4 ms·

And how would your carbon tax work without allowing others to profit from it? Excise taxes already exist, they just go to fund more government that is still per

And how would your carbon tax work without allowing others to profit from it? Excise taxes already exist, they just go to fund more government that is still perpetually out of money to do the things that "must be done".

anonuser123456 7y ago
Most economists argue for revenue neutral carbon taxes. You redistribute collected taxes equally to everyone. The point of carbon taxes is to affect behavior, not fund government.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  At which point you increase the size of the bureaucracy and the state leading to more government control. A decade or two later there's a financial crisis and the government just happens to tap into the carbon tax fund as a "temporary measure" or perhaps the fund just lends money to the government that the government eventually can't pay back. I'm saying that whichever way you slice it, it's still possible for this to be abused.
  - anonuser123456 7y ago
    Well, not really. If run at the national level, once carbon dividends become ingrained in the public's mind it becomes a political 3rd rail to raid that cookie jar. Welfare benefits are very hard to claw back. And w.r.t. size of the bureaucracy, not so much either. The size of actual government bureaucracy is quite insignificant compared to size of transfer payments in this case. Like 1% or less. And this particular tax has fantastic property; since it will drive down carbon use, the amount of tax collected will go down over time, thus reducing it's drag on the economy. Hardcore market fundamentalists, like myself, love carbon taxes.
    - pbourke 7y ago
      > Welfare benefits are very hard to claw back. I agree with your post, but I would note that this is not entirely true in the US. Benefits that such as SNAP and Medicaid that are only used by a vulnerable segment of the population have been a frequent target for clawbacks. Social Security and Medicare are much more resistant to politically-motivated clawbacks yet not resistant to meddling in general since they are not enjoyed equally. A benefit that exists at the level of “everyone gets $N per month” would seem to be much more resistant to political meddling.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      >If run at the national level, once carbon dividends become ingrained in the public's mind it becomes a political 3rd rail to raid that cookie jar. The US government has a debt problem. The Social Security fund has lent money to the US government. Why can't similar things happen for the carbon tax fund?

anonuser123456 7y ago

Most economists argue for revenue neutral carbon taxes. You redistribute collected taxes equally to everyone. The point of carbon taxes is to affect behavior, not fund government.

Mirioron 7y ago
At which point you increase the size of the bureaucracy and the state leading to more government control. A decade or two later there's a financial crisis and the government just happens to tap into the carbon tax fund as a "temporary measure" or perhaps the fund just lends money to the government that the government eventually can't pay back. I'm saying that whichever way you slice it, it's still possible for this to be abused.
- anonuser123456 7y ago
  Well, not really. If run at the national level, once carbon dividends become ingrained in the public's mind it becomes a political 3rd rail to raid that cookie jar. Welfare benefits are very hard to claw back. And w.r.t. size of the bureaucracy, not so much either. The size of actual government bureaucracy is quite insignificant compared to size of transfer payments in this case. Like 1% or less. And this particular tax has fantastic property; since it will drive down carbon use, the amount of tax collected will go down over time, thus reducing it's drag on the economy. Hardcore market fundamentalists, like myself, love carbon taxes.
  - pbourke 7y ago
    > Welfare benefits are very hard to claw back. I agree with your post, but I would note that this is not entirely true in the US. Benefits that such as SNAP and Medicaid that are only used by a vulnerable segment of the population have been a frequent target for clawbacks. Social Security and Medicare are much more resistant to politically-motivated clawbacks yet not resistant to meddling in general since they are not enjoyed equally. A benefit that exists at the level of “everyone gets $N per month” would seem to be much more resistant to political meddling.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    >If run at the national level, once carbon dividends become ingrained in the public's mind it becomes a political 3rd rail to raid that cookie jar. The US government has a debt problem. The Social Security fund has lent money to the US government. Why can't similar things happen for the carbon tax fund?