Rinse would be a little disappointed (Green Tax Credits) (Page 1/7)
82-T/A [At Work] JUL 16, 04:45 PM
Analysis Finds That Rich Americans Are the Biggest Winners of the Government’s Green Subsidies

https://thelibertydaily.com...are-biggest-winners/


I mean, it makes sense, the poor don't have a lot of money, and therefore aren't the ones spending money on large projects, but the findings are that the green tax programs significantly benefitted the wealthy over everyone else:

"Households in the top 20% of earnings nationally received about 60% of clean energy tax credits, while the bottom 60% of households received just 10%, according to the paper written by Severin Borenstein and Lucas W. Davis, two economists at the University of California, Berkeley. This pattern of high-income filers claiming the lion’s share of green tax credits has stayed “relatively constant” during the time period until it experienced a “slight broadening” with the introduction of an electric vehicle (EV) credit in 2018.

In the case of EVs, the top 20% of earners receive 80% of the credits, while the top 5% of earners receive 50%, according to the study. There was also only a small correlation between greater green tax credits and the adoption of technology such as heat pumps, solar panels, and EVs."


Rinse, if you are reading this... please channel RayB or Patrick for your response!
BingB JUL 16, 05:20 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

I mean, it makes sense, the poor don't have a lot of money, and therefore aren't the ones spending money on large projects,


Exactly. You have to have money to invest in green energy to get benefits back from the government. Environmental protection is a completely separate issue from wealth distribution. So there is not supposed to be any connection.

There is no problem with the wealthy benefitting because in the long run we ALL benefit from a better climate/environment. So I don't think Rinse would be disappointed at all.
ray b JUL 16, 05:25 PM
the poor do not buy a lot of laws rules regs ect

as always follow the money

odd pop ups about epsteins guards paid to disappear
HINTS OF TRUMP

and AFAIK no messages from the great beyond EVER FROM ANYONE
A PROOF OF SOMETHING NOT THERE
Patrick JUL 16, 05:32 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

Rinse, if you are reading this... please channel RayB or Patrick for your response!



Personally, I think it's in rather poor taste to be bringing up a deceased forum member's name, just to try (and fail) to rub his face in it.

Let the man rest in peace.
82-T/A [At Work] JUL 16, 06:12 PM

quote
Originally posted by Patrick:Personally, I think it's in rather poor taste to be bringing up a deceased forum member's name, just to try (and fail) to rub his face in it.

Let the man rest in peace.




Only if you look at it from the perspective that you are. I'm viewing it from the perspective of him still hanging out here with us, in spirit.

And no, I will not go back and forth with you on this. This was not an offensive post and wasn't intended to be.
Patrick JUL 16, 06:19 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

And no, I will not go back and forth with you on this. This was not an offensive post and wasn't intended to be.



Neither was mine, yet look at the reaction it got (from the usual suspects).
blackrams JUL 16, 07:30 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

Rinse, if you are reading this... please channel RayB or Patrick for your response!
NewDustin JUL 16, 08:12 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

Analysis Finds That Rich Americans Are the Biggest Winners of the Government’s Green Subsidies

https://thelibertydaily.com...are-biggest-winners/


What've we got here, the Liberty Daily citing a paper that concludes in favor of increased environmental taxation and cap-and-trade? Didn't make it down to page 29 before we started agreeing here, did we?

[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 07-16-2024).]

82-T/A [At Work] JUL 17, 08:40 AM

quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:
What've we got here, the Liberty Daily citing a paper that concludes in favor of increased environmental taxation and cap-and-trade? Didn't make it down to page 29 before we started agreeing here, did we?




LOL, did you really just advocate for Cap and Trade? I'll get to that in a minute...

So... the premise makes sense. Only those with money can buy things, and thus would be the greater recipient of tax breaks and / or benefits to energy programs. But I think what you fail to understand is that this is all intentional.

Huge corporations and well... wealthy Oligarchs, if you will... are more than happy to support legislation which funnels money back to them. The "green programs" seem like a fantastic idea... let's help the environment. But they rarely, if ever, actually support improving the environment. What they usually do is focus money towards the next big shiny thing that someone else is going to profit from. China HEAVILY lobbied our Congress (and senate) to pass these bills... because they are the ones who directly receive the benefit. They own more than 86% of the supply chain and production of solar and wind technology. When we passed that law, it essentially meant that China was going to get a massive pay check, and several unions would be guaranteed jobs. It's all part of the basket of "who gets" ... including several corporations (both foreign and domestic) who stood to profit from this legislation... and as such, it was tailored in that way.

It's the same thing we did for the infrastructure bill. Almost all of the infrastructure money spent went to union-supported programs (most of which will not likely end up getting completed on time or anywhere near in budget), or they went directly to corporations that stood to have a significant financial interest in them.


Let's look at this from a microcosm of how this supports the wealthy versus the poor. The Democrats always say that these things help the poor... but they never do, it's usually the exact opposite. An example I like to give WAS Florida's emissions and safety inspection laws. These were laws that required every registered car to have a full safety inspection performed by a certified dealership or mechanic (usually cost about $35 bucks back then). They also required you to go through an emissions testing line... which was always slam-packed, and they'd run your car on a dyno while they probed your tailpipe. This also cost $25 (at the time).

Now, you're probably thinking... this is great, helps keep the environment clean, and the roads safe. It did none of that... it was a Democrat-instituted program from back in the days when Democrats ruled Florida (when Florida looked like California does now). What really happened is that we wasted a lot of gas driving to and from said inspection facilities, including waiting in the 30 minute line with our cars running (with signs saying not to turn off the car), and then... if you failed any part of it, you were either fined, or given a warning to fix. The "fix" had to be done by a repair shop, with receipts... you couldn't simply go do it yourself in the driveway. Imagine now who this actually affected? It affected the poor. The middle class and wealthy always had newer cars and never had a problem passing them. So what then even was the point of it? Seriously? The ONLY people who were ever in question then were the poor... and they almost all failed. So these policies directly affected the poor. It levied fines on them, put them at risk of having their drivers licenses suspended, and put them at risk of getting arrested for driving with a suspended license, and made them MORE poor because many people lost their jobs since they could no longer drive to work. When Jeb Bush won the election, the very first thing he did was eliminate that requirement... just totally threw it out after 2000.


This is the problem with every single Democrat-plan to help the environment... it's always 99% rife with corruption, and pay to play embezzlement that just manages to eek by financial regulations well enough. But it's always corrupt, never does what it intends to do, and always ends up lining the pockets of those who supported it. You see... almost every single one of these bills, or programs, or what have you... is just a means for extorting money from taxpayers, and trickling it back up in greater number to the wealthy who sponsored it.

And so now we'll talk about Cap & Trade... tell me exactly what you think Cap & Trade actually does... not what it pretends to do, but what it actually does. It's wealth redistribution from the American middle class to NGOs in foreign countries run by wealthy Oligarchs.
BingB JUL 17, 10:09 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
This is the problem with every single Democrat-plan to help the environment... it's always 99% rife with corruption, and pay to play embezzlement that just manages to eek by financial regulations well enough. But it's always corrupt, never does what it intends to do, and always ends up lining the pockets of those who supported it. .


This is a complete lie.

Environmental programs have been very successful. We healed the hole in the ozone layer. We ended acid rain. We don't have rivers catching on fire anymore. We don't have areas decimated by strip mining.

And you did not give one single example of corruption.

You are just repeating some right wing propaganda speaking point. There was NEVER supposed to be a connection between environmental protection and wealth distribution. It is just a red herring devised by the fossil fuel industry to try and come up with a criticism for environmental protection. This is the same fossil feul industry that has been raping the American citizens with high prices while posting record profits. And one reason they are able to do it is because the right has trained its minions to blame Biden for high gas prices.