I didn't see this video before and thought it would be nice to share if you need to convince anyone or the pertinence of a carbon taxhttps://www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=xKCuDxpccYM
You should study how taxes were and continue to be used to turn Singapore into the home of 425 American. companies.
But that's okay. If you haven't worked for global companies and directly participated in this firsthand, it's not something most understand. Very similar to spouting off about climate change when you aren't a scientist.
I was replying to Remnant about his claim about using taxes to influence market behavior is ignorant.
@Sam_S. He doesn't like foreigners.
@sccredo, i'll wait. Not long, but keep trying.
wow, coldone you should go get yourself a cold one, sit down, and learn some reading comprehension. I spelled out what i meant pretty clearly and if you can't understand that then im done here.
Here is my parting gift to you:http://www.k12reader.com/subject/reading-skills/reading-comprehension/
If the carbon tax is big enough it could provide both an offsetting credit to the low income population AND support for additional initiatives.
Basically put the extra burden on the higher income users of fossil based fuels. That sounds right to me... no need to make it revenue neutral at all... Phase it in so the high income folks have a warning and time to adjust and then let them pay the ever increasing carbon tax.
The high income earners are the ones who can afford to buy expensive electric cars, solar panels for their homes, Powerwalls, etc., and reduce their carbon footprint to near zero if they want to; paying next to nothing in carbon taxes. Without revenue neutrality, the burden of a carbon tax is then left to the middle and low income groups to shoulder. Fair?
There are enough high income earners who support the fossil fuel industry so those of us with a cleaner carbon footprint would be the ones to benefit. As stated less well off folk can be subsidized. Trump for example drives a Tesla. But with the amount of cars he has his he would not be a beneficiary.
@sun, 'revenue neutral' just means that the government won't hold on to the money and use it for other unrelated things. So, I think even when you're talking about using the tax to subsidize AND offset, it would still be revenue neutral.
However, taxing higher income users would be inefficient and counter productive, the way you put it. A ton of carbon is a ton of carbon no matter who uses it. Would a gallon of gas be $9 for me and $3 for my gardener? That would incentivize me to buy an expensive new electric car I don't need, since I drive only 5,000 miles/yr while the gardener who drives 25,000 keeps his dirty ICE indefinitely. That's not good. (As an added gotcha, I will probably sell my old ICE to someone else who will drive it much more because their gas prices are also much lower.)
Instead gas should be $5 for everyone and give all a tax credit to offset the added costs. ALL high use consumers will be punished and they all have the same incentive to find efficient alternatives. Low use consumers of all incomes are rewarded for their positive actions (and can use that extra cash on food, housing, education, etc.).
If you want a progressive tax solution then create a basic income scheme that taxes the wealthy, but there's no need to tie it to carbon use (or water use or whatever).
@coldone. So let's make gas $5 a gallon and increase subsidies for EVs and solar. Can redirect a greater percentage to lower income earners as they have done in California with the EV rebate.
Yes, Sccrendo has it exactly.... revenue neutral shouldn't be a goal.... The goals should be to disincentive use of fossil fuels without harming the low income folks who have less flexible transportation and energy choices...
@sun, why should we waste money buying EVs for people who don't want them and won't use them efficiently? If the carbon offsets are set properly they will choose the best option for themselves AND society. It might be better for them to keep driving their ICE or maybe they'll use public transport.
The only time EV subsidies make sense is to stmiulate growth in the industry in the early days where costs are too high.
@coldone. Because we want to clean up the environment. We are not buying it for them. We are punishing fossil fuel use and encouraging clean fuel use.
@sun, do you have a reason that actually makes sense?
@coldone. I recommend you take @nadnurse's suggestionhttp://www.k12reader.com/subject/reading-skills/reading-comprehension/
@SCCRENDO (January 9, 2017)
<< @coldone. Because we want to clean up the environment. We are not buying it for them. We are punishing fossil fuel use and encouraging clean fuel use. >>
Nice example of a demiurgic delusion. It seems you skipped on your meds again, @SCCRENDO.
@Remnant. Can I recommend the link posted by @Nadnursehttp://www.k12reader.com/subject/reading-skills/reading-comprehension/
@SCCRENDO | January 10, 2017
<< @Remnant. Can I recommend the link posted by @Nadnurse >>
It's "nadurse", not "Nadnurse", that is, you capitalized its initial and added an "n" to this name.
It seems you are in need of the reading improvement courses you recommend to others.
Or is it "attention deficit" medication that you need?
@SUN 2 DRV (January 9, 2017)
<< Yes, [@SCCRENDO] has it exactly.... revenue neutral shouldn't be a goal.... The goals should be to disincentive use of fossil fuels without harming the low income folks who have less flexible transportation and energy choices... >>
Both you and @SCCRENDO have been missing the point: "neutrality" is a principle or rule of proper taxation – to the extent to which taxation can be "proper" – NOT an alternate proposal of steering people's economic activities, which directly violates that principle.
@rEMNANT. Interesting ideas but we are looking at taxation that would punish violators and incentivize good behavior. You miss the point again.
It just isn't that hard to read and comprehend. okay, for some it is. Go Tesla!
@SCCRENDO (January 11, 2017)
<< ... we are looking at taxation that would punish violators and incentivize good behavior. >>
Got it. You are determined to violate the neutrality rule of taxation, which is also our constitutional rule, as explained by Paul Ballonoff. Here is that link again:
Two questions on the original topic.
1) Should there be a carbon tax on buying a Tesla?
2) When the carbon tax is totally phased in, what should the government offer as a rebate for buying an EV and why?
In retrospect it was pretty silly expecting to have a serious conversation about a carbon tax (or climate change) in a forum dominated by EV fanboys and Tesla stockholders. Now we know.
1) no, that would be stupid.
2) maybe a % based on battery size or range because that would be smart.
@Coldone. It was only silly expecting a debate when you have no control of your facts.
“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” - DPM
@finman100. Wrong and wrong. And even more negative points for submitting your answers late. Even your own links disagree with your answers. Sheesh.
You guys clearly have no idea what you're talking about and have absolutely no understanding of how the carbon tax is intended to work. The carbon tax that Elon talks about in the very link that started this thread. This was truly an absurd attempt at conversation.
Best of luck figuring it out on your own.
Aw, don't go. We were having so much fun pretending you understood what you were talking about.
@coldone. Are you having conversations with the only person who understands you? Yourself?? Don't be despondent. There may be medications to help you.
No. the problem is you don't get it. That's fine. There are others who do and that's the important thing.
See, some of us want to make a better future. Some of us support industries that have a better idea, support methods to make that change. Others just want to continue down the same ol' path, right off the cliff.
Please stop driving faster toward that cliff.
<< Basically put the extra burden on the higher income users of fossil based fuels. >>
How would that be different from the socialist quest for wealth transfer and income equality?
And who are you to order such a change? You seem to believe you are God Herself.
You guys think you are the 1%. LOL
Carbon tax should only be based on the CO2 emissions after the product is bought. Or any ongoing CO2 emission from companies over a year. That is how it is calculated in scandinavia
The tax code is very frequently use to incentivize desired behavior. Long term capital gains, home mortgage deduction, Investment tax credits, etc.....
Having a tax policy (eg carbon tax) that introduces a financial incentive reflective of the societal costs of burning fossil fuels seems to me to be exactly what government is intended to do (ie to provide for the long term safety and security of the populace)
So to me a carbon tax is highly desirable, the downside being that it disproportionately affects low income people because they lack the resource flexibility to easily upgrade to the newest clean technologies. So I'm in favor in using some portion of the carbon tax to mitigate its impact on low income folks.
If there was a sufficient carbon tax then there would be much less need to incentivize EV sales since the market forces would be appropriately balanced.
"Or any ongoing CO2 emission from companies over a year"
@SUN 2 DRV (January 24, 2017)
<< The tax code is very frequently [used] to incentivize desired behavior. >>
Which doesn't mean it's fair or proper.
It's definitely NOT constitutional.
The US Constitution allows taxation only for revenue, not as a behavior modification tool of an educational government infantilizing its subjects.
@remnant. You have your own interpretations of the constitution. I guess most constitutional lawyers would not agree with you. Your knowledge of the constitution seems as bad as your knowledge on science. Would you care to show us where the constitutional says that.
Please cite a single Supreme Court case to support your alternative facts.
Some Elon Musk comments on this subject.