StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 10:06 AM) Because it helps the poor. That is my whole point. Marginally. It helps the wealthy much, much more. Why do we need subsidies that benefit the top 1/5 more than the bottom 3/5's in order to help the bottom 3/5's? Why not just give subsidies to the bottom 3/5's?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 10:05 AM) Why not? The vast majority of money for environmental everything is going to people who are ultra-rich to just plain rich. I'm not arguing that environmental subsidies are necessary expenses because otherwise it would be too expensive for the poor. Oil subsidies primarily benefit the wealthy by a large margin. They subsidize corporations that have record profits. They are unnecessary, and you've yet to present anything for why giving money to the wealthy is more effective at helping the poor than just giving money to the poor.

Exactly, states are getting legitimately screwed out of big chunks of sales/use tax revenue. I agree that it should be done nationwide, though.

Using that logic, why not just raise prices right now to increase margins? I mean, apparently we've nothing to do but submit to the whims of Exxon and BP, so why are our benevolent masters gracing us with somewhat affordable fuel right now? How can we stop from angering them so that they don't punish us? More animal sacrifice subsidies?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 09:40 AM) The IMF can disagree with reality all it wants...if they lose these subsidies, they're not going to just swallow the losses and call it a day. They WILL pass these losses onto the consumers, not their shareholders. Then we subsidize the consumers instead of shareholders. Or maybe their margins will just have to shrink a little, now that they're not sucking at the government teat! Lazy deadbeat government welfare corporations.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 09:39 AM) Let me try it this way... Are you opposed to environmental policy because almost all of the dollars for it go directly to corporations? That doesn't fly. You are arguing that we need to keep shoveling money at the rich to help the poor. That doesn't analogize to environmental impact. If the end goal is affordable fuel prices for, say, the bottom 3/5's of the economy, why do we need to funnel that money to the top 1/5 first? Why not go directly to the problem?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 09:33 AM) I'll try this again. The inelasticity of energy pretty well states that you can't punish the energy companies by taking away subsidies. I get the whole demonization going on here, but the emotion here loses the reality of it. They aren't going to come out and say that, but that sure as heck is the reality. You will only punish the poor and middle class. No amount of anger or reaction changes that. Then why does the IMF disagree with pretty much everything in your post? I'm not looking to punish energy companies. I'm simply looking to stop subsidizing their record profits. Most of the subsidy benefits goes to the top quintile. The bottom three combined barely eclipse their share. And, if you're truly concerned about the poor and middle class, we can shift the subsidies to them instead of relying on the completely broken idea of trickle-down economics. No amount of apologia changes that the data do no support any of your claims here. Even logically, it makes no sense. Because if taking subsidies away from the wealthy doesn't hurt them, well, it must not be helping them. So why are they necessary?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 09:28 AM) I know, the world is so unfair...but in the end, the very politicians that claim to be looking out for you and I do nothing about these subsidies when they have the chance to do it. We can go back and forth on this all day long...in the end, the politicians aren't going to change it, no matter how unfair it is. Congress/Senate/Presidents are all rich people these days...in and of itself, that's part of the problem. They're not removing these subsidies...because they'd be removing them from themselves. When lowly aldermen make more money and have better benefits than most of the people you know in the private sector, there's a problem. I do not disagree with your cynicism. I whole-heartedly support it. I very strongly disagree that it means we've got to willingly submit to and embrace the fact that almost all of the wealth created in this country for decades has gone to a very small number of people. We don't need to make excuses for that and continue to advocate subsidizing their record earnings by pretending it's really about helping the poor.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 09:24 AM) This does happen, but only when online purchases save them hundreds of dollars, say on a television set. In those cases, it's not taxes holding the brick and mortar back, it's the fact that they're charging 2000$ for a TV that can be purchased online for 1500$. Taxes be damned in a situation like this. Well, there's a reason why they have to charge more--there's a lot more overhead involved in running an actual store with displays set up and running a server and warehouse. Anyway I'm not lamenting the loss of brick-and-mortar stores here. Just pointing out that the "OMG! it'll kill Illinois business" might not be the whole picture, because it removes an advantage online retailers have over local businesses, even if it is a minor one.

I'm not pretending otherwise. But people also take advantage by shopping around at birck-and-mortars and then go order it cheaper online. And obviously, for cheaper stuff, the advantage is minimal.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/.../06/picture.htm Hmmm.... But I guess you're right ss2k5, the only way for the poor to continue to scrape by is for billionaires to get billions in tax subsidies.

How many programs for the needy are being proposed for massive cuts or elimination right now? Would it be more beneficial to the poor to stop giving billionaires billions of dollars in tax subsidies and to keep funding those programs at current or increased levels?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:42 AM) It would be a bet I would make. Explain, economically, how that would even be possible. Unless these benevolent multinationals are just giving us these tax subsidies as pure pass-through to fuel prices?? We must continue to give the super wealthy more money so that the poor can still barely afford to live!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:40 AM) At the end of the day that argument doesn't hold water with me. Corporations are going to make their profits. Even if you eliminate subsidies, that isn't going to come out of profits. Because energy is extremely inelastic, the loss of subsidies will just get passed along in higher prices. You aren't going to punish the evil corporations that everyone wants to target. You are going to punish the people who can't handle higher prices. Well, s***, then I guess we just need to keep subsidizing their profits forever. Why not even bigger subsidies! If we give the corporation enough money, they'll give us free gas eventually! They'd never just pocket the money for themselves! They are making record profits. There's no reason they need any subsidies at all. Holding the country hostage with threats of "we'll raise your gas prices if you don't continue to redistribute billions of dollars to us!" is even more reason to end the subsidies immediately.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:56 AM) There is nothing illegal about it. As I understand it, if you order something online from a business in another state, its the same as when you buy something while travelling and they elect to ship it to you to avoid sales tax. I'm pretty sure you're still supposed to report and pay that tax as the consumer, but no one does. from yahoo: http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-article-a...it_who_doesnt-i Consumers' Responsibility to Pay Sales or Use Taxes Consumers who live in a state that collects sales tax are technically required to pay the tax to the state even when an Internet retailer doesn't collect it. When consumers are required to pay tax directly to the state, it is referred to as "use" tax rather than sales tax. The only difference between sales and use tax is which person -- the seller or the buyer -- pays the state. Theoretically, use taxes are just a backup plan to make sure that the state collects revenue on every taxable item that is purchased within its borders. But because collecting use tax on smaller purchases is so much trouble, states have traditionally attempted to collect a use tax only on big-ticket items that require licenses, such as cars and boats. Some states, including Connecticut, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, and North Carolina, have changed their attitudes and are stepping up efforts to collect use taxes. But bureaucracy, complex tax rules, and limited state resources have thus far prevented most states from pursuing use taxes. Since state governments are losing substantial revenue, the collection of use taxes may become a priority if the federal government continues its ban on Internet e-commerce taxes.

The current no-sales-tax scheme also gives a strong competitive advantage to online retailers vs. in-state businesses.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:25 AM) Supposedly more than 100 bodies have washed up on shore... this is terrible. NPR was reporting locations with at least 300. This is not good. They've shut down at least one of the US nuke's on the Pacific shore in anticipation of the tsunami.

Isn't the problem that a lot of consumers are illegally avoiding taxes that they should really be paying? I won't act like I don't do that myself--on big ticket items, sales tax vs. shipping definitely factors in. But it's a legit problem.

I won't disagree that Democrats are generally spineless cowards just as beholden to their corporate masters as Republicans.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:22 AM) Well that wouldn't be necessary. This is pretty clearly DOE-centered. Even if it would require a new department within the DOE, so what? Is someone actually going to try to argue that this new agency and giving the necessary fuel subsidies directly to the poor and middle class would somehow be more expensive than subsidizing profits enough to reduce fuel prices? It's not like these corporations are just passing through these tax breaks to the consumer.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:18 AM) Nah, we need to continue growing a government we *already* can't afford, instead. Right? Grow? If the problem is "we need to reduce fuel prices because it would impact the poor and middle class too much," why does the solution have to be "give money to the super-wealthy so that they can reduce costs slightly while still making record profits?" Why does that require less government than "give money to the people who need it?" I'm not talking about spending any more money here. I'm talking about not subsidizing profits for the wealthy.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:13 AM) Not to mention the bureaucracy that would have to be put into place for management and distribution of said subsidies. Damn it, you're right. I guess we just need to keep shoveling money to the very wealthy so they can pass back a small percentage on to consumers with lower gas prices!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 07:37 AM) Total consumption goes down, but I am guessing energy consumption as a portion of income doesn't. Per capita is a worthless number and misleading in this case. Even leaving out those who don't own cars, they still suffer the multiplier effects of this. So subsidize that impact on those who need it, not corporate profits.

Apparently the cooling water pumps at the Fukushima plant have been damaged, leading to the SoE. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/1...emergency-quake The reactor is shut down, but those things still have massive amounts of latent heat.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 07:13 AM) State of emergency declared at 2 nuclear power plants. All non-essential personnel will leave the plant. Probably will SCRAM the reactors.