5 ms·

> "This approach already occurs, Musk said, citing how taxes are higher on cigarettes and alcohol than fruits and vegetables" This is a good point, but general

> "This approach already occurs, Musk said, citing how taxes are higher on cigarettes and alcohol than fruits and vegetables" This is a good point, but generally discouraging the use of cigarettes or alcohol through taxation only effects people who consume those products. If you raise the tax on carbon, that cost could be passed on by businesses in unexpected ways. If the cost of me shipping vegetables across the country goes up by 2%, I'm just going to increase what I charge for shipping by at least 2% and the cost could well be passed on directly to consumers. Eventually I might be outcompeted by someone who has a fleet of electric trucks. Maybe, at some point. But until that happens, people could end up paying slightly more than they do now for essentials. Maybe this effect is covered in the policy details or by the term "revenue neutral". Either way a carbon tax is probably a good idea, but the chain of cause and effect isn't so clear.

wskinner 11y ago
This is simply a consequence of how prices communicate information through the market, and is the whole point. End-consumers should pay more for things that have a (direct or indirect) carbon footprint. Otherwise why would they change their behavior?
jowiar 11y ago
It's absolutely covered by "revenue neutral". We tax things, but then distribute the tax revenue among the citizenry. The cost absolutely will get passed on, but that is accounted for in the end when you receive a check for ~1/300,000,000th of the net tax paid. The increased cost of essentials would be a total wash, as presumably everyone is paying roughly the same -- except to the extent that by pricing the externality, there might be space to undercut the market with a non-polluting option where one didn't exist before, encouraging R&D.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - zardo 11y ago
    This is the type of law being proposed. It has nothing to do with war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_carbon_tax https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_carbon_tax

wskinner 11y ago

This is simply a consequence of how prices communicate information through the market, and is the whole point. End-consumers should pay more for things that have a (direct or indirect) carbon footprint. Otherwise why would they change their behavior?

jowiar 11y ago

It's absolutely covered by "revenue neutral". We tax things, but then distribute the tax revenue among the citizenry. The cost absolutely will get passed on, but that is accounted for in the end when you receive a check for ~1/300,000,000th of the net tax paid. The increased cost of essentials would be a total wash, as presumably everyone is paying roughly the same -- except to the extent that by pricing the externality, there might be space to undercut the market with a non-polluting option where one didn't exist before, encouraging R&D.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- zardo 11y ago
  This is the type of law being proposed. It has nothing to do with war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_carbon_tax https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_carbon_tax