• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bipartisan Group of Economists Endorses (Surprisingly Robust) Carbon Tax

Bergslagstroll

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,952
Reaction score
1,550
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Implementing a carbon tax is becoming a bipartisan issue in US too.

In a letter published by The Wall Street Journal Wednesday night, four former chairs of the Federal Reserve (Yellen, Bernanke, Greenspan and Volcker) and a long list of former White House economists from both parties called on the U.S. to adopt a tax on carbon emissions as soon as possible, and to return all the revenue generated by such a tax to the American people, in the form of “equal lump-sum rebates.” The letter further stipulates that the carbon tax “should increase every year until emissions reductions goals are met,” and that the U.S. should impose “a border carbon adjustment” tax on imported goods from nations that do not themselves have carbon taxes. The latter provision would “enhance the competitiveness of American firms that are more energy-efficient than their global competitors” while creating “an incentive for other nations to adopt similar carbon pricing.”
Click to expand...

GOP Economists Endorse (Surprisingly Robust) Carbon Tax
 
Well, so much for sub-$2 gas.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
When you value cheap gas over breathable air, moderate climate, sustainable ecosystems and living animals you've got a serious moral problems.
Click to expand...

Calm yourself. I made no such comparison. I simply made an observation.

This all-foaming-at-the-mouth-all-the-time shtick of yours has got to be tiring.
 
Harshaw said:
Calm yourself. I made no such comparison. I simply made an observation.
This all-foaming-at-the-mouth-all-the-time shtick of yours has got to be tiring.
Click to expand...

Uh huh, sure. It's the science denying whiners like yourself that will insure this bill will never pass. Climate change is a very serious problem that requires very dramatic solutions. **** your gas price.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Uh huh, sure. It's the science denying whiners like yourself that will insure this bill will never pass. Climate change is a very serious problem that requires very dramatic solutions. **** your gas price.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
Harshaw said:
Well, so much for sub-$2 gas.
Click to expand...

Say hello to cleaner air, a higher moral high-ground for the U.S. to push harder globally, and a brighter, cleaner future for our country and world.
And maybe a political party that uses science, rather than profit and denial, as their M.O.? I'm pushing it there.
 
Mach said:
Say hello to cleaner air, a higher moral high-ground for the U.S. to push harder globally, and a brighter, cleaner future for our country and world.
And maybe a political party that uses science, rather than profit and denial, as their M.O.? I'm pushing it there.
Click to expand...

Wow, who knew you could do all that just by levying a tax? Why has no one ever tried it before?

Meanwhile, as gas prices go up, many fans of this tax will blame Republicans.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Implementing a carbon tax is becoming a bipartisan issue in US too.



GOP Economists Endorse (Surprisingly Robust) Carbon Tax
Click to expand...

How, exactly, would this "equal lump sum rebate" work? Many of these 'universal' schemes turn out to be not so 'universal'. If the vehicle used for the rebate is the federal income tax system then a per return rebate is not even close to a per person rebate since many do not file or file for the "household".
 
ttwtt78640 said:
How, exactly, would this "equal lump sum rebate" work? Many of these 'universal' schemes turn out to be not so 'universal'. If the vehicle used for the rebate is the federal income tax system then a per return rebate is not even close to a per person rebate since many do not file or file for the "household".
Click to expand...

Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax | Canada | UNFCCC
 
Phys251 said:
This fee-and-dividend system feels like the optimal solution on the table. While it'd be nice to have an additional revenue stream to help finance the transition to the green economy, returning 100% of the revenue to the people will keep this from being a true tax.
Click to expand...

You seem to see both having the cake and eating it too. It would that seem any of this "revenue stream" used to transition to green energy (whatever that means) cannot also be 100% returned to people.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Uh huh, sure. It's the science denying whiners like yourself that will insure this bill will never pass. Climate change is a very serious problem that requires very dramatic solutions. **** your gas price.
Click to expand...

Since you like telling others to go **** themselves, consider the courtesy reciprocated by said others and me.
 
DaveFagan said:
Corporatism-Corporatize the profits and socialize the liabilities. Bend over.
/
Click to expand...

Administered by a very corrupt government that cant/wont get even light easy work done and done right.....

This will go well...

NOT
 
Threegoofs said:
Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax | Canada | UNFCCC
Click to expand...

Thank you for the link. It points out that "a portion" (never further defined?) is returned to individuals via the income tax system. If one must pay $1000/year more for energy and is then rewarded with a $200/year tax break then that "portion" is hardly a great deal. How getting "a portion" back mitigates the (regressive?) impact is never explained. If you make me pay $1K more (for carbon based energy use) and then rebate me $200 that does not mitigate the $800 added cost of the carbon tax.

A common concern with carbon pricing is that it may have disproportionate economic impacts on lower-income households. B.C. addressed this by dedicating a portion of revenues to reductions in the first two personal income tax rates and the Low Income Climate Action Tax Credit. Existing analysis confirms that this measure mitigated any regressive impact of the tax.
Click to expand...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Thank you for the link. It points out that "a portion" (never further defined?) is returned to individuals via the income tax system. If one must pay $1000/year more for energy and is then rewarded with a $200/year tax break then that "portion" is hardly a great deal. How getting "a portion" back mitigates the (regressive?) impact is never explained. If you make me pay $1K more (for carbon based energy use) and then rebate me $200 that does not mitigate the $800 added cost of the carbon tax.
Click to expand...

Generally, revenue neutral taxes will pay you a fixed amount back. So your savings comes from not using energy subject to the tax- the more you move to renewables, the larger your savings/tax break.

This means the people that use more renewables will actually make money on the deal where the people that don’t get hit with the full brunt of the tax.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
When you value cheap gas over breathable air, moderate climate, sustainable ecosystems and living animals you've got a serious moral problems.
Click to expand...

The air isn't breathable, now?
 
Harshaw said:
Well, so much for sub-$2 gas.
Click to expand...

RabidAlpaca said:
When you value cheap gas over breathable air, moderate climate, sustainable ecosystems and living animals you've got a serious moral problems.
Click to expand...

Harshaw said:
Calm yourself. I made no such comparison. I simply made an observation.

This all-foaming-at-the-mouth-all-the-time shtick of yours has got to be tiring.
Click to expand...

RabidAlpaca said:
Uh huh, sure. It's the science denying whiners like yourself that will insure this bill will never pass. Climate change is a very serious problem that requires very dramatic solutions. **** your gas price.
Click to expand...

Harshaw said:
:roll:
Click to expand...

His comment was a perfect response to your intentionally flippant opening gambit, "Well, so much for sub-$2 gas." Why, one might get to thinking that you intended someone respond in his fashion so that you could attack that person.....








PS: Boohoo about $2 dollar gas. Shouldn't be that cheap anyway, though I suppose that reflection requires knowing what a negative externality is, perhaps even a mild grasp of the age-old Problem of the Commons.

If $2 gas is your priority - that would be the assumption you deliberately invited by only mentioning $2 gas and otherwise ignoring the thread's subject - he's absolutely right. And you'll be happy just as long as the can rolls a few decades longer....

:2wave:
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
Generally, revenue neutral taxes will pay you a fixed amount back. So your savings comes from not using energy subject to the tax- the more you move to renewables, the larger your savings/tax break.

This means the people that use more renewables will actually make money on the deal where the people that don’t get hit with the full brunt of the tax.
Click to expand...

Unless one can switch to renewables then that is simply an "on paper" advantage. Our (rented) single-wide mobile home is 100% electric and we have one possible electric utility provider. Our vehicle (2002 Tahoe) is 5.3L IC powered and serves as a tow vehicle. Replacing that tow vehicle with a hybrid is impossible and going to a (much newer) flex fuel vehicle is not going to be cost effective.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You seem to see both having the cake and eating it too. It would that seem any of this "revenue stream" used to transition to green energy (whatever that means) cannot also be 100% returned to people.
Click to expand...

Now wait a minute. You liked Threegoofs' post right before yours where he laid out an example of exactly how a revenue-neutral carbon fee-and-dividend system can work. You did read it, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom