5 ms·

It's all adjustable. Just make Carbon Tax progressive. Until 2025 anything dirty - tax is 3% for import 2028 tax is 6% 2030 - 12% etc... Also rollout new ta

by maxdo 5y ago

It's all adjustable. Just make Carbon Tax progressive. Until 2025 anything dirty - tax is 3% for import 2028 tax is 6% 2030 - 12% etc... Also rollout new target for next Phases. To get rid of coal first, Gas after, ICE cars, inefficient heating, metal production... You can make it more complex to include coal in formula etc. So if energy production contains 15% of coal then tax this economy. If that doesn't work in few years double the tax. Very simple and efficient. it make sense to make it social, and invest this tax into low income homes upgrades for electricity(solar), heat production(geotermal). That basically makes the Carbon/dirty production a luxury.

bee_rider 5y ago
Tangential, but is that a conventional use of 'progressive?' I'm more familiar with seeing it used to describe the idea of having a tax rate that increases with higher, well, income most often. I like the idea of smoothly ramping up taxes over time, in general. It seems to be the most obvious solution to the objection "this will shock the market," and that sort of thing. But due to the lack of a better term, I always want to call it "adiabatic taxation" (stealing the word from physics), but I think this is just a me thing.
- somebodythere 5y ago
  You are right, in tax policy "progressive" has a specific meaning, which is to increase with increasing income or consumption. Starting a tax low and increasing it over time would be considered a "phase-in".
redleader55 5y ago
> That basically makes the Carbon/dirty production a luxury Unfortunately this is very far from the reality. It's the rich that own Teslas, and the poor that need to use a diesel car to commute to work because they can't afford to live in the city center. Carbon taxes affect the poor more than the rich.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  There’s plenty of much cheaper electric cars made in Europe. Though I agree, this works with incentives added from governments. But then there will be carbon taxes to spend so that works I think.
  - fogihujy 5y ago
    Most poor people rarely have new cars; until you can buy a used but functional 400€ EV, carbon taxes will be harder on the working poor. Public transport is nice, and it could cover some of that, but it will never be available everywhere and at all times.
    - rich_sasha 5y ago
      I quite like the idea of progressive carbon taxes btw. Everyone has an annual allowance for basic living necessities-this may include eg driving their old car to work or hearing their house. Anything on top - air travel, second homes, big cars etc - you pay for the carbon. Maybe doesn’t sound like it’s converting to 0, but at least it differentiates between optional and essential fossil fuel use (or socialises the cost of carbon removal if you prefer).
      - fogihujy 5y ago
        The basic idea isn't bad, assuming it's implemented in a sensible way. However, the most likely result will be higher fuel prices -- until the lack of income starts hurting governments and "carbon taxes" are added on top of electricity prices instead, regardlessif the energy is green or not.
- wumpus 5y ago
  Try googling [carbon tax rebate], it might be interesting.
- maxdo 5y ago
  that's why it's better to do it in phases. In 2023 there are several projects of $20-25k EV car with mileage good to go to any suburbs. With EV been a cheaper source compares to Disel it's no brainer. Timing is a king in this transition. What opens such a lucrative pricing for car manufactures? battery production improvements on a scale created by the demand. By applying import tax in 2025 you can set a clear target for companies that yet doesn't have such plans despite tech enabling advancements. I used "progressive" to use same principle. You have same brakets, but instead of money tax payer/importer checks emission points. If you are within average, you're good, no taxes, slightly higher - some taxes, dirty economy, very high tax. And with phases we can just change what is normal. So that government put the automatic pressure on most dirty economies, but also will show the path to the rest.

by maxdo 5y ago

bee_rider 5y ago

Tangential, but is that a conventional use of 'progressive?' I'm more familiar with seeing it used to describe the idea of having a tax rate that increases with higher, well, income most often. I like the idea of smoothly ramping up taxes over time, in general. It seems to be the most obvious solution to the objection "this will shock the market," and that sort of thing. But due to the lack of a better term, I always want to call it "adiabatic taxation" (stealing the word from physics), but I think this is just a me thing.

somebodythere 5y ago
You are right, in tax policy "progressive" has a specific meaning, which is to increase with increasing income or consumption. Starting a tax low and increasing it over time would be considered a "phase-in".

redleader55 5y ago

> That basically makes the Carbon/dirty production a luxury Unfortunately this is very far from the reality. It's the rich that own Teslas, and the poor that need to use a diesel car to commute to work because they can't afford to live in the city center. Carbon taxes affect the poor more than the rich.

rich_sasha 5y ago
There’s plenty of much cheaper electric cars made in Europe. Though I agree, this works with incentives added from governments. But then there will be carbon taxes to spend so that works I think.
- fogihujy 5y ago
  Most poor people rarely have new cars; until you can buy a used but functional 400€ EV, carbon taxes will be harder on the working poor. Public transport is nice, and it could cover some of that, but it will never be available everywhere and at all times.
  - rich_sasha 5y ago
    I quite like the idea of progressive carbon taxes btw. Everyone has an annual allowance for basic living necessities-this may include eg driving their old car to work or hearing their house. Anything on top - air travel, second homes, big cars etc - you pay for the carbon. Maybe doesn’t sound like it’s converting to 0, but at least it differentiates between optional and essential fossil fuel use (or socialises the cost of carbon removal if you prefer).
    - fogihujy 5y ago
      The basic idea isn't bad, assuming it's implemented in a sensible way. However, the most likely result will be higher fuel prices -- until the lack of income starts hurting governments and "carbon taxes" are added on top of electricity prices instead, regardlessif the energy is green or not.
wumpus 5y ago
Try googling [carbon tax rebate], it might be interesting.
maxdo 5y ago
that's why it's better to do it in phases. In 2023 there are several projects of $20-25k EV car with mileage good to go to any suburbs. With EV been a cheaper source compares to Disel it's no brainer. Timing is a king in this transition. What opens such a lucrative pricing for car manufactures? battery production improvements on a scale created by the demand. By applying import tax in 2025 you can set a clear target for companies that yet doesn't have such plans despite tech enabling advancements. I used "progressive" to use same principle. You have same brakets, but instead of money tax payer/importer checks emission points. If you are within average, you're good, no taxes, slightly higher - some taxes, dirty economy, very high tax. And with phases we can just change what is normal. So that government put the automatic pressure on most dirty economies, but also will show the path to the rest.