Absolutely amazing that the left is still bitterly clinging to the failed idea that massive tax increases are somehow good for the economy!
2
yeah, taxing the money not paid to workers kills jobs. taxes on profits need to be cut to zero so paying an extra dollar to hire workers or given them a wage costs shareholders a dollar so they demand job and wage cuts!
only by cutting labor costs and increasing profits, the money not paid to workers, can jobs be Created!
only by cutting labor costs by firing workers or slashing worker pay can businesses grow their revenue selling more stuff to workers.
only by cutting labor costs and increasing profits, the money not paid to workers, can jobs be Created!
only by cutting labor costs by firing workers or slashing worker pay can businesses grow their revenue selling more stuff to workers.
2
Just a reminder to all the fascists who are demanding a carbon tax: you're free to start paying it right now since it's such a great thing. Send your check tonight!
2
Leadership means leading.
Still waiting for Schumer/Pelosi ACA fixes.
Still waiting for their infra-structure plan.
Reacting.........Losing.
Still waiting for Schumer/Pelosi ACA fixes.
Still waiting for their infra-structure plan.
Reacting.........Losing.
1
Pelosi and Ried passed the last big infrastructure plan by getting the votes from Republicans back in early 2009.
now that Republicans are in control, it's their turn to figure out how to get all Republicans to vote to fix infrastructure, or turn the job over to Pelosi who will craft a bipartisan plan.
but Ryan must tell Republicans in the House to serve the nation, their districts, not the Republican party, the Freedom Caucus, the Kochs, Breitbart, the alt-right.
now that Republicans are in control, it's their turn to figure out how to get all Republicans to vote to fix infrastructure, or turn the job over to Pelosi who will craft a bipartisan plan.
but Ryan must tell Republicans in the House to serve the nation, their districts, not the Republican party, the Freedom Caucus, the Kochs, Breitbart, the alt-right.
2
Chump doesn't read. Complex ideas like this don't pass into his brain because Fox News isn't going to tell him it's a good idea, nor is BrightBurp. Without the Prez pushing complex legislation, such ideas are like the Balrog: they Do Not Pass. His idea of shepherding bills is to tweet stuff such as insults for his own Majority Leader. He's incompetent, so forget it.
2
There will "never ever" be a wrecker of American fiscal policy and taxpayer welfare worse than Norquist.
1
unless executives and stockholders feel the pain big time, a tax will just. be paid by tax payers, the little guys.
So inflicting pain on people better than you that you're jealous of is the goal of your cruel tax?
1
The Democrats can't stand the booming Trump economy. The have to find a way to destroy and create misery, a carbon tax is the perfect tool to accomplish their evil goals
2
When you Democrats write this cruel tax increase on the poor and middle class be sure you exempt Al Gore and his Tennessee mansion that uses as much electricity as 34 typical houses
2
The Democrats see s tax increase?!? Shocker!! These fascists will tax the air you breathe, while of course exempting themselves
1
Democrats per usual are tone death to the moment at hand. A carbon tax will never pass when they don't hold any chamber or the White House. It is ridiculous to say a carbon tax would allow you to lower corporate tax rates without getting rid of all the deductions and corporate tax laws that already allow many of the largest corporations to pay no tax at all.
2
Leave it to the Democrats to enact a cruel and immoral tax to fix a problem that doesn't even exist!
3
Using the Obama Administration's own estimates of the "social cost of carbon" plus some Pigovian welfare economics, I argue that a tax of $6.50 per metric ton of CO2 could be justified, in exchange for elimination of the EPA's power to restrict CO2 emissions.
Given the ever-growing likelihood of a Trump-led rout in the 2018 elections, Republicans would do well to take advantage of their current position to enact such legislation, with or without Grover Norquist.
For details, see http://blog.independent.org/2016/08/07/the-carbon-tax-welfare-triangle-o...
Given the ever-growing likelihood of a Trump-led rout in the 2018 elections, Republicans would do well to take advantage of their current position to enact such legislation, with or without Grover Norquist.
For details, see http://blog.independent.org/2016/08/07/the-carbon-tax-welfare-triangle-o...
2
"They just need the prospect of safe passage through the political kill zone." What a telling admission that statement is. The highest priority for a politician is to be re-elected. Of course it's naive of me to expect that the highest priority would be to serve the public with policies that promote the greatest good for the greatest number.
I'm all for a carbon tax. Alcohol,tobacco,vehicle taxes etc. all go to ameliorate the negative consequences of economic activities that affect everyone. Grover Norquist's plans could use a fist to the head to bring him and his cosseted ilk a taste of reality.
I'm all for a carbon tax. Alcohol,tobacco,vehicle taxes etc. all go to ameliorate the negative consequences of economic activities that affect everyone. Grover Norquist's plans could use a fist to the head to bring him and his cosseted ilk a taste of reality.
6
Norquist wants to have a debate about a carbon tax when Laffer and the Exxon CEO is on the other side? When do we start?
1
At least the Democrats are honest in admitting they want a permanent depression
2
You are way wrong. Studies show strong growth via rebate s. Not a tax on citizens, but on polluters
3
It's critical that corporations share in that tax burden, this is the issue that both side of the isle seem to have issues with, taxing corporations, Corporate America shouldn't be allowed to side step global warming and their role in contributing to it. Industry is a major cause of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If the democrats are going to levy any carbon tax, it needs to be on a sliding scale, and applied to everybody, rich and poor, after all this isn't just a working class problem, we all have contributed to this problem. If nothing is done, our planet will not be able to sustain life. The planet will survive in the long term, time is on the planets side. It has recovered from an atmosphere full of poisonous gasses.
If government is going to levy a tax, they should do it in a way that benefits american manufacturing of green energy components like in Indiana, that state boasts 50,000 plus jobs. It takes doing the hard thing buy the people, which means doing the right thing.
If government is going to levy a tax, they should do it in a way that benefits american manufacturing of green energy components like in Indiana, that state boasts 50,000 plus jobs. It takes doing the hard thing buy the people, which means doing the right thing.
2
Just tax carbon. If a transfer tax--all the funds collected immediately spent to subsidize buyer incentives to purchase renewables--this is not "tax reform", but the most effective way to address the urgent issue of climate change. We have a small window of opportunity to reverse the effects of putting greenhouse gases in the atmosphere if we act now.
Subsidize the most fuel efficient vehicles at the pump and the most fuel efficient means of producing electricity. Weigh the subsidies as to both fuel efficiency and price. People buy based on price. Public policy should encourage market forces to lower the price. Fuel efficient vehicles with the subsidies should be the lowest priced vehicles on the market. Home solar and installation should cost no more than buying a refrigerator. Air conditioning should be all solar, a self contained unit that uses energy from the sun to cool and the offsetting heat generated to heat hot water. This is a no brainer--where/when it is hottest, there is the most sun.
A carbon tax as a boost to switching to renewables is also a major job creator. And since this is a domestic tax with a specific purpose, whether clean air or saving the planet, the law should mandate that at least 70% of the product produced be made in the U.S. This would also bring back U.S. manufacturing.
Note that our current racist politicians are financed by the fossil fuel industry. Trump is the new Robert E. Lee, as long as we are slaves to buying fossil fuels.
Subsidize the most fuel efficient vehicles at the pump and the most fuel efficient means of producing electricity. Weigh the subsidies as to both fuel efficiency and price. People buy based on price. Public policy should encourage market forces to lower the price. Fuel efficient vehicles with the subsidies should be the lowest priced vehicles on the market. Home solar and installation should cost no more than buying a refrigerator. Air conditioning should be all solar, a self contained unit that uses energy from the sun to cool and the offsetting heat generated to heat hot water. This is a no brainer--where/when it is hottest, there is the most sun.
A carbon tax as a boost to switching to renewables is also a major job creator. And since this is a domestic tax with a specific purpose, whether clean air or saving the planet, the law should mandate that at least 70% of the product produced be made in the U.S. This would also bring back U.S. manufacturing.
Note that our current racist politicians are financed by the fossil fuel industry. Trump is the new Robert E. Lee, as long as we are slaves to buying fossil fuels.
5
The idea of carbon tax is noble. But one problem with it is that Republicans may pair it with cutting the marginal tax rate, which is bad. Corporate tax rate may be cut to at the most to 25%. But individual income tax rate shouldn't be cut. If at all possible it should be raised on very high incomes, say on the top 0.1% of household incomes from all sources, preferably to 50%.
Tax-burden of the working poor is too high. To alleviate that payroll tax should be cut to 1% on the first $10K and to 2% on the second $10K. The cap should be raised to fill the gap at least - ideally the cap should be eliminated but to make the tax burden on the rich minimal, rather negligible, beyond $150K or so payroll tax should be cut to just 1%. That could extend the social security solvency by decades.
Gas tax should be increased, which even conservatives advocate. It could be increased annually by 5-25 cents a gallon until it reaches closer to European average.
Similarly a Wall Street transaction tax could be introduced to be scheduled to go up steadily until it reaches the European average. This would reduce unnecessary back & forth trading in lightning speed limiting volatility. Wall Street trading climate would then be more investor-friendly.
Tax-burden of the working poor is too high. To alleviate that payroll tax should be cut to 1% on the first $10K and to 2% on the second $10K. The cap should be raised to fill the gap at least - ideally the cap should be eliminated but to make the tax burden on the rich minimal, rather negligible, beyond $150K or so payroll tax should be cut to just 1%. That could extend the social security solvency by decades.
Gas tax should be increased, which even conservatives advocate. It could be increased annually by 5-25 cents a gallon until it reaches closer to European average.
Similarly a Wall Street transaction tax could be introduced to be scheduled to go up steadily until it reaches the European average. This would reduce unnecessary back & forth trading in lightning speed limiting volatility. Wall Street trading climate would then be more investor-friendly.
5
The typical criticism of putting an added charge on carbon is that it is just another tax, growing big government. This objection dissolves when all of the funds collected from a carbon fee are returned to American families in the form of a carbon dividend. The formula defined by the Citizens Climate Lobby is revenue neutral, protects American manufacturers selling abroad and reimburses the lower 2/3 of American households in excess of any additional energy costs. It is also generally accepted to be the fasted way to achieve our carbon reduction goals under the Paris agreement...and beyond. Kudos the forward-thinking Republicans and Democrats alike who are suggesting similarly sane and politically feasible approaches to both our tax code and the environmental challenges of global climate change.
13
Are you truly naive enough to believe the "fees" (taxes) collected by the government will be returned to American families in the form of a carbon dividend? You must believe the Affordable Health Care Act is somehow affordable.
Government cannot and will not make anything equitable.
Government cannot and will not make anything equitable.
2
If the policy is set up such that the funds are divorced from general revenue, it would be a major political fight to change such as policy especially as Americans see major refund checks applied to their bank accounts. Otherwise we would see unworkable political infighting among interested parties demanding that the additional revenues go for research, aiding displaced coal miners, low-income energy assistance, reimbursing fossil fuel investors, etc. This is the genius of the Citizens' Climate lobby proposal, in that it achieves the environmental goals and avoids the political infighting of normal "spoils" allocation. Even Norquist can't complain about this concept.
2
There is not one tax, or policy as you call it, that is divorced from general revenue. Tax is tax and fair game to the politicians you seem to hold so much trust in.
The money will be spent in the never ending porkbarrel method it is currently spent.
Buy a Tesla. At least it's subsidized by tax dollars.
The money will be spent in the never ending porkbarrel method it is currently spent.
Buy a Tesla. At least it's subsidized by tax dollars.
As is often said, the devil is in the details.
1
As nearly everything HI consumes is moved there by carbon, I suspect the Senator from HI is looking to retire soon.
1
Back in the day, Republicans were quite interested in a carbon tax:
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/16/nearly-half-of-republicans-favor-this-ki...
I'm not sure if putting a price on these "externalities" of carbon emissions can get any traction in this current, toxic political environment. But it would be a way to help minimize the ruination of our planet...
Best,
--Keith
@KeithDPatch
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/16/nearly-half-of-republicans-favor-this-ki...
I'm not sure if putting a price on these "externalities" of carbon emissions can get any traction in this current, toxic political environment. But it would be a way to help minimize the ruination of our planet...
Best,
--Keith
@KeithDPatch
3
@Keith:
That was before they became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Exxon-Mobile and Chevron. Now, Republicans are just a profit-making division like gas stations and refineries.
That was before they became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Exxon-Mobile and Chevron. Now, Republicans are just a profit-making division like gas stations and refineries.
1
A group of Republican former officials suggested a slightly different approach earlier this year.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/science/a-conservative-climate-soluti...®ion=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/science/a-conservative-climate-soluti...®ion=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article
Two billion over ten years!? Chump change that will not satisfy our corporate masters. How about lowering the corporate tax, but forcing a minimum tax? Twenty-five percent comes to mind, with no lowering allowed by any means.
1
Individuals pay tax on their gross income.
Why not corporations?
If corporations paid on their gross income like individuals, tax rates could be extremely low - just a few percentage points.
Aren't corporations people?
Or, people can pay on their net profit. A flat rate. Someone making $50 million who banks $30 million will pay more tax than someone who spends the whole $20,000 they earn, who would own zero.
Why not corporations?
If corporations paid on their gross income like individuals, tax rates could be extremely low - just a few percentage points.
Aren't corporations people?
Or, people can pay on their net profit. A flat rate. Someone making $50 million who banks $30 million will pay more tax than someone who spends the whole $20,000 they earn, who would own zero.
1
One of the first initiatives of the Obama administration ( remember him ? ) was to propose a carbon tax and set up an exchange. The republicans filibustered that, as well as pretty much the entire 8 years of the administration.
Now, republicans will hold the full faith and credit of the United States ( debt ceiling ) hostage to get their way and ( some ) Democrats will gladly pay the ransom and call it a ''win''
All the while, taxes for the rich are cut and downloading the costs of everything (including and especially infrastructure ) on all of us.
NO DEAL:
Now, republicans will hold the full faith and credit of the United States ( debt ceiling ) hostage to get their way and ( some ) Democrats will gladly pay the ransom and call it a ''win''
All the while, taxes for the rich are cut and downloading the costs of everything (including and especially infrastructure ) on all of us.
NO DEAL:
2
One of the first initiatives of the Obama administration ( remember him ? ) was to propose a carbon tax and set up an exchange. The republicans filibustered that, as well as pretty much the entire 8 years of the administration.
Now, republicans will hold the full faith and credit of the United States ( debt ceiling ) hostage to get their way and ( some ) Democrats will gladly pay the ransom and call it a ''win''
All the while, taxes for the rich are cut and downloading the costs of everything (including and especially infrastructure ) on all of us.
NO DEAL !
Now, republicans will hold the full faith and credit of the United States ( debt ceiling ) hostage to get their way and ( some ) Democrats will gladly pay the ransom and call it a ''win''
All the while, taxes for the rich are cut and downloading the costs of everything (including and especially infrastructure ) on all of us.
NO DEAL !
3
All these corporate shills with their sensible-sounding objections. How corporations will have no choice but to pass the cost of the tax on to consumers.
The answer is: They might or they might not. If you major in economics at a good university, your first course will be in price theory. And in your first mid-term exam, there will be a question about when a business can pass along a cost increase in the form of higher prices and when the business has no choice but to eat the cost in the form of lower profits.
As more and more businesses move away from carbon-based energy, they will make it harder for their carbon-intense competitors to pass the cost of the carbon tax through to consumers.
A carbon tax is a great idea.
The answer is: They might or they might not. If you major in economics at a good university, your first course will be in price theory. And in your first mid-term exam, there will be a question about when a business can pass along a cost increase in the form of higher prices and when the business has no choice but to eat the cost in the form of lower profits.
As more and more businesses move away from carbon-based energy, they will make it harder for their carbon-intense competitors to pass the cost of the carbon tax through to consumers.
A carbon tax is a great idea.
12
Energy is essentially an inelastic product, as it exists in the present, forcing the consumer to pay for a theoretical externality that might save the planet and might not. Only extremely high oil and gas prices would force allocation of resources, and a shift to renewable forms of energy.In the mean time government creates a bit coin equivalent , It took 1973 to force changes in manufacturing of automobiles as consumers opted to gas efficient foreign vehicles. Higher fuel prices would ironically contribute to saving the planet but given technology , that can only happen with market manipulation as it did five years ago. The carbon tax is not radical enough
1
A carbon tax should be part of an all-of-the-above approach to cutting carbon emissions. I see a lot people complaining here about how a tax will just raise utilities costs for poor people. It needn't. Just make the subsidies progressive. (Anyway, rich people are responsible for far more emissions than poor people.)
And keep in mind that the point of a carbon tax is to reduce carbon emissions. As they fall, the tax burden will ease.
And keep in mind that the point of a carbon tax is to reduce carbon emissions. As they fall, the tax burden will ease.
4
Thanks for trying, Democrats, and thanks for reporting the proposal in-depth, NYT. It's complicated, so that means it will be misrepresented to the public by Republicans, and Democrats will be stuck with the "tax and spend label" and kept out of power another generation while the Earth burns. Until a few honest Republicans summon the courage to admit there are some important things we as a nation need to fix and that it will take more money to fix them, nothing this big will get done.
1
The conservative proposal that a carbon tax be revenue neutral (ie given back to families through tax credits) is an excellent one. It encourages thoughtful use of energy and protects the environment but doesn't grab more money.
3
Powerful transfer of carbon tax credits(given like bit coin currency by the US Government, to powerful corporations who can barter them and trade them.I am Goldman Sacks and the commodity exchange would love them and it is an immediate budgetary tax on US citizens...Learn some economics Senators. It is inflationary. Simply cut subsides to energy companies and that would require them to be more efficient and competitive and think of land use sustainability. Just fine them for what they pollute.
1
Do the right thing
Tax all income as ordinary income
Do not eliminate the inheritance tax. This is the final step to complete the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the .01%.
Tax all income as ordinary income
Do not eliminate the inheritance tax. This is the final step to complete the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the .01%.
1
A carbon tax in the US would have no significant effect on the climate of the planet, since the US is a minor player in this global issue. It seems possible a carbon tax could actually increase US carbon emissions, due to the carbon footprint of the bureaucratic activities necessary to administer it as well as the activities of the beneficiaries who use their share of the revenue in a carbon-intensive manner. Belief in magical solutions will not solve our ongoing environmental disaster, which is due primarily to overpopulation.
2
Our nation is suffering from the destruction of our middle class which has reached a crisis point where the survival of democracy is now in question. Therefore it is imperative that every proposal be evaluated as to whether it raises or lowers working family purchasing power. This carbon tax.would clearly reduce that power and should be rejected out of hand.
4
Yes, good approach. Do whatever it takes to lifts family wealth today even if it hurts your grandchildren or their grandchildren much more tomorrow.
2
Sounds like a way for Republicans to get credit for cutting taxes while Democrats get blamed for raising them. Are these two running for President in 2020 on the ticket of we raised your taxes and will do it even more if elected?
The tax will raise $2,100,000,000,000 over ten years, the adult population is 75% of 325 million, that works out to be $8600 per person for ten years, or $860 per year. Energy costs will be higher by $860 per year per adult and each adult will receive a tax credit of $550, leaving them worse off by $310.
How much is global warming decreased by this exercise? An immeasurably small amount.
China is on track to add more CO2 to the atmosphere between 2016 and 2030 than mankind has added since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Rather than increasing energy costs by $860 per year, wouldn't it make more sense for citizens to save that money and use it to move away from flood zones? Or to build desalination plants in areas new to drought? Or other adaptation strategies.
If CO2 is causing global warming, China and India are going to create so much CO2 that adaptation is the only rational course for Americans.
How much is global warming decreased by this exercise? An immeasurably small amount.
China is on track to add more CO2 to the atmosphere between 2016 and 2030 than mankind has added since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Rather than increasing energy costs by $860 per year, wouldn't it make more sense for citizens to save that money and use it to move away from flood zones? Or to build desalination plants in areas new to drought? Or other adaptation strategies.
If CO2 is causing global warming, China and India are going to create so much CO2 that adaptation is the only rational course for Americans.
2
Your math missed the part about corporate tax rates being reduced and companies moving back from over seas and hiring more and passing profits on to shareholders. This proposal is recommended by most economist for a reason, it will be good for the economy.
2
People are still listening to Grover Norquist? The guy who decided the Republican party needed a "brand" and forced them all to take the anti-tax pledge which has hog-tied the GOP them ever since? How can budgets ever be balanced and compromises reached if revenue can never, ever, ever be raised? Some taxes -- like carbon taxes that might curb carbon pollution and have many other benefits -- are good. Some taxes are bad. The reason for decay of public institutions in this country and out-of-control climate change is that the GOP can't/won't tell the difference between a good tax and a bad one (thanks, Grover) so it opposes them all.
10
US carbon emission are 5,170 million metric tons for 2016 (1.7% below 2015 levels that were 2.7% below 2014 levels). At $49/ton, this works out to $253 Billion/year.
We burn 181 Billion gallons of gasoline (cars), diesel (trucks) and kerosene (jets) per year. Because of a nice quirk or math, a $49/ton tax on fuel works out to $0.49/gal tax resulting in $89 Billion from transportation fuels. This would be an increase in the Federal Motor Fuel tax from the current 18.4 cents for gasoline and 24.4 cents for diesel. This $89 Billion/yr could become infrastructure spending.
This leaves $164 Billion for electricity and cement. With 125 million families, each family would pay an additional $1,312 per year. This $164 Billion would be 30% of the 2016 Deficit of $585 Billion.
We burn 181 Billion gallons of gasoline (cars), diesel (trucks) and kerosene (jets) per year. Because of a nice quirk or math, a $49/ton tax on fuel works out to $0.49/gal tax resulting in $89 Billion from transportation fuels. This would be an increase in the Federal Motor Fuel tax from the current 18.4 cents for gasoline and 24.4 cents for diesel. This $89 Billion/yr could become infrastructure spending.
This leaves $164 Billion for electricity and cement. With 125 million families, each family would pay an additional $1,312 per year. This $164 Billion would be 30% of the 2016 Deficit of $585 Billion.
1
Two issues with your logic.
1) I don't have an additional $1,312 per year to give. I already give an inordinate amount with no measurable results.
2) if you believe the Feds will earmark this additional money for deficit reduction or any other program you have not been paying attention lately.
They spend our money like drunken sailors and always will.
Turn off the money taps and see what they do.
1) I don't have an additional $1,312 per year to give. I already give an inordinate amount with no measurable results.
2) if you believe the Feds will earmark this additional money for deficit reduction or any other program you have not been paying attention lately.
They spend our money like drunken sailors and always will.
Turn off the money taps and see what they do.
1
It is interesting how quickly the "revenue neutral" scheme has been converted to a revenue source to fund extra government spending. And how quickly the per capita dividend has been converted to a payment to adults only.
2
But who will make sure companies pay? Not this administration.
1
The only way this can get public support is if the money is rebated to the public. Not used to reduce corporate taxes or help any other special interest - simply returned to the public. The tax part will encourage efficient production and purchase of efficient products - the return part will buy support.
5
Only a progressive coalition would propose to institute a tax on companies, which is paid for by the people, and then rebate the money to the people, taking a percentage for jobs, admin and overhead.
How does that accomplish anything?
How does that accomplish anything?
1
That may be true, but it is hard to reconcile the apoaclyptical rhetoric that is sometimes used re: global warming with the observation that there is little appetite to institute a carbon tax because it is typically viewed as regressive on the left (or another revenue grab on the right).
If the trade is a revenue neutral tax where a carbon tax is implemented and corporate tax rates decline, that seems to be a net win from both side's perspective. Better to tax something you don't want (carbon) than something you want (corporate investment).
If the trade is a revenue neutral tax where a carbon tax is implemented and corporate tax rates decline, that seems to be a net win from both side's perspective. Better to tax something you don't want (carbon) than something you want (corporate investment).
1
True revenue neutral would be returning the money directly to the people by, say, reducing THEIR taxes, not the taxes of the corporations. Let users benefit from picking the most efficient ways to 'invest' their money. The left, btw, does not view this approach as regressive.
2
I want carbon use to cost more, but not in exchange for lower corporate taxes. Every working American should object to having to pay more for energy, while corporations get a tax break windfall. This would be the definition of regressive taxation.
16
Most economists agree that corporate rate reductions benefit both labor and stockholders. They certainly encourage economic growth, which brings greater prosperity and job growth. Ours is uncompetitive, which makes our goods less competitive, which hurts US workers. And if even half the funds are rebated, low income households benefit the most.
2
I disagree Mr. Sensible.. Corporate tax rates are NOT the reason jobs aren't competitive, it's because of cheaper global labor costs. Besides, most corporations pay far less with their numerous tax loopholes.
5
Pricing pollution is long overdue. Whether you care about global warming, clean air, your health or growing the economy....pricing carbon is a win for everyone...well almost, fossil fuel companies accepted. Nonetheless even the major oil companies support an increasing, consistent price on carbon and green house gasses.
10
Fossil fuel companies have no objection to a carbon tax. They will pass every cento of it on to consumers. Just as they would pass all of the costs of regulation. The big winners will be the biggest of the fossil fuel companies, because their smaller competitors will be driven out of business, consolidating the industry onto a smaller number of bigger competitors. So they will be able to eke out a little more profit. The higher costs will be blamed on the carbon tax.
This is the same dynamic as Obamacare in the medical sector. Big, profitable organizations have subsumed smaller competitors in the industry consolidation. The bigger the organization, the more negotiating leverage with the insurers and the higher prices everyone is paying. Drug costs have increased 24% [70-80% are generic drugs] and hospital services have increased 33% while the CPI has increased 10%. The insurers are taking the heat for passing along the medical cost increases, but they too have been taking their 20% toward overhead and profits on a larger base, so they are also winning in 50% of their marketplace. they are making a lot of noise about their losses in the 10 million Obamacare markets, but that's a mere 3% of the population.
This is the same dynamic as Obamacare in the medical sector. Big, profitable organizations have subsumed smaller competitors in the industry consolidation. The bigger the organization, the more negotiating leverage with the insurers and the higher prices everyone is paying. Drug costs have increased 24% [70-80% are generic drugs] and hospital services have increased 33% while the CPI has increased 10%. The insurers are taking the heat for passing along the medical cost increases, but they too have been taking their 20% toward overhead and profits on a larger base, so they are also winning in 50% of their marketplace. they are making a lot of noise about their losses in the 10 million Obamacare markets, but that's a mere 3% of the population.
2
Misguided 'analysis'! It's not the fossil fuel companies who are taxed, silly. It's the users and producers of inefficient products. The fossil fuel companies have always objected to this kind of tax because it will eventually drive down the use of fossil fuel.
This is larger than a tax on fossil fuel companies. Your Starbucks mocha latte will go up, your electric bill will skyrocket and your standard of living will go down.
If you believe the federal government will use this money to pay down debt you are beyond naive. This is nothing more than another regressive tax to keep the poor down.
Please wake up!
Al Gore can afford to fuel his 35,000 square foot mansion,
I can't afford the massive increase on my much smaller residence.
If you believe the government, vote for this change.
This is another money grab by corrupt politicians.
If you believe the federal government will use this money to pay down debt you are beyond naive. This is nothing more than another regressive tax to keep the poor down.
Please wake up!
Al Gore can afford to fuel his 35,000 square foot mansion,
I can't afford the massive increase on my much smaller residence.
If you believe the government, vote for this change.
This is another money grab by corrupt politicians.
just don't give away the store. dems will have control before things get over the tipping point and they can come up with a better overall tax structure than the Republicans will. Nothing in modern Republican economic history suggest they have a clue about spending priorities and deficits.
8
The Democrats have never identified any spending that should be reduced. Thus, we still have a rural electrification board.
2
This is such as sensible policy that it has zero chance of happening.
3
Besides a carbon tax internalizing and externality, a cradle-to-grave carbon tax, where the tax is paid on goods and services regardless of where in the world they are produced, helps US manufacturing as it does make goods cleaner than China or India, even with our current technologies.
9
We should look at the current proposal in the same light as the Affordable Care Act - an imperfect first step leading towards an ultimate goal (single-payer health insurance for the ACA, a meaningful and effective carbon tax here) that eventually must happen.
There's broad and ever-growing support for a carbon tax; it's the simplest and most effective means we now have for combating our tragedy of climate change. Anything to get a carbon tax up and running must be seriously considered.
There's broad and ever-growing support for a carbon tax; it's the simplest and most effective means we now have for combating our tragedy of climate change. Anything to get a carbon tax up and running must be seriously considered.
18
Single payer does not reduce medical costs. Medicare overpays claims by 30% that they admit. If the current medical spending increases by 30%, we are even worse off than today.
It's a good idea. Do it.
(Grover Norquist, reactionary dilettante. If a history of the decline and fall of the United States is ever written his name will figure prominently.)
(Grover Norquist, reactionary dilettante. If a history of the decline and fall of the United States is ever written his name will figure prominently.)
28
Al Gore is going to be condemned in the year 2100 for having become uber wealthy selling patent medicine. They will be laughing at the true believers of the early 21st century just as we laugh at the ancient people who through virgins into volcanos to satisfy the anger of the gods.
Anyone who thinks tax "reform" will somehow be relatively quick and easier compared to Obamacare "reform" is delusional now that the $880-billion pot of gold at the end of that rainbow Republicans wanted to hand to their wealthy patrons like candy canes or cheese wedges (throwing the elderly and infirm over a cliff) is off the table.
Simple facts, like them or not. There is no federal surplus. The Federal Treasury is nearly $20-trillion in debt. The federal government spends almost $2-billion per day more than it earns in taxes and fees. If anything is to be done, federal spending must be cut substantially and taxes must be raised substantially to bring current accounts into a somewhat closer balance. The politicians (both parties) assigned to perform this horrible task must say "no!", repeatedly, to a host of constituencies. Those will threaten them with annihilation.
Of course, the core problem is simply this: businesses and the wealthy insist that the entire tax burden should fall on the already stooped shoulders of our underpaid, under-represented, mostly white middle class; Trump's core base, his most fervent True Believing supporters. He, of course, promises nothing of the sort will happen, although he will sell them out in a heartbeat or the drop of a coin, blaming it on "the Democrats".
It can't be done; any of it. Which is why I predict that nothing will be done, after much wrangling and furious finger-pointing amid high dudgeon. Think of it as Kabuki Theater.
Simple facts, like them or not. There is no federal surplus. The Federal Treasury is nearly $20-trillion in debt. The federal government spends almost $2-billion per day more than it earns in taxes and fees. If anything is to be done, federal spending must be cut substantially and taxes must be raised substantially to bring current accounts into a somewhat closer balance. The politicians (both parties) assigned to perform this horrible task must say "no!", repeatedly, to a host of constituencies. Those will threaten them with annihilation.
Of course, the core problem is simply this: businesses and the wealthy insist that the entire tax burden should fall on the already stooped shoulders of our underpaid, under-represented, mostly white middle class; Trump's core base, his most fervent True Believing supporters. He, of course, promises nothing of the sort will happen, although he will sell them out in a heartbeat or the drop of a coin, blaming it on "the Democrats".
It can't be done; any of it. Which is why I predict that nothing will be done, after much wrangling and furious finger-pointing amid high dudgeon. Think of it as Kabuki Theater.
4
A substantial portion of the sending is going to the 1%. Even when you look at social spending, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, housing support. the biggest dollars go to the 1%. Medical costs are inflated by the system to favor the wealthy operators. The big bucks in housing support go to owners and developers of real estate. The same with subsidized daycare, substance abuse programs, refugee support, etc. in which the charitable/industrial complex is skimming off substantial salaries for the directors and executives and pennies are benefiting the poor. The Democrat narrative is that if you cut anything in these areas the poor will suffer. The charities and foundation are actually defending their own excessive salaries. Republicans are just as bad. Under Bush "compassionate conservatism" government outsourcing to non-profits accelerated, and replaced, rather than supplemented, private giving.
It is time to restructure the charitable structure through a combination of reducing the deductibility of contributions and limiting the salaries of those in the non-profit sector.
A big bite needs to come out of the vig being charged by charities in disbursing tax dollars, to direct more to those in need and less to the 1%.
It is time to restructure the charitable structure through a combination of reducing the deductibility of contributions and limiting the salaries of those in the non-profit sector.
A big bite needs to come out of the vig being charged by charities in disbursing tax dollars, to direct more to those in need and less to the 1%.
@ebmem:
Yes. Lurking beneath every tax-policy decision is some politically powerful constituency benefiting from some semi-hidden tax subsidy, with sops thrown to the middle-class and poor mainly to keep social peace.
Want to simplify the IRC while spreading the burden, making taxation somewhat fairer? Eliminate hundreds of line-item special treatments of income. The residential mortgage interest deduction. "Carried interest" deductions. Commercial real estate developer loss carry-forward rules. Charitable deductions.
Of course, each provision carved into the tax code benefits some well-heeled special interest. They will fight to the death to keep it. Form alliances among themselves. Circle the wagons to defend their special treatment. Their lobbyists will swarm congressional hallways like a plague of desert locusts; their incessant hum as simple as sin itself. "Don't tax him. Don't tax me. Tax that fellow sitting under that thar tree". Sen. Russell Long said that when he ran the Senate Ways and Means Committee that determines tax policy and writes the code in conjunction with the House Ways and Means Committee. "The fix is in". He knew about what he spoke.
That is why nothing will happen.
Individual politicians can stand up to pressure from one or two constituencies, sources or directions, but two hundred? Abraham Lincoln probably summarized it best during the 1860 Republican National Convention when he said, "I have been bought and sold a hundred times ... ".
Yes. Lurking beneath every tax-policy decision is some politically powerful constituency benefiting from some semi-hidden tax subsidy, with sops thrown to the middle-class and poor mainly to keep social peace.
Want to simplify the IRC while spreading the burden, making taxation somewhat fairer? Eliminate hundreds of line-item special treatments of income. The residential mortgage interest deduction. "Carried interest" deductions. Commercial real estate developer loss carry-forward rules. Charitable deductions.
Of course, each provision carved into the tax code benefits some well-heeled special interest. They will fight to the death to keep it. Form alliances among themselves. Circle the wagons to defend their special treatment. Their lobbyists will swarm congressional hallways like a plague of desert locusts; their incessant hum as simple as sin itself. "Don't tax him. Don't tax me. Tax that fellow sitting under that thar tree". Sen. Russell Long said that when he ran the Senate Ways and Means Committee that determines tax policy and writes the code in conjunction with the House Ways and Means Committee. "The fix is in". He knew about what he spoke.
That is why nothing will happen.
Individual politicians can stand up to pressure from one or two constituencies, sources or directions, but two hundred? Abraham Lincoln probably summarized it best during the 1860 Republican National Convention when he said, "I have been bought and sold a hundred times ... ".
"This is never, ever, ever going to happen,” said Grover Norquist,"....Who elected Grover Norquist?
37
He doesn't need to be elected to office. That would only diminish his power and influence. He works for/represents the people who own the Republican Party: the Koch brothers.
3
Apparently the Koch Brothers did, given he once briefly favored the idea.
1
@W.A.-
Norquist is a registered, paid lobbyist, his organization donor-subsidized.
"Taxpayers for .... " is flim-flam, blue-smoke-&-mirrors. An empty shell.
Norquist is a registered, paid lobbyist, his organization donor-subsidized.
"Taxpayers for .... " is flim-flam, blue-smoke-&-mirrors. An empty shell.
Tax reform-less money for our public good and more for corporations and the 1%. Not complicated.
4
A carbon tax should be paid for by cutting executive compensation and stockholder dividends. Its just, but Republicans would never go for that one. Republican Justice is defined as anything that benefits the 1%.
1
Democrats would never go for it either. Why didn't they pass such a law when they had a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate?
2
The EC would not even make a dent in the carbon tax.
And why would a proposal to reduce the shareholders' money be included? You know, the shareholders that are depending on the 401K to pay for retirement.
Folks need to begin to understand that the money is just not there to pay for all the freebies promised. We cannot tax our way out of a spending problem.
And why would a proposal to reduce the shareholders' money be included? You know, the shareholders that are depending on the 401K to pay for retirement.
Folks need to begin to understand that the money is just not there to pay for all the freebies promised. We cannot tax our way out of a spending problem.
1
If it is a good idea, it is dead on arrival with the current president and congress. They only want tax cuts for rich and money for weapons.
6
Don't do it! Once the infrastructure for a new tax is in place, it'll be far too easy for Congress to raise the tax in the future. In addition, a carbon tax, like a VAT, is indirect, and thus might be politically more possible to raise in the future. FIGHT THIS!!
5
Pretty sure that's the point - to raise it over time. Can you otherwise provide me with a set of policies that would have more of an impact on climate within a relevant timeframe? You believe in science, right?
10
Do you have something against improving roads, schools, and infrastructure?
9
You should read the article, DRS - the proposal explicitly calls for a 2% annual increase. I think the increase should be sharper, so as to move the economy more quickly towards a lower carbon intensity.
The next question is how best to reduce the negative effect of the higher costs on almost all products and services due to the change in the costs of manufacturing, packaging, shipping and retailing caused by the higher priced fuels. The proposal being promoted by Citizens Climate Lobby calls for all of the money collected to be returned to US families in the form of a monthly dividend. According to research done by REMI, the families in the lowest three fifths of household income categories in the US would come out ahead - receiving more money in their dividend than the additional expenses.
The next question is how best to reduce the negative effect of the higher costs on almost all products and services due to the change in the costs of manufacturing, packaging, shipping and retailing caused by the higher priced fuels. The proposal being promoted by Citizens Climate Lobby calls for all of the money collected to be returned to US families in the form of a monthly dividend. According to research done by REMI, the families in the lowest three fifths of household income categories in the US would come out ahead - receiving more money in their dividend than the additional expenses.
13
Trump loves coal and Grover Norquist is looking to a Taylor Swift lyric as cover for his ruinous plans. Come on, people. These positions are absurd.
Senator Whitehouse has long been an unrelenting advocate for the environment, which will benefit us all. It should not however enrich the richest, but if that carrot causes Republicans to look more closely at this proposal, it at least serves the ultimate goal of focusing in on the cost and damage that carbon emissions cause.
Senator Whitehouse has long been an unrelenting advocate for the environment, which will benefit us all. It should not however enrich the richest, but if that carrot causes Republicans to look more closely at this proposal, it at least serves the ultimate goal of focusing in on the cost and damage that carbon emissions cause.
23