4 ms·

Revenue neutral carbon taxes are a fantasy, because they are pushed by progressive politicians, yet are deeply regressive in their impact. Inslee admits this,

Revenue neutral carbon taxes are a fantasy, because they are pushed by progressive politicians, yet are deeply regressive in their impact. Inslee admits this, and simply wants to add a new tax, and refund it selectively to people who he thinks deserve the money/access to electricity, and outlaw the use cases which don't. Purely coincidentally this is the same effect as making the tax system more progressive, but actually it's all about climate change.

millstone 7y ago
Revenue neutral carbon taxes are the most pro-market, libertarian friendly answer thus far to the reality of climate change. They're pushed by progressive politicians only because of the factual urgency of climate change. The USA can limp along with shitty healthcare forever, but irreversible climate damage is irreversible, and we don't have time for the partisan bullshit. The high order bit is the complete disengagement from the American right on this issue. The carbon-tax-with-dividend is meant to be table stakes. The onus is on the other side to show up to the table at all.
- briandear 7y ago
  It’s partisan bullshit when you don’t agree with the opposition. However, I prefer to say it’s “principled opposition.” We on the right don’t accept the premise that the sky is falling. We’ve been told by politicians that the earth has 12 years left if we “don’t act now!” However, we heard that 12 years ago. And 12 years before that. We are constantly being warned that we must act now. Just about 12 years ago Al Gore’s movie said that we would be suffering a massive catastrophe by now. Interestingly, his film used approximately 12 years as the timeline for how long Earth had before catastrophe struck. This whole movement is starting to seem like a religion, except heretics are no longer burned at the stake, lest an unnecessary amount of carbon be released.
briandear 7y ago
> Purely coincidentally this is the same effect as making the tax system more progressive, but actually it's all about climate change. Is it purely coincidental? My problem with climate activists is that they have the additional goal of redistributing wealth and the means of production as an end in itself. When climate activism becomes less about socialism and actually about the climate, then I will take the threat more seriously. There is a reason that most climate change policy is split on party lines. Conservatives don’t hate the environment any more than liberals love it, but the deep seated aims of the climate movement aren’t solely about climate, it’s about increasing government control of every aspect of a person’s life, using fear of catastrophe as the means. If the government can control how people use energy, they control everything, freedom disappears for the “greater good” of the climate. We saw this after 9-11: the fear of terrorism was used to convince people to give up freedom in exchange for security. Privacy and getting on airplanes faster was less important than not dying from terrorism. The government took significantly more power and people willingly gave it to them because terrorism. The Marxist roots of the climate movement are hard to dispute. When the Soviet Union fell, global warming suddenly became a thing. The pro-communist crowd pivoted to climate as a means to their ends. In the 1970s literally global cooling was the issue, then there was the ozone layer, the rainforests, whales — none of those issues involved an attempt to completely destroy capitalism. They were seemingly authentic concerns about the environment. But now, those in the climate movement “coincidentally” have progressive economic outcomes as goal. Even one of the UN officials a few years back stated that even if the climate issue wasn’t a thing, the redistribution of wealth was a positive outcome from climate policy. The fear of climate change is being used to promote the dismantling of capitalism. There is a reason the American communist party is very passionate about climate change policy while libertarians and conservatives aren’t. It isn’t like communists have any particular track record for caring about the environment, but it’s a useful tool by which they can bring about their desired economic change. Of course there are those here that will strongly disagree and claim that concern over climate change is purely altruistic, however unlike saving the whales, there are people getting extremely rich from this issue. Al Gore became a billionaire profiting from the very issue he helped promote. Green energy companies would love to destroy fossil fuels because that would give them all the power and money. Governments love the climate issue because they can use that to force people to live however they dictate or else people have to pay a lot of money in taxes which can then be used to expand the government and further control people. If feel like the majority of people concerned about the climate are authentic in their concern, but they are being used by political and economic interests. Useful idiots, to borrow a Soviet phrase.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> Revenue neutral carbon taxes are a fantasy, because they are pushed by progressive politicians, yet are deeply regressive in their impact. I don't understand where you're getting that they're regressive. The poor don't have big mansions, they have little studio apartments which take less fuel to heat. They don't drive big SUVs with a single passenger, they take the bus or the subway. They don't travel by air or own stock in oil companies. But they get the same tax credit as anyone else, so they pay less than average while receiving the same amount. That's not regressive at all, it's a net transfer to the poor.
- Retra 7y ago
  They also can't just move out of cold climates and buy high-efficiency windows whenever they like. And many of them live in rural places where they do drive inefficient vehicles and have almost no public transportation.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > They also can't just move out of cold climates and buy high-efficiency windows whenever they like. And many of them live in rural places where they do drive inefficient vehicles and have almost no public transportation. Except that they get a big tax credit with which they can buy high-efficiency windows and a more efficient vehicle. Which then saves them even more in the long run because it remains more efficient indefinitely. Moreover, the argument you're making is that regions that use more carbon will be impacted more by measures to reduce carbon emissions. No kidding. That's true of any solution. But what does that have to do with income level? If anything it's the opposite -- there are more affluent people in cold places like the Northeast and suburbs with poor mass transit, and more poor people in the South and Southwest where it's warmer and commutes are shorter for the poor because real estate costs less so people can live closer to their jobs.
    - Retra 7y ago
      >Except that they get a big tax credit with which they can buy high-efficiency windows and a more efficient vehicle. They will? It sounded like people with less efficient vehicles/heating would get smaller tax credits, not larger. So why would they get a big tax credit? It seems to me that the people getting a big tax credit would be those who have no children, live in warm climates, and have modern high-efficiency homes and vehicles. Not sure why anyone would think that includes poor people... >Moreover, the argument you're making is that regions that use more carbon will be impacted more by measures to reduce carbon emissions. The argument that I am making is that knowing a person is 'poor' is not sufficient to predict their emissions or amenities, and extrapolating the lifestyle of one poor straw person onto all of them is stupid. >If anything it's the opposite -- there are more affluent people in cold places like the Northeast and suburbs with poor mass transit, and more poor people in the South and Southwest where it's warmer and commutes are shorter for the poor because real estate costs less so people can live closer to their jobs. Lol. Maybe facts are actually important here.

millstone 7y ago

Revenue neutral carbon taxes are the most pro-market, libertarian friendly answer thus far to the reality of climate change. They're pushed by progressive politicians only because of the factual urgency of climate change. The USA can limp along with shitty healthcare forever, but irreversible climate damage is irreversible, and we don't have time for the partisan bullshit. The high order bit is the complete disengagement from the American right on this issue. The carbon-tax-with-dividend is meant to be table stakes. The onus is on the other side to show up to the table at all.

briandear 7y ago
It’s partisan bullshit when you don’t agree with the opposition. However, I prefer to say it’s “principled opposition.” We on the right don’t accept the premise that the sky is falling. We’ve been told by politicians that the earth has 12 years left if we “don’t act now!” However, we heard that 12 years ago. And 12 years before that. We are constantly being warned that we must act now. Just about 12 years ago Al Gore’s movie said that we would be suffering a massive catastrophe by now. Interestingly, his film used approximately 12 years as the timeline for how long Earth had before catastrophe struck. This whole movement is starting to seem like a religion, except heretics are no longer burned at the stake, lest an unnecessary amount of carbon be released.

briandear 7y ago

> Purely coincidentally this is the same effect as making the tax system more progressive, but actually it's all about climate change. Is it purely coincidental? My problem with climate activists is that they have the additional goal of redistributing wealth and the means of production as an end in itself. When climate activism becomes less about socialism and actually about the climate, then I will take the threat more seriously. There is a reason that most climate change policy is split on party lines. Conservatives don’t hate the environment any more than liberals love it, but the deep seated aims of the climate movement aren’t solely about climate, it’s about increasing government control of every aspect of a person’s life, using fear of catastrophe as the means. If the government can control how people use energy, they control everything, freedom disappears for the “greater good” of the climate. We saw this after 9-11: the fear of terrorism was used to convince people to give up freedom in exchange for security. Privacy and getting on airplanes faster was less important than not dying from terrorism. The government took significantly more power and people willingly gave it to them because terrorism. The Marxist roots of the climate movement are hard to dispute. When the Soviet Union fell, global warming suddenly became a thing. The pro-communist crowd pivoted to climate as a means to their ends. In the 1970s literally global cooling was the issue, then there was the ozone layer, the rainforests, whales — none of those issues involved an attempt to completely destroy capitalism. They were seemingly authentic concerns about the environment. But now, those in the climate movement “coincidentally” have progressive economic outcomes as goal. Even one of the UN officials a few years back stated that even if the climate issue wasn’t a thing, the redistribution of wealth was a positive outcome from climate policy. The fear of climate change is being used to promote the dismantling of capitalism. There is a reason the American communist party is very passionate about climate change policy while libertarians and conservatives aren’t. It isn’t like communists have any particular track record for caring about the environment, but it’s a useful tool by which they can bring about their desired economic change. Of course there are those here that will strongly disagree and claim that concern over climate change is purely altruistic, however unlike saving the whales, there are people getting extremely rich from this issue. Al Gore became a billionaire profiting from the very issue he helped promote. Green energy companies would love to destroy fossil fuels because that would give them all the power and money. Governments love the climate issue because they can use that to force people to live however they dictate or else people have to pay a lot of money in taxes which can then be used to expand the government and further control people. If feel like the majority of people concerned about the climate are authentic in their concern, but they are being used by political and economic interests. Useful idiots, to borrow a Soviet phrase.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> Revenue neutral carbon taxes are a fantasy, because they are pushed by progressive politicians, yet are deeply regressive in their impact. I don't understand where you're getting that they're regressive. The poor don't have big mansions, they have little studio apartments which take less fuel to heat. They don't drive big SUVs with a single passenger, they take the bus or the subway. They don't travel by air or own stock in oil companies. But they get the same tax credit as anyone else, so they pay less than average while receiving the same amount. That's not regressive at all, it's a net transfer to the poor.

Retra 7y ago
They also can't just move out of cold climates and buy high-efficiency windows whenever they like. And many of them live in rural places where they do drive inefficient vehicles and have almost no public transportation.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > They also can't just move out of cold climates and buy high-efficiency windows whenever they like. And many of them live in rural places where they do drive inefficient vehicles and have almost no public transportation. Except that they get a big tax credit with which they can buy high-efficiency windows and a more efficient vehicle. Which then saves them even more in the long run because it remains more efficient indefinitely. Moreover, the argument you're making is that regions that use more carbon will be impacted more by measures to reduce carbon emissions. No kidding. That's true of any solution. But what does that have to do with income level? If anything it's the opposite -- there are more affluent people in cold places like the Northeast and suburbs with poor mass transit, and more poor people in the South and Southwest where it's warmer and commutes are shorter for the poor because real estate costs less so people can live closer to their jobs.
  - Retra 7y ago
    >Except that they get a big tax credit with which they can buy high-efficiency windows and a more efficient vehicle. They will? It sounded like people with less efficient vehicles/heating would get smaller tax credits, not larger. So why would they get a big tax credit? It seems to me that the people getting a big tax credit would be those who have no children, live in warm climates, and have modern high-efficiency homes and vehicles. Not sure why anyone would think that includes poor people... >Moreover, the argument you're making is that regions that use more carbon will be impacted more by measures to reduce carbon emissions. The argument that I am making is that knowing a person is 'poor' is not sufficient to predict their emissions or amenities, and extrapolating the lifestyle of one poor straw person onto all of them is stupid. >If anything it's the opposite -- there are more affluent people in cold places like the Northeast and suburbs with poor mass transit, and more poor people in the South and Southwest where it's warmer and commutes are shorter for the poor because real estate costs less so people can live closer to their jobs. Lol. Maybe facts are actually important here.