3 ms·

As usual, probably the poor & lower middle class unless the income tax reduction were explicitly directed to the lowest tax brackets to limit impact on working

As usual, probably the poor & lower middle class unless the income tax reduction were explicitly directed to the lowest tax brackets to limit impact on working poor. Those below the poverty line would see an increase in their energy costs at the pump and and home electric bills as energy producers raise rates to compensate (and the impoverished are the least able to convert their use, so will be the longest affected by the transition).

mac01021 11y ago
The best solution I've seen is a "fee and dividend" system, where a carbon fee is collected and the proceeds are rebated in equal amounts to every legal resident of the nation. This means that, when gas prices go up, a lower-class person whose carbon footprint is exactly that of the average citizen will be reimbursed for the extra gas money by exactly the right amount. And the tax ends up being not regressive. Compare the carbon footprint of a well-to-do businessman who flies coast-to-coast on a monthly basis with that of a working-class guy who drives ten miles a day and heats his house with oil. The former is greater then the latter by several times. The working-class guy contributes a relatively small share to global warming, but bears an equal share of the public cost induced by the changing climate. Under the fee-and-dividend system, every man reimburses the public for the cost that he is imposing on them through his CO2 emissions, and is reimbursed by everyone else for the cost they impose on him. Because of this I argue that a carbon fee and dividend is the right policy from a social justice perspective, and should be enacted even if it is not going to be sufficient to push us as a society off of fossil fuels. Google "carbon fee and dividend" or see this (http://www.skepticalscience.com/CCL-pushing-for-US-fee-and-dividend.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/CCL-pushing-for-US-fee-and-d...) for more.
serge2k 11y ago
You could do a credit back from the proceeds.

mac01021 11y ago

The best solution I've seen is a "fee and dividend" system, where a carbon fee is collected and the proceeds are rebated in equal amounts to every legal resident of the nation. This means that, when gas prices go up, a lower-class person whose carbon footprint is exactly that of the average citizen will be reimbursed for the extra gas money by exactly the right amount. And the tax ends up being not regressive. Compare the carbon footprint of a well-to-do businessman who flies coast-to-coast on a monthly basis with that of a working-class guy who drives ten miles a day and heats his house with oil. The former is greater then the latter by several times. The working-class guy contributes a relatively small share to global warming, but bears an equal share of the public cost induced by the changing climate. Under the fee-and-dividend system, every man reimburses the public for the cost that he is imposing on them through his CO2 emissions, and is reimbursed by everyone else for the cost they impose on him. Because of this I argue that a carbon fee and dividend is the right policy from a social justice perspective, and should be enacted even if it is not going to be sufficient to push us as a society off of fossil fuels. Google "carbon fee and dividend" or see this (http://www.skepticalscience.com/CCL-pushing-for-US-fee-and-dividend.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/CCL-pushing-for-US-fee-and-d...) for more.

serge2k 11y ago

You could do a credit back from the proceeds.