 364 days later sell it for 150 then you pay income on 50 dollars.

only long term capital gains which are those that are held for over 1 year are taxed at 15% or whatever the current rate is.
there is no reason to charge someone 30%. people wouldn't sell their stocks or couldn't and other people wouldn't buy them.

Yes, and under my plan long term non ipo type capital gains is also taxed as regular income. This will get day traders on some of their investments that they hold for more than a year and hedge fund managers, and the wealthy who may have a substantial portion of their income from long term capital gains. Again, the most important stock trade is when the company first offers stock for cash, and that has the low 15% rate. Having a lesser incentive by having higher rates for some on non ipo type trading may effect the liquidity of the stock a little, but it is not that important in the grand scheme of things. Maybe I am wrong but I think there will still be a ton of people buying non ipo stock even if they are paying 30% rate instead of 15%. It may have the effect of more cash waiting on ipo type opportunities, by far the most important aspect of investing pertaining to the economy.

 

[laska]

I am sure at some point in time they might come into production but it will be another 50+ years.
very few people buy tesla's. It takes 40 minutes at their super charger to get it to 80%. 75 minutes
to get it to 100%. Those are about 16x faster than your typical public charging station.

connected to a 240v line which is what most homes have it takes 9.5 hours to charge fully.


Tesla has major problems getting their cars out on the road let alone semi's.
why would they reveal it? hype to keep their stock up since other than that their
stock should be floundering. right now they are hope and dreams that is about it.

they have only had 1 profitable quarter in 10 years. their autonomous driving has taken a huge
hit with a couple of accidents that have occurred.

I know people that work at space X they are friends of mine I talk with them every day. they are still testing to
see if the landed rockets can be used. they have yet to actually re-use one of them.

You realize that we send out oil outside the US to have it refined and then shipped back right? because it is cheaper amazingly enough.

we actually export the majority of our oil.

You should short the stock then. Maybe you will be luckier than those who have done so in the past. That Tesla got almost 400,000 $1000 deposits in two weeks after the Model 3 reveal for a car a year or two away should have maybe opened your eyes.

 

[laska]

How are we going to stop other countries that have the luxury of dirty production from undercutting prices on EVERYTHING?



I believe offsetting the cost your carbon tax with a 15% to 0% drop in corporate tax wouldn't be a drop in the bucket compared to the impact on the economy. IMO, the magnitude of this would take the US standard of living back 100 years.



Well this is what I'm getting at, How will you produce all this "electricity" for the electric economy without natural gas or coal? Are we going Nuclear? Solar isn't there yet and I'm not aware of a renewable that come close to the availability and BTU/dollar value of oil or coal.

We've had $4 gas and much higher business taxes than my plan and the sky didn't fall. Some of the nations with the highest living standards have even higher carbon taxes.

Elon Musk thinks solar energy and the electrification of transportation (as electric engines are far more efficient) are going to be the market winners. Taxing carbon at their real cost that takes into account the hidden costs to society and lowering taxes elsewhere to offset this, which I think my plan does in lower taxes on the middle class and business, quickens the transition.

Musk applied first principle thinking How Elon Musk Thinks: The First Principles Method - 99U and cut the cost of manufacturing rockets to like 2% of their competition. When he was thinking about getting into the rocket business he ran the numbers on the raw material cost of a rocket and wondered why the finished product was so expensive and then went about figuring clever ways to manufacture it from scratch to do it in a much more efficient way. He didn't just say like most people this is how its been done forever so that is just the way it is or try to just slightly improve the established processes. Using first principle thinking Musk sees that “We have this handy fusion reactor in the sky called the sun. You don’t have to do anything, it just works—shows up every day and produces ridiculous amounts of power.” If you do the math with the efficiency of the best current solar panels and the total amount of energy the U.S. uses, it only takes a small corner of the Utah or Nevada desert covered with solar panels to provide all the U.S. energy needs. An area the size of Spain would power the world. When you run the raw material costs for solar panels and batteries needed that size of an area it is a tiny fraction of what we spend in a year in energy use, and the solar panels can last for decades and current lithium ion batteries 10 or 15 years and likely much longer in the future. When you look at the numbers it strongly suggests it is a no brainer that we should concentrate on developing solar. Not only because of sustainability and clean air and water, but long term cost.


My family spends about $400 a month on the electric bill, and about another $400 on gas for the vehicles(I have no EVs). So about ten grand a year. Now visualize a roof top solar system, a battery in the garage(and driving an EV) that provides all the energy needs for the house and vehicles. Let's say you can buy this solar rooftop/battery set up for $35,000 from Tesla, at zero down, and it includes installation and a 25 yr warranty with the panels likely being good for decades more(with a replacement battery maybe needed in 15). In 3 1/2 years it basically pays for itself and then it is like free energy for house and vehicles for decades. Think of the freedom of being off grid. Don't have to worry about utility monopolies raising prices in the future. National security wise it is much better to have a grid of millions of solar roofs than large power plants that can be hacked or bombed. And obviously has benefits in a zombie apocalypse.

 

[laska]

How are we going to stop other countries that have the luxury of dirty production from undercutting prices on EVERYTHING?



I believe offsetting the cost your carbon tax with a 15% to 0% drop in corporate tax wouldn't be a drop in the bucket compared to the impact on the economy. IMO, the magnitude of this would take the US standard of living back 100 years.



Well this is what I'm getting at, How will you produce all this "electricity" for the electric economy without natural gas or coal? Are we going Nuclear? Solar isn't there yet and I'm not aware of a renewable that come close to the availability and BTU/dollar value of oil or coal.

Continued:

Musk's SpaceX got the cost of rockets down to 2% of industry cost by using first principle thinking. The same methods are being applied to the battery and solar panels. In the Tesla battery gigafactory in Nevada, and the solar panel gigafactory in NY, they are doing everything in their power to drastically lower costs. Through massive scale and vertical integration raw materials enter one end of the factory and the finished product leaves the other end instead of it criss crossing several continents and manufacturers before you get finished product. They are also concentrating their best creative engineers on the "machine that makes the machine". "Musk argues that applying engineering effort to refining the production process is a better use of man-hours than trying to wring the last little bits of efficiency out of his cars. An engineer working on improving the factory line is five to 10 times more productive than that same effort put on the product that's actually being built.
"It takes a massive amount of effort to improve the inverter efficiency by a few tenths of a percentage point," said Musk. "You have to really wrack your brain and try super hard and take a lot of risks to improve efficiency by a few tenths of a percentage point." But apply that same engineering effort to the process of building the inverter and it can deliver 10 times the efficiency improvement. Musk cited one example where his engineers were able to reduce a production station's time from 200 seconds to a single second."

 

[Master PO]

No direct taxes, stop stealing property, secure property rights

 

[laska]

"Ray Kurzweil has made a bold prediction about the future of solar energy, saying in remarks at a recent medical technology conference that it could become the dominant force in energy production in a little over a decade. That may be tough to swallow, given that solar currently only supplies around 2% of global energy—but Kurzweil’s predictions have been overwhelmingly correct over the last two decades, so he’s worth listening to."...

Ray Kurzweil: Solar Will Dominate Energy Within 12 Years - Fortune

 

[Master PO]

"Ray Kurzweil has made a bold prediction about the future of solar energy, saying in remarks at a recent medical technology conference that it could become the dominant force in energy production in a little over a decade. That may be tough to swallow, given that solar currently only supplies around 2% of global energy—but Kurzweil’s predictions have been overwhelmingly correct over the last two decades, so he’s worth listening to."...

Ray Kurzweil: Solar Will Dominate Energy Within 12 Years - Fortune

Instead of things taking their natural course of action, you wish to force the situation

 

[laska]

Instead of things taking their natural course of action, you wish to force the situation

Eliminating carbon subsidies(as well as renewable subsidies) and taxing carbon to compensate for its real costs is correcting the market. Then let consumers decide. Confident solar and EV's will be the winners.

 

[Master PO]

Eliminating carbon subsidies(as well as renewable subsidies) and taxing carbon to compensate for its real costs is correcting the market. Then let consumers decide. Confident solar and EV's will be the winners.

You will find things work better on their own timeline instead of
pushing things on it

 

[laska]

You will find things work better on their own timeline instead of
pushing things on it

I guess you don't buy climate change. I do but I think Christ is coming back soon so I don't worry too much but still like to have cleaner water and air until then.

 

[ludin]

Instead of things taking their natural course of action, you wish to force the situation

Government has already done that and is increasing energy costs and car costs and
Has even applied standards on companies that the technology doesn't even exist.

We the consumer pays the price.

 

[Master PO]

I guess you don't buy climate change. I do but I think Christ is coming back soon so I don't worry too much but still like to have cleaner water and air until then.

Just beause i dont believe in climate change , does not mean i want dirty water or air, how it is it you dont agreed with people who set thenmelves up as authories of the weather think they know more and have the answers to it all.

Can there not be others who have ideas which are not of the politcal correct, but have merit

 

[laska]

Just beause i dont believe in climate change , does not mean i want dirty water or air, how it is it you dont agreed with people who set thenmelves up as authories of the weather think they know more and have the answers to it all.

Can there not be others who have ideas which, are not of the politcal correct have merit

How politically correct is believing Christ is returning soon, and that a NY farmboy saw an angel and translated gold plates. Political correctness has no bearing on my opinions.

 

[Master PO]

How politically correct is believing Christ is returning soon, and that a NY farmboy saw an angel and translated gold plates. Political correctness has no bearing on my opinions.

My comment was about climate ,not the Lord Jesus