3 ms·

I dont think anyone is going to go for a new tax especially if it hits the middle class and poor. Even if one political administration implemented it, the next

I dont think anyone is going to go for a new tax especially if it hits the middle class and poor. Even if one political administration implemented it, the next would revoke it. Carbon neutral technologies just need to be able to compete on price and appeal. Tesla has proven its possible in transportation and other car companies are following suit. Need a couple of high profile competitive examples in other industries, especially power. They also need really good lobbyists.

wing-_-nuts 5y ago
The problem is that carbon intensive technologies do not pay for the damage they're doing to the environment. The tax I suggested was revenue neutral, which means the average poor person would get back as much in income taxes on their paycheck as they paid in carbon taxes. Technically, this doesn't 'hit' anyone and it benefits those willing to change. I think you're right though that this is politically infeasible simply due to short-sightedness and cowardice.
- jeromegv 5y ago
  Ontario has the carbon tax setup. 90% is revenue neutral. You get a standard amount on your tax return every year, if you happened to pollute little (not spending much on gaz) then you're net positive. If you're average, you get back what you spent. If you're a big polluter, then you spent more on tax than what you got back. Issue is that most people don't understand those taxes. I tried to explain to a few friend that the increased in gas cost was offset by the carbon tax return, but they just don't understand it. They see the gas being more expensive as "bad" and they think they lost money. They don't understand likely because they don't do their own tax return.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
Tesla succeeded, in large part, because of government subsidies and some policies that are essentially carbon taxes with extra steps. Some people would say that as an insult, but I both think it's true and a good thing. Putting a price on carbon has been a winning strategy everywhere it's been used. People just have had to hide it, because it's too easy to scare people with lies about taxes, so we get the exact same thing, but slightly less efficiently implemented.
imtringued 5y ago
The solution is quite easy. Implement the carbon dividend first, then charge taxes. When you give people money and then tell them that money comes from carbon taxes they will understand that. If you introduce a new tax and then tell them you are going to give it back they won't understand it at all, they won't even trust you to implement the dividend.

wing-_-nuts 5y ago

The problem is that carbon intensive technologies do not pay for the damage they're doing to the environment. The tax I suggested was revenue neutral, which means the average poor person would get back as much in income taxes on their paycheck as they paid in carbon taxes. Technically, this doesn't 'hit' anyone and it benefits those willing to change. I think you're right though that this is politically infeasible simply due to short-sightedness and cowardice.

jeromegv 5y ago
Ontario has the carbon tax setup. 90% is revenue neutral. You get a standard amount on your tax return every year, if you happened to pollute little (not spending much on gaz) then you're net positive. If you're average, you get back what you spent. If you're a big polluter, then you spent more on tax than what you got back. Issue is that most people don't understand those taxes. I tried to explain to a few friend that the increased in gas cost was offset by the carbon tax return, but they just don't understand it. They see the gas being more expensive as "bad" and they think they lost money. They don't understand likely because they don't do their own tax return.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

Tesla succeeded, in large part, because of government subsidies and some policies that are essentially carbon taxes with extra steps. Some people would say that as an insult, but I both think it's true and a good thing. Putting a price on carbon has been a winning strategy everywhere it's been used. People just have had to hide it, because it's too easy to scare people with lies about taxes, so we get the exact same thing, but slightly less efficiently implemented.

imtringued 5y ago

The solution is quite easy. Implement the carbon dividend first, then charge taxes. When you give people money and then tell them that money comes from carbon taxes they will understand that. If you introduce a new tax and then tell them you are going to give it back they won't understand it at all, they won't even trust you to implement the dividend.