Taxpayer Protection Pledge
ATR's Congressional Ratings
Grover Norquist's Book
INDEX

Your Utility Bill if Obama Has His Way...

From Brian M Johnson on Friday, May 8, 2009 10:53 AM
Add to Reddit Add to Stumbleupon Add to Delicious Add to Digg Add to Facebook Add to Twitter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PDF Version of Image

The pre-carbon tax yearly fee was calculated by taking the average monthly amount the average American pays on their utility bill, $99.70 and mutliplying it by the number of months in a year (12), which equals $1196.40.

The new carbon tax yearly fee was calculated by adding $3100 to the pre-tax yearly fee of $1196.40. The $3100 was taken from Leader Boehner's office which used the following method:

How do Republicans arrive at the $3,100 dollar figure?  It’s pretty simple.  We took MIT’s own estimate of a key “cap-and-trade” bill from the 110th Congress (S. 309) cosponsored by then-Senator Obama that said S. 309 would generate $366 billion in revenues in 2015.  S. 309’s emissions targets track the emissions targets outlined in Obama’s budget, which the Congressional Research Service has confirmed.  We took MIT’s own number – $366 billion – and divided that by the number of U.S. households (we assumed 300 million people and an average household size of 2.56 people…which is 117 million households).  Using this formula, you get roughly $3,000 per household ($3,128 using current Census figures, a little less if you use projected Census figures from 2015).  Now, this doesn’t even account for costs resulting from higher prices for food and all other products that will cost more to produce under their program.

The $10,000 per year maximum was calculated by analysts at ATR using the below method originally released here.

Tax and energy analysts at Americans for Tax Reform have calculated the true size of the Pelosi-Obama-Reid energy tax hike on families.  By adding together the tax increase costs of the carbon tax, Sec. 199 repeal, and other energy tax hikes in the Obama budget and dividing by the number of families, it's clear what this annual tax hike would be.  The average American family would pay, directly or indirectly, approximately $10,000 per year in new energy taxes.

The new monthly rate was calculated by dividing the new carbon tax yearly rate by the number of months in a year (12) and the new carbon tax increase was calculated by subtracting the pre-carbon tax monthly rate from the new total monthly rate.

For any questions on methodology, please leave a comment below and ATR staff will address the issue.

Permalink | Email | Print

Comments

,50% FOR RENT, 15% FOR DOCTORS,15% FOR MEDICATION,15% FOR GAS AND ELECTRIC $16.00 FOOD STAMPS, FOOD WHATS THAT? 20% TO 50% COAL PENALTY. BEEN DISABLED FOR NINE YEARS.LIVING ON SS DISABILITY CHECK ONCE A MOTH. LET'S SEE, MOVE OUT BUDDY, AND LIVE ON THE SKIDS. I VOTED FOR THIS GUY. THANKS MR PRESIDENT,YOU MY MAIN MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> K.P.NANYS Friday, May 8, 2009 8:22 PM

Thanks for this article. We MUST get the message out about the direction our economy will head if we continue to punish people for using energy and for wanting to improve their lives.
>> James Moore Saturday, May 9, 2009 2:50 PM

I didn't vote for this guy, I knew better. He isn't even an american, he's a muslim and that's scarry. Is he the for-runner for the antichrist? he sure is trying to break AMERICA.
>> Peggy Saturday, May 9, 2009 8:09 PM

I didn't vote for this man, maybe those who did should step up to the plate and pay all this for us who did not. Seems some Americans were smarter than others during the campaign.
>> Ann Saturday, May 9, 2009 10:20 PM

Yeees, except that the cap-and-trade on the table will cost about a fifth of the one MIT looked at (and will probably be whittled down from that by the time it goes through committee). I don't mind righteous indignation, but it kind of loses its punch when it's about something that's not going to happen.
>> Freya Sunday, May 10, 2009 3:36 PM

John Reilly, an MIT prof. and one of the authors of the study, explained about this $3,100 claim: “It’s just wrong. It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.” What the Republicans don’t mention is that not only did John Reilly tell them that this was the wrong way to do this calculation, but that MIT had determined the effect on individuals. It would be $30.89 per person or $79 per family and would not start until 2015!
>> Luna Sunday, May 10, 2009 9:45 PM

Thank you all for the great comments. ATR staff did our own calculations. Regardless of the MIT number and the cap and trade figures, based on the budget on the OMB site, Sec. 6, the total amount he wishes to raise (i.e. by implementing new taxes, eliminating current tax deductions, cuts and credits, etc.) divided by the number of tax paying families in the US is around $7,000 per family. We added that to the widely used and accepted $3100 figure.
>> Brian M Johnson Monday, May 11, 2009 2:22 PM

The Aussie Prime Minister talked a big environmental game during his campaign but then backed away when he realized the destructive effects it would have on the economy: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124199838807604925.html It would be nice if Obama would do likewise but I wouldn't bank on it.
>> Captain Kirk Monday, May 11, 2009 2:31 PM

Ann, I'll be happy to pay for your share of cap and trade if you'll pay for my share of the Iraq War.
>> Freya Monday, May 11, 2009 7:06 PM

OK, how did you come to the $10,000 figure? What beginning figures did you use, and what assumptions did you make? I'd say a little transparency is in order here.
>> Freya Monday, May 11, 2009 7:14 PM

Actually, my apologies. You do provide a link to the "analysis." The $10,000 figure appears way off to me, but I addressed that in the other article.
>> Freya Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12:32 PM

We all need to buy generators now!!!
>> Peg321 Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:55 AM

Add a Comment


CAPTCHA Image
Add me to the ATR Newsletter list (If you are already on the list, you will not be subscribed a second time.)
Notify me when others comment on this article.