How much will the Warner-Lieberman bill cost the average taxpayer?

Question

5 New Goverment agencys

Higher Gas prices

Higher Carbon Credit taxes on Companies = higher prices for the average citizen.

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/warner-lieberman-bill-could-raise-gas-prices-2008-05-19.html

(Ya Ken I know Demark and the Netherlands and Holland have higher GNP but what about China and India ?)

Answer 1

Question:

How much does our high gas price in Europe cost us???

Answer: compared to the US it has been beneficial as we have an automotive fleet adapted to higher gas prices with lighter and more efficient vehicles. Our car manufacturers are just as the Japanese (for the same reason) performing well.

This has moreover saved networks of public transportation.

Globally, this has adjusted the economy artificially to a technico-economic level corresponding to high gas prices like we have today. The benefits are:

- reduced pollution

- reduced greenhouse gases emissions

- advancement of the technology

- reduced reliance on foreign oil

- improved trade balance

Answer 2

One of the items in the GW hoax agenda is to create taxes to "control" the problem. You can see the product of the scam. More money for the government & the big oil & energy corporations.

My 2 cents.

Answer 3

About $2000 per year.  It's seriously flawed, sending subsidies to entities such as coal companies.  It's also a pointless exercise while China and India grow unchecked.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles...

One analysis of that bill by CRA International, an international business consulting firm, predicts the Lieberman-Warner bill could cost $4 trillion to $6 trillion over the next 40 years, according to an editorial in the November 11 Washington Times.

If that bill were passed and made law, the tax would cost every man, woman and child – more than 303 million Americans – $494 a year, a significant burden on the U.S. economy.

“There is no effective way to meaningfully reduce emissions without negatively impacting a large part of an economy,” Greenspan wrote. “Net, it is a tax. If the cap is low enough to make a meaningful inroad into CO2 emissions, permits will become expensive and large numbers of companies will experience cost increases that make them less competitive. Jobs will be lost and real incomes of workers constrained.”

Granted, the $100 billion or so per year that this new global warming tax would cost is far, far less than the nearly $1.5 trillion that's needed every year to fund the U.S. military expenses (about 54% of our federal income tax funds):

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piecha...

The problem I have with both of these expenditures is that the United States government is not accountable for the results of its programs.  We can see that they fail time and again, yet we keep throwing money at crooked politicians, as if they won't just waste it in exchange for campaign contributions (bribes)!

Close the EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service (they've proven in the past 8 years that they are completely impotent today and need to be replaced) and cut military spending in half, and use those funds on global warming technology and mitigation.  Then give us all a big fat rebate check and lower tax rates so we can afford the skyrocketing costs of food and housing caused by past government excess and the exhorb itant national debt that has contributed to the crash of the dollar's value, resulting in much higher prices for virtually everything.

Answer 4

"the bill would increase gas prices by as much as 13 cents over the next four years."

13 cents over 4 years?  So what?  Gas prices have been going up 13 cents per week lately!

To answer your question, it would barely have any impact.  Basically it would cause a tiny slowdown in our GDP increase:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 5

The proposed bill -- labeled "America's Climate Security Act" (S. 2191) -- seeks a 71 percent reduction in greenhouse gas by 2050, and the goal would be met by imposing a cap and trade on CO2 emissions from power plants, transportation, and other various industrial sources.

Proponents of the bill are not telling the whole story. What they don't tell us is that this is really no different than just putting a tax on carbon emissions. It's just not transparent so consumers and taxpayers can't see it.

But when companies have to buy more credits in order to function, their costs are going to rise -- and those costs are just going to be passed on to consumers. The cost for producing electricity is going to rise, and it's going to be the American people that are paying the price. The legislation is a massive redistribution of wealth.

Congress has a tendency to enact "feel-good" bills without adequately considering the costs to American businesses and families. Senate Bill 2191 would "add a heavy drag on growth, giving our global competitors a significant competitive advantage courtesy of the U.S. Congress.

Answer 6

How much do you have?

http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12118445...

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs...

And you think people are complaining of higher prices now? Just you wait, and their will not be any Bush to blame.