3 ms·

The argument isn't that this wouldn't work, its that this would be sub-optimal. Squeezing extra tax out of poor people who have literally no alternative is not

The argument isn't that this wouldn't work, its that this would be sub-optimal. Squeezing extra tax out of poor people who have literally no alternative is not going to be a popular plan. Allowing for a hint of nuance in your public policy would incentivize switching to alternatives where possible, while also incentivizing the development and adoption of alternatives where they don't currently exist.

cwkoss 6y ago
> Allowing for a hint of nuance in your public policy I am highly skeptical that is it possible for American legislation's 'nuance' to tilt a simple tax law in any direction but towards enriching the rich and powerful. I feel like carve outs would be great for lobbyists and the politicians they pay patronage to, but it would destroy the effectiveness of the carbon tax: the industries with enough political power would negotiate exemptions because "there are no economically feasible alternatives" but making carbon-expensive activity economically infeasible is the core purpose or the carbon tax. Exempting any industry in particular is just corruption.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  I absolutely agree. I have no faith that the government would do anything other than half measures at best. I consider policy discussions like this totally theoretical/intellectual
NumberWangMan 6y ago
People have thought of this--a popular kind of proposal is to return all the tax money as a dividend to everyone evenly, to ease the financial burden. I think a carbon tax with dividend actually fits the criteria you are describing pretty well.
- dTal 6y ago
  Wouldn't this have the perverse incentive of poor people wanting large emitters to keep emitting, because it directly puts food on their table?
  - NumberWangMan 6y ago
    In a sense yes, but I wouldn't call that an incentive, any more than I have an "incentive" for Chipotle to give me free burritos. I'm not the one making the decision there. The people who are doing the polluting have the right incentive, and that's what matters. If the amount of the tax were fixed, the dividend would decrease over time, but the tax gradually increases as we get better and better at doing things without emitting greenhouse gases. The eventual target being net zero carbon. Based on the tax level in the Energy Innovation Act as an example, this is predicted around 2050.
    - dTal 6y ago
      Poor people can still vote. And they will vote against anything that reduces their dividend, even if means voting against things that lower emissions. As to your second point - moving the goalposts every time progress is made eliminates any incentive to improve. If you're committing to keeping the dividend the same over time, that means you need to keep the tax take the same. And if you're gonna take the same amount of money off me regardless, why should I pay attention to my emissions? In the limit case, of zero carbon, the carbon tax rate is infinite and you're taking a bunch of cash off people for nothing. Somewhere along the way, something has got to give.

cwkoss 6y ago

> Allowing for a hint of nuance in your public policy I am highly skeptical that is it possible for American legislation's 'nuance' to tilt a simple tax law in any direction but towards enriching the rich and powerful. I feel like carve outs would be great for lobbyists and the politicians they pay patronage to, but it would destroy the effectiveness of the carbon tax: the industries with enough political power would negotiate exemptions because "there are no economically feasible alternatives" but making carbon-expensive activity economically infeasible is the core purpose or the carbon tax. Exempting any industry in particular is just corruption.

dahfizz 6y ago
I absolutely agree. I have no faith that the government would do anything other than half measures at best. I consider policy discussions like this totally theoretical/intellectual

NumberWangMan 6y ago

People have thought of this--a popular kind of proposal is to return all the tax money as a dividend to everyone evenly, to ease the financial burden. I think a carbon tax with dividend actually fits the criteria you are describing pretty well.

dTal 6y ago
Wouldn't this have the perverse incentive of poor people wanting large emitters to keep emitting, because it directly puts food on their table?
- NumberWangMan 6y ago
  In a sense yes, but I wouldn't call that an incentive, any more than I have an "incentive" for Chipotle to give me free burritos. I'm not the one making the decision there. The people who are doing the polluting have the right incentive, and that's what matters. If the amount of the tax were fixed, the dividend would decrease over time, but the tax gradually increases as we get better and better at doing things without emitting greenhouse gases. The eventual target being net zero carbon. Based on the tax level in the Energy Innovation Act as an example, this is predicted around 2050.
  - dTal 6y ago
    Poor people can still vote. And they will vote against anything that reduces their dividend, even if means voting against things that lower emissions. As to your second point - moving the goalposts every time progress is made eliminates any incentive to improve. If you're committing to keeping the dividend the same over time, that means you need to keep the tax take the same. And if you're gonna take the same amount of money off me regardless, why should I pay attention to my emissions? In the limit case, of zero carbon, the carbon tax rate is infinite and you're taking a bunch of cash off people for nothing. Somewhere along the way, something has got to give.