Latest great Democrat politician idea: "Revenue-neutral" tax on carbon fuel
The mainstream media is reporting--with obvious approval and glee--that a "bipartisan group of top economic
advisors" has issued a statement supporting a tax on CO2, ostensibly to "fight global climate change.
Naturally every Democrat politician--and the RINO's--is absolutely giddy about this, cuz more money, more power, more virtue-signalling. "I care about saving our precious Earth from eeevil oil and coal more than anyone!!!"
Normally, proposing to slap a new tax on something voters need and use (oil, gasoline, electricity) isn't very popular. But this tax has a new twist: It's being touted as "revenue-neutral"--meaning supporters of the tax claim every dollar you pay in this tax will be returned to you in the form of a cash rebate.
"WOW! That's wonderful! How could anyone oppose that deal, eh?"
Dude, if you believe that you're too naive to live.
The economists who signed this statement include Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, and Ben Bernanke. Greenspan and Bernanke were appointed by Republican presidents, which enables the leftists who are pushing this measure to crow that it's "bipartisan"--an adjective Democrat pols push when they're wanting to attract GOP votes to a proposal or bill that rational people would normally reject as insane.
The proposed tax on "carbon" would actually be slapped mainly on oil and coal. A few months before the end of the Obama regime, his advisors drafted a bill that would have slapped a tax on every barrel of oil either produced in the U.S. or imported. The draft proposed $20 per barrel--which would have increased the cost of a barrel by about 25%. They never introduced the bill for consideration because they didn't want to Hilliary's chances of winning. Ah.
This proposal was cunning because on paper at least, the new 25% tax on every barrel of oil would be paid by the oil companies. Since the Left hates corporations, and oil companies in particular, and since most Democrat voters have been propagandized to feel the same, Obama's advisors were confident that the public would accept the new tax. After all, consumers wouldn't be paying it, eh?
It was brilliant.
Except that anyone who know jack-shit about economics knows that just as companies pass along higher costs of labor and raw materials to consumers in the form of higher prices, they always pass taxes along to consumers, Taxes are just another cost element of producing product.
But of course most voters haven't taken or studied econ, so they don't know this. Hell, a lot of politicians of both parties don't know it. But in any case the Obama regime didn't introduce the bill, so it's all academic, eh?
Uh, no. Instead Dem politicians have resurrected the tax, with a new twist to make it even more attractive to stupid voters. "We'll actually give you a rebate--a government check--for every dollar you paid toward this tax. See, we Democrats are always looking out for you little people."
So by "revenue-neutral" the warmies mean the new tax won't cost you, the consumer, a thing. But that's bullshit. First, computing the amount of the rebate, and cutting the checks, will take thousands of new government employees--and their salaries will be money that would otherwise have been available to do whatever you think government should actually do. So even if the gruberment were to pay out all the revenue it collected from the new tax, it would be losing money.
But of course, they won't pay out what they collect.
The reason is that Politicians have an overwhelming compulsion to spend tax revenue on things they want, instead of what the tax was actually said to be designed to do. The best example of this is Social Security: Supposedly, the revenue from the SS tax taken out of every paycheck you get was to go to pay SS benefits. Supposedly, pols couldn't just grab this money and spend it.
That constraint lasted about 25 years, at which time congress passed a law allowing them to "borrow" money from the SS fund. Because congress did it with a law it was all quite legal. And today the Social Security trust fund contains...government IOU's.
The proposed tax on "carbon" will be even easier pickin's, because the gruberment munchkins who estimate how much a family paid in this tax will be free to make assumptions that are unrealistically low, such as basing any rebate on the assumption that a family has an electric car. Or has a house heated by solar energy. So the chances of getting back what you paid on the new carbon tax are zero.
So from the viewpoint of Democrat pols and mainstream media, this is a wonderful idea. They look like heroes to their base by taking strong action to cut the use of oil, natural gas and coal, while punishing the oil companies, which their base will believe will be paying the tax. And to make the new tax bill seem even more wonderful to voters, it'll give them a check every year, for a tax most of 'em will think they didn't even pay.
The fact that it's all bullshit will never occur to 'em.
Naturally every Democrat politician--and the RINO's--is absolutely giddy about this, cuz more money, more power, more virtue-signalling. "I care about saving our precious Earth from eeevil oil and coal more than anyone!!!"
Normally, proposing to slap a new tax on something voters need and use (oil, gasoline, electricity) isn't very popular. But this tax has a new twist: It's being touted as "revenue-neutral"--meaning supporters of the tax claim every dollar you pay in this tax will be returned to you in the form of a cash rebate.
"WOW! That's wonderful! How could anyone oppose that deal, eh?"
Dude, if you believe that you're too naive to live.
The economists who signed this statement include Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, and Ben Bernanke. Greenspan and Bernanke were appointed by Republican presidents, which enables the leftists who are pushing this measure to crow that it's "bipartisan"--an adjective Democrat pols push when they're wanting to attract GOP votes to a proposal or bill that rational people would normally reject as insane.
The proposed tax on "carbon" would actually be slapped mainly on oil and coal. A few months before the end of the Obama regime, his advisors drafted a bill that would have slapped a tax on every barrel of oil either produced in the U.S. or imported. The draft proposed $20 per barrel--which would have increased the cost of a barrel by about 25%. They never introduced the bill for consideration because they didn't want to Hilliary's chances of winning. Ah.
This proposal was cunning because on paper at least, the new 25% tax on every barrel of oil would be paid by the oil companies. Since the Left hates corporations, and oil companies in particular, and since most Democrat voters have been propagandized to feel the same, Obama's advisors were confident that the public would accept the new tax. After all, consumers wouldn't be paying it, eh?
It was brilliant.
Except that anyone who know jack-shit about economics knows that just as companies pass along higher costs of labor and raw materials to consumers in the form of higher prices, they always pass taxes along to consumers, Taxes are just another cost element of producing product.
But of course most voters haven't taken or studied econ, so they don't know this. Hell, a lot of politicians of both parties don't know it. But in any case the Obama regime didn't introduce the bill, so it's all academic, eh?
Uh, no. Instead Dem politicians have resurrected the tax, with a new twist to make it even more attractive to stupid voters. "We'll actually give you a rebate--a government check--for every dollar you paid toward this tax. See, we Democrats are always looking out for you little people."
So by "revenue-neutral" the warmies mean the new tax won't cost you, the consumer, a thing. But that's bullshit. First, computing the amount of the rebate, and cutting the checks, will take thousands of new government employees--and their salaries will be money that would otherwise have been available to do whatever you think government should actually do. So even if the gruberment were to pay out all the revenue it collected from the new tax, it would be losing money.
But of course, they won't pay out what they collect.
The reason is that Politicians have an overwhelming compulsion to spend tax revenue on things they want, instead of what the tax was actually said to be designed to do. The best example of this is Social Security: Supposedly, the revenue from the SS tax taken out of every paycheck you get was to go to pay SS benefits. Supposedly, pols couldn't just grab this money and spend it.
That constraint lasted about 25 years, at which time congress passed a law allowing them to "borrow" money from the SS fund. Because congress did it with a law it was all quite legal. And today the Social Security trust fund contains...government IOU's.
The proposed tax on "carbon" will be even easier pickin's, because the gruberment munchkins who estimate how much a family paid in this tax will be free to make assumptions that are unrealistically low, such as basing any rebate on the assumption that a family has an electric car. Or has a house heated by solar energy. So the chances of getting back what you paid on the new carbon tax are zero.
So from the viewpoint of Democrat pols and mainstream media, this is a wonderful idea. They look like heroes to their base by taking strong action to cut the use of oil, natural gas and coal, while punishing the oil companies, which their base will believe will be paying the tax. And to make the new tax bill seem even more wonderful to voters, it'll give them a check every year, for a tax most of 'em will think they didn't even pay.
The fact that it's all bullshit will never occur to 'em.
posted by SF at
1:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home