Comments on: Lower Taxes + Lower Carbon Emissions = Possibility?

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 14:49:00 +0000

hmm, thanks for the catch. going to go ahead and change this to the latter

By: Hats

Hats — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 01:45:00 +0000

Sorry to nit pick but shouldn’t the start read “In Washington, mentioning the word “TAX” and “CARBON”, is tantamount to political suicide.” or something like “… is anathema and political suicide.”?
The way you’ve used anathema doesn’t seem to make sense. If I’m wrong about this though (these could just be Australian-isms) could you please explain why? it’s the only what I’ll learn.

By: Ronald Brak

Ronald Brak — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 23:31:00 +0000

Look at the carbon tax Australia introduced this month for an example of a carbon tax that is revenue neutral and progressive. The rates of tax on low and median incomes were reduced while pensions and unemployment benefits were increased.

By: Goaway

Goaway — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 22:28:00 +0000

Carbon tax is however very regressive, since the poor consume/burn all of their income, while the rich only consume a part of it, while saving/investing the rest.

So we are really over taxing the poor, and reducing corporate/high income tax. Its a shame, but true.

By: anderlan

anderlan — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 20:31:00 +0000

I can only hope and pray this idea catches on. Although, it would make more sense to move the money directly (equal per capita (less for minors) monthly checks to households) without calling it a tax cut, because it’s important that government doesn’t depend on damaging behavior for revenue. Sin taxes should not go into the general fund, but be entirely redistributed or earmarked for certain uses. But I’m not complaining! Whatever it takes to get a net zero rising fossil carbon price passed into law is welcome! To obviate the problem, any bill doing this should force the tax decreases to lapse once the carbon fund lapses. But that wouldn’t be for a while. For as long as possible, the fossil carbon price should just keep going up and up to keep the carbon fund at a high, constant level.

There’s hope. Some on the right side of the pundit gallery already see the value in this type of approach. Charles Krauthammer espoused a net-zero gas tax in 2009: “The beauty of the gas [or fossil] tax is that we–and not OPEC–do the adjusting. And that increase in price doesn’t go into the pocket of various foreign thugs and unfriendlies, but back into the pocket of the American consumer.” http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/949rsrgi.asp