Coal Tax

kootch88 · Post by **kootch88** » Mon. Nov. 03, 2008 3:13 pm

SAU wrote:
kootch88 wrote:I also want lots of bombs, large standing armies, the best R&D, missiles etc. I also want the best roads possible, and I do not want a stitch of snow on them during the winter months and I want my Social Security when I hit 65, not 70 or 72 and I want my healthcare taken care of for free. I deserve it, I worked hard all my life.

If you are directing that at me you are way out of context because I'm no friend to imperialism. I will never receive SS and I'm betting you won't either, because it is a pyramid system that will fail, and fail soon. This was not directed at you or anyone in particular, just aimed at all of us as Americans. We are becoming more and more egocentric without thought and I hear the crap all day long.
kootch88 wrote:I do not want to pay school taxes, corporate income tax, social security tax, gasoline tax, personal income tax, beer tax, coal tax or any other kind of tax.
I have a problem with paying federal taxes that are then redistributed without representation throughout the country. We have town counsels we elect, state representatives and congressional representation, how much more representation do we have to have, one rep for one person? That is not feasible. I don't like the federal government attaching strings to the money that the schools receive back, that is where gay education comes from. SS is insolvent. Gas tax no longer funds our roads, Personal income tax was left to the states and while you may claim sophistry income is not the same as wages, but that's a deep subject that most would not want to follow. Last time I checked beer is not a necessity. The coal tax that Obama is promoting will be another boondoggle just as grains to gas is a boondoggle. If there is a need or desire for these products a free market does not need federal subsidies to fund them. Great point, why give corporations special treatment with TIFS and other tax breaks? Hope you enjoy the higher price of grain since the government got into the business of fermenting it all for gasoline. What a terrible idea, we actually subsidize something that gives us less power, increases land usage for fuel instead of food, increases the amount of acreage slashed and burned in the Amazon and other places because now there is a new need for more arable land and all for an inferior product. Makes no sense at all.

kootch88 wrote: I am an American, and we left England over taxes. Anyone who wants my money is looking to get a bullet in the head. I could care less about the folks who can not afford health coverage, who get laid off, vets who need medical care, immigrants (stay where you came from) and anyone else because this is America, where Survival of the Fittest rules ( beside Intelligent Design) Vets after their brains are scrambled in Iraq or anyone else except for me and people like me who work daily ( especially if they are white). If you don't work daily, the hell with you. This is my view of the world, and if I have to pay one cent more for coal because it is taxed, I will start a rebellion.

Sound like anyone we know here?
You are misrepresenting history. Do you really believe that they left England over taxes? Colonists revolted against England over taxes without representation last time I checked. The health care industry has been wrecked by government interference since the 60's, you know back when doctors actually made house calls. Lay offs will occur because no one can trust a market that is being interfered with, and that is propped up by a debt based currency which is on it's way to the incinerator. I am a vet and I agree that vets need much better care, it's the two party system that treats them like so much rubbish by sending them into undeclared wars which ravage the home county with debt, insecurity, and military industrial complex fraud. Immigrants are fine so long as the morally bankrupt social system is torn down. Part of the high cost of medicine is because the people who actually pay also have to cover the deadbeats. So who decides who the deadbeats are? You? Me? or maybe a bunch of lazy welfare mothers? I don't think anyone can really be objective. You realize most immigrants are not on the public dole? You're right, I don't want to cover you and yours, I have enough trouble covering my own.

mjwood0 wrote: Bottom line, I want to have the ability to work for a better life and keep the earnings. But we are a "United" states, so we had better understand that all of our decisions affect others and that bettering the country for the good of everyone isn't a sin.
Agreed

How is taxing the coal business into bankruptcy bettering the country? Did you actually hear what he said? It is the emissions that will be taxed and traded as credits, and unless it is a clean fuel, they will not be bale to afford to stay in business. Another words, the coal industry needs to clean up their act. He did not say he wants to bankrupt the coal industry.
Eisenhower, the general who won the Atlantic Theater during WWII explains the military industrial complex.

mjwood0 · Post by **mjwood0** » Mon. Nov. 03, 2008 3:37 pm

SAU wrote:
mjwood0 wrote: Bottom line, I want to have the ability to work for a better life and keep the earnings. But we are a "United" states, so we had better understand that all of our decisions affect others and that bettering the country for the good of everyone isn't a sin.
How is taxing the coal business into bankruptcy bettering the country?

You're assuming he's going to bankrupt the coal business. This may be true, it may not be. With the amount of time it takes for the government to get anything actually done these days, that could be years away or never happen at all. Arguing hypothetical situations is somewhat pointless.

However, imposing a modest tax on current energy to help fund future energy solutions is one way to help the overall good. Coal is a great medium term solution to those living in the coal region. But for an individual in Alaska or Wisconsin (where it's easily colder than here in NY / Pennsylvania), it does little good. Those people are suffering from the same high fuel oil prices as we are, but have fewer alternatives. Should we tell them it's too bad and they have to pay huge heating bills? We could, but what if I had to move there for a job. What if you had to move there. Would you be taking your semi truck full of coal with you? And even if you did, it wouldn't last forever.

My point is this. There are limited quantities of oil and it's controlled by a select few. There are a few alternatives, but frankly, better alternatives exist such as solar and wind power which are both cleaner, better for the environment and if implemented properly, have the potential to be relatively cheap. Does it not make sense to look long term here and attempt to investigate them now instead of waiting for 20 years down the road when the price of oil has bankrupted even more families?

In order to survive anymore, it's necessary to look ahead. I'm seriously considering hooking up a wind turbine on my land. I get plenty of wind, and I think that the future will be much brighter and cheaper for me if I look to adopt these technologies now rather than wait for energy prices to skyrocket and drive up the cost of such technology due to increased demand.

I may be a bit optimistic, but I prefer it to the idea of becoming a bitter cynic.

SAU · Post by **SAU** » Mon. Nov. 03, 2008 3:44 pm

We have town counsels we elect, state representatives and congressional representation, how much more representation do we have to have, one rep for one person? That is not feasible.

The problem is that the system has been changed and therefore corrupted. First by the supreme court declaring that corporations are natural persons thereby enabling the corporations to fund politicians, and then by the 17th amendment making our leaders corrupt and for sale.

Great point, why give corporations special treatment with TIFS and other tax breaks? Hope you enjoy the higher price of grain since the government got into the business of fermenting it all for gasoline. What a terrible idea, we actually subsidize something that gives us less power, increases land usage for fuel instead of food, increases the amount of acreage slashed and burned in the Amazon and other places because now there is a new need for more arable land and all for an inferior product. Makes no sense at all.

All sponsored by the taxes that I am complaining about.

Colonists revolted against England over taxes without representation last time I checked.

Like it or not this is a simplified answer. The Revolution started among just a few men. They were mad over several things. For one they were citizens of the crown yet they were treated as inferiors, they were taxed without representation, they were not allowed to use their own colonial script, and they were not treated as equals among their peers. Whats more is that the King would not even allow them to choose their own representatives. The treaty of Paris recognized each individual state, not the "United States" or "America". State rights were very much in vogue during that period and the federal government was very weak because the people realized the importance of local rather than federal control. That is, they realized that ceding to a large federal government would eventually land them in the same battle that they had just bled for and won.

They did not LEAVE England proper over taxes.

SAU · Post by **SAU** » Mon. Nov. 03, 2008 4:12 pm

You're assuming he's going to bankrupt the coal business. This may be true, it may not be.

"If somebody wants build a coal power plant they can it's just that it will bankrupt them".
BO

2:10 in unedited video

If you watch the video, he is saying in so many words.

"I don't care if your energy needs are met"

or

"I'm far to stupid to understand the complexities of energy and I really am just throwing BS out there to appease the sheep".

Coal is a great medium term solution to those living in the coal region. But for an individual in Alaska or Wisconsin (where it's easily colder than here in NY / Pennsylvania), it does little good. Those people are suffering from the same high fuel oil prices as we are, but have fewer alternatives. Should we tell them it's too bad and they have to pay huge heating bills? We could, but what if I had to move there for a job. What if you had to move there. Would you be taking your semi truck full of coal with you? And even if you did, it wouldn't last forever.

Actually Fairbanks Alaska has a coal mine. When you burn your coal you don't need oil or propane, which lowers demand for those products, and therefore the price to those people in Wisconsin. How is taxing coal going to help those people? They still use electricity and therefore will suffer the tax with you. What you burn in your stove is a small token of what is burned in the power plants and how many of those people live in homes heated by electricity rather than gas propane or oil. What will the consequences be as those with electric heaters move to gas, propane, wood, or oil to offset the rising cost of electricity. Only in a fools paradise will this be beneficial to anyone except the bastards collecting the taxes which will then be redistributed to large corporations to make wind farms or solar. Wind farms work, solar is still a pipe dream on a macro-economic scale. I see wind turbine blades on I-90 all the time. It's already happening with the subsidies that are already in place. There is no need to further subsidize that industry. Entropy is a law put in place by god, and it will win no matter what Obama does. The law of diminishing returns comes to mind too.

Unfortunately I'm not a cynic, I'm a realist.

NEPANewb · Post by **NEPANewb** » Mon. Nov. 03, 2008 5:22 pm

Here here Sau....

When exactly was it that everyone decided that capitalism and the free market no longer worked? The supply and demand curve???? does that no longer function? I always believed that when prices rose to a certain point that demand was curbed and alternatives developed. Have these basic laws of a free market society been proven to be wrong? The last time I checked there were hundreds of millions of cubic feet of natural gas being pumped back into the Alaskan tundra because it was not financially viable to build a pipeline to the lower 48 for distribution.....the economics of that equation have now changed....if we could bring that gas to market then prices would fall....but who do you think is blocking the building of a new pipeline????? I'll give you a couple guesses. Those are the people that the fine citizens of Wisconsin can blame for freezing or having to pay through the nose for heat.

Each section of the country relies on different ways to heat more than others due to various geographic and transportation reasons. The Mid-west relys heavily on natural gas...the west on electricity...the northeast on oil. Under what HAD been the norms each type of heat source was the cheapest available in those regions due to market forces. The recent run up in the cost of petroleum was beginging to change those market forces in the northeast....we need to let the free market work. Governmental medling in the free market has never been a good thing long term. When Washington steps in and artificially creates or destroys demand for any of these comodities it only delays the enevitable and makes the pain worse in the end. Taxing Coal is a form of demand destruction....the demand however WILL not go away...it will only be shifted to other commodities...which will rise in price to match. The only thing taxation of commodities does is cause EVERYONE to pay more no matter WHAT form of heat they are using because demand for heat is never destroyed...it is only shifted. Governmental subsisdies of emerging energy technologies is close enough to socialism already....creating a possible unatural demand for them is going too far. It's a form of natural selection...the strong will survive...when it comes to technology...if the product is good and works and can compete with the traditional alternatives then it will succeed...if it does not do those things then it will fail just as it should.
Name one thing that the government has taken over from the private sector that we are better off for in the long term. Let the market do the work Washington....stick to arguing about where you can get the best cocktail after leaving the capital for the day....and let the rest of the country do what we do best...make this nation go.

*steps off soapbox*

djackman · Post by **djackman** » Mon. Nov. 03, 2008 9:43 pm

NEPANewb wrote: When exactly was it that everyone decided that capitalism and the free market no longer worked?

The govm't bailing out Wall St. was a pretty good indicator of the end of the free market economy.

Social welfare or Corporate welfare - take your choice tomorrow.