6 ms·
Taxing is half the story. The other half is returning this tax revenue back to the economy by offsetting other taxes. Where it breaks down is when progressives
by macspoofing 8y ago
Taxing is half the story. The other half is returning this tax revenue back to the economy by offsetting other taxes. Where it breaks down is when progressives push to spend this tax revenue on their pet projects.
- briandear 8y agoWhy is this being downvoted? It’s factually accurate.
- ndnxhs 8y agoThe tax should be used for undoing the destruction caused to the environment.
- macspoofing 8y agoThis is the problemn and you illustrate it perfectly. If you propose a plan that introduces a carbon tax with the revenue returned back to the economy, progressives will attempt to kill it. For progressives, an environmental policy is only sound if it goes with massive government expansion. Nobody cares about the environment. It is always ideology first.
- village-idiot 8y agoNo. The point is not the revenue, the point is to eliminate the market distorting externalities. If anything, this is actually a free market solution.
- zorga 8y agoNo, a tax is not a free market solution, it's the exact opposite.
- Dylan16807 8y agoA tax is only opposite a free market to the extent that it distorts the market. The more direct and simple the tax, the freer the market. And when the tax is directly addressing externalities that are normally not paid, it makes the market less distorted.
- zorga 8y ago> And when the tax is directly addressing externalities that are normally not paid, it makes the market less distorted. Agree, but that doesn't make the tax a free market solution. A free market solution would be a solution from the market, not a government imposed tax.
- millstone 8y agoA carbon tax is the most market-friendly approach on the table, so is de facto the free market solution, short of "do nothing."
- zorga 8y agoNo. While it may be the most market friendly approach, it's not a free market approach. There is not de facto free market solution, it's entirely possible the free market has no solution; that does not make the best available solution a market solution.
- mrob 8y agoHow will you lower the transaction costs enough that it's practical for polluters to pay compensation directly to all >7 billion victims?
- millstone 8y agoThis is downvoted but is actually a good take. A failure mode of environmentalism is attaching it to random other progressive ideas. "Let's have a carbon tax and use it to fund universal healthcare!" I want a carbon tax, and I want universal healthcare, AND I want them to be completely disjoint. I will argue for each independently on their merits. Otherwise both magnify each others' vulnerabilities. For example, say universal health care is funded through a carbon tax, and this tax works really well and emissions plummet. Now universal health care suffers? What a stupid outcome! Robust government programs are independent with separate funding (see Social Security). Make a big carbon tax, have it fund an equally big carbon dividend, and run it independently from everything else on the progressive or conservative wish list. This cuts the other way too. No, a carbon tax should not fund conservative pet projects like eliminating capital gains. That has to live or die on its own merits, not tied to environmentalism. The carbon tax must be its own thing to endure.
- d4rti 8y agoHypothecation and/or ring fencing is generally bad policy anyway, but it has a certain appeal. Here it’s mostly seen when people argue that road taxes (VED) and fuel taxes should be spent on roads. I’m with Churchill on the one: “Entertainments may be taxed; public houses may be taxed; racehorses may be taxed…and the yield devoted to the general revenue. But motorists are to be privileged for all time to have the whole yield of the tax on motors devoted to roads. Obviously this is all nonsense…Such contentions are absurd, and constitute…an outrage upon the sovereignty of Parliament and upon common sense.”
- fjsolwmv 8y agoChurchill has a pleasant way with words, but the logic of argument simply boils down to "no u". Not everyone agrees that parliament is sole sovereign over citizens' lives. Many believe that Parliament's legitimacy derives from consent of the governed, and that taxes should be justified for a purpose, not arbitrary demonstrations of "might makes right".
- mtgx 8y agoIronically, if the U.S. had national healthcare system for which the government had to pay directly, it may not have been basically the only country on Earth to reject climate change. Countries that have to pay for healthcare have a strong incentive to keep its population healthy to reduce healthcare costs. The U.S. doesn't because it doesn't pay for it directly - it's the citizens themselves that have to pay for it. Ultimately, the U.S. economy is still negatively impacted by an unhealthy population/workers, but since it's not a direct impact for which the government has to pay out of its tax funds, it doesn't care nearly as much about that impact.
- johnchristopher 8y agoI don't know why you are being downvoted. We are seeing gasoline tax money moving to other budgets (not env, not energy) in my country.
- specialist 8y agoGovernments to determine policy goals, design efficient markets. Taxes to discourage undesirable behavior. Investments to encourage desired behavior, outcomes. Regulation to ensure markets are fair, safe, competitive. They're just tools. Why all the fuss? Why do people keep arguing about the tools? eg "Taxes are theft!" Is it because some don't want to argue about the policy?
- ams6110 8y agoThe point of a carbon tax is to fund and/or incentivize research into non-carbon energy production, or carbon removal technology. If you just offset other taxes, for a tax-neutral result, then there's no (macro) tax incentive so how does that happen?
- fjsolwmv 8y agomarket competition leads to better manufacturing techniques that avoid the tax. Local optimization leads to global optimization. To argue otherwise would be to argue that taxes overall have no effect on business behavior, which is clearly false.