Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
tax the problem away

Posted by pnbrown z6.5 MA (My Page) on
Tue, Apr 1, 14 at 7:25

The other day on NPR I heard someone talking about the "carbon" tax idea, but put in a way that made more sense to me than before:

Let governments tax carbon-producers, and decrease existing taxes by that amount, thereby encouraging more efficiency in CO2 production while simultaneously stimulating the rest of the economy. I had not heard it posed like that, has anyone else? It is generally purported as an extra tax, rather than zero-sum.

So then I thought, could this be a case of more is better? Could we just let state and federal governments gain their entire revenues from carbon-generation, both industrial and individual, and eliminate sales, excise, and income taxes? The primary block against reducing the use of fossil-fuels is that per-calorie they are much cheaper than any other source. Adding the cost of government to the current cost of fossil fuels would make them more expensive than many other sources.

The only problem, besides the massive industry opposition to such legislation, would be controlling the black market.


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: tax the problem away

If we really want to cut down CO2, we need to heavily tax beer.

Would you agree to that?


 o
RE: tax the problem away

Could we just let state and federal governments gain their entire revenues from carbon-generation, both industrial and individual, and eliminate sales, excise, and income taxes?

That would launch a new industry. CO2 measuring devices installed in every home. We want to make sure the IRS is getting it's fair share.

And wood burners would pay a 50% surcharge.

How do we tax plant lovers?


 o
RE: tax the problem away

It would launch new regulatory industries, obviously.

What about the immense savings gained by eliminating the IRS plus all the work of keeping track of sales taxes, etc?


 o
RE: tax the problem away

If we want to lower CO2 levels, we need to stop breathing.


 o
RE: tax the problem away

What about the immense savings gained by eliminating the IRS plus all the work of keeping track of sales taxes, etc?

But that would reduce the accounting profession to a minimum.


 o
RE: tax the problem away

OOOH! Heavily tax people who produce CO2 producers(children) instead of giving them tax breaks?


 o
RE: tax the problem away

I should have known better than to try to discuss anything serious around here…


 o
RE: tax the problem away

Sorry pn..it was an idea I couldn't resist. You make a good point though-as well as me when I think about it. People need to be discouraged from having children because it is way too many humans that is causing a lot of the problems. Discouraging people from using cheap energy that destroys the planet is a good idea.


 o
RE: tax the problem away

We could expand out to charging for the release of methane gas in public if we could develop personal meters, perhaps a cell phone ap...


 o
RE: tax the problem away

Saying that a problem for humanity is caused by human nature is the same as saying nothing. Screwing, greed, gluttony, whatever, get over it.

Does anyone want to discuss whether this OP idea might work to some degree?


 o
RE: tax the problem away

You don't tax one CO2 emitter without taxing ALL CO2 emitters.
That includes food producers, wood, oil, natural gas, farting, belching, breathing, etc. Even people riding bicycles will have to be taxed because they start breathing hard, which means more dirty CO2. And can you IMAGINE the taxes collected on marathons?

How much more in taxes are YOU willing to pay? 10%? 20%? 50%?

I find it funny that when you are challenged, you naturally think those challenging you are somehow not serious. We just, unlike you, have a sense of humor about it.

I just find it hilarious that you think the only way to do it is to TAX it. And of course you have the place where all that tax money should go, right?


 o
RE: tax the problem away

What is more amusing is all your nonsensical assumptions about me apparently based on things I have not expressed on this thread or any other.

Which would certainly be part of why you are not able to have serious discussions.


 o
RE: tax the problem away

I have a valid question.

How do we tax the federal, state and local governments since all of them are huge generators of CO2.

Another question. How will the tax be distributed? Will poor and rich districts be treated equally?

As for not having children, you better hope somebody growing up behind you is willing to wipe your butt when you can't.


 o
RE: tax the problem away

"...Which would certainly be part of why you are not able to have serious discussions..."

I can't have a serious discussion this subject because it's a joke to begin with. You want to tax carbon emitters. But you can't wrap your head around the fact you must tax every emitter or none of them. Not just the ones you want to tax.


 o
RE: tax the problem away

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Wed, Apr 2, 14 at 14:41

PNBrown, most big business, not the Koch brothers type, but big oil companies and many big names assume a carbon price of one system or another is inevitable and are planning for it. It won't be a revolution when it come.

Cancelling our tax bills might be a fun idea to play with a bit, but I actually don't like the idea of not paying my taxes directly. This is my country, it's my duty to do my share, and it would be a real mistake to allow the big boys at Exxon, for instance, to think they were paying for the country and we all owed them big, which of course they would.

Also reminds me of states that set up lotteries to pay for public education. The correlation between lower-quality education and that shoddy shifting of responsibility to a rather silly, and typically lower income, subgroup is no surprise.


 o
RE: tax the problem away

The problem with all of the available schemes is that, when all you have to offer people is cold, dark, and expensive, there's not going to be much enthusiasm.

If all countries don't adopt a carbon tax - and they won't - it will just give them an economically competitive advantage. In other words, if we tax our carbon consumption we'll make it possible for them to consume fossil fuels more cheaply than us.

Until there's a more precise plan to avoid making life hell for the average person, I think there has to be a fairly clear direction and far more useful alternatives available. If not, we would simply be punishing people for the fact that unicorns don't exist, as if a tax could wish unicorns into existence.

Actually, if there were better alternatives, this would be a moot point because people would already be adopting them. I know I would. The minute something comes out that is usable, reliable, and reasonably priced for the functionality it provides, I will do whatever it takes to get me some. :-)


 o
RE: tax the problem away

It occurs to me a very simple method:

Simply tax fossil-fuels at the source, whether it is oil or gas well, coal mine, tar pit, etc. Tax it at a level sufficient to replace all or most other taxes. So the cost of goods will increase some large amount, while real incomes also increase. Although this would be considered highly regressive, it would have the desired result of making alternative energy sources relatively much less expensive.


 o
RE: tax the problem away

Such shocking heresy doesn't even merit a reply, aye, Chris?


 o
RE: tax the problem away

So again, how much more in taxes are YOU willing to pay? Then we must convince China, and all the middle East to tax fossil fuels too. How ya gonna do that?

What about the poor? How are they gonna pay the increases? They don't pay any taxes now, so you think the government is gonna commit suicide by taxing their constituents? Personally I'm all for making EVERYONE pay something in taxes, but your idea must have EVERYBODY on board or it's a failure from the start.

Let me know when Saudi Arabia agrees to your scheme.


 o
RE: tax the problem away

Info


 o
RE: tax the problem away

In 2013, the 30 largest power stations in Germany increased their emissions of carbon dioxide by 4.6% attaining 239 million tonnes, as stated on Wednesday in an analysis made by the Oeko-Institut research institute, criticizing low European carbon prices.

The EU ETS (EU Emissions Trading Scheme) was designed to reduce coal-burning by fixing a price on carbon emissions and making them tradeable. But overabundance of permits has maintained carbon prices to very low levels and therefore utilities are no longer frightened. A plan has been put in motion by EU governments in order to increase prices by temporarily eliminating permits from the market. The low prices and cheap carbon permits incited German power stations to burn more coal. According to Oeko-Institut, a new brown-coal fired block at Boxberg, managed by Vattenfall Europe, had seen a raise in CO2 emissions of 21% reaching 3.3 million tonnes. RWE's Neurath and Niederaussem sites, followed by Vattenfall's Jaenschwalde and Boxberg are in the top of the "dirty 30" list.


 o
RE: tax the problem away

That's interesting, Brush. Taxing emissions is admittedly difficult. Taxing fuel is far easier.

Chris, this proposal isn't about new taxes, but shifting the tax base radically. The current tax system rewards the consumption of fossil energy. Fossil energy is so dense that an artificial scheme like this is the only way to discourage the usage.


 o
RE: tax the problem away

It wouldn't have to be that egregious a tax to make a big difference - 2 or 3% on all the coal, gas, and petroleum would go a long ways to lowering taxes elsewhere.


 o
RE: tax the problem away

It wouldn't have to be that egregious a tax to make a big difference - 2 or 3% on all the coal, gas, and petroleum would go a long ways to lowering taxes elsewhere.

Yes, but if the PUC allows them to pass along the tax, what do we gain?


 o
RE: tax the problem away

Of course they will pass along the tax - that is the point. Everything fossil fuel makes possible needs to be more expensive if we seriously wish to segue earlier than otherwise.


 o
RE: tax the problem away

We'd use less energy. And the PUC lets them raise the rates to make up the revenue.

At some point, people will start to question the sanity of buying increasingly expensive power from some massive corporation when they could generate a share of it themselves by slapping a few solar panels on their roof.

Which, if you shoot for somewhere around 50 - 70% efficiency in converting sun to heat or power, isn't very expensive at all. Its more expensive the higher the efficiency. But nobody pays for sunlight, so who cares?


 o
RE: tax the problem away

"At some point, people will start to question the sanity of buying increasingly expensive power from some massive corporation when they could generate a share of it themselves by slapping a few solar panels on their roof."

You think? I don't know about that, short of a massive advertising campaign to raise awareness, coupled with serious financial incentives as a really nice carrot.


 o
RE: tax the problem away

They would pay for solar panels, though.

We should also be increasing our wetlands and planting more plants. Under optimum (non-drought) conditions plants can respond to increased carbon concentration by increasing carbon absorption from about 15 to 30%, dependong on the kind of plants. Grasses absorb the lesser amount, as they evolved earlier.

Here is a link that might be useful: Smithsonian Environmental Research Center blog


 o
RE: tax the problem away

•Posted by eibren z6PA (My Page) on Sun, Apr 6, 14 at 21:21

"They would pay for solar panels, though."

Who would?


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here