Jump to content

US Politics: Shryke and Commodore agree (and other signs and portents)


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

continue...

In case anyone missed it on the last page of the last thread, Shryke and Commodore are in agreement on Rooftop Solar being the devil, you can always count on one to carry water for big government and one to carry water for big oil, but which one is which? I can't tell anymore!

Down with Big Czolar!

Eta:

:commie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't. At a 90% rate (which, taking into account state and local taxes would put you well over 90%), you will have long, long, passed any benefit and would actually be discouraging investment. I personally do believe in the Laffer curve, though at rates high above where some say it kicks in. 90% definitely will see that happening.

But a 90% rate, which I don't necessarily agree with, isn't intended as means for increasing tax revenue (which is why you would use the Laffer curve argument), it's intended as a disincentive for paying salaries (incl bonuses) that put execs in that tax bracket. But along with it requires the closing of loopholes that allow execs to still earn huge sums but at the same time avoid that tax bracket. It's the same reason govts increase the tax on tobacco and alcohol, they do so not to try to take in more revenue, but to try to get people to consume less. So the question is whether it is actually effective in achieving it's main policy aim, not whether it achieves something which is not wanted.

Also, it would not matter if it caused a reduction in tax revenue if it had the intended effect: transferring money into re-investment, better pay and conditions for employees and more employment. This should have the positive social benefit of reducing demand for govt social services, thereby having a neutral or even positive effect on govt expenses vs. revenue. Also, you don't really need to factor local and state taxes into that 90% because it's likely the 10% the exec gets to keep is put into some form of savings or investment and will increase significantly before it is spent, thus negating the marginal effect of consumption taxes.

But the big question for the professional economists is whether the public policy aims of a 90% tax rate would actually be achieved, or whether they could be achieved more efficiently, effectively and directly in other ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

continue...

In case anyone missed it on the last page of the last thread, Shryke and Commodore are in agreement on Rooftop Solar being the devil, you can always count on one to carry water for big government and one to carry water for big oil, but which one is which? I can't tell anymore!

If a constitutional amendment were passed abolishing corporate welfare (subsidies, bailouts, guaranteed loans), you'd quickly find out which corporation's business model relies on wealth transfer from the taxpayer.

I have a feeling Elon Musk would be exposed, but perhaps not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

continue...

In case anyone missed it on the last page of the last thread, Shryke and Commodore are in agreement on Rooftop Solar being the devil, you can always count on one to carry water for big government and one to carry water for big oil, but which one is which? I can't tell anymore!

Uh huh. Quality reading going on here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

continue...

In case anyone missed it on the last page of the last thread, Shryke and Commodore are in agreement on Rooftop Solar being the devil, you can always count on one to carry water for big government and one to carry water for big oil, but which one is which? I can't tell anymore!

I'm all for self generation, though I realise it's problematic from the perspective of ability to supply if/when climatic conditions mean a large reduction in self generation and a sudden increased draw on utility generation. It has 2 solutions: local storage of excess (i.e. batteries in your basement), and multiple forms of self generation (wind+solar). Here in Wellington it's almost always either windy or sunny, and frequently it's both. Being set up with both wind and solar on my roof would mean I massively over-generate over the course of a year. But there are days when it's both cloudy and still (and that's when the airport gets closed for fog for a whole day). So battery storage would be essential for those few days. However battery capacity required for, say, 3 day's winter power demand would be well exceeded by over generation so there would need to be some way of shedding that extra power into the grid once batteries are fully charged. The extra power fed into the grid would first go towards paying for the utility's infrastructure, and then after exceeding that level it would be held in credit for those few times where I would need to draw more than 3 day's supply without replenishing. With self generators being set up with a 3 day supply on battery power weather forecasting can readily predict if there will be a substantial demand from the grid on day 4 and generation can be increased in readiness. Or the utility can drip feed power into the batteries before the demand kicks in so that utility generation can be managed without big spikes in generation/demand. In Auckland the options for self generation aren't so feasible, because it's less sunny than Wellington, and a lot less windy. So homes would not easily be able to over generate with domestic sized wind and solar units.

Also, people can learn to live within their means, which means better understanding of power use, improving personal efficiency and doing without for a short period of time. If you opt in to energy independence, of a sort, you also buy into the consequences of having to manage your personal energy security. If you don't want to do without then stick with the status quo and buy all your energy off the grid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and the above is sort of the point Shryke is oblivious to in his zeal to be on the side of the utilities, if people succumb to the bleating of the utilities that they must repeal all net metering laws and stop solar in its tracks, then no creative solutions as outlined above will ever be discovered. Sure a utility death spiral is possible if solar hits 2.5% but that will never happen because we'll come up with a nuanced solution. But the cudgel approach of shrieking, "retreat," and immediately believing 100% the problematic arguments of an obviously biased party once a single unintended consequence begins to form and appear is incredibly shortsighted (though a fairly typical of genus liberaluswonkus).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and the above is sort of the point Shryke is oblivious to in his zeal to be on the side of the utilities, if people succumb to the bleating of the utilities that they must repeal all net metering laws and stop solar in its tracks, then no creative solutions as outlined above will ever be discovered. Sure a utility death spiral is possible if solar hits 2.5% but that will never happen because we'll come up with a nuanced solution. But the cudgel approach of shrieking, "retreat," and immediately believing 100% the problematic arguments of an obviously biased party once a single unintended consequence begins to form and appear is incredibly shortsighted (though a fairly typical of genus liberaluswonkus).

Uh huh.

Lockesnow, if you are gonna try and have a discussion on this news item, it would behove you to actually read what other people write. You know, actually use your brain and think about a subject and be a big boy.

Your post is inaccurate, dickish and your whole demeanour here is basically yelling at anyone who dares point out any challenges with spot-generation of solar power integrating into our current power system. Because obviously anyone who might see issues on the horizon just wants to completely stop everything or whatever else your ridiculous strawman involves.

I mean, it's not like the article doesn't bring up this very issue:

If solar is to keep growing, though, regulators will ultimately have to figure out a workable compromise here. Indeed, a recent report from the International Energy Agency argued that the success of solar would depend on policies that "facilitate distributed [solar photovoltaic] generation while ensuring [transmission and distribution] grid cost recovery."

But I'm sure the article is also bad and wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my POV, the utility/political backlash against Solar power is an indicator of just how completely dependent on fossil fuels modern civilization is. From the POV of the 'status quo' types, ANYTHING that threatens even a minor reduction in fossil fuel usage (like solar panels on roof tops and electric cars) is a menace that must be smashed. Problem is, the fossil fuel supply is fixed (finite), and the vast majority of oil reserves, at least, are either depleted or in unstable/unfriendly parts of the world. Hence the bind:

Change MUST happen. Change CANNOT be allowed to happen.

But that's just my take on the POV of the powers that be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But a 90% rate, which I don't necessarily agree with, isn't intended as means for increasing tax revenue (which is why you would use the Laffer curve argument), it's intended as a disincentive for paying salaries (incl bonuses) that put execs in that tax bracket. But along with it requires the closing of loopholes that allow execs to still earn huge sums but at the same time avoid that tax bracket. It's the same reason govts increase the tax on tobacco and alcohol, they do so not to try to take in more revenue, but to try to get people to consume less. So the question is whether it is actually effective in achieving it's main policy aim, not whether it achieves something which is not wanted.

Also, it would not matter if it caused a reduction in tax revenue if it had the intended effect: transferring money into re-investment, better pay and conditions for employees and more employment. This should have the positive social benefit of reducing demand for govt social services, thereby having a neutral or even positive effect on govt expenses vs. revenue. Also, you don't really need to factor local and state taxes into that 90% because it's likely the 10% the exec gets to keep is put into some form of savings or investment and will increase significantly before it is spent, thus negating the marginal effect of consumption taxes.

But the big question for the professional economists is whether the public policy aims of a 90% tax rate would actually be achieved, or whether they could be achieved more efficiently, effectively and directly in other ways.

1. I am on record, repeatedly, as saying that the tax system should be as behavior neutral as we can manage. Trying to use the code to influence behavior sounds good in concept and makes a great sound bite but in practice never works out with the intended consequences. I am against sin taxes too btw. (And governments have gotten addicted to sin taxes too, which poses it's own problems, distortion aside).

2. You must live in a state without an income tax.

3. Most execs are paying full freight on their earned income. There are very few deductions and credits against wages (other than the aforementioned mortgage interest deduction). Most of the shady foreign tax credit generators and other shelters have been shut down. The play is in (a) deferral and (b) if you can get it, cap gain v ordinary income (the difference between a 24 percent and 44 percent top federal rate, rounding slightly). There might be more play in making exec pay non deductible above a certain level, if you wanted to use incentives through the tax code, because it is the large tax corporate tax shield generated by these payments (and spreads on option exercise) that partly drives this, but that's partly what 280G and 162(m) are doing in the Code. See above re unmitigated failure.

So anyhow, no, I don't agree the tax code is the way to do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my POV, the utility/political backlash against Solar power is an indicator of just how completely dependent on fossil fuels modern civilization is. From the POV of the 'status quo' types, ANYTHING that threatens even a minor reduction in fossil fuel usage (like solar panels on roof tops and electric cars) is a menace that must be smashed. Problem is, the fossil fuel supply is fixed (finite), and the vast majority of oil reserves, at least, are either depleted or in unstable/unfriendly parts of the world. Hence the bind:

Change MUST happen. Change CANNOT be allowed to happen.

But that's just my take on the POV of the powers that be.

It's more the fact that anyone who's done even a nanoseconds worth of study into solar (or wind) electricity generation quickly comes to the realization that the things are utterly useless. They're far too expensive and unreliable to be worth a damn. Furthermore if environmentalists were serious about AGW then they'd be advocating a crash program to fast track fission reactors, namely thorium salt piles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more the fact that anyone who's done even a nanoseconds worth of study into solar (or wind) electricity generation quickly comes to the realization that the things are utterly useless. They're far too expensive and unreliable to be worth a damn.

A point directly contradicted by the attitude of the political groups and utility companies campaigning against solar power (and other types of renewable energy), not to mention the people actually using them. And did you miss the tidbit about how costs for these things are dropping?

Furthermore if environmentalists were serious about AGW then they'd be advocating a crash program to fast track fission reactors, namely thorium salt piles.

Nuclear (fission) power also relies on nonrenewable elements, and as events in the then USSR and more recently Japan demonstrated, is also pretty dang dangerous.

So, when the fossil fuels and fissionable elements are mostly depleted, renewables are what we are left with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more the fact that anyone who's done even a nanoseconds worth of study into solar (or wind) electricity generation quickly comes to the realization that the things are utterly useless. They're far too expensive and unreliable to be worth a damn.

So I take it you haven't done more than a nanosecond of research, and that nanosecond seems to have taken place long ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear (fission) power also relies on nonrenewable elements, and as events in the then USSR and more recently Japan demonstrated, is also pretty dang dangerous.

So, when the fossil fuels and fissionable elements are mostly depleted, renewables are what we are left with.

So it might be a problem in like 50 millennia? I think we'll be ok.

The issues in the USSR were, well, so deliberately stupid it's amazing. The Japanese situation was an older reactor.

Anti-nuclear hysteria is actually worse for everyone in that it promotes the use of older, less safe reactors and the use of fossil fuels that are worse for the environment, health and as I remember, produce more radiation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my POV, the utility/political backlash against Solar power is an indicator of just how completely dependent on fossil fuels modern civilization is. From the POV of the 'status quo' types, ANYTHING that threatens even a minor reduction in fossil fuel usage (like solar panels on roof tops and electric cars) is a menace that must be smashed. Problem is, the fossil fuel supply is fixed (finite), and the vast majority of oil reserves, at least, are either depleted or in unstable/unfriendly parts of the world. Hence the bind:

Change MUST happen. Change CANNOT be allowed to happen.

But that's just my take on the POV of the powers that be.

The current issue isn't as much the threat to fossil fuel usage, but the on who gets to pay for our (privately owned) energy redistribution networks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current issue isn't as much the threat to fossil fuel usage, but the on who gets to pay for our (privately owned) energy redistribution networks.

Indeed. That seems to be the main issue in the Vox article (relink here: http://www.vox.com/2014/9/29/6849723/solar-power-net-metering-utilities-fight-states)

There's alot of stuff in there about the politics of it all, but the main point they seem to make is that the utility companies are most worried because they are stuck with the fixed cost of maintaining the grid.

Of course, as I said last thread, this raises the question of why a private company is in charge of that shit in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. That seems to be the main issue in the Vox article (relink here: http://www.vox.com/2014/9/29/6849723/solar-power-net-metering-utilities-fight-states)

There's alot of stuff in there about the politics of it all, but the main point they seem to make is that the utility companies are most worried because they are stuck with the fixed cost of maintaining the grid.

Of course, as I said last thread, this raises the question of why a private company is in charge of that shit in the first place.

Are the utility companies really looking to solve the issue with regards to the fixed cost of maintaining the grid or are they using that as an excuse? I'm asking because the Anti-Targ puts forward a semblance of a solution. Mainly both sides behaving in a fair and responsible manner. But it seems that in this country we view "doing the fair and responsible thing" as being for sissies. (With all due respect to sissies.) We don't act like grown-ups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the utility companies really looking to solve the issue with regards to the fixed cost of maintaining the grid or are they using that as an excuse? I'm asking because the Anti-Targ puts forward a semblance of a solution. Mainly both sides behaving in a fair and responsible manner. But it seems that in this country we view "doing the fair and responsible thing" as being for sissies. (With all due respect to sissies.) We don't act like grown-ups.

Well, it's an actual problem they are facing that they'd like solved. I'm sure they'd love to shiv the competition in the groin along the way but the issue is still real and needs to be dealt with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current issue isn't as much the threat to fossil fuel usage, but the on who gets to pay for our (privately owned) energy redistribution networks.

Most power plants run on fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are finite.

Yet our entire civilization is totally dependent on fossil fuels to operate. Plastics? That comes from oil. Many fabrics are 'oil rich'. When you purchase gasoline, part of what you pay is taxes that is supposed to go for things like roads. There is no single substitute for fossil fuels. There are technologies and resources which when combined can make up some of the difference, especially if scaled up. But truly developing those resources is a direct threat to the power and profits of the oil majors, who to all intents and purposes are among the real power players behind the façade of our government. The US basically invaded Iraq because the oil majors wanted access to the oil fields there. Prior to that, the US government played games with governments across the ME and elsewhere to secure oil rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...