House votes to finally end the SUV subsidy!

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I understand the concept of tax incentives to help spur market growth, but I'm not sure corn based ethanol is the answer...it takes nearly the same amount of energy to GROW and process the corn as you get from it as ethanol. I suppose there is a benefit to growing our own fuel, but it just seems like too little to make an impact in the long run.

Only if you believe Pimentel. The other reports suggest 1.2 to 1.56(MSU Ethanol Energy Balance Study) times the energy and it's increasing all the time with new technologies. Biodeisel is even better than ethanol in it's energy balance. But all this might be better discussed in a different thread.

Fair enough, and I'm inspired to do some more research into this in the event that such a thread springs into existence sometime in the future

 

[bobdelt]

Why can't we let the free market decide?

If citizens want more investment in alt energy sources they can vote with their feet and with their dollar. There is no need for the gov't to decide for us. Americans have voted, they arent buying SUVs anymore, car companies know this, everyone knows this. Venture capitalists are investing in new energy sources. We don't need the gov't tinkering with it.

Let the american people decide. They have are the ones with the dollars. They are the ones that chose how they spend it. If they think biodiesel is worth the additional cost, then they will buy it. There is no reason for congress to decide.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: bobdelt
Why can't we let the free market decide?

If citizens want more investment in alt energy sources they can vote with their feet and with their dollar. There is no need for the gov't to decide for us. Americans have voted, they arent buying SUVs anymore, car companies know this, everyone knows this. Venture capitalists are investing in new energy sources. We don't need the gov't tinkering with it.

Let the american people decide. They have are the ones with the dollars. They are the ones that chose how they spend it. If they think biodiesel is worth the additional cost, then they will buy it. There is no reason for congress to decide.

Ah, but there in lies the rub. When Auto industry gets benifits(SUV loophole) it deters others, the same happens with big oil. If all things were level(no subsidies) alternative sources could possibly be competative but as it sits now it takes gov't intervention since the gov't is intervening in the currently used means. If it were up to me - I'd end them all and let the market decide but until then I'll support ethanol, wind, and biodiesel subsidies.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

so UNFUNDED mandates are okay if it comes out of the pockets of consumers or business?

If they are going to demand investor-owned electric utilities nationwide to generate at least 15 percent then they damn well better start funding research into production of it or subsidize it. Most of these ILECs are those serving rural America... think of it as a tax because it will be.



I still love how we cannot use our own resources. I think they forgot that energy independance requires that.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ah, but there in lies the rub. When Auto industry gets benifits(SUV loophole) it deters others, the same happens with big oil. If all things were level(no subsidies) alternative sources could possibly be competative but as it sits now it takes gov't intervention since the gov't is intervening in the currently used means. If it were up to me - I'd end them all and let the market decide but until then I'll support ethanol, wind, and biodiesel subsidies.

Yeah, I don't know why all the complaints. We're making a freer market by removing subsidies for oil companies and removing subsidies for businesses that buy 6500+ lb luxury SUVs to drive as a passenger vehicle instead of say... a sedan. Farm equipment and real trucks still get the tax break.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ah, but there in lies the rub. When Auto industry gets benifits(SUV loophole) it deters others, the same happens with big oil. If all things were level(no subsidies) alternative sources could possibly be competative but as it sits now it takes gov't intervention since the gov't is intervening in the currently used means. If it were up to me - I'd end them all and let the market decide but until then I'll support ethanol, wind, and biodiesel subsidies.

Yeah, I don't know why all the complaints. We're making a freer market by removing subsidies for oil companies and removing subsidies for businesses that buy 6500+ lb luxury SUVs to drive as a passenger vehicle instead of say... a sedan. Farm equipment and real trucks still get the tax break.

Entirely too many people were eligible, you didn't have to prove you needed the SUV for your "business" or even that you used it. Selling a few things on Ebay was allowing people to be qualified, since it's a "small business".

Been abused for years, good riddance.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: bobdelt
Why can't we let the free market decide?

If citizens want more investment in alt energy sources they can vote with their feet and with their dollar. There is no need for the gov't to decide for us. Americans have voted, they arent buying SUVs anymore, car companies know this, everyone knows this. Venture capitalists are investing in new energy sources. We don't need the gov't tinkering with it.

Let the american people decide. They have are the ones with the dollars. They are the ones that chose how they spend it. If they think biodiesel is worth the additional cost, then they will buy it. There is no reason for congress to decide.

Like letting Exxon and the rest alone has helped since 1973. :roll:

There is nothing "Free" about the market now, it's 110% corruption.

 

[Fern]

No specifics are provided regarding the tax hike, so I won't comment.

Otherwise, I am unimpressed and think Congress got it all wrong again.

First, what we need are cleaner coal burning energy plants. I don't see this addressed at all.

Secondly, I disagree with the provision requiring 15% of their energy from renewable sources. Biofuels flat-out blow IMO. Inefficient, dirty and it's stupid to use your food for energy. Moreover, the increased farming from biofuels results in pollution vis-a-vis fertilizer entering the Mississipi watershed. This ends up in the Gulf and results in huge dead zones. So, let's burn corn and kill all the seafood? Fvcking BOOBs.

Additionally, they are forcing the companies to invest in what may be premature alt energy technologies (and in turn we pay for it via higher rates). While the "market" is a great place to develop (and choose) new tech, for the market to function efficiently it must do so naturally. The government is just flat-out making them buy stuff - which IMO completely obviates the so-called market efficiency.

I think it would simply be better for the government to support promising alt energy research at our universities. Funds are needed for pilot plants etc to prove out some of our better ideas. IMO, it's highly doubtful that any of the money from companies forced to comply will be spent on anything new. They'll just buy something already "on the shelf" to comply. That's little to no help.

Fern

EDIT:

Originally posted by: Darwin333
The only thing this does is raise the price for the consumer and give the Government a bit more money to waste.

As much left versus right arguing there is on this subject there really is a relatively easy solution that won't be as painful to the consumer AND would get much better results.

First, Congress should form some sort of NASA type agency whose goal is to research alternative energy with a set goal. Treat it as ambitiously and fund it like the Apollo program. There should be very little political influence on the agency (amusingly, I think this is the most "impossible" part) Congress should just give them whatever budget they need and let the scientists and engineers work. I would bet a months pay that with they could reduce our oil dependancy by at least 10% in 3-5 years.

Take hybrid cars for instance. How much R&D are automakers really putting into hybrid vehicles? We have after market places that can make some cars a plug in hybrids that get around 100 miles per gallon for the first 50 miles of your daily commute, which is less than the avg commute for most Americans. The latest I have heard is that automakers are 2-3 years behind what some tiny (in comparison) after market companies are doing right now.

Secondly, are the right now issues. American consumers are not going to consume less. Raising the cost of fuel or energy is just going to leave them with a little less money they would have spent elsewhere in the economy. Instead of focusing on raising taxes on oil and electric companies we should focus our attention on new technology that is already in its infancy.

We could have solved this problem 20 years ago if we actually tried. Its absurd to think that we can't do it now.

Excellent ^ :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: bobdelt
Why can't we let the free market decide?

If citizens want more investment in alt energy sources they can vote with their feet and with their dollar. There is no need for the gov't to decide for us. Americans have voted, they arent buying SUVs anymore, car companies know this, everyone knows this. Venture capitalists are investing in new energy sources. We don't need the gov't tinkering with it.

Let the american people decide. They have are the ones with the dollars. They are the ones that chose how they spend it. If they think biodiesel is worth the additional cost, then they will buy it. There is no reason for congress to decide.

Agree completely. The market is working, the price of silicon for solar panels has skyrocketed due to international demand. With a limited supply, forcing more companies to purchase at this time only results in higher prices, not more supplies. And the venture capital money is already in alt energy tech, give 'em a little time, or put gov money into stuff not yet ready for VC money.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Entirely too many people were eligible, you didn't have to prove you needed the SUV for your "business" or even that you used it. Selling a few things on Ebay was allowing people to be qualified, since it's a "small business".

There is a family in my apartment complex that recently purchased an H2...a few days later, a decal for a landscaping business appeared on the passenger side door.

I have never seem them use it for said landscaping business, but I bet they wrote it off as such.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Bullsh!t -

"It's about our children, about our future, the world in which they live," Pelosi said.

Get prepared for increased gas/electric/nat gas prices if this is enacted.

Woot woot - way to go dems!

:thumbsdown:

Yes, Woot woot - way to go dems! :thumbsup:

Even higher prices will wake the sleeping giant up and rise up against your hero buddies.

Speaking of your buddies, they just told me they have a new goal now thanks to this

"Six for Kicks".

Now we know who wants higher gas prices. After you raise the price you think you can blame Republicans for your action?

 

[2Xtreme21]

An honest question, why were oil prices so low under Clinton?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
An honest question, why were oil prices so low under Clinton?

Less global demand (China etc)

More stability in oil producing regions (Iraq, and Chavez in VZ)

2 differences quick off the top of my head

Fern

 

[piasabird]

Taxes on oil companies means higher gasoline prices. This is idiotic.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Taxes on oil companies means higher gasoline prices. This is idiotic.

Well Bush's tax cuts for oil companies did nothing to keep gas prices down. The long term trend of gas prices is going to be way up, just from market forces.

Given that, don't you think it's a good idea to prepare for the future by finding ways to use less oil for energy?

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: piasabird
Taxes on oil companies means higher gasoline prices. This is idiotic.

Well Bush's tax cuts for oil companies did nothing to keep gas prices down. The long term trend of gas prices is going to be way up, just from market forces.

Given that, don't you think it's a good idea to prepare for the future by finding ways to use less oil for energy?

Actually they might have kept the prices down. The price of oil has skyrocketed recently yet our fuel prices are not that bad. Regardless, the fact is the costs will simply be out of our pockets. Any tax increase comes out of the pocket of consumers, companies don't eat it. Hell corporations don't pay any tax, they only collect.


As for the SUV subsidy... kill it. It was meant to help farmers and the like but too many loopholes (thanks Congress for bending over for Detroit - call it what it is, a subsidy for Detroit) meant that it got a bad name. It did help my brother in law buy his new Dodge Ram truck, which incidentally is only used for his work.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: bobdelt
Why can't we let the free market decide?

If citizens want more investment in alt energy sources they can vote with their feet and with their dollar. There is no need for the gov't to decide for us. Americans have voted, they arent buying SUVs anymore, car companies know this, everyone knows this. Venture capitalists are investing in new energy sources. We don't need the gov't tinkering with it.

Let the american people decide. They have are the ones with the dollars. They are the ones that chose how they spend it. If they think biodiesel is worth the additional cost, then they will buy it. There is no reason for congress to decide.

I hate to tell you this but the free market is not perfect. Anyone with an economics degree will tell you that. The problem with oil is that its use causes a cost externality that the oil companies and users of oil products may not necessarily be fully paying for. Pollution is the main externality that comes up with the usage of oil which means part of the cost of its usage is placed somewhere else. To correct this a government can place a tax on its consumption like we currently do for gas.

Green energy doesn't have this problem to the same extent so putting the same amount of tax on things like biodiesel doesn't make sense.

A big proponent of this type of taxation is Professor Mankiw who was a leading economic advisor for GWB.

And no, taxes on oil companies doesn't necessarily mean higher oil prices. If there is an increased tax on their profits then there will be a decreased amount of investment by the oil companies. Their optimal production and price would still be similar but their profits would be lowered.

The Republicans seriously want us to take more advantage of coal? That's a horrible source for energy pollution-wise.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
And no, taxes on oil companies doesn't necessarily mean higher oil prices. If there is an increased tax on their profits then there will be a decreased amount of investment by the oil companies. Their optimal production and price would still be similar but their profits would be lowered.

Good point. I'll add that high oil prices now are driven by consumer demand and production capacity, not by production costs. Production costs have little connection to retail prices. Theoretically, increasing taxes and reducing profitability reduces investment, but right now, oil prices are so high there's almost no oil project not worth investing in, including places with very high production costs like the Canadian oil sands and deep-water offshore.