The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[sendler]

This new battery report from 2018 confirms my suspicions that the .4 TWh/ year world total that I have seen quoted elsewhere is way high given for example that GigaFactory 1 is only at .02 TWh/ year for example. The report is showing data for 2015 delivered quantities in all sectors for Lithium cells of various chemistries as .060 TWh for the year. And projects the total to be just .22 TWh/ year at 2025. This is a far cry from satisfying the demand for 100 TWh total that we need just to replace all cars and light trucks. Not to mention stationary storage, farming, mining, and transport.
.
https://www.rechargebatteries.org/wp...8-April-18.pdf
.
.

.
.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

Social Democracy needs tax reform in order to fund the big projects that will carry us forward.
.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e-wealthy.html

Garbage article. Not sure how the author got through even an economics 101 course despite claiming expertise.

It starts out with an untrue statement that wouldn't fool anyone:

For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans last year paid a lower total tax rate — spanning federal, state and local taxes — than any other income group, according to newly released data.

I'm to believe that people with no income pay a higher percent in total tax than the rich? The poorest actually get money back (earned income tax, which is a misnomer) from the federal government regardless if they paid anything at all. At the local level, many programs exist such as subsidized healthcare and food stamps, which are another form of "negative tax rate".

Then the article says we could tax the very wealthy at 60%, and they would just accept that rather than move to another country.

With the money it says we could fund pre-K, which all research has shown gives no long term benefit for academic or economic performance. It's also not the purview of the federal government to fund "clean energy" unless it's in the form of providing financing to a project that will be of substantial benefit, but with a payback period too long for traditional financing schemes.

Finally, the author says corporate taxes need to be higher, which is the opposite of what 95% of economists recommend. Corporate taxes should be nearer to zero.

The article got 1 fact correct, but completely missed what the problem is even though they explicitly stated it; that there are many tax loopholes available to the wealthy and well-informed. If that's the problem, then why go about fixing it by increasing tax rates? Eliminate the loopholes! I've said many times that there should just be a federal sales tax and eliminate all deductions. You make it progressive by not taxing staple food items, health insurance/care up to a certain dollar amount, and housing costs up to a certain amount.

Of course, that shuts down 95% of the special interest opportunity that the weasels in Washington use to enhance their personal and political lives, so that will never happen.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by sendler

Social Democracy needs tax reform in order to fund the big projects that will carry us forward.

National Socialism will not happen in this country. I propose an alternative: anarcho-capitalism. An example:The Starship went from a twinkle in Elon's eye to something he could stand in front of to give a speech in five months.

Apparently, competing with NASA is easier than working with a bunch of utilities' jurisdictions.

edit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m03stzFLcGg

He seems to think Extinction Rebellion is a 'mostly harmless' upper-middle-class death cult, but speculates which groups will infiltrate and change them.

[NeilBlanchard]

The Dark Side Of The Singularity

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Garbage article. Not sure how the author got through even an economics 101 course despite claiming expertise.

We have been through this many times over the last two years so I am not going to waste much time again but modern economic theory was developed during the current, one time, Carbon Energy Pulse. And is highly flawed. It has only seemed like it worked well as long as there is assumed a cornucopian supply of raw materials and energy on the input. with no cost of the actual non-renewable resources that the future life will not have. Only the cost of extraction. And a cornucopian sink to absorb the waste. Also with no cost.
Economists and politicians encouraging eternal 3% growth, just so some scraps can trickle down to the bottom 70% of humans are leading a mindless extractive drive up to a higher and steeper Seneca collapse. Infinite growth on a finite planet is well into the category of "can't happen". It never ends well for yeast in a bottle of wine.
.
We already live in a social democracy all across the developed North. Most of our important contribution of expensive infrastructure toward human wellbeing are funded socially. Schools, hospitals, roads, utilities/ energy, fire, police.

[redpoint5]

Sure, we both agree on most everything you just said there, but that has nothing to do with the specific complaints I brought up about that article.

1. There isn't evidence that the super wealthy pay a lower tax rate than "any other income group". That isn't to say that there is no problem, only that you need to start with truthful facts to elaborate a solution.

2. The article doesn't mention how we'll keep the super wealthy once they are taxed their fair share. Perhaps they will stay because they have deep roots in the US, but more likely they will find ways to hide their assets, as many countries don't have a duty to report them back to the US.

3. What to do with the newfound "public" money isn't thought out at all. You don't take others money first and figure out why you took it later. Pre-k has shown in multiple studies to have zero long-term benefit, so just listing a political wishlist of things to do with other people's money isn't engaging in critical thinking.

4. No respectable economists suggests higher corporate taxes because they all know that reduces domestic jobs and the size of the economy, which hurts everyone across all strata of the economic distribution. Throwing this idea in the mix of the other terrible ideas just shows allegiance to a political agenda rather than a demonstration of economic chops, or a thought out solution to a problem.

5. Why avoid the stated issue altogether; that the wealthy have ways to avoid paying taxes that others either aren't able to take advantage of, or aren't aware that exist? Fixing the problem sounds easier than implementing a political wish list that may/may not address some of the symptoms of the problem.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

There isn't evidence that the super wealthy pay a lower tax rate than.....

Ah, its nice to hear the super rich just can't afford to pay the big bucks to find all the tax loopholes. Boeing buys up all the tax lawyers & often doesn't pay any taxes.
Signed:
a tax lawyer, needing more money, who is trying to get into the Boeing tax dodge......

[NeilBlanchard]

How Climate Change And Flash Flooding Is Affecting Communities Across The Country

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

1. There isn't evidence that the super wealthy pay a lower tax rate than "any other income group".

I actually don't find it necessary to question the exact values of the data as you have in order to accept the approximate trends which have been well documented elsewhere if you watch the gif as it ascends through time from the 1950's, you see that in order to pay for the ongoing industrial reallocation and expansion from the WWII war effort, The top earners who had done very well for themselves within the capitalist system were compelled to chip in more to pay for the big programs that were needed. With a 70% top tax rate. It was done then and it will be done successfully again now. We need capital to pay for the daunting transition to a rebuildable energy system. And national health care.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

2. The article doesn't mention how we'll keep the super wealthy once they are taxed their fair share. Perhaps they will stay because they have deep roots in the US, but more likely they will find ways to hide their assets, as many countries don't have a duty to report them back to the US.

We are all stuck here on one planet and must work together to survive the coming energy/ resource challenges. Which means cooperation on uniform regulations to prevent the race to the bottom tax havens for the rich.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

3. What to do with the newfound "public" money isn't thought out at all. You don't take others money first and figure out why you took it later. Pre-k has shown in multiple studies to have zero long-term benefit, so just listing a political wishlist of things to do with other people's money isn't engaging in critical thinking.

We will barely scrape up enough to cover the massive energy transition and health care let alone food and housing minimums and fair labor wages throughout the world.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

4. No respectable economists suggests higher corporate taxes because they all know that reduces domestic jobs and the size of the economy, which hurts everyone across all strata of the economic distribution. Throwing this idea in the mix of the other terrible ideas just shows allegiance to a political agenda rather than a demonstration of economic chops, or a thought out solution to a problem.

Again. World cooperation is required to prevent the race to the bottom. And world labor unions to bargain for a fair share of profits since minus tariffs, all laborers are in this together. CEO's currently earn 500 times that of the base employee and 380 times that of the mean average of all employees. This is Global Capitalism run amuck exploiting the labor force and is completely out of hand. The industrialists of the early 1900's got rich on 50:1 ratios. 100:1 would be plenty. $20,000 for the base worker and $2 million for the CEO. With progressive taxation to the tune of 70% above 20 million / year and 90% above 50 million for those that still manage to get that high.

[freebeard]

Again. World cooperation is required to prevent the race to the bottom.

Carrot or stick?

And world labor unions to bargain for a fair share of profits since minus tariffs, all laborers are in this together.

Going a bit Wobbbly there?