Just TAX it....

[Jerrymac]

So you got a health care plan. Doing your part to take care of yourself. But then a little tax comes along and you can no longer afford the benefit. 

I guess you just go get the government health care that caused the tax in the first place.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090510/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_overhaul_cost

Obama is hoping the Senate comes up with a bipartisan compromise that would give him political cover for disagreeable decisions to raise more money, such as taxing some health insurance benefits. In the 2008 campaign, Obama went after his Republican presidential rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain, for proposing a large-scale version of that idea.

[dragonfly]

Yeah, it seems to be all these "hidden" taxes that the majority of the public doesn't see. They really add up to big bucks when you are living on a medium or modest income.

I got an email joke this past week that was a photo of the prez with the caption "I didn't authorize attacks on the pirates. I authorized a tax on the pirates."
It was pretty cute.

[kathyp]

i thought if we made under 250 thousand, we wouldn't get a tax hike?  i am so disappointed 

[Bodo]

This will go along great with the increase in size of the IRS!

Obama sure knows what he's doing.

[iddee]

At first I thought this was
humorous...then I realized the awful truth of it.
Be sure to read all the way to the end!
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Anyway!
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think..
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.
 Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his (behind).
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore..
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.
Put these words
Upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me to my doom...'
When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline At x (44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax
on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local
Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring
Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes Vehicle License
Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed
100 years ago, and our nation was
 the most prosperous in the
world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in
the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What happened? Can
you spell 'politicians?'
And I still have to 'press 1' for
English!?!?!?!?

[troutstalker2]

  If you think medical costs are high now just wait until its free.

David

[dragonfly]

  If you think medical costs are high now just wait until its free.

David

 :-DExactly!

[Jerrymac]

I know I am not the sharpest pencil in the box and because of that I guess I just can't understand how, if a person has no money, and a product's price is reduced, how does that save you money? How does that help you get ahead? You are still deeper in dept and poor.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090511/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_overhaul_savings

Hospitals, insurance companies, drug makers and doctors planned to tell Obama on Monday they'll voluntarily slow their rate increases in coming years in a move that government economists say would create breathing room to help provide health insurance to an estimated 50 million Americans who now go without it.

[Scadsobees]

And now for a time of juxtaposition  (or not??)

Not sure how to fix the problem?  Or what is causing the downward spiral of escalating costs?  Keep digging!!
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b332e432-3d54-11de-a85e-00144feabdc0.html

(to the sound of the Jaws soundtrack...the tip of a fin splits the water....)

[Bee Happy]

  The original Boston Tea Party was thrown over a 3% tax... look how far we've been dragged.
If you're interested in tax economics look up 'the laffer curve' I hope it surprises the more liberal among us. but it's more likely to be completely ignored because the guy worked for Reagan.

[SgtMaj]

The original Boston Tea Party was thrown over a 3% tax... look how far we've been dragged.
If you're interested in tax economics look up 'the laffer curve' I hope it surprises the more liberal among us. but it's more likely to be completely ignored because the guy worked for Reagan.

Cutting taxes to stimulate the economy to generate more revenue only works if you can stimulate the economy by cutting taxes, which didn't work the last time it was tried because there were, and still are greater economic issues plaguing us.

[troutstalker2]

  Pulling money out of the free market and giving it to government has never helped an economy. What would have happened if we didn't have the last tax cut. I don't know why the tax and spenders only think trickle down works when the government takes the money first and then doles it out in the form of a stimulus package, rebate or what ever the word of the day is. I best stimulus is to leave it in the hands of the people to Begin with.
  I realize economies are not exactly that simple, but a large part of it is that simple. The bottom line is money is power and the more the government controls the more power the have over what happens in our lives. The restrictions the constitution imposes on government is what has kept this country the envie of most other countries on earth, not on how many people we can keep suckling at the teat of big government.

[Bee Happy]

Cutting taxes to stimulate the economy to generate more revenue only works if you can stimulate the economy by cutting taxes, which didn't work the last time it was tried because there were, and still are greater economic issues plaguing us.

cutting taxes leaves people with more money to spend. I may be foolish in assuming that people with money to spend -spend it into the economy.
    I suppose I am foolish to assume that, since it's plainly obvious that the real answer is to take all the money away from the public who clearly don't have a clue what to do with it anyway, and painstakingly reinstall it into the econom- wait - nobody has any money- it's all been confiscated.

[SgtMaj]

cutting taxes leaves people with more money to spend. I may be foolish in assuming that people with money to spend -spend it into the economy.
    I suppose I am foolish to assume that, since it's plainly obvious that the real answer is to take all the money away from the public who clearly don't have a clue what to do with it anyway, and painstakingly reinstall it into the econom- wait - nobody has any money- it's all been confiscated.

Yup, because spending isn't going to help this economy.  Spending is what got us into this mess because we've been spending in an economy that's been runing a trade deficit for a long time, and this is the inevitable result.  Unfortunately there's just no way to spend your way way to a better economy in a situation like this.

The government ultimately has only four choices in how to continue to operate currently, they are:


1. Make extreme cuts that go beyond the current revenue decline because once those cuts are made, the economy will take another hit which will further reduce revenue.  Althought this should be the first one used, it is usually the last one used because it's political suicide for anyone that attempts it, and don't even think about trying to get something like that through the house and senate, too many politicians looking out for their own careers.

2. Print more money and flood the market with capital.  This has the unfortuneate side-effect of devaluing the dollar, and if the dollar gets devalued too much, the oil standard will switch to the euro, then we're really screwed.  Any economic benefits to having more capital are short lived since we're still running nearly a $1 trillion dollar annual trade deficit.

3. Borrow more money and flood the market with capital.  While the devaluation effects of this one are temporary, it can only be done for a short time as our national debt quicky stacks up and makes it even harder for the government to make future budgets.  That's what GW did which is why they are in such a pickle now.  Our national debt interest payments are now more than double what they were 8 years ago, which means our current government must raise even more capital than it should have had to.

4. Raise taxes.  Not fun, and often is political suicide, but not always.

These are the only four options available to them.  Dumb politicians like GW Bush, pick only one of them and expect it to work by itself.  Smarter politicians like Obama employ a combination of the four.  Nothing is sustainable in the long run however, unless we do something to turn the trade deficit around.  The only way we can do that is if we get off foreign oil.  I believe both Obama and McCain understood that, that's why they both had plans to reduce our foreign oil dependance.  While we can do that by drill baby drill, that only works for a little while, then our population growth catches up and some of our pumps start to run dry and we're right back in the same place we are now within a couple of decades.  Still, that buys us some time so it should be done regardless of anything else.  The other option is to convert to alternative fuels including biofuels made here in the USA, and/or electric (which is why Obama's energy plan looks the way it does).  The benefits of moving to alternative energy are that even with a population increase we won't have to go back to importing foreign oil. 

[Bee Happy]

Obama's energy plan? You mean a carbon use tax on coal burning power plants? (the most common power production we have) natural gas plants are prohibitively expensive already, so why not collect a few extra tax dollars from the cheap one (causing the price to rise) wind would take too much space for almost reliable to-intermittent power. solar costs almost 3 times as much as wind to set up.
no, I think an energy plan that punishes the existing cheap supply and encourages development through removal of options might work, and then when the cheaper reliable source is developed it will cost more to make up for the losses on the taxed out cheap supply from before.
of course there's always nuclear - no emissions, whistle clean, and dirt cheap (except we all know that nobody ever learns from past mistakes and another incident is absolutely guaranteed.)
T Boone Pickens wrote a pretty good comprehensive energy plan, but I have doubts about whether it will be adhered to; it would give him too much political clout and no politician wants to adopt someone else's good idea if they can't take the credit too.

I've heard all those economic points before - of course we have to rebuild the manufacturing and industry within the US but indeed it may be too late for that. they sold it away from us; and they made it cost prohibitive to conduct business here in the US without instituting trade tariffs  to KEEP american companies and jobs going.
   I only sort of agree about "spending". spending fuels an economy. spending what you don't have - which is what the people of this country were cornered into doing - is certainly a recipe for disaster.

[Bodo]

Yup, because spending isn't going to help this economy.  Spending is what got us into this mess because we've been spending in an economy that's been running a trade deficit for a long time, and this is the inevitable result.  Unfortunately there's just no way to spend your way way to a better economy in a situation like this.

Spending didn't get us into it.  Spending more than we made did.  How do you reconcile your last sentence with what's happening with Obama's current 1.something TRILLION deficit?

Seems like with the budget and the omnibus spending bill Obama is indeed trying to spend our way out.

[SgtMaj]

Obama's energy plan? You mean a carbon use tax on coal burning power plants? (the most common power production we have) natural gas plants are prohibitively expensive already, so why not collect a few extra tax dollars from the cheap one (causing the price to rise) wind would take too much space for almost reliable to-intermittent power. solar costs almost 3 times as much as wind to set up.
no, I think an energy plan that punishes the existing cheap supply and encourages development through removal of options might work, and then when the cheaper reliable source is developed it will cost more to make up for the losses on the taxed out cheap supply from before.
of course there's always nuclear - no emissions, whistle clean, and dirt cheap (except we all know that nobody ever learns from past mistakes and another incident is absolutely guaranteed.)
T Boone Pickens wrote a pretty good comprehensive energy plan, but I have doubts about whether it will be adhered to; it would give him too much political clout and no politician wants to adopt someone else's good idea if they can't take the credit too.

I've heard all those economic points before - of course we have to rebuild the manufacturing and industry within the US but indeed it may be too late for that. they sold it away from us; and they made it cost prohibitive to conduct business here in the US without instituting trade tariffs  to KEEP american companies and jobs going.
   I only sort of agree about "spending". spending fuels an economy. spending what you don't have - which is what the people of this country were cornered into doing - is certainly a recipe for disaster.

Coal is actually the second most expensive energy source. 
Wind is the cheapest and takes up far less space than coal plants when you consider the infrastructure needed per MWH for coal.
Hydro is the second cheapest source, but we're pretty well tapped out on places to build new dams. 
Although micro-hydro offers some homeowners a good opportunity to generate their own electricity plus sell some back to the grid, but that is not an available option to 99% of homeowners.
Solar does cost more currently, however, that is mainly due to a lack of economy of scale, increase the use of them and that price will drop like a rock. 
New non-silicone solar technologies which have already been proven in the labs offer the promise of solar panels for pennies on the dollar of current prices as well.
It's funny that you should mention Nuclear as a cheap source, when it is the most expensive.
The pickens plan is not a terrible plan, but it would cost many trillions of dollars to impliment, and would still only be a temporary solution since we don't have the capability of producing enough methane to fuel everyone's vehicles.  It would buy us another 50 to a hundred years based on the enormous amounts of natural gas we currently have available to us in the ground though.


As far as the economy goes, spending even what you DO have on things that take money out of the economy is also a recipe for disaster, and that's exactly what we've been doing.  We are sending ungodly amounts of our hard earned dollars to China and the middle east, and we're stupid enough to be surprised to find that we eventually don't have anymore money.

[Bee Happy]

why would you say nuclear is the most expensive - I assume you mean start up cost - the fuel is dirt cheap per kwh. - sorry - didn't know you were an authority on electrical power too.

[SgtMaj]

why would you say nuclear is the most expensive - I assume you mean start up cost - the fuel is dirt cheap per kwh. - sorry - didn't know you were an authority on electrical power too.

Nope, I'm talking overall. You can't just count the cost of the fuel going in, you have to count the cost of the insane amounts of security required, the cost of the operation of the plant itself, and the cost of waste "disposal" (only with nuclear, the waste is never truely disposed of, it has to be "managed" pretty much forever).  It all adds up.  The startup costs are the least of my concerns about the cost of nuclear.  Here's a great cost comparisson between nuclear and coal: http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm  Although wind power used to cost around 4 cents per kWh that price has dropped since the late '80's and is now around 1.2 cents per kWh which works out to $12 per MWH versus the $29 for coal and $30 for nuclear.  It doesn't take a financial genius to figure out which one is cheaper.  Of course, you can't have a purely wind infastructure, so we'll still need hydro, nuclear, solar, gas turbine and even coal plants in the future.  There's just no way around it, we're going to have to tap into nearly every source of available electricity to keep up with our ever-growing demand.

[Jerrymac]

Wonder how that works out after the carbon tax is put on there?

[Bee Happy]

nuclear tourist?
I'm assuming those costs are averaged over a 20 year lifespan. a nuke plant's actual working life expectancy is about 60 years. of course it has to be 'recommissioned' at the end of 20 years - I may even be using the wrong term, but it's essentially a license renewal of sorts.
the 60 year amortization changes all of it. try this site:  http://www.georgiapower.com/nuclear/othertechnologies.asp.
case in point -why are people in Ontario, Canada paying about 4.5 cents per kwh for nuclear (canadian, of course) and I'm paying 9.6 US for NG power?
...and then theres the zero emissions.

[Bodo]

SgtMAj,

I'm sorry, but your story is missing a vital component.  How much space is required!

 

As a thought-experiment, let's imagine that technology switches and lifestyle changes manage to halve American energy consumption to 125 kWh per day per person. How big would the solar, wind and nuclear facilities need to be to supply this halved consumption? For simplicity, let's imagine getting one-third of the energy supply from each.

To supply 42 kWh per day per person from solar power requires roughly 80 square meters per person of solar panels.

To deliver 42 kWh per day per person from wind for everyone in the United States would require wind farms with a total area roughly equal to the area of California, a 200-fold increase in United States wind power.

To get 42 kWh per day per person from nuclear power would require 525 one-gigawatt nuclear power stations, a roughly five-fold increase over today's levels.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/13/mackay.energy/index.html?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail

Please check your numbers again.  If wind and solar were THAT cheap when compared to fossil fuels or nuclear, the free market would already have swung that way

[SgtMaj]

nuclear tourist?
I'm assuming those costs are averaged over a 20 year lifespan. a nuke plant's actual working life expectancy is about 60 years. of course it has to be 'recommissioned' at the end of 20 years - I may even be using the wrong term, but it's essentially a license renewal of sorts.
the 60 year amortization changes all of it. try this site:  http://www.georgiapower.com/nuclear/othertechnologies.asp.
case in point -why are people in Ontario, Canada paying about 4.5 cents per kwh for nuclear (canadian, of course) and I'm paying 9.6 US for NG power?
...and then theres the zero emissions.

That's all about the subsidies... power is not a free market.

[SgtMaj]

SgtMAj,

I'm sorry, but your story is missing a vital component.  How much space is required!

 

As a thought-experiment, let's imagine that technology switches and lifestyle changes manage to halve American energy consumption to 125 kWh per day per person. How big would the solar, wind and nuclear facilities need to be to supply this halved consumption? For simplicity, let's imagine getting one-third of the energy supply from each.

To supply 42 kWh per day per person from solar power requires roughly 80 square meters per person of solar panels.

To deliver 42 kWh per day per person from wind for everyone in the United States would require wind farms with a total area roughly equal to the area of California, a 200-fold increase in United States wind power.

To get 42 kWh per day per person from nuclear power would require 525 one-gigawatt nuclear power stations, a roughly five-fold increase over today's levels.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/13/mackay.energy/index.html?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail

Please check your numbers again.  If wind and solar were THAT cheap when compared to fossil fuels or nuclear, the free market would already have swung that way

And then there's the land required for:
mining of the uranium ore,
conversion to U3O8 (uranium oxide - yellowcake form),
conversion to uranium hexafluoride,
enrichment from 0.7% U235 to 2-5% U235,
conversion to uranium dioxide (UO2) pellets,
loading of the fellets into rods, then into fuel assemblies.
Then finally the reactor site... but wait, we're not finished...
then there's the waste processing facility
and finally the waste storage facility

Holy cow that's a lot of land!!!  Screw that, I need about 20 square meters to provide enough power for me and about 300 of my closest neighbors.  But like I said before (not that anyone listens), no one single solution is going to meet our needs now or anytime in the forseeable future.

PS - please name the last year that power was a free market.  The market is going to stay where they have infastructure already in place.  Alternative electricity sources are good for reducing or eliminating further fossil plant construction, but not to eliminate current fossil plants.

[Scadsobees]

That's all about the subsidies... power is not a free market.

Whew...that is for sure.  They tried that with windmills and some eastern blueblood said "Not..ah..if its going to..ah...spoil the view of my..ah..cottage on the coast!"

[Bee Happy]

That's all about the subsidies... power is not a free market.

Whew...that is for sure.  They tried that with windmills and some eastern blueblood said "Not..ah..if its going to..ah...spoil the view of my..ah..cottage on the coast!"

the funniest part of the hypocrisy? -The proposed wind turbines were WAY offshore - not to even be seen from the coastline.
(can't be subsidies; the Canadian gov't is relatively socialist and nuke plants are INSANELY profitable -no self respecting socialist would approve of subsidizing capitalist pig nuke plants making money hand over fist) yeah, yeah, I know socialism and communism are not the same. (and they're not,  actual socialism doesn't hate capitalism.)

[Scadsobees]

Holy cow that's a lot of land!!!  Screw that, I need about 20 square meters to provide enough power for me and about 300 of my closest neighbors. 

Thats funny!  I can just imagine flying over a city in the dark still of winter, and seeing a windmill with 300 dark houses around it...

You are right about no single source being the answer.  And as wonderful as it is to consider, there will be no way to get away from a solid, consistent, non-environental-reliant source of energy either.

And there is NO energy that we will ultimately produce that the government won't try to tax.  If we all had our personal windmills and that worked, the government would be taxing the WIND!!!

[dragonfly]

yeah, yeah, I know socialism and communism are not the same. (and they're not,  actual socialism doesn't hate capitalism.)

In some instances, socialism tends to grow out of capitalism.

[dragonfly]

  If we all had our personal windmills and that worked, the government would be taxing the WIND!!!

Excellent point! I'll bet you are right on the money.

[kathyp]

In some instances, socialism tends to grow out of capitalism.

capitalism brings wealth, comfort, and innovation.  that success makes socialism seem viable.  unfortunately, socialism destroys incentive thus destroying capitalism.  the government must take more and more from producers to support government programs, and producers then produce less and less as there is no longer reward for success.  eventually the system fails or the government tries to force production.  failure bring collapse of the system.  poverty, shortages, etc.  government force brings a totalitarian government micromanaging or owning everything in the country. 

people often lump socialism and communism together.  that is inaccurate.  however, it is accurate to say that it is a very short step from socialism to communism when socialism fails.