Thread: Carbon Tax

You claim to be for the little guy but you really want to push something that will hurt them. Are you sure you are not a closet Republican?

Go ahead push a carbon tax and watch who gets hurt the most, wont be the Rich, they will still be able to afford what they want. The little guy will get screwed.

Not to mention a carbon tax will make Al Gore a bigger billionaire as he owns 3 or 4 companies that actually deal in trading carbon credits so one business or country can sell their unused credits to companies or countries to pollute more.

Zero Sum gain and total slam on the poor.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

You claim to be for the little guy but you really want to push something that will hurt them. Are you sure you are not a closet Republican?

Go ahead push a carbon tax and watch who gets hurt the most, wont be the Rich, they will still be able to afford what they want. The little guy will get screwed.

Not to mention a carbon tax will make Al Gore a bigger billionaire as he owns 3 or 4 companies that actually deal in trading carbon credits so one business or country can sell their unused credits to companies or countries to pollute more.

Zero Sum gain and total slam on the poor.

I was envisioning a carbon tax, not trading carbon units, so I left Al Gore out of it.

And I would like a revenue neutral tax, that would use the proceeds to reduce payroll taxes.
This puts the money back into the hands of working people mostly. Since Payroll taxes are regressive, it makes the tax system more progressive.

And it helps the little guy, if his payroll taxes go down by $50/week, and his energy costs go up by $50 a week, it leaves him alone.
If he buys a more efficient car, he can make a few bucks each week on the deal.
It put the incentive where it does the most good. The wealthy already have a big incentive to be efficient, they spend a fortune on energy now.

The point is that every tax scheme distorts the market. At least this distortion would be in line with a sensible energy policy.
The other point is that most of the world already taxes energy quite heavily, it provides a cheap (well less expensive) energy for energy consumers in the areas that do not.
But while subsidizing energy makes sense if you're Hugo Chavez or the King of Saudi Arabia, low priced imported energy doesn't make sense for the US.
We are not and energy exporter anymore, we are an energy importer, and we need to get our tax structure in line with the tax structure of importers.

I am totally against a carbon tax. It allows for more monkey business in corporations to be born. And unless you get china and india and any other new place to jump on board, what is the good of it?

Some elites positioned themselves to make fortunes off of this carbon tax. I have had enough of that!

Anyways, I doubt there is enough fossil fuel to destroy the earth. Might change things, but we might be better off adjusting to it instead of making life harder for average folks.

I favor a carbon tax, revenue neutral. Although I'm open to compromise if it's part of a larger deal on spending and tax reform.

The carbon tax is interesting because it divides both parties' bases, as we're already seeing in this thread.

Why not just come out and say "we think we know better how to do your business than you do".

Carbon tax, carbon credits, all the creations of morons who have no clue what to do or how.

All taxes cause less of what is being taxed to be produced. Would you rather tax energy usage, or work and investment? Economists also believe that consumption taxes are more efficient than income taxes. It's really a no-brainer for conservatives, as long as we don't get tricked into just making a new tax for liberals to raise all the time.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

I am totally against a carbon tax. It allows for more monkey business in corporations to be born. And unless you get china and india and any other new place to jump on board, what is the good of it?

Some elites positioned themselves to make fortunes off of this carbon tax. I have had enough of that!

Anyways, I doubt there is enough fossil fuel to destroy the earth. Might change things, but we might be better off adjusting to it instead of making life harder for average folks.

Nobody makes money off a carbon tax, they make money under cap and trade.
And the damage that can be averted or at least mitigated by reducing global warming is huge.

I see a carbon tax as good policy.

A tax on carbon is a tax on everything thus increasing the cost of living for everybody including low income people who don't own a car. Its also especially hard on people who have to drive larger vehicles for whatever reason.

Originally Posted by goober

I was envisioning a carbon tax, not trading carbon units, so I left Al Gore out of it.

And I would like a revenue neutral tax, that would use the proceeds to reduce payroll taxes.
This puts the money back into the hands of working people mostly. Since Payroll taxes are regressive, it makes the tax system more progressive.

And it helps the little guy, if his payroll taxes go down by $50/week, and his energy costs go up by $50 a week, it leaves him alone.
If he buys a more efficient car, he can make a few bucks each week on the deal.
It put the incentive where it does the most good. The wealthy already have a big incentive to be efficient, they spend a fortune on energy now.

The point is that every tax scheme distorts the market. At least this distortion would be in line with a sensible energy policy.
The other point is that most of the world already taxes energy quite heavily, it provides a cheap (well less expensive) energy for energy consumers in the areas that do not.
But while subsidizing energy makes sense if you're Hugo Chavez or the King of Saudi Arabia, low priced imported energy doesn't make sense for the US.
We are not and energy exporter anymore, we are an energy importer, and we need to get our tax structure in line with the tax structure of importers.

Been thinking about this.

First of all, the paradise of a revenue neutral tax is just a pipe dream. It wont be done. What will happen is the politicians will shift money from one place to another as the new revenue stream comes in and find a way not to pass on any sort of discount to the consumers. If you truly believe anything else will happen, I am quiet happy to sell you a Bridge in Brooklyn, ocean front property in Nevada and show you who killed Kennedy all for a lowprice.

Second carbon tax will hurt everyone who is not rich, the poor will see less in their pockets, the middle group will find itself sliding lower due to loss of money and prices everywhere go up.

Unintended consequences be dammed though the Liberals always love shortsighted plans.

Originally Posted by Brexx

A tax on carbon is a tax on everything thus increasing the cost of living for everybody including low income people who don't own a car. Its also especially hard on people who have to drive larger vehicles for whatever reason.

The choice is not between a tax on carbon or no tax at all. A tax on carbon would replace other taxes.
The point is to have the price of carbon energy reflect the full cost of carbon energy. That makes the economy more efficient, which benefits everyone.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Wlessard

Been thinking about this.

First of all, the paradise of a revenue neutral tax is just a pipe dream. It wont be done. What will happen is the politicians will shift money from one place to another as the new revenue stream comes in and find a way not to pass on any sort of discount to the consumers. If you truly believe anything else will happen, I am quiet happy to sell you a Bridge in Brooklyn, ocean front property in Nevada and show you who killed Kennedy all for a lowprice.

Second carbon tax will hurt everyone who is not rich, the poor will see less in their pockets, the middle group will find itself sliding lower due to loss of money and prices everywhere go up.

Unintended consequences be dammed though the Liberals always love shortsighted plans.

So tax payroll instead?
What would you tax to raise the money? And how does that tax advance policy?

Originally Posted by goober

The choice is not between a tax on carbon or no tax at all. A tax on carbon would replace other taxes.
The point is to have the price of carbon energy reflect the full cost of carbon energy. That makes the economy more efficient, which benefits everyone.

- - - Updated - - -



So tax payroll instead?
What would you tax to raise the money? And how does that tax advance policy?

There already is a tax on carbon. All industries involved in providing carbon based fuels are taxed, then the consumer is taxed at the pump. You are calling for another tax on carbon on top of that. Like I said, higher fuel costs raises the cost of living for everybody, and for a lot of people that would not be offset by other tax decreases.

Originally Posted by goober

Since it's a known result of any tax that the tax will discourage whatever the target of the tax happens to be, and suppress it somewhat.

So a cigarette tax reduces smoking.
An alcohol tax reduces drinking.
A sales tax reduces retail sales.
An income tax reduces reporting income, etc.

A carbon tax would reduce fossil fuel use.
Some few might do without, but the majority would do with less.
They would buy more fuel efficient cars, do less driving, heat and cool and light their homes with more efficient heating, cooling and lighting systems.

And the tax would be relatively easy to collect, oil and coal move quite openly through gateway facilities where the tax could easily be collected.

And the government can certainly use the additional revenue, even if the tax was made "revenue neutral", and other taxes were reduced, there would be some benefit.
In that what ever other taxes were reduced (I favor a payroll tax reduction), would return the money, and just redistribute the incentives.
Which the tax system does now, this just brings the incentives in line with what appears to be a very reasonable policy, given the realities of the 21st century.

What is so terrible about that?

I'm sure if your hero is reelected he will make this his next crusade........... Then you'll see just what it does to the economy and the middle classes personal finances. I mean if you look.

Originally Posted by goober

Since it's a known result of any tax that the tax will discourage whatever the target of the tax happens to be, and suppress it somewhat.

So a cigarette tax reduces smoking.
An alcohol tax reduces drinking.
A sales tax reduces retail sales.
An income tax reduces reporting income, etc.

A carbon tax would reduce fossil fuel use.
Some few might do without, but the majority would do with less.
They would buy more fuel efficient cars, do less driving, heat and cool and light their homes with more efficient heating, cooling and lighting systems.

And the tax would be relatively easy to collect, oil and coal move quite openly through gateway facilities where the tax could easily be collected.

And the government can certainly use the additional revenue, even if the tax was made "revenue neutral", and other taxes were reduced, there would be some benefit.
In that what ever other taxes were reduced (I favor a payroll tax reduction), would return the money, and just redistribute the incentives.
Which the tax system does now, this just brings the incentives in line with what appears to be a very reasonable policy, given the realities of the 21st century.

What is so terrible about that?

Since my country introduced a national carbon tax last Sunday, I feel I can make some comment about this issue. Before I do though, I'd like to provide some personal context so people are clear as to where I'm coming from.

Ever since I turned 18 and have ben able to votye, I have voted for the Green Party at every election - be it national, state or local.

This carbon tax though is one of the reasons that I will be voting for the opposition conservative party at the next federal election, even if it means beinging to power the most conservative religious zealot this country has ever seen - Tony Abbott.

The Carbon Tax will do NOTHING for the environment; all it will do (and has already done) is see power bills skyrocket. The average power bill for an Australian home has risen 50-60% in the last 4 years, and it is forcast to rise another 50% in the next two years. The reason being is that households are using less power than ever before, as much of Australia moves to a sutainable model. For example, all new homes are now built with solar panels to power hot water systems for showers, etc. Because Australia was in drought for much of the last decade, many homes invested in water tanks, and all new homes are now built with water tanks. This means that houses can use "brown water" on their lawns, and not rely on payig for water to use showers, toilets, etc. What this means is that electricity companies (which are all private in Oz) aren't making as much profit, so they've skyrocketed the prices they charge to compensate.

Because so many Australian households are suffering under the weight of the current power bills we're expeirencing, the only way the govt could introduce a Carbon Tax was to create a massive scheme of govt funding to households, which saw small tax cuts (although my salary range wasn'tr eligible, so I get no benefit), as well as massive one-off payments to familys, alongside regular weekly payments. In essence, all the money raised from the Carbhon Tax is being given back in the form of govt handouts, so there's no benefit. Australia is already leading the western world in the amount of power we use, so there's very little opprtunity to use less power, short of not using any at all - which some households are actually having to do as they can't afford the power bills. The power bill issue is THE biggest issue in this country at the moment, and every news broadcast features at least one story about the price of power.

In essence, as a self-proclaimed "greenie", who has only ever voted Green, I will NOT be voting for the current govt again, as a result of this Carbon Tax. It is the single most useless thing that this country has ever introduced, and will do nothing to help the environment. Absolutely nothing.