- Mar 10, 2009
- 7,268
- 1
- 0
Scott SoCal said:I don't have a problem with your point on cap gains. If ordinary income tax rates are kept reasonable then I see no real reason not to have cap gains taxed at that rate. The way right will point out that the invested money has already been taxed (which is true) but the way forward (imo) is to simplify. Cap Gains taxed at the same rate as income would certainly be simple.
I'm not a big fan of cap and tax.
I used it a working example to show a way to internalize negative externalities, in other words, to level the playing field in an attempt to achieve a more functional/less distorted market. I am trying to think of other ways to disincentivize certain behavior, or at least have those who shift certain costs on to society, pay for that, currently, "free riding" behavior. I wasn't saying that is the only and best way to do so, but I used it because most people are familiar with it. Do you have any idea what could serve a similar function, if you believe that such behavior/the cost associated with such behavior is undesirable for the larger society.
I know Alpe was a big fan of nuclear energy, but I recently read that nuclear energy, (also coal) can basically only be used for base loading the grid. For peak power, you have to rely on gas/oil/renewables (?) to serve the surplus in energy demand at peak hours, because they are easier/faster to adjust, or tap from. That's why in France it doesn't make sense to go beyond their current 70% nuclear energy coverage, because anything above that, will not be 'absorbed' by their grid. For the remaining 30%, they need to rely on different sources, such as gas (from Russia i guess) to meet peak demand.
So more nuclear power in the US would mainly serve to displace coal as an energy source (not taking a position, just mentioning it). Shale gas (just as Tar sans from Canada) has become competitive, only due to high oil prices (which have nearly doubled since 2004, and which make it profitable to exploit difficult to extract/costly energy sources) and, for shale gas, certain exemptions from regulatory oversight that were carved out specifically for their business activities.
Oil prices have mainly gone up after China's admission to the WTO, after which they had to scrap certain domestic programs/policies (barriers to trade), one of which was, that they, before admission, they were basically forced to exclusively use domestic energy sources.
Another issue in the US is that it has a very cumbersome, inefficient grid, because it consists of three grids (TX, East and West Coast) with many states which have their own rules and regulations. All of this makes it extremely difficult (costly) to transfer energy around, and the only solution is, to harmonize (federalize?) these grids and state regulations.
If you have a wind farm in Texas, and opportunities to sell energy in the North East exist, but you can't deliver it quickly, there seems to be a market failure. The system that is currently in place serves certain interests (oil/coal?), and I think it is difficult for green tech to get a foot in the door. And if they don't have access, or only very limited access, to the market, they can't achieve economies of scale, and/or reduce prices through effective competition. Who is going to buy expensive stuff, if they can get the exact same stuff for less, although that stuff does not pay for pollution. So how to pry that door open, I don't know.
