Obama-Carbon Tax Coming in Jan...

[Skull Pilot]

Well first of all they educate themselves and actually read the policy.

Then they analyse the tax's effect on the economy and businesses in

general. But I understand partisan hacks like you would not understand

anything unless presented in the form of a pop up book. So go ahead rant

and rave, you will be proven wrong in due time.

It would be nice if you linked something to writings of these economists of whom you speak so highly

 

[bk1983]

And his cohorts just slipped 18B$ into the bailout bill for carbon tax credits.

Everybody qualifies for a slice of that pie.

Also, Skull Pilot recently wrote A letter to your senator post that contains an excellent letter that you can copy, paste, and send to ALL of your representatives in Congress. Man, I sent that letter out the same day I read it.

I did read his letter, it is very well written and I do support that option.

Although 100% seems a little out of the question to me, but you never

know unless you ask right?

 

[bk1983]

It would be nice if you linked something to writings of these economists of whom you speak so highly

Hold on I will find the study for you. I read it awhile ago but

I remember the study looked at the most efficient approaches to reducing

emissions of CO2 by giving businesses and households an economic

incentive for such reductions. I am going to try and find it for you now.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hold on I will find the study for you. I read it awhile ago but

I remember the study looked at the most efficient approaches to reducing

emissions of CO2 by giving businesses and households an economic

incentive for such reductions. I am going to try and find it for you now.

Economic incentives are one thing and punitive taxes are quite another.

 

[editec]

It's about time.

We've been incentivising people and industries to consume.

Now we're incentivizing people to conserve.

We should take every cent of those taxes to fund research and development to get off the hydrocarbon addiction.

I think this is a good idea, frankly, if the money is reinvested wisely.

 

[WillowTree]

It's about time.

We've been incentivising people and industries to consume.

Now we're incentivizing people to conserve.

We should take every cent of those taxes to fund research and development to get off the hydrocarbon addiction.

I think this is a good idea, frankly, if the money is reinvested wisely.

well guess what? Americans have been conserving. causing a shortfall so guess what? they're gonna rasie taxes to make up the difference.. so we lose

 

[bk1983]

Economic incentives are one thing and punitive taxes are quite another.

No, the carbon tax can also be an economic incentive as businesses

will be motivated to reduce emissions to avoid the tax rate. The incentive

will of course be avoiding the higher tax.

 

[WillowTree]

No, the carbon tax can also be an economic incentive as businesses

will be motivated to reduce emissions to avoid the tax rate. The incentive

will of course be avoiding the higher tax.

which will cause a shortfall so they will raise taxes anyway!

 

[bk1983]

which will cause a shortfall so they will raise taxes anyway!

A shortfall on what? The goal of the tax is to reduce emissions.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's about time.

We've been incentivising people and industries to consume.

Now we're incentivizing people to conserve.

We should take every cent of those taxes to fund research and development to get off the hydrocarbon addiction.

I think this is a good idea, frankly, if the money is reinvested wisely.

Ed your mistake here is thet you believe the government can invest taxpayer money wisely

No, the carbon tax can also be an economic incentive as businesses

will be motivated to reduce emissions to avoid the tax rate. The incentive

will of course be avoiding the higher tax.

Employing new and expensive upgrades and then passing the costs of that on to the consumer helps the economy how?

Rather than increasing taxes thereby increasing consumer costs why not make it less expensive to go green via tax credits? Not just for businesses but for everyone?

 

[WillowTree]

A shortfall on what? The goal of the tax is to reduce emissions.

a shorfall on tax money the congresscritters are used to having,, so they will raise taxes anyway,, their only reason for being is to decide who to punish with punitive taxes. this year it happens to be rich white people and corporations.. but soon, when that dosen't work out for them it will be you..

 

[bk1983]

Ed your mistake here is thet you believe the government can invest taxpayer money wisely



Employing new and expensive upgrades and then passing the costs of that on to the consumer helps the economy how?

Rather than increasing taxes thereby increasing consumer costs why not make it less expensive to go green via tax credits? Not just for businesses but for everyone?

Well the goal is not necessarly to help the economy but rather reduce

emissions. I agree that tax credits are also a good option and I would support

that avenue as well. I think a number of options must be implemented. But

as I remember the carbon tax was supported overall because of

reliability and actual effectiveness in lowering emissions. I have not

found the study I read before, but this is an article explaining the benefits

in a little less detail.

Carbon tax is one of two major market-based options to lower emissions, the other being cap-and-trade schemes. While cap-and-trade seems to have won over most politicians, many economists and consumers prefer carbon tax for its simplicity and impartiality.

Carbon tax is a form of pollution tax. It levies a fee on the production, distribution or use of fossil fuels based on how much carbon their combustion emits. The government sets a price per ton on carbon, then translates it into a tax on electricity, natural gas or oil. Because the tax makes using dirty fuels more expensive, it encourages utilities, businesses and individuals to reduce consumption and increase energy efficiency. Carbon tax also makes alternative energy more cost-competitive with cheaper, polluting fuels like coal, natural gas and oil.

The primary purpose of carbon tax is to lower greenhouse-gas emissions. The tax charges a fee on fossil fuels based on how much carbon they emit when burned (more on that later). So in order to reduce the fees, utilities, business and individuals attempt to use less energy derived from fossil fuels. An individual might switch to public transportation and replace incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). A business might increase energy efficiency by installing new appliances or updating heating and cooling systems. A utility company might use wet scrubbers, low NOx-burners or gasification to reduce their emissions (see What is Clean Coal Technology?). And since carbon tax sets a definite price on carbon, there is a guaranteed return on expensive efficiency investments. Economists like carbon tax for its predictability.
The only carbon tax in the United States, a municipal tax in Boulder, Colo., taxes the consumers -- homeowners and businesses. People in Boulder pay a fee based on the number of kilowatt hours of electricity they use. Officials say the tax amounts to an annual addition of about $16 for homeowners' electric bills and $46 for business owners [source: New York Times].

Despite its lack of political support, carbon tax appeals to economists, environmentalists and even some businesses that like its natural fairness. Many people are certain on one point, however. Individuals, businesses and utilities need regulated incentives to increase energy efficiency and switch to alternative fuels. Both cap-and-trade schemes and carbon taxes would create the incentives needed for change.

HowStuffWorks "National Carbon Tax"

 

[bk1983]

Crikey, my previous post in this thread was suppose to be in Big 3 Blame Enough To Go Around

Would a Mod please move it.

Thanks.

I was wondering what you were talking about. Nice Barney pic!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Allowing the government to take MORE taxpayer money is never a good idea especially when said tax increase is designed to change behavior by economic punishment.

Raising taxes is not a solution. Adding what amounts to another sin tax on a product deemed harmful by the government won't change anything.

Alcohol taxes have not reduced the consumption of alcohol. Cigarette taxes have not reduced the number of people smoking.

Carbon taxes will do little to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Any business hit hard enough will simply pass on the cost to its customers. What will ultimately happen is that the penalty will be applied to lesser ans lesser amounts of carbon output. In fact it won't be applied to carbon output at all. it will be applied to the purchase of carbon producing fuels.

It would be virtually impossible for the government to monitor the actual carbon emissions of businesses without a huge increase in government spending for the manpower and equipment for such monitoring.

So the cost of enforcement of said carbon tax will probably outstrip the actual revenue produced by the tax.

Of course the government won't monitor the out put, it will just add another tax to the purchase of carbon producing fuels. In short we will ALL see an increase in the cost of carbon producing fuels.

 

[bk1983]

Allowing the government to take MORE taxpayer money is never a good idea especially when said tax increase is designed to change behavior by economic punishment.

Raising taxes is not a solution. Adding what amounts to another sin tax on a product deemed harmful by the government won't change anything.

Alcohol taxes have not reduced the consumption of alcohol. Cigarette taxes have not reduced the number of people smoking.

Carbon taxes will do little to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Any business hit hard enough will simply pass on the cost to its customers. What will ultimately happen is that the penalty will be applied to lesser ans lesser amounts of carbon output. In fact it won't be applied to carbon output at all. it will be applied to the purchase of carbon producing fuels.

It would be virtually impossible for the government to monitor the actual carbon emissions of businesses without a huge increase in government spending for the manpower and equipment for such monitoring.

So the cost of enforcement of said carbon tax will probably outstrip the actual revenue produced by the tax.

Of course the government won't monitor the out put, it will just add another tax to the purchase of carbon producing fuels. In short we will ALL see an increase in the cost of carbon producing fuels.

Well according to internal documents from the cigarette companies as

well as many studies have proven just how effective the tax has been

in reducing consumption.

Philip Morris: Tax increases…are expected to continue to have an adverse impact on sales of our
tobacco products due to lower consumption levels and to a shift in consumer purchases from the premium
to the non-premium or discount segments or to other low-priced or low-taxed tobacco products or to
counterfeit and contraband products. [10-K Report, February 28, 2008.]
• Loews/Lorillard Tobacco: Lorillard believes that increases in excise and similar taxes have had an
adverse impact on sales of cigarettes and that future increases, the extent of which cannot be predicted,
could result in further volume declines for the cigarette industry, including Lorillard…. [Loews (parent
corporation of the Lorillard cigarette company) 10-K Report, February 27, 2008.]
• R.J. Reynolds: Together with manufacturers’ price increases in recent years and substantial increases in
state and federal taxes on tobacco products, these developments have had and will likely continue to
have an adverse effect on the sale of tobacco products. [10-K Report, February 27, 2008.]

tobacco products would decrease the prevalence of tobacco use, particularly among kids and young
adults, and that tobacco tax increases would lead to “substantial long-term improvements in health.” Its
review of existing research concluded that raising tobacco taxes is one of the most effective tobacco
prevention and control strategies.16
• The 1999 World Bank report Curbing The Tobacco Epidemic: Governments and the Economics of
Tobacco Control carefully evaluated existing research and data, worldwide, and concluded that “the most
effective way to deter children from taking up smoking is to increase taxes on tobacco. High prices
prevent some children and adolescents from starting and encourage those who already smoke to reduce
their consumption.”17
• Wall Street tobacco industry analysts have long recognized the powerful role increased cigarette taxes
and rising cigarette prices play in reducing U.S. smoking levels. For example, a December 1998
“Sensitivity Analysis on Cigarette Price Elasticity” by Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation settled on a
“conservative” estimate that cigarette consumption will decline by four percent for every 10 percent
increase in price.
• In its 1998 report, Taking Action to Reduce Tobacco Use, the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of
Medicine concluded that “the single most direct and reliable method for reducing consumption is to
increase the price of tobacco products, thus encouraging the cessation and reducing the level of initiation
of tobacco use.”18
• A 1993 National Cancer Institute Expert Panel found that “a substantial increase in tobacco excise taxes
may be the single most effective measure for decreasing tobacco consumption,” and “an excise tax reduces
consumption by children and teenagers at least as much as it reduces consumption by adults.”

 

[Skull Pilot]

IMO the ad campaigns denouncing smoking have done more to reduce smoking than the taxes themselves.

As premium brands see less sales, generic brands see more sales. People start buying loose tobacco and roll their own.

I have grown up in a family of smokers and yes they all gripe about cig. taxes but they buy anyway

 

[bk1983]

IMO the ad campaigns denouncing smoking have done more to reduce smoking than the taxes themselves.

As premium brands see less sales, generic brands see more sales. People start buying loose tobacco and roll their own.

I have grown up in a family of smokers and yes they all gripe about cig. taxes but they buy anyway

I have grown up in a family of smokers as well. My 2 sisters who smoke one

completely quit and the other has reduced consumption and is considering

quitting as well. I also have two employess who quit smoking due to our

recent increases and regulations on where you can smoke.(Hawaii) But

the facts are in the data, and increased taxes have correlated directly

with reduced consumption. Do you think anyone understands the industry

more then the tobacco executives themselves? My post proves they have

admitted the effectiveness of taxes on reducing consumption.

In-state evidence shows that state cigarette tax increases are prompting many smokers to quit or cutback.
For example, after the most recent cigarette tax increases in Michigan (from $1.25 to $2.00 per pack) and
Montana ($0.70 to $1.70), smoker calls to the state smoking quitlines skyrocketed. In the six months after
the tax increase, the Michigan quitline received 3,100 calls, compared to only 550 in the previous six months;
and in Montana more than 2,000 people called in the first 20 days after the tax increase, compared to only
380 calls per month previously.13 Likewise, in Texas and Iowa, which each increased their cigarette taxes by
$1.00 in 2007, the number of calls to the state quitlines have been much higher compared to the year
before.14 It is also clear that these efforts to quit by smokers after tax increases translate directly into lower
future smoking rates. In Washington State, for example, adult smoking from the year before its 60-cent
cigarette tax increase in 2002 to the year afterwards declined from 22.6 to 19.7 percent, reducing the number
of adult smokers in the state by more than 100,000, despite overall population increases.15

 

[bk1983]

imo The Ad Campaigns Denouncing Smoking Have Done More To Reduce Smoking Than The Taxes Themselves.

As Premium Brands See Less Sales, Generic Brands See More Sales. People Start Buying Loose Tobacco And Roll Their Own.

I Have Grown Up In A Family Of Smokers And Yes They All Gripe About Cig. Taxes But They Buy Anyway

•

Wall Street Tobacco Industry Analysts Have Long Recognized The Powerful Role Increased Cigarette Taxes
And Rising Cigarette Prices Play In Reducing U.s. Smoking Levels. For Example, A December 1998
“sensitivity Analysis On Cigarette Price Elasticity” By Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation Settled On A
“conservative” Estimate That Cigarette Consumption Will Decline By Four Percent For Every 10 Percent
Increase In Price.

The National Academy Of Sciences’ Institute Of
Medicine Concluded That “the Single Most Direct And Reliable Method For Reducing Consumption Is To
Increase The Price Of Tobacco Products, Thus Encouraging The Cessation And Reducing The Level Of Initiation
Of Tobacco Use.”18

national Cancer Institute Expert Panel Found That “a Substantial Increase In Tobacco Excise Taxes
May Be The Single Most Effective Measure For Decreasing Tobacco Consumption,”

 

[dilloduck]

•

So do you actually enjoy being taxed ?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have grown up in a family of smokers as well. My 2 sisters who smoke one

completely quit and the other has reduced consumption and is considering

quitting as well. I also have two employess who quit smoking due to our

recent increases and regulations on where you can smoke.(Hawaii) But

the facts are in the data, and increased taxes have correlated directly

with reduced consumption. Do you think anyone understands the industry

more then the tobacco executives themselves? My post proves they have

admitted the effectiveness of taxes on reducing consumption.

One of the caveats of statistics is that correlation does not equal causation