|
|
Post by duwayne on Mar 31, 2017 3:56:28 GMT
I've been approached by a "politically mixed" group to join an effort to push for a US Carbon Tax as outlined below.
1. Impose a fee of $40 per ton on all CO2 emissions at the point they enter the economy (mine, well or port) with the fee rising over time.
2. Rebate all fees to the American public. The estimated rebate to a family of four would be $2,000 per year.
3. Charge a tariff equivalence on all goods imported from countries without an equivalent carbon fee. Rebate all such fees on American exports to countries that do not have such a carbon fee.
4. Eliminate all regulations made unnecessary by the carbon fee including outright repeal of the Clean Power Act.
Comments?
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 31, 2017 4:39:22 GMT
A carbon fee is a distortion of the energy market. It relies on a tax on the poor that can never be recovered by poorer folks.
It is a way to enrich the already rich, robbing young people of opportunity.
As a result of the Regressive economics, the result is higher health care costs because the caloric intake becomes less nutritious.
I will see if I can find the analysis from a couple of years ago confirming what I wrote above.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 31, 2017 4:44:44 GMT
William Buffet at the last Berkshire meeting said the only reason to invest in "renewable" energy was the tax credits. Without those tax credits he stated anyone who invested in these would be broke in short order.
I agree with his analysis as I investigated both solar and wind this winter.
The other item, in regards to a carbon tax is, at present and projected levels, is CO2 a pollutant. From what I can glean today, the answer is no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 31, 2017 5:16:28 GMT
I've been approached by a "politically mixed" group to join an effort to push for a US Carbon Tax as outlined below. 1. Impose a fee of $40 per ton on all CO2 emissions at the point they enter the economy (mine, well or port) with the fee rising over time. 2. Rebate all fees to the American public. The estimated rebate to a family of four would be $2,000 per year. 3. Charge a tariff equivalence on all goods imported from countries without an equivalent carbon fee. Rebate all such fees on American exports to countries that do not have such a carbon fee. 4. Eliminate all regulations made unnecessary by the carbon fee including outright repeal of the Clean Power Act. Comments? I'm definitely against it; Sig's reasons make sense to me and I would add that it's a plan supported by financial institutions, essentially to "solve" an imaginary problem. Maybe this diagram, explaining the Australian version, will help:  |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 31, 2017 12:08:05 GMT
I've been approached by a "politically mixed" group to join an effort to push for a US Carbon Tax as outlined below. 1. Impose a fee of $40 per ton on all CO2 emissions at the point they enter the economy (mine, well or port) with the fee rising over time. 2. Rebate all fees to the American public. The estimated rebate to a family of four would be $2,000 per year. 3. Charge a tariff equivalence on all goods imported from countries without an equivalent carbon fee. Rebate all such fees on American exports to countries that do not have such a carbon fee. 4. Eliminate all regulations made unnecessary by the carbon fee including outright repeal of the Clean Power Act. Comments? I would suggest a 'Window Tax'. This worked well in UK for a while. It is a non-regressive tax as your average hovel has only a couple of windows whereas the rich and famous live in monstrosities with glass windows everywhere. If you want money it is really a good idea to go for something like the window tax - that may even employ builders to block up windows than for a 'carbon tax' that is a direct tax on everyone. The 'renewables industry' would need to pay carbon tax as their renewables do not put out enough power to create more renewables and have to use conventional power generation - so by definition they aren't sustainable. Carbon tax is stupidity on steroids |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 31, 2017 13:20:02 GMT
[ Snip ] Carbon tax is stupidity on steroids Our politicians don't need steroids. They are naturally gifted.  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 31, 2017 13:53:25 GMT
I've been approached by a "politically mixed" group to join an effort to push for a US Carbon Tax as outlined below. 1. Impose a fee of $40 per ton on all CO2 emissions at the point they enter the economy (mine, well or port) with the fee rising over time. 2. Rebate all fees to the American public. The estimated rebate to a family of four would be $2,000 per year. 3. Charge a tariff equivalence on all goods imported from countries without an equivalent carbon fee. Rebate all such fees on American exports to countries that do not have such a carbon fee. 4. Eliminate all regulations made unnecessary by the carbon fee including outright repeal of the Clean Power Act. Comments? 1. Where did the cost of $40.00 ton come from? 2. Rebate. Very inefficient mechanism. BC is trying this and it is causing problems now. Code could potentially elaborate more on said tax 3. Who would be the one to decide the rate of tariff? (Forgive me, but as I have aged, I have observed too many sleigh of hand happenings. Watch the pea perhaps?) 4. The Clean Power Plan, as currently presented, is a well designed penalty on states such as North Dakota. We have abt 1400 years of coal reserves at present usage patterns. We export most of the energy produced to Minnesota. We have built windfarms to satisfy Minnesota's mandate for "clean" energy. The sad thing is, which I am going to get corrected next legislative session, is that North Dakota residents are helping to pay for Minnesota's energy mandate. (I have a "renewable" energy surcharge on my elec bill.) Some of the arguments that will be presented to your group. Besides the economic arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 31, 2017 22:28:07 GMT
[ Snip ] Carbon tax is stupidity on steroids Our politicians don't need steroids. They are naturally gifted. They have been 'grafted' to naturally aggressive root stock.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 1, 2017 1:39:16 GMT
Graft is something quite foreign to the Australian political class. Trust me, I'm from the government and I'm here to help ......
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 1, 2017 1:53:42 GMT
Graft is something quite foreign to the Australian political class. Trust me, I'm from the government and I'm here to help ...... Unless you are a postmaster? |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 1, 2017 2:06:38 GMT
Graft is something quite foreign to the Australian political class. Trust me, I'm from the government and I'm here to help ...... Unless you are a postmaster? The key part of that title is 'master'. It breeds contempt. How much more helpful the title 'postservant', with the honorific, 'first class', reserved for especially useful 'public servants'.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 1, 2017 4:05:20 GMT
Careful you lot. I was a postservant for the latter part of my working life.  PS: Post masters in Oz are a low class, in charge of a postal outlet. The CEO of the corporation, now he was a different fettle of kish. |
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Apr 2, 2017 17:57:20 GMT
Thanks for the responses. I posted this because the carbon tax idea seems to be picking up a little momentum and you may want to have your arguments ready for your elected officials and newspaper editors when the time comes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 2, 2017 23:27:14 GMT
Thanks for the responses. I posted this because the carbon tax idea seems to be picking up a little momentum and you may want to have your arguments ready for your elected officials and newspaper editors when the time comes. Here in Oz, the carbon tax was dumped but ................. pollies are now talking up a new animal, an emissions intensity scheme. Australia's peak business lobby calls for emissions intensity schemeBig business is on board because it won't hurt them? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 4, 2017 4:02:28 GMT
A carbon fee is a distortion of the energy market. It relies on a tax on the poor that can never be recovered by poorer folks. It is a way to enrich the already rich, robbing young people of opportunity. As a result of the Regressive economics, the result is higher health care costs because the caloric intake becomes less nutritious. I will see if I can find the analysis from a couple of years ago confirming what I wrote above. Indeed. And the government has a record of needing 3 dollars to give one dollar away. This ridiculous idea does nothing but as you point out Sig harm the people most vulnerable. It raises the cost of energy and thats supposedly offset by giving the money back. Which means money is supposed to be available to pay for the higher cost of energy. But lets forget about the armies of tax collectors and the cost of sending out rebates. What it amounts to is a con game where the grifter ends up with most of the dough. Thats what this has always been about anyway. Ultimately what the scheme has to do to work is push the price of fossils higher than alternative energies and when it accomplishes anything the poor are left with the bill and there is no rebate. |
|
