6 ms·

No, there are different parties involved. Government wants companies not to get off carbon for the $$$; but companies want to get off carbon (to some extent) a

No, there are different parties involved. Government wants companies not to get off carbon for the $$$; but companies want to get off carbon (to some extent) as they would not have to pay carbon taxes. It's just like any other tax. Companies are good at tax avoidance (note: this is legal unlike evasion).

T-A 10y ago
> No, there are different parties involved Yes, and the party doing the taxing is also the party controlling things like import duties on solar panels. > It's just like any other tax Exactly. And once you introduce it, others like it will be sure to follow. Except they will be levied on the alternative energy sources which are cannibalizing carbon, because the state coffers demand it.
- witty_username 10y ago
  Well, the government can issue bonds (hope I'm using the right word) against that carbon tax to get a steady stream irrespective of the carbon emitted (other people would bear that risk of how much carbon tax would be collected). Actually, companies producing more carbon due to government is not really a severe problem because the carbon tax compensates for the carbon produced (at least in theory).
dexterdog 10y ago
And governments are good at counting on that recurring revenue. Do you think the government wants people to stop smoking tomorrow?
- vinay427 10y ago
  Governments that provide comprehensive healthcare funding have an incentive to want people to stop smoking. Whether some governments actually want that is an exercise in guesswork.
  - dexterdog 10y ago
    That depends on how much revenue the tobacco tax is bringing in and how much they can push the healthcare funding off on the taxpayers.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    > Governments that provide comprehensive healthcare funding have an incentive to want people to stop smoking. The incentive is to keep people smoking. Counter-intuitive as it sounds, smokers spend less on healthcare.[1] [1] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/greg-mankiw-on-the-soda-tax/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/greg-mankiw-on-... Edit: This is consistent with real-world observation. Anti-smoking policy is the greatest in the US where the plutocracy benefits from increased healthcare spending, and relatively lower in social welfare states in Europe.

T-A 10y ago

> No, there are different parties involved Yes, and the party doing the taxing is also the party controlling things like import duties on solar panels. > It's just like any other tax Exactly. And once you introduce it, others like it will be sure to follow. Except they will be levied on the alternative energy sources which are cannibalizing carbon, because the state coffers demand it.

witty_username 10y ago
Well, the government can issue bonds (hope I'm using the right word) against that carbon tax to get a steady stream irrespective of the carbon emitted (other people would bear that risk of how much carbon tax would be collected). Actually, companies producing more carbon due to government is not really a severe problem because the carbon tax compensates for the carbon produced (at least in theory).

dexterdog 10y ago

And governments are good at counting on that recurring revenue. Do you think the government wants people to stop smoking tomorrow?

vinay427 10y ago
Governments that provide comprehensive healthcare funding have an incentive to want people to stop smoking. Whether some governments actually want that is an exercise in guesswork.
- dexterdog 10y ago
  That depends on how much revenue the tobacco tax is bringing in and how much they can push the healthcare funding off on the taxpayers.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  > Governments that provide comprehensive healthcare funding have an incentive to want people to stop smoking. The incentive is to keep people smoking. Counter-intuitive as it sounds, smokers spend less on healthcare.[1] [1] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/greg-mankiw-on-the-soda-tax/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/greg-mankiw-on-... Edit: This is consistent with real-world observation. Anti-smoking policy is the greatest in the US where the plutocracy benefits from increased healthcare spending, and relatively lower in social welfare states in Europe.