US Politics: all assertions sourced, or your subsidy returned

[sToNED_CAT]

Good point. Let's have EU style benefits.

THe problem is - even with such high taxes, there would be no EU style benefits. It's, basically like the article said just done to extend current level of SS benefits for another 30 years. And I think 60% taxation is already on the right side of Laffer curve and would have negative effects both on tax revenue and economy in general.

[Suttree]

How was the Laffer Curve shown to be nonsense?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/more-laffering/?_r=0

It's been widely discredited for some time.

[Borsabil]

The problem with the Laffer Curve isn't that there's no sense to the concept at all. It's probably true that at some point an increase in government revenue-seeking would actually be counter-productive. The problem is that conservatives look at the amazing geometrical shape and ascribe otherworldly powers of tax reduction magic to it.

One of the greatest magazine articles ever which I've posted several times over the years on this subject I shall post again here.

As a good progressive at what tax rate would you estimate the drop of revenue occurs? 99 or 100%?

[Ormond]

I know Nebraska state politics isn't really very nationally significant, but I figure if there's anyone on this board who'd be interested it will be those who read this thread.

Anyway, I was amazed to read the following article in the Omaha World Herald today:

http://www.omaha.com/article/20131206/NEWS/131209199/1685#new-nebraska-state-senator-withdraws-just-hours-after-appointment-after-questions-arise

Here's the most relevant three paragraphs:

Gov. Dave Heineman announced Friday morning that Patrick Shannon, 55, would be the “fiscal conservative” to replace Scott Price, who resigned the seat in November.

The World-Herald then asked the governor's office about the $16,000 state fine levied against Shannon in 2004 for secretly orchestrating a smear campaign against a legislative opponent.

About three hours later, the Bellevue businessman withdrew from the appointment. He said he had to attend to his father, who had “just suffered a heart attack.”

If you read the article you'll see the guy has all sorts of back tax problems, and:

When asked a question about the IRS, Shannon said: “It's a criminal organization that steals money from anyone they want.”

I am SO happy that local journalism worked in this instance to prevent this guy from becoming a Nebraska state senator. :)

[Shryke]

So, that's basically 13% tax increase for everyone making over 113 000, just to fund unsustainable system for 30 more years. And THAT only if it would have no effect on tax avoidance, which I highly doubt. Now I know many liberal don't think too much about Laffer curve, but together with federal taxes in states like NY or Cali those people would end up paying over 60% of their income to state. Those are already EU taxation levels, without corresponding benefits.

SS isn't unsustainable though. Even at it's current funding levels it can keep going with only a cut in benefits of .. I want to say 25% but it's been awhile since I looked up the exact numbers.

[Borsabil]

Hey AP, you are being less sarcastic then you thought!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/alec-freerider-homeowners-assault-clean-energy

Renewable energy is for chumps!

I have to admit that I was appalled reading that article. How vary dare the Rethuglicans demand that solar panel users only NOT receive a subsidized tariff for their surplus electricity but they're also suggesting they pay a few bucks for using the electrical infrastructure. The great thing about solar panels is that only wealthier people can afford the things, how could any right thinking Repub oppose wealthy folks getting a subsidy from poorer electricity users? The degree of depravity exposed is breathtaking!

[Summah]

I didn't realize the pension/social security thing had changed, I think all the federal government employees I know are friends of my parents or paternal grandparents and were hired when pensions were the thing in the fed govt and I know some people from college who became teachers and they all pay into a state pension plan instead of social security, so I guess I just assumed it was more widespread.

[TerraPrime]

Seriously?

This coming from a Tea Party person who sneers at government investment in infrastructure and who argues for individual plans of pay-to-use scheme for public utilities? You're now arguing that it's about the users paying back for the infrastructure cost? And the rest of your sarcasm doesn't even make senese. Adding a tax is not going to make it more affordable, is it? And it's not like your philosophy will permit the tax levied to be used to subsidize less affluent solar-panel users, because that'd be wealth redistribution.

So I don't even know what starting point you're starting from other than to defend anything that the conservative think tanks can spit out from their unwiped assholes.

It's not like it is a surprise to me that your espoused politics lacks any sort of internal logic or coherence, but it's still jarring to see such a display of distinctive cognitive dissonance.

[Borsabil]

Seriously?This coming from a Tea Party person who sneers at government investment in infrastructure and who argues for individual plans of pay-to-use scheme for public utilities? You're now arguing that it's about the users paying back for the infrastructure cost? And the rest of your sarcasm doesn't even make senese. Adding a tax is not going to make it more affordable, is it? And it's not like your philosophy will permit the tax levied to be used to subsidize less affluent solar-panel users, because that'd be wealth redistribution.So I don't even know what starting point you're starting from other than to defend anything that the conservative think tanks can spit out from their unwiped assholes.It's not like it is a surprise to me that your espoused politics lacks any sort of internal logic or coherence, but it's still jarring to see such a display of distinctive cognitive dissonance.

TP, are there states that outlaw off grid power generation? The Guardian article discussed a couple of issues, first ending the subsidized feed in tariffs paid to solar panel owners and making them pay something for using the common infrastructure IF they are not off grid. Secondly doing away with renewable energy targets. Subsidized tariffs are most certainly a subsidy for wealthier people paid by the poor. If folks want to live off grid have at it, but as that is not what the article was reporting I'm not sure of your point.

[TerraPrime]

"This is an issue we are going to be exploring," Eick said. He said Alec wanted to lower the rate electricity companies pay homeowners for direct power generation – and maybe even charge homeowners for feeding power into the grid.

"As it stands now, those direct generation customers are essentially freeriders on the system. They are not paying for the infrastructure they are using. In effect, all the other non direct generation customers are being penalised," he said.

We're talking about charging someone for selling surplus energy back to the grid. As I understand it they are usually selling to the local utility company. They are not "using" the grid in the sense that they are drawing power from the generators. They are selling a surplus product. At the most, you might argue that we should subtract the cost of the shared cost of infrastructure from the cost of surplus energy. But to charge someone for the "use" of the grid for selling surplus? That breaks all limits on common sense and flies in the face of the underpinning principle of solar energy - to promote reduced reliance on fossil-fuel-based energy. But that's the core objection all along, isn't it, that ALEC does NOT want a weakened reliance on fossil fuels.

I'd much more willing to entertain the idea if the plan came with an explanation on how this recuperation of infrastructure cost is to be distribuetd and used in updating and maintaining the powergrid infrastructure. A side-by-side comparison on how the current utilities companies pay or the use would be nice, as well. But as it stands, coming from ALEC, this reeks as a nakedly self-serving gambit to discourage alternate energy use.

Ultimately, this petty vengeance ploy will do more to reveal the ethical depravity of ALEC than it will to curb enthusiasm for solar panels. If you charge people to sell back the surplus, they'd simply drain the surplus. I imagine most people install solar panels for environmental reasons, not to make a quick buck. The earnings from selling back surplus probably are not the prime motivator. I know that I'd still install the panels even if I can't sell the surplus. I'd probably look into investing in an extra capacitator or two for the surplus in that case, instead of deciding not to install the panels.

[Inigima]

I think the Laffer Curve has serious problems of rigor, but even allowing for it as 100% truth, the modern conservative take on it doesn't actually follow it accurately. The Laffer Curve doesn't say this, but they insist that lower taxes are always better, in effect saying that the left bound is always at 0. A less dogmatic reading of the theory -- again, if you were to assume a priori that everything about it were accurate -- would allow that the optimal point on the curve might be > 0.

[Inigima]

Also, rethinking this now, the Laffer Curve is about maximizing government revenues, yeah? It posits that government revenues increase along with taxes until a certain (disputed) point, at which point increasing taxes more starts to be counterproductive.

You'll note something important about this: The people who now lean on the Laffer Curve as an argument for policy don't give a shit about government revenues. If anything they want it as close to 0 as possible, because they think the government should do as close to nothing as possible. That's because their argument has sweet fuckall to do with economic theory, and everything to do with political dogma.

That's why conservative economic theory is such a clusterfuck: they don't really care about economic theory. They've decided before even entering the argument that lower taxes are always better. It's a matter of philosophy, not of reasoned economic analysis.

[Borsabil]

We're talking about charging someone for selling surplus energy back to the grid. As I understand it they are usually selling to the local utility company. They are not "using" the grid in the sense that they are drawing power from the generators. They are selling a surplus product. At the most, you might argue that we should subtract the cost of the shared cost of infrastructure from the cost of surplus energy. But to charge someone for the "use" of the grid for selling surplus? That breaks all limits on common sense and flies in the face of the underpinning principle of solar energy - to promote reduced reliance on fossil-fuel-based energy. But that's the core objection all along, isn't it, that ALEC does NOT want a weakened reliance on fossil fuels.I'd much more willing to entertain the idea if the plan came with an explanation on how this recuperation of infrastructure cost is to be distribuetd and used in updating and maintaining the powergrid infrastructure. A side-by-side comparison on how the current utilities companies pay or the use would be nice, as well. But as it stands, coming from ALEC, this reeks as a nakedly self-serving gambit to discourage alternate energy use.Ultimately, this petty vengeance ploy will do more to reveal the ethical depravity of ALEC than it will to curb enthusiasm for solar panels. If you charge people to sell back the surplus, they'd simply drain the surplus. I imagine most people install solar panels for environmental reasons, not to make a quick buck. The earnings from selling back surplus probably are not the prime motivator. I know that I'd still install the panels even if I can't sell the surplus. I'd probably look into investing in an extra capacitator or two for the surplus in that case, instead of deciding not to install the panels.

It depends on the rate being charged, however the principle is fine. At present utilities are being forced to purchase surplus solar power at an above market price. On top of that solar panel owners are paying nothing towards the maintenance and upkeep of commonly owned infrastructure that they're using to make money. All this is paid for by people, generally poorer, who do not own solar panels. Like most progressive policies towards energy generation, domestic solar panels are completely useless and hideously expensive as a means to generate usable base load power, but that's another debate.

[ThinkerX]

It depends on the rate being charged, however the principle is fine. At present utilities are being forced to purchase surplus solar power at an above market price. On top of that solar panel owners are paying nothing towards the maintenance and upkeep of commonly owned infrastructure that they're using to make money. All this is paid for by people, generally poorer, who do not own solar panels. Like most progressive policies towards energy generation, domestic solar panels are completely useless and hideously expensive as a means to generate usable base load power, but that's another debate.

This is something I kindof-sortof keep tabs on.

First, a lot of the people with solar panels on their roofs are NOT particularly 'rich'. Middle class, yes, but not rich. I've known some folks who went this route in my less than sunny state, and by and large, 'rich' they were not.

Second, what getting overlooked here is these people DO NOT get 100% of their electricity from solar panels. (No solar power at night, among other things).

Third, the money they make from selling power back to the grid is tiny: maybe enough to take the family out to a cheap dinner once a month and is likely outweighed by their *normal* electric bill anyhow. Talking tens of dollars here, not hundreds.

No, the industries REAL objection is these people are using substantially less energy (buying less power from the electric companies) than they were before installing the solar panels. Its about keeping people dependent.

There is also the underlying issue that politicians of neither party are willing to face up to: the civilized world is in the opening stages of a long term energy crisis which will last decades. At an absolute minimum, oil is going to become scarcer and more expensive, and the same goes for coal. At the same time, though, our civilization is totally dependent on fossil fuels to keep things going 'as is', even though this situation cannot last in the long or even medium term (as in a decade or two). So deeply entrenched is this dependence on fossil fuels that even modest, barely more than pathetic efforts towards renewable energy - like solar panels and electric cars (or even high fuel efficenty hybrids) threaten the whole ediface. Hence, true efforts towards renewable energy get squelched even though thats an extremely stupid move in the long term.

[Inigima]

It depends on the rate being charged, however the principle is fine. At present utilities are being forced to purchase surplus solar power at an above market price. On top of that solar panel owners are paying nothing towards the maintenance and upkeep of commonly owned infrastructure that they're using to make money. All this is paid for by people, generally poorer, who do not own solar panels. Like most progressive policies towards energy generation, domestic solar panels are completely useless and hideously expensive as a means to generate usable base load power, but that's another debate.

What are the mechanics by which power companies are "forced" to buy the surplus, and how is the price determined? I'm seriously asking, because that wasn't my understanding. Citations would be helpful if you can provide them.

[Persicaria]

So, that's basically 13% tax increase for everyone making over 113 000, just to fund unsustainable system for 30 more years. And THAT only if it would have no effect on tax avoidance, which I highly doubt. Now I know many liberal don't think too much about Laffer curve, but together with federal taxes in states like NY or Cali those people would end up paying over 60% of their income to state. Those are already EU taxation levels, without corresponding benefits.

Reading skills: Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin sponsored legislation that would gradually remove the cap that currently makes only the first $113,700 in wages subject to Social Security taxes. He says it's the only fair thing to do.

The bill they propose would increase how much of your wages could be taxed by social security. Now, I am not an economist, and so had to look up the laffre curve but are your proposing that the tax rate we have is the maximally efficient rate for total revenue ? how is that possible when we paid higher tax rates in the 90's and actually had better economic prospects? Or do you think that cutting a system without trying to get capital is socially responsible to individuals who are heading to retirement or are now retired and couldn't have predicted that the government would have passed the ball this far down along the line. We are raising the age of retirement, and the compensation and growth of compensation isn't that amazingly stellar in the first place.

I do not reject future cuts to social security , but I think twiddling our fingers and saying it's just too expensive and we can't afford it is idiotic when there are reasonable ways we can get revenue! We knickle and dime the middle class, but the wealthy and super wealthy have loopholes written for them ( so that even though some pay a good amount in taxes others walk off paying pennies).

[Inigima]

Now, I am not an economist, and so had to look up the laffre curve but are your proposing that the tax rate we have is the maximally efficient rate for total revenue ?

See my post above. Current conservative thinking (including libertarians) has nothing whatsoever to do with maximizing revenues.

[Borsabil]

This is something I kindof-sortof keep tabs on.First, a lot of the people with solar panels on their roofs are NOT particularly 'rich'. Middle class, yes, but not rich. I've known some folks who went this route in my less than sunny state, and by and large, 'rich' they were not.Second, what getting overlooked here is these people DO NOT get 100% of their electricity from solar panels. (No solar power at night, among other things).Third, the money they make from selling power back to the grid is tiny: maybe enough to take the family out to a cheap dinner once a month and is likely outweighed by their *normal* electric bill anyhow. Talking tens of dollars here, not hundreds.No, the industries REAL objection is these people are using substantially less energy (buying less power from the electric companies) than they were before installing the solar panels. Its about keeping people dependent.There is also the underlying issue that politicians of neither party are willing to face up to: the civilized world is in the opening stages of a long term energy crisis which will last decades. At an absolute minimum, oil is going to become scarcer and more expensive, and the same goes for coal. At the same time, though, our civilization is totally dependent on fossil fuels to keep things going 'as is', even though this situation cannot last in the long or even medium term (as in a decade or two). So deeply entrenched is this dependence on fossil fuels that even modest, barely more than pathetic efforts towards renewable energy - like solar panels and electric cars (or even high fuel efficenty hybrids) threaten the whole ediface. Hence, true efforts towards renewable energy get squelched even though thats an extremely stupid move in the long term.

Hey I have no objection to folks slapping solar panels on their roofs, if that's your thing have at it. Nor am I supporting solar panel owners being penalized and being made to pay more for common infrastructure than anyone else. However this not how I read the Guardian article. The 'scandal' seems to be an industry lobby group advocating the abolition of subsidized feed in tariffs and asking solar panel owners to pay towards the infrastructure they're using. Btw it doesn't matter if you're using only a tiny fraction of power the electricity grid is a fixed cost for utilities, it'd be better if everyone attached to the grid paid a fixed fee for utilizing it. As things stand poorer people are subsidizing the cost of solar panels.

[TerraPrime]

What are the mechanics by which power companies are "forced" to buy the surplus, and how is the price determined? I'm seriously asking, because that wasn't my understanding. Citations would be helpful if you can provide them.

:rofl:

You funny.

[Suttree]

Citations would be helpful if you can provide them.

AHAHAHA!