JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Military won't even take the real nuts, that's why they run around playing pretend soldier.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Green New Deal
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
- Status
I think their point is that commercial real estate will tank since people don't want to live in the city if they don't have work there. ( SF rent rates are down 35 pc)
The climate crisis should be at the heart of the global Covid recovery | Maria Fernanda Espinosa
the greatest opportunity for action against the climate crisis may be the Covid-19 pandemic. This episode in history has been a tragedy: nearly 70m people have been infected globally, and more than 1.5 million have so far lost their lives. The virus has been the cause of the gravest socio-economic crisis since the second world war, with trillions poured into economic relief. For now, providing healthcare and economic relief to those affected should be the priority.
But it’s imperative that resources directed at the Covid recovery also accelerate action against the climate crisis, a threat no less urgent than this pandemic. Some politicians have already followed this reasoning: France’s president Emmanuel Macron was among the first out of the gate when his government refused to give stimulus funds to airlines that would not take steps to drastically reduce emissions.
Such measures aren’t just necessary – they’re popular. If governments are spending incredible resources on reducing unemployment and kickstarting the economic recovery, it’s only fair that those resources go towards building societies that are greener, sustainable and more resilient, rather than redoubling on the fragile models of the past. We should be expanding mass renewable energy, installing electric car charging stations, reforesting, and retrofitting homes, to name just a few examples.
the greatest opportunity for action against the climate crisis may be the Covid-19 pandemic. This episode in history has been a tragedy: nearly 70m people have been infected globally, and more than 1.5 million have so far lost their lives. The virus has been the cause of the gravest socio-economic crisis since the second world war, with trillions poured into economic relief. For now, providing healthcare and economic relief to those affected should be the priority.
But it’s imperative that resources directed at the Covid recovery also accelerate action against the climate crisis, a threat no less urgent than this pandemic. Some politicians have already followed this reasoning: France’s president Emmanuel Macron was among the first out of the gate when his government refused to give stimulus funds to airlines that would not take steps to drastically reduce emissions.
Such measures aren’t just necessary – they’re popular. If governments are spending incredible resources on reducing unemployment and kickstarting the economic recovery, it’s only fair that those resources go towards building societies that are greener, sustainable and more resilient, rather than redoubling on the fragile models of the past. We should be expanding mass renewable energy, installing electric car charging stations, reforesting, and retrofitting homes, to name just a few examples.
ladysbff
Member
New York’s $226 Billion Pension Fund Is Dropping Fossil Fuel Stocks
New York State’s pension fund, one of the world’s largest and most influential investors, will drop many of its fossil fuel stocks in the next five years and sell its shares in other companies that contribute to global warming by 2040, the state comptroller said on Wednesday.
The state comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, had long resisted a sell-off, saying that his primary concern was safeguarding the taxpayer-guaranteed retirement savings of 1.1 million state and municipal workers who rely on the pension fund.
But on Wednesday, Mr. DiNapoli signaled that his main reason for adopting the new plan now was his duty to protect the fund and to set it up for long-term economic success in a world that is moving away from fossil fuels.
“New York State’s pension fund is at the leading edge of investors addressing climate risk, because investing for the low-carbon future is essential to protect the fund’s long-term value,” he said in a statement.
New York State’s pension fund, one of the world’s largest and most influential investors, will drop many of its fossil fuel stocks in the next five years and sell its shares in other companies that contribute to global warming by 2040, the state comptroller said on Wednesday.
The state comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, had long resisted a sell-off, saying that his primary concern was safeguarding the taxpayer-guaranteed retirement savings of 1.1 million state and municipal workers who rely on the pension fund.
But on Wednesday, Mr. DiNapoli signaled that his main reason for adopting the new plan now was his duty to protect the fund and to set it up for long-term economic success in a world that is moving away from fossil fuels.
“New York State’s pension fund is at the leading edge of investors addressing climate risk, because investing for the low-carbon future is essential to protect the fund’s long-term value,” he said in a statement.
I agree we spend too much on the military but what in the heck are the kickbacks to the oil industry? You do understand that the oil industry in general earns less profit margins than most other industries. Right now they have negative returns. I guess the kickbacks you are talking about are the same tax write offs that all other industries get.
I find it interesting it's easy for someone to say that they would be happy to be taxed at 90% above $10 million when they have no chance of doing it. When folks were taxed at 90% they found ways around it or just stopped working. By the way 90% on income tax would not hit the ultra rich much since most of their income is from capital gains and dividends. Biden has talked about raising capital gains taxes on the rich to 39.6 % from current 23.8%. Of course you also have to include state taxes on Capital gains and dividends. In California it's currently 37.1% and it would go to 52.9%. High taxes are already causing folks to move out of California. Raise it high enough and the ultra rich will be motivated to move out of the US.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
It's much more complex than that oft repeated conservative trope.
Fossil Fuel Subsidies & Finance - Oil Change International
Fact Sheet: Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs | White Papers | EESI
Most of these subsidies are similar to what other industries receive. So it says they get $20 billion per year of these subsidies in the US but on the other hand the federal fuel taxes raised $36.4 billion in fuel taxes in 2016. Since most states have higher fuel tax rates the overall tax is much higher. From what I could find California alone collects in excess of $50 billion per year from fuel taxes. If you go to European countries they have much higher fuel taxes than the US. So as we go to more electric vehicles these taxes will need to be shifted to electric generation costs. By the way I actually think they should raise the Federal Fuel taxes.
Yes we subsidize and tax the oil industry. I suppose that is true of most, there is just more oil specific of both because ... that is where the money is.
The argument about subsidies is of course that Koch complains about solar and wind subsidies. Governments have reasons to subsidize different industries for different reasons. But what Koch wants is subsidies for his industries and not others.
I use Koch because it is easier to type than other options but you can just change it out to whatever party or group you think fits.
Arguably there is no great justification to change to electric generation taxation. When the paradigm shifts, there really isn't any reason to stay with the same model - that was invented 100 years ago and doesn't work anyway. Doesn't work because it doesn't cover anywhere close to the cost of building and maintaining roads, not to mention the indirect societal costs like medical costs from car accidents.
Short term, replace the federal gas tax with a carbon tax. Still can hit gas during the transition but will also hit coal, NG electricity generation. What is logical from a carbon and pollution standpoint will be seen by Koch as a huge subsidy to wind and solar. This will need to get tied to rebating the first $1500 from FICA which will be seen as income redistribution. But it could easily be set up as revenue neutral on day 1 and then accelerate it a bit to catch up for the last 27 years of no increase/inflation adjustment.
The argument about subsidies is of course that Koch complains about solar and wind subsidies. Governments have reasons to subsidize different industries for different reasons. But what Koch wants is subsidies for his industries and not others.
I use Koch because it is easier to type than other options but you can just change it out to whatever party or group you think fits.
Arguably there is no great justification to change to electric generation taxation. When the paradigm shifts, there really isn't any reason to stay with the same model - that was invented 100 years ago and doesn't work anyway. Doesn't work because it doesn't cover anywhere close to the cost of building and maintaining roads, not to mention the indirect societal costs like medical costs from car accidents.
Short term, replace the federal gas tax with a carbon tax. Still can hit gas during the transition but will also hit coal, NG electricity generation. What is logical from a carbon and pollution standpoint will be seen by Koch as a huge subsidy to wind and solar. This will need to get tied to rebating the first $1500 from FICA which will be seen as income redistribution. But it could easily be set up as revenue neutral on day 1 and then accelerate it a bit to catch up for the last 27 years of no increase/inflation adjustment.
Trickle-down economics doesn't work but build-up does – is Biden listening? | Robert Reich
If we don’t launch something as bold as a Green New Deal, we’ll spend trillions coping with ever more damaging hurricanes, wildfires, floods and rising sea levels.
The returns from these and other public investments are huge. The costs of not making them are astronomical.
Trickle-down economics is a cruel hoax, while the benefits of build-up economics are real. At this juncture, between a global pandemic and the promise of a post-pandemic world, and between the administrations of Trump and Biden, we would be well-served by changing the economic paradigm from trickle down to build up.
If we don’t launch something as bold as a Green New Deal, we’ll spend trillions coping with ever more damaging hurricanes, wildfires, floods and rising sea levels.
The returns from these and other public investments are huge. The costs of not making them are astronomical.
Trickle-down economics is a cruel hoax, while the benefits of build-up economics are real. At this juncture, between a global pandemic and the promise of a post-pandemic world, and between the administrations of Trump and Biden, we would be well-served by changing the economic paradigm from trickle down to build up.
Incorrect.
The lower classes don't pay federal taxes in the US.
The middle class use tax cuts to pay off debt, which is money already spent.
Therefore tax cuts don't do anything to stimulate the economy.
As for corporate taxes. Governments around the world have been cutting taxes for 50 years. Those very same tax cuts do not get reinvested. As any honest business person will tell you, "Why would I create jobs if there's not any more demand for my goods or services?" As we've seen under the Bush and Trump tax cuts, not only did corporations NOT create jobs, not only did they NOT reinvest in R&D, they laid off people. Those tax savings went to dividends, executive bonuses, and stock buybacks.
Here's another myth busted:
Study of 50 years of tax cuts for rich confirms 'trickle down' theory is an absolute sham
Last edited:
Umm, the lower classes pay FICA and sales taxes aplenty. Both taxes are regressive.
Umm, 100% of it? Do you have a source for that?
A Nobel Laureate in econ and a progressive member of the NYT disagrees with you. Giving his expertise AND the fact that he is a progressive and would like nothing more than to agree with you, he does not.
And the rich don't pay FICA taxes.
You must not be talking about Paul Krugman, because he calls for the same thing as me.
What Biden and Harris Owe the Poor Opinion | What Biden and Harris Owe the Poor
Voters also supported at least 14 ballot initiatives across the country that increase taxes on the wealthy, protect workers, address housing issues and homelessness, bridge the digital divide, fund transportation, confront the criminalization of poverty and limit campaign contributions. Voters across the country demanded health care, living wages, the decriminalization of their communities and a system that taxes those who can afford it most. Sixty-three percent of Americans now say that the government has a responsibility to provide health care for all. Around two-thirds of Biden voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Nevada say that systemic racism is a significant problem, and the same proportion of Americans surveyed last year favored a $15 minimum wage.
From the Trump administration’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to the government’s relief spending to shore up American corporations this year, we have seen what huge federal investment can do to lift the stock market. It’s past time to see what the same level of investment can do to lift the American people.
Voters also supported at least 14 ballot initiatives across the country that increase taxes on the wealthy, protect workers, address housing issues and homelessness, bridge the digital divide, fund transportation, confront the criminalization of poverty and limit campaign contributions. Voters across the country demanded health care, living wages, the decriminalization of their communities and a system that taxes those who can afford it most. Sixty-three percent of Americans now say that the government has a responsibility to provide health care for all. Around two-thirds of Biden voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Nevada say that systemic racism is a significant problem, and the same proportion of Americans surveyed last year favored a $15 minimum wage.
From the Trump administration’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to the government’s relief spending to shore up American corporations this year, we have seen what huge federal investment can do to lift the stock market. It’s past time to see what the same level of investment can do to lift the American people.
If the American People are lifted, then the stock market should also rise as people will purchase more if they have the where-with-all to do so. The difference between giving tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy and helping people prosper is that the money flows rather than stagnates.
In pursuing historic climate change agenda, Biden may find surprising ally
Biden has promised to rejoin the Paris climate agreement, to sign executive orders that limit oil and gas drilling on public lands and in public waters, increase gas mileage standards for vehicles and block the construction of specific fossil-fuel pipelines. He can do all of that through executive action. Biden has also promised to pursue a 100 percent clean electricity standard by 2035 (a proposal that could mean the shuttering or total renovation of all coal-fired and gas-fired power plants in the U.S.) and has called for getting the U.S. to net-zero emissions by 2050, at the latest. He's also proposed a $2 trillion investment in renewable energy projects, with 40 percent of the funds benefiting communities of color that have been harmed by pollutants.
Biden has made it clear, especially through his personnel choices, that he sees the topic as one that merits an all-of-government approach that uses Cabinet agencies like the Transportation and Interior departments to help build new green infrastructure and incentivize developing green energy sources, as well as taking the State Department with corralling other international powers to similarly focus on climate policy and carbon emissions.
Biden has promised to rejoin the Paris climate agreement, to sign executive orders that limit oil and gas drilling on public lands and in public waters, increase gas mileage standards for vehicles and block the construction of specific fossil-fuel pipelines. He can do all of that through executive action. Biden has also promised to pursue a 100 percent clean electricity standard by 2035 (a proposal that could mean the shuttering or total renovation of all coal-fired and gas-fired power plants in the U.S.) and has called for getting the U.S. to net-zero emissions by 2050, at the latest. He's also proposed a $2 trillion investment in renewable energy projects, with 40 percent of the funds benefiting communities of color that have been harmed by pollutants.
Biden has made it clear, especially through his personnel choices, that he sees the topic as one that merits an all-of-government approach that uses Cabinet agencies like the Transportation and Interior departments to help build new green infrastructure and incentivize developing green energy sources, as well as taking the State Department with corralling other international powers to similarly focus on climate policy and carbon emissions.
Could Covid lockdown have helped save the planet?
When lockdown began, climate scientists were horrified at the unfolding tragedy, but also intrigued to observe what they called an “inadvertent experiment” on a global scale. To what extent, they asked, would the Earth system respond to the steepest slowdown in human activity since the second world war? Environmental activists put the question more succinctly: how much would it help to save the planet? Almost one year on from the first reported Covid case, the short answer is: not enough. In fact, experts say the pandemic may have made some environmental problems worse, though there is still a narrow window of opportunity for something good to come from something bad if governments use their economic stimulus packages to promote a green recovery.
The respite was too short to reverse decades of destruction, but it did provide a glimpse of what the world might feel like without fossil fuels and with more space for nature.
When lockdown began, climate scientists were horrified at the unfolding tragedy, but also intrigued to observe what they called an “inadvertent experiment” on a global scale. To what extent, they asked, would the Earth system respond to the steepest slowdown in human activity since the second world war? Environmental activists put the question more succinctly: how much would it help to save the planet? Almost one year on from the first reported Covid case, the short answer is: not enough. In fact, experts say the pandemic may have made some environmental problems worse, though there is still a narrow window of opportunity for something good to come from something bad if governments use their economic stimulus packages to promote a green recovery.
The respite was too short to reverse decades of destruction, but it did provide a glimpse of what the world might feel like without fossil fuels and with more space for nature.
There’s a simple way to green the economy – and it involves cash prizes for all | Henry D Jacoby
For environmental effectiveness, and ease of collection, carbon taxes are best imposed at the earliest point you can: the wellhead or the mine mouth, the refinery output gate, or the port of entry for imports. That way, the incentive to reduce emissions spreads down through the economy. For example, a US tax of $50 per metric tonne of CO2 would raise the price of oil leaving the Texas oil patch by about $21 a barrel, and increase prices throughout the country for motor fuel and products made using oil-based energy. This would percolate down to your local store: environmentally friendly goods would become relatively less expensive, and carbon-intensive ones would be pricier.
There are many ways to manage the proceeds from a carbon tax. It doesn’t have to simply disappear into government coffers. And that’s the secret: it’s possible to design systems that achieve what is called revenue neutrality – where every dollar taken in tax is returned to people’s pockets. One version of this idea would send the revenue to the public as a per-capita carbon dividend, in an annual check.
The dividend part would not only make millions of people happy – who doesn’t like receiving a check in the mail? – it would have a social impact. Even when you factor in the increased cost of energy and other goods, all but the highest income groups – those who consume the most carbon-intense goods and services – would come out ahead, with the lowest income group benefiting most of all. This result should be especially welcome in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has imposed the harshest penalties on the least advantaged communities and cast a harsh light on underlying disparities in income and wealth.
For environmental effectiveness, and ease of collection, carbon taxes are best imposed at the earliest point you can: the wellhead or the mine mouth, the refinery output gate, or the port of entry for imports. That way, the incentive to reduce emissions spreads down through the economy. For example, a US tax of $50 per metric tonne of CO2 would raise the price of oil leaving the Texas oil patch by about $21 a barrel, and increase prices throughout the country for motor fuel and products made using oil-based energy. This would percolate down to your local store: environmentally friendly goods would become relatively less expensive, and carbon-intensive ones would be pricier.
There are many ways to manage the proceeds from a carbon tax. It doesn’t have to simply disappear into government coffers. And that’s the secret: it’s possible to design systems that achieve what is called revenue neutrality – where every dollar taken in tax is returned to people’s pockets. One version of this idea would send the revenue to the public as a per-capita carbon dividend, in an annual check.
The dividend part would not only make millions of people happy – who doesn’t like receiving a check in the mail? – it would have a social impact. Even when you factor in the increased cost of energy and other goods, all but the highest income groups – those who consume the most carbon-intense goods and services – would come out ahead, with the lowest income group benefiting most of all. This result should be especially welcome in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has imposed the harshest penalties on the least advantaged communities and cast a harsh light on underlying disparities in income and wealth.
Joseph Stiglitz
Is Donald Trump an aberration or a symptom of a deeper US malady?
The neoliberal promise that wealth and income gains would trickle down to those at the bottom was fundamentally spurious. As massive structural changes deindustrialised large parts of the country, those left behind we left to fend largely for themselves. As I warned in my books The Price of Inequality and People, Power and Profits, this toxic mix provided an inviting opportunity for a would-be demagogue.
Moreover, the Covid-19 pandemic has underscored the magnitude of the country’s economic and health disparities. As I have repeatedly argued, small tweaks to the system won’t be enough to make large inroads in the country’s ingrained inequalities.
If we not only hold Trump accountable, but also embark on the hard road of economic and political reform to address the underlying problems that gave rise to his toxic presidency, then there is hope of a brighter day.
Is Donald Trump an aberration or a symptom of a deeper US malady?
The neoliberal promise that wealth and income gains would trickle down to those at the bottom was fundamentally spurious. As massive structural changes deindustrialised large parts of the country, those left behind we left to fend largely for themselves. As I warned in my books The Price of Inequality and People, Power and Profits, this toxic mix provided an inviting opportunity for a would-be demagogue.
Moreover, the Covid-19 pandemic has underscored the magnitude of the country’s economic and health disparities. As I have repeatedly argued, small tweaks to the system won’t be enough to make large inroads in the country’s ingrained inequalities.
If we not only hold Trump accountable, but also embark on the hard road of economic and political reform to address the underlying problems that gave rise to his toxic presidency, then there is hope of a brighter day.
- Status
Similar threads
