3 ms·

So, a giant corporation outsources their production to china, pays zero carbon tax, and still pollutes the same planet, but Johnny average cannot heat his house

So, a giant corporation outsources their production to china, pays zero carbon tax, and still pollutes the same planet, but Johnny average cannot heat his house and drive his car, because he cannot afford it anymore?

option 5y ago
then tax import goods from China on entry to US until US authorities are satisfied with the amounts of carbon taxes paid in China (to China).
- MrFlibbles 5y ago
  I believe we had a recent President who tried to raise import taxes (for whatever reason) on imports from China and the opposition went totally berserk. If it didn't work then or for whatever those reasons were, why would it work now?
  - option 5y ago
    why do you think it didn’t work? It certainly hurt China economically and they aren’t exactly the friend of US.
nend 5y ago
Taxing sugar means people can no longer heat their house or pay for gas? Sounds like a bit of a reach. How much exactly is Johnny Average spending on sugar every month?
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  taxing carbon does that.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    No, you can cut other taxes or give a UBI to offset it.
nitwit005 5y ago
You just lower other taxes proportionally, and if Johnny average is actually average, he'll see little difference. Putting tariffs on Chinese goods isn't exactly an unpopular idea either.
amalcon 5y ago
The usual solution to this is import tariffs for goods coming from any country that doesn't have a similar carbon tax (where such tariff goes away if and when it does happen), and to distribute the revenue from these to offset heating and transportation costs. Economists have studied Pigovian taxes a lot. There are answers to most of the obvious objections (and answers to those answers, and so on). I happen to think most of macroeconomics is pseudoscientific nonsense. Unfortunately, in cases like this, pseudoscientific nonsense is the best we have.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mumblemumble 5y ago
One would assume that you tax carbon across the entire value chain for any product that's to be sold within your borders. Insofar as the atmosphere doesn't confine itself to political boundaries, it certainly seems to me like that would be the sensible way to attempt such a thing. Why faff around? Companies that don't want to pay this tax would, of course, be free to simply not sell their products in the USA. But I doubt that every participant in, e.g., China's consumer product manufacturing industry would be able to stomach such a course of action. It would be similar for a hypothetical sugar tax. Which, of course, the US already has something like that, but of course it's currently being used to favor domestic sugar production over international sugar production, so it's not applied consistently to all sugar. But still, I think we can see from that that it's not a question of practicalities. If we can do it for the sake of economic protectionism, then I'm sure it would also work when the motivation is to mold people's diets. (In case I need to put a finer point on it, I'm speaking here about the feasibility of actually implementing an excise tax policy; I'll refrain from speculating about its ability to achieve its stated goals.) Long story short, I think that this sort of thing is probably less a question of practicalities than it is a question of political will. If you have political reasons to like this idea, it's very easy to come up with motivated reasoning for why it would be something approaching a panacea. If you have political reasons to dislike it, it's very easy to come up with motivated reasoning for why it could never work.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  The Soviet Union attempted to set prices for all goods in the economy. The trouble was that a raise in the price of say wood, would have downstream effects on things like the price of toothpicks. It was a big mess. I'd say it's harder to create a measure of carbon output for a given finished product that is remotely accurate. It really depends where each part of the pencil was manufactured, what specific materials are used, what manufacturing processes were applied, how each raw material was shipped, etc. Take that multiply it by a billion products and you have a huge mess.
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    Excise taxation is not the same thing as price setting, though. If you want a good explanation for what excise taxation's about, albeit one that uses stodgy, old-fashioned language, you need look no further than Adam Smith's writings on the subject in The Wealth of Nations.

option 5y ago

then tax import goods from China on entry to US until US authorities are satisfied with the amounts of carbon taxes paid in China (to China).

MrFlibbles 5y ago
I believe we had a recent President who tried to raise import taxes (for whatever reason) on imports from China and the opposition went totally berserk. If it didn't work then or for whatever those reasons were, why would it work now?
- option 5y ago
  why do you think it didn’t work? It certainly hurt China economically and they aren’t exactly the friend of US.

nend 5y ago

Taxing sugar means people can no longer heat their house or pay for gas? Sounds like a bit of a reach. How much exactly is Johnny Average spending on sugar every month?

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
taxing carbon does that.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  No, you can cut other taxes or give a UBI to offset it.

nitwit005 5y ago

You just lower other taxes proportionally, and if Johnny average is actually average, he'll see little difference. Putting tariffs on Chinese goods isn't exactly an unpopular idea either.

amalcon 5y ago

The usual solution to this is import tariffs for goods coming from any country that doesn't have a similar carbon tax (where such tariff goes away if and when it does happen), and to distribute the revenue from these to offset heating and transportation costs. Economists have studied Pigovian taxes a lot. There are answers to most of the obvious objections (and answers to those answers, and so on). I happen to think most of macroeconomics is pseudoscientific nonsense. Unfortunately, in cases like this, pseudoscientific nonsense is the best we have.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mumblemumble 5y ago

One would assume that you tax carbon across the entire value chain for any product that's to be sold within your borders. Insofar as the atmosphere doesn't confine itself to political boundaries, it certainly seems to me like that would be the sensible way to attempt such a thing. Why faff around? Companies that don't want to pay this tax would, of course, be free to simply not sell their products in the USA. But I doubt that every participant in, e.g., China's consumer product manufacturing industry would be able to stomach such a course of action. It would be similar for a hypothetical sugar tax. Which, of course, the US already has something like that, but of course it's currently being used to favor domestic sugar production over international sugar production, so it's not applied consistently to all sugar. But still, I think we can see from that that it's not a question of practicalities. If we can do it for the sake of economic protectionism, then I'm sure it would also work when the motivation is to mold people's diets. (In case I need to put a finer point on it, I'm speaking here about the feasibility of actually implementing an excise tax policy; I'll refrain from speculating about its ability to achieve its stated goals.) Long story short, I think that this sort of thing is probably less a question of practicalities than it is a question of political will. If you have political reasons to like this idea, it's very easy to come up with motivated reasoning for why it would be something approaching a panacea. If you have political reasons to dislike it, it's very easy to come up with motivated reasoning for why it could never work.

willcipriano 5y ago
The Soviet Union attempted to set prices for all goods in the economy. The trouble was that a raise in the price of say wood, would have downstream effects on things like the price of toothpicks. It was a big mess. I'd say it's harder to create a measure of carbon output for a given finished product that is remotely accurate. It really depends where each part of the pencil was manufactured, what specific materials are used, what manufacturing processes were applied, how each raw material was shipped, etc. Take that multiply it by a billion products and you have a huge mess.
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  Excise taxation is not the same thing as price setting, though. If you want a good explanation for what excise taxation's about, albeit one that uses stodgy, old-fashioned language, you need look no further than Adam Smith's writings on the subject in The Wealth of Nations.