Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's idiocy that only serves to redistribute money- something only a democrat would love.
CO2 is not a pollutant- this is the biggest hoax in the history of man and opposes rational science.
The evil of AGW is that it diverts funds from real problems and wastes massive resources.
Let's say you're right and CO2 isn't a pollutant (I disagree, but for the sake of thinking through it).
The government is going to tax SOMETHING to fund the spending it wants to do, that or pile up debt and/or debase the currency. (which in the long term is more destructive). That spending will be nonzero so we need some taxes. Taxing something means less of that thing being produced by the economy. Even in a scenario where CO2 isn't a pollutant and making it go down doesn't have a benefit, it doesn't have a cost either. The alternative in our current system is taxing labor and investment. Which are definitively good things and discentivizing them HAS to be worse than discentivizing producing a gas.
^^^^^Government on every level, Fed, State and Local already taxes:
Income
Property
Real Estate
Gasoline
Sales of goods and services
Energy
Utilities
Occupational privilege
And a plethora of other things
We don't need more. They can spend less if they have a shortfall.
Yes, government taxes and spending are way too high. No disagreement. I'd also prefer they spend less. However, given that the government IS going to collect tax I think that:
- If you do think carbon is a pollutant, it's better to tax that than anything on that list
- If you do not think carbon is a pollutant, it's still better to tax carbon than income, labor, occupational privilege, or non-land property, which in aggregate form the majority of taxation in this country.
You can take an attitude of opposing any new form of taxation because our overall level of taxation and spending is way too high (and the latter is the key; spending without taxation still has a price, that price is just buried in the long term trajectory of debt and the dollar). I agree with it on principle but not as a practical matter. As a practical matter, this is a relatively more benign form of taxation than the other forms dollar for dollar, so let's shift toward it and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
^^^^Do you have any Economics training? A tax on carbon which is a tax on energy will be a tax on everything produced and transported as well as all goods and services. It is a highly regressive tax and will hurt the working poor and middle income earners the most. So in effect you're not just taxing "carbon" but ALL human activity, products and services.
A tax on carbon which is a tax on energy will be a tax on everything produced and transported as well as all goods and services. It is a highly regressive tax and will hurt the working poor and middle income earners the most. So in effect you're not just taxing "carbon" but ALL human activity, products and services.
I don't disagree. Taxes are fundamentally disruptive and make the economy run worse. It's a matter of choosing the least harmful form. Stack carbon up against the other major federal taxes (payroll, income) which directly rather than indirectly punish economically productive activity and it's still a slam dunk as a less harmful tax. It's still a tax, it still distorts and shrinks the economy through indirect effects, just not as much as taxes that have a direct impact.
Yes.
...just not as much as taxes that have a direct impact.
When you go to buy concrete made with cement a carbon tax will have a direct impact on you. Anything built with cement will go up in price, in fact everything under the sun goes up because everything has a carbon footprint.
Why punish Americans when most emissions come from India and China? It's like these politicians want to kill industry in the US and move it overseass. How about carbon tariffs instead?
It's the elite rich people of the world behind this. They will easily be able to afford these taxes, might even make up a charity for why they had to use carbon to move stuff, and then claim it on their taxes in the end. All these bureaucrats are bought and paid for by ultra rich who have made it a hobby sticking it to the little guy. They have the money and resources to export their businesses out of the country, while small businesses do not.
Yes, government taxes and spending are way too high. No disagreement. I'd also prefer they spend less. However, given that the government IS going to collect tax I think that:
- If you do think carbon is a pollutant, it's better to tax that than anything on that list
- If you do not think carbon is a pollutant, it's still better to tax carbon than income, labor, occupational privilege, or non-land property, which in aggregate form the majority of taxation in this country.
You can take an attitude of opposing any new form of taxation because our overall level of taxation and spending is way too high (and the latter is the key; spending without taxation still has a price, that price is just buried in the long term trajectory of debt and the dollar). I agree with it on principle but not as a practical matter. As a practical matter, this is a relatively more benign form of taxation than the other forms dollar for dollar, so let's shift toward it and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
That roughly translates to:
"I don't like people robbing and stealing, but if they are going to, I'm ok with them doing it in an area I personally dislike"
This is all based on a canard. There is no proven link to Man Made CO2 doing anything more to the environment than naturally occurring CO2. This is all an income and wealth redistribution scam sold to the useful idiots as "saving the planet".
Pretty much. Like how the politicians tried the soda tax, and hide behind some stupid political stunt like stopping obesity, but when the citizens decided to actually give up their soda or go to another county that didn't have a soda tax to purchase sodas, the politicians made noise about how their budget was coming up short because they were counting on the new soda tax to bring in more revenue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
