Thanks Obama for the Tax Credit

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

getting a new roof put on using Energy Star rated shingles which will qualify me for $1500 tax credit.  There was only a $2000 difference in price between the Energy Star rated shingles and non-Energy Star rated shingles...so the Fed is basically paying 75% of the upgrade cost, the insurance picked up the rest of the tab.  

Thanks Obama.

[Pulp Fiction spoof]
If Obama had never proposed such a goofy mix of stimulus in the first place, which he never shoulda done, he'd be alive [politically].  But, enough about the poor unfortunate Mr. Obama, let's talk about the rich and prosperous Mr. jmfcst.  How much more wealth is Obama gonna spread around?
[/Pulp Fiction spoof]

hehe

[opebo]

Dude, he's the president.  Even the littlest president (James Carter) is a thousand times more important than one computer repairman drone sweating it out in a backwater in Texas.  Try to remember your place - just because we listen to you doesn't mean you matter.

[tpfkaw]

That's retarded.

[memphis]

And you'll use less energy and have lower utility bills. Which was the entire point.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And you'll use less energy and have lower utility bills. Which was the entire point.

but I would have bought the Energy Star shingles even without the energy credit, so it didn't stimulate anything other than my bank account.  It would have made far greater sense for Obama to have included new construction, but limiting it to existing dwellings is really dumb.

Better yet, simply legislate mandatory compliance on all building material in residential dwelling, new or used, and forget the tax credit, because tax credits like this are only used by the knowledgeable, which usually equates to the wealthy.

as I have stated many times - his energy policy lacks imagination

[memphis]

And you'll use less energy and have lower utility bills. Which was the entire point.

Better yet, simply legislate mandatory compliance on all building material in residential dwelling, new or used, and forget the tax credit, because tax credits like this are only used by the knowledgeable, which usually equates to the wealthy.

as I have stated many times - his energy policy lacks imagination

You're certainly running to his left on energy. If he mandates anything you have the country all in a tizzy. If you would have bought them anyway, good for you (seriously). Some people need some extra encouragement.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And you'll use less energy and have lower utility bills. Which was the entire point.

Better yet, simply legislate mandatory compliance on all building material in residential dwelling, new or used, and forget the tax credit, because tax credits like this are only used by the knowledgeable, which usually equates to the wealthy.

as I have stated many times - his energy policy lacks imagination

You're certainly running to his left on energy. If he mandates anything you have the country all in a tizzy. If you would have bought them anyway, good for you (seriously). Some people need some extra encouragement.

Running to Obama's left is pretty easy to do. Even if you're a Republican.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And you'll use less energy and have lower utility bills. Which was the entire point.

but I would have bought the Energy Star shingles even without the energy credit, so it didn't stimulate anything other than my bank account.  It would have made far greater sense for Obama to have included new construction, but limiting it to existing dwellings is really dumb.

So why didn't you buy them before the tax credit came to be?

[Beet]

Anyone who tries to argue that tax credits don't effect consumer choice is very wrong.

[Torie]

I hope I live long enough to outlive this alternative energy mania, in its search for some way out of the box, by hoping that dumping a bunch of money into it, and some technological deus ex machina will make it all better, with boatloads of "green jobs" to boot. It is basically a scam. The end.

Yes, I am getting very irritable about this issue. Enough already!

[Badger]

Just purchased 3 new storm doors for the house. Couldn't and wouldn't have afforded it without the tax credit. Good for the door manufacturer, good for the contractor who installed them, good for our family using less energy, multiplied x 1000's its good for the environment and good for America by being less reliant on imported energy.

But Obama did it so THIS tax cut must be bad, bad, BAD! Hopefully the new GOP House will repeal it and raise our taxes cause....

[Torie]

Just purchased 3 new storm doors for the house. Couldn't and wouldn't have afforded it without the tax credit. Good for the door manufacturer, good for the contractor who installed them, good for our family using less energy, multiplied x 1000's its good for the environment and good for America by being less reliant on imported energy.

But Obama did it so THIS tax cut must be bad, bad, BAD! Hopefully the new GOP House will repeal it and raise our taxes cause....

What percentage of the cost of the your doors was paid for by the taxpayer?

[Badger]

Just purchased 3 new storm doors for the house. Couldn't and wouldn't have afforded it without the tax credit. Good for the door manufacturer, good for the contractor who installed them, good for our family using less energy, multiplied x 1000's its good for the environment and good for America by being less reliant on imported energy.

But Obama did it so THIS tax cut must be bad, bad, BAD! Hopefully the new GOP House will repeal it and raise our taxes cause....

What percentage of the cost of the your doors was paid for by the taxpayer?

By the taxpayers? Nothing. By this taxpayer (me) a total of about $450. It was my taxes that were lowered, no one else paid a cent for them, Torie.

Now, I perfectly realize its not that simple. The deficit is increased by any tax cut. BUT, how is this ANY different than any other tax cut? Can not the exact same thing be said of the upper income tax cuts Bush and the GOP passed and with Boehner vows to defend to the death? Arguably this tax credit has a much more targeted value.

[Torie]

Just purchased 3 new storm doors for the house. Couldn't and wouldn't have afforded it without the tax credit. Good for the door manufacturer, good for the contractor who installed them, good for our family using less energy, multiplied x 1000's its good for the environment and good for America by being less reliant on imported energy.

But Obama did it so THIS tax cut must be bad, bad, BAD! Hopefully the new GOP House will repeal it and raise our taxes cause....

What percentage of the cost of the your doors was paid for by the taxpayer?

By the taxpayers? Nothing. By this taxpayer (me) a total of about $450. It was my taxes that were lowered, no one else paid a cent for them, Torie.

Now, I perfectly realize its not that simple. The deficit is increased by any tax cut. BUT, how is this ANY different than any other tax cut? Can not the exact same thing be said of the upper income tax cuts Bush and the GOP passed and with Boehner vows to defend to the death? Arguably this tax credit has a much more targeted value.

$150 per door, which each door costing maybe $350? Not good. A tax credit is precisely the same as the government cutting you a check as if you were a welfare queen, as a economic matter. Money is fungible.  Maybe you can help educate many of my Pubbie friends about that one - they typically are just about as delusioned about that as Democrats, if not more so.

Tax rates are a bit different, at least to the extent that they are not about sending you a check or not based on your consumption patterns, and to the extent they are, I have largely come to the conclusion that they are a bad  idea, admitting that unwinding some of these black holes, like deducting interest for purchase money principal residence mortgages, if unwound now, would probably generate more pain than it is worth. Sometimes we can just not "afford" to get rid of earlier bad government programs, because of the attendant dislocations - and that is very sobering.

[Beet]

The key thing to understand with any law having to do with money is that every decision has a cost and every decision has a benefit. A major thing that hampers discussions about money choices by the government is that people will latch onto one or the other in a qualitative way and not let it go. Now, discussions would be a lot of more productive if people would clearly spell out both the cost and benefit and why they think one outweighs the other.

Here is the issue I have with this tax credit. In theory, the value of the increased efficient home improvement over the non efficient home improvement to society should be greater than or equal to the cost in lost revenue of the $1,500 tax credit as measured in energy costs. In other words, between N (Non-Efficient) and E (Efficient), the Net Present Value of the savings of using E over N should > $1,500. However, if this were the case, rational consumers would purchase E over N without the credit. The credit only makes sense if consumers would not purchase anything without the credit because they face a liquidity constraint. But in this case, there is no reason to restrict the credit to E. You might as well enact a general tax cut and let the rational consumer sort out N and E. Therefore, the only justification for the credit must be rooted in behavioral or psychological considerations.

[Torie]

Tax credits make some theoretical sense, to and only to, the extent they mitigate economic externalities, to wit, costs and benefits not internalized into the price system. And about that, folks have different points of views in how to quantify such externalities. As an example, is "global warming" going to extirpate our species before I would otherwise assume room temperate or not? 

[Beet]

Right, reducing global warming is an externality that would mitigate my example... something that is a benefit to society but not fully captured in the price seen by the consumer.

[patrick1]

Tax credits make some theoretical sense, to and only to, the extent they mitigate economic externalities, to wit, costs and benefits not internalized into the price system. And about that, folks have different points of views in how to quantify such externalities. As an example, is "global warming" going to extirpate our species before I would otherwise assume room temperate or not?  

Trying to mitigate against the effects of climate change makes sense economically. Some methods will take decades to have an effect while others are more immediate.  Wildfires, floods and landslides cost government, industry and individuals an insane amount of money and the cost is going up. Little things like new storm windows not only help save on energy cost but serve a dual purpose of protecting against the actual storms.  This lowers the individual price of insurance and reducing the risk exposure of that industry.  I may be drifting a bit off topic but most studies show that $1 of mitigation saves $4 in government outlays. You know the old line an ounce of prevention is worth an pound of cure. Tax credits should support these measures and encourage this activity. Green technology should serve a dual purpose to save energy but also make a structure more structural sound. Most companies are taking this approach when they develop these materials.

[Badger]

Just purchased 3 new storm doors for the house. Couldn't and wouldn't have afforded it without the tax credit. Good for the door manufacturer, good for the contractor who installed them, good for our family using less energy, multiplied x 1000's its good for the environment and good for America by being less reliant on imported energy.

But Obama did it so THIS tax cut must be bad, bad, BAD! Hopefully the new GOP House will repeal it and raise our taxes cause....

What percentage of the cost of the your doors was paid for by the taxpayer?

By the taxpayers? Nothing. By this taxpayer (me) a total of about $450. It was my taxes that were lowered, no one else paid a cent for them, Torie.

Now, I perfectly realize its not that simple. The deficit is increased by any tax cut. BUT, how is this ANY different than any other tax cut? Can not the exact same thing be said of the upper income tax cuts Bush and the GOP passed and with Boehner vows to defend to the death? Arguably this tax credit has a much more targeted value.

$150 per door, which each door costing maybe $350? Not good. A tax credit is precisely the same as the government cutting you a check as if you were a welfare queen, as a economic matter. Money is fungible.  Maybe you can help educate many of my Pubbie friends about that one - they typically are just about as delusioned about that as Democrats, if not more so.

Tax rates are a bit different, at least to the extent that they are not about sending you a check or not based on your consumption patterns, and to the extent they are, I have largely come to the conclusion that they are a bad  idea, admitting that unwinding some of these black holes, like deducting interest for purchase money principal residence mortgages, if unwound now, would probably generate more pain than it is worth. Sometimes we can just not "afford" to get rid of earlier bad government programs, because of the attendant dislocations - and that is very sobering.

With respect Torie, I see nothing distinguishable between the government "cutting your a check as if you were a welfare queen" for a $450 tax cut for upper income earners, and a similar targeted tax credit for purchasing energy efficient doors. If the latter is the equivalent to a transfer payment, then the former is too.

Absolute realism surely dictates that both add to the debt. I've spent much of my time on this forum trying to explain to conservatives that tax cuts really honestly add to the debt rather than magically pay for themselves via increased economic activity, etc. Unfortunately, the only time Republicans seem to accept that reality is exclusively (and uncoindicentally) when discussing tax cuts or credits Obama passed.

I agree with you that there are many tax loopholes worth closing, but respectfully disagree that this is one. Anyone who spent much time decrying higher taxes in the last month or two certainly should agree it seems. No?

[Ban my account ffs!]

I recently cut down a birch tree that was old and leaning over our cabin.  That will be used to burn and create heat for us.  In its place, I plant two trees:  A northern whitecedar and an eastern white pine.  Both will more than make up for the paper birch that they replaced.  I did this all without a tax credit and it cost me roughly $15.  Then again, both species of evergreen that I planted are susceptible to deer browse and the white pine could easily get the blister rust or the weevil.  Maybe I should've just planted another birch.

[Torie]

Yes, it would be nice Badger if supply side existed to the degree fantasized by so many in my party. So many fantasies, so little time, they go on and on. I guess whether or not I am a welfare queen because my tax rate is less than 100% in the end is a philosophical issue. And you know how those arguments go.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You're certainly running to his left on energy. If he mandates anything you have the country all in a tizzy. If you would have bought them anyway, good for you (seriously). Some people need some extra encouragement.

to the contrary, it is Obama's left leaning views about which sources of energy we should be pursuing that keeps him from finding a solution.  As Torie stated, all this alternative energy buzz prevents us from building a viable short-medium term bridge to solve our energy dependence.

as for mandating compliance - not sure the Fed has the authority to mandate Energy Star compliance, but through FHA, they could mandate compliance for any new FHA loans. Proper insulation, double-pane glass, reflective roofing should be mandated, it adds very little to the cost and pays for itself in just a few years.

I'm not buying white shingles, but I would be ok  with having white shingles if every new roof was required to be white.

There is a way to BOTH wean ourselves off of foreign energy sources AND save the consumer money at the same time.  But Obama's renewable energy policies can do neither.  If Obama had used the stimulus to move towards replacing gasoline usage with natural gas, the Dems may have held onto the House and would have won the close PA and IL senate races. Instead, Americans believe the stimulus was simply wasted on pet projects.  Obama is book smart but has no imagination, he can not think outside the box, he has no vision.

[opebo]

to the contrary, it is Obama's left leaning views about which sources of energy we should be pursuing that keeps him from finding a solution.

I'm a lot further left than Obama, and I think coal and nuclear are the only ways out.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

to the contrary, it is Obama's left leaning views about which sources of energy we should be pursuing that keeps him from finding a solution.

I'm a lot further left than Obama, and I think coal and nuclear are the only ways out.

yeah, but you're not part of the tree hugger left, rather you're a hugger of push rods.

[Badger]

Yes, it would be nice Badger if supply side existed to the degree fantasized by so many in my party. So many fantasies, so little time, they go on and on. I guess whether or not I am a welfare queen because my tax rate is less than 100% in the end is a philosophical issue. And you know how those arguments go.

Agree totally.

(Damn it, a good tirade thwarted by Torie's unflappable niceness yet again. )