The beauty of a carbon tax

[Trakar]

The Christian Science Monitor – CSMonitor.com / Text

The beauty of a carbon tax – and its exemption for the poor




By Paul Boudreaux / January 10, 2013

...The policy arguments for a carbon tax are compelling. Economists have convinced the environmental community that market-oriented systems, as opposed to inflexible commands, are the best way to regulate. The simplest and most efficient way to change people’s behavior is to tax them; everyone is then encouraged to look for efficient ways to avoid the taxed activity...
...A carbon tax would hit big polluters, most notably electrical power producers. They would be encouraged to eschew carbon-laden coal for relatively cleaner natural gas, or even cleaner sources of energy. But they would not be mandated to do so; each producer would make judgments based on its own criteria and supply structures...
...A simple exemption, however, could make the tax burden much lighter for poorer Americans, while at the same time encouraging even greater conservation. The idea is simple: Each household would be exempted from the tax for a modest amount of electricity per month or year; the exemption would be most effective if the system also imposed only minimal usage charges for electricity below the cutoff. The system would recognize almost all households need to use some electricity, but that consumption beyond the minimum would be taxed...[/quote]

(read rest at Link)
The beauty of a carbon tax ? and its exemption for the poor - CSMonitor.com

 

[SSDD]

More assumptions based on terribly flawed computer models. There is nothing beautiful about taxing a harmless trace atmospheric gas.

 

[Trakar]

More assumptions based on terribly flawed computer models. There is nothing beautiful about taxing a harmless trace atmospheric gas.

Simply, and typically, incorrect once again.

 

[skookerasbil]

Not going to happen........100% certainty.

Redistricting by Republican governors since 2010 makes it virtually impossible for the left to take back the House any time before 2020. Even center left representatives in the House arent going to support slamming constituents with mega-electricity bills.

Most of the environmental nutters have the political IQ of a small soap dish.

 

[Trakar]

Not going to happen........100% certainty.

Redistricting by Republican governors since 2010 makes it virtually impossible for the left to take back the House any time before 2020. Even center left representatives in the House arent going to support slamming constituents with mega-electricity bills.

Most of the environmental nutters have the political IQ of a small soap dish.

"mega-electricity bills?"

what are you muttering to yourself about now?

 

[Mr. H.]

Power companies are already eschewing "carbon-laden coal for relatively cleaner natural gas".

 

[martybegan]

The Christian Science Monitor – CSMonitor.com / Text

The beauty of a carbon tax – and its exemption for the poor




By Paul Boudreaux / January 10, 2013

...The policy arguments for a carbon tax are compelling. Economists have convinced the environmental community that market-oriented systems, as opposed to inflexible commands, are the best way to regulate. The simplest and most efficient way to change people’s behavior is to tax them; everyone is then encouraged to look for efficient ways to avoid the taxed activity...
...A carbon tax would hit big polluters, most notably electrical power producers. They would be encouraged to eschew carbon-laden coal for relatively cleaner natural gas, or even cleaner sources of energy. But they would not be mandated to do so; each producer would make judgments based on its own criteria and supply structures...
...A simple exemption, however, could make the tax burden much lighter for poorer Americans, while at the same time encouraging even greater conservation. The idea is simple: Each household would be exempted from the tax for a modest amount of electricity per month or year; the exemption would be most effective if the system also imposed only minimal usage charges for electricity below the cutoff. The system would recognize almost all households need to use some electricity, but that consumption beyond the minimum would be taxed...

(read rest at Link)
The beauty of a carbon tax ? and its exemption for the poor - CSMonitor.com[/QUOTE]

What you cant avoid is the increase in doing business, and thus the passed on cost increase to consumers. Or maybe people can eat in resturants in the dark.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Democrats love any kind of a tax. They find beauty in taxes.

 

[Trakar]

Power companies are already eschewing "carbon-laden coal for relatively cleaner natural gas".

Carbon tax would speed and enhance that shift, as well as gradually pushing the shift away from natural gas to renewables and alternatives, whose carbon footprint would drop tremendously as we shift away from using high carbon fuels to manufacture and produce the alternative and renewable generation and distribution systems. Likewise, many, if not most, carbon tax proposals utilize a graduated implementaion system so that the tax amount increases stepwise over a period of time (generally decades). So while a carbon tax may start out at say $50/ton of coal in 2015, in 2025 that would raise to $65/ton, $80/ton in 2035, and end up at $100/ton in 2050. The purpose of pigouvian taxes is not to raise revenue, it is to discourage the purchase of the item or service upon which the tax is levied. Over the life of the tax all revenues generated from the taxes on carbon carbon emissions would be directly returned to the taxed economy through an equivilant reduction in other existing taxes and through direct payments to taxpayers. A portion of these taxes may also be used to buy back and retire national debt or purchase treasury bonds that will be used to reduce future taxes as the impact of the carbon tax results in the reduced tax revenues because people and industries stop using the taxed carbon emitters.

 

[westwall]

The Christian Science Monitor – CSMonitor.com / Text

The beauty of a carbon tax – and its exemption for the poor




By Paul Boudreaux / January 10, 2013

...The policy arguments for a carbon tax are compelling. Economists have convinced the environmental community that market-oriented systems, as opposed to inflexible commands, are the best way to regulate. The simplest and most efficient way to change people’s behavior is to tax them; everyone is then encouraged to look for efficient ways to avoid the taxed activity...
...A carbon tax would hit big polluters, most notably electrical power producers. They would be encouraged to eschew carbon-laden coal for relatively cleaner natural gas, or even cleaner sources of energy. But they would not be mandated to do so; each producer would make judgments based on its own criteria and supply structures...
...A simple exemption, however, could make the tax burden much lighter for poorer Americans, while at the same time encouraging even greater conservation. The idea is simple: Each household would be exempted from the tax for a modest amount of electricity per month or year; the exemption would be most effective if the system also imposed only minimal usage charges for electricity below the cutoff. The system would recognize almost all households need to use some electricity, but that consumption beyond the minimum would be taxed...

(read rest at Link)
The beauty of a carbon tax ? and its exemption for the poor - CSMonitor.com[/QUOTE]









Utter horsecrap. CO2 is the basic building block of ALL life on this planet. The more the better for plants which means more O2 for those of us who use that, and of course that also helps the base of the food chain. Only an ignorant, anti-science, political hack could look at that and think otherwise.

 

[westwall]

Not going to happen........100% certainty.

Redistricting by Republican governors since 2010 makes it virtually impossible for the left to take back the House any time before 2020. Even center left representatives in the House arent going to support slamming constituents with mega-electricity bills.

Most of the environmental nutters have the political IQ of a small soap dish.

"mega-electricity bills?"

what are you muttering to yourself about now?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4]Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mr. H.]

Power companies are already eschewing "carbon-laden coal for relatively cleaner natural gas".

Carbon tax would speed and enhance that shift, as well as gradually pushing the shift away from natural gas to renewables and alternatives, whose carbon footprint would drop tremendously as we shift away from using high carbon fuels to manufacture and produce the alternative and renewable generation and distribution systems. Likewise, many, if not most, carbon tax proposals utilize a graduated implementaion system so that the tax amount increases stepwise over a period of time (generally decades). So while a carbon tax may start out at say $50/ton of coal in 2015, in 2025 that would raise to $65/ton, $80/ton in 2035, and end up at $100/ton in 2050. The purpose of pigouvian taxes is not to raise revenue, it is to discourage the purchase of the item or service upon which the tax is levied. Over the life of the tax all revenues generated from the taxes on carbon carbon emissions would be directly returned to the taxed economy through an equivilant reduction in other existing taxes and through direct payments to taxpayers. A portion of these taxes may also be used to buy back and retire national debt or purchase treasury bonds that will be used to reduce future taxes as the impact of the carbon tax results in the reduced tax revenues because people and industries stop using the taxed carbon emitters.

The ingenuity of private commerce led to the development of hydraulic fracturing which spurred the quest for both dry and liquid hydrocarbons in this country.

Market forces drove down the price of natural gas which encouraged utilities to switch from coal.

This is how it works. Not some cock-eyed scheme to tax productivity out of existence for the benefit of technologies that can not survive in the marketplace.

Taxes offsetting other taxes?

Dream on, dupe.

 

[Trakar]

Taxes offsetting other taxes?

Dream on, dupe.

Economics isn't your strong suit I see.

That's okay, finances and business aren't for everyone.

 

[Mr. H.]

Taxes offsetting other taxes?

Dream on, dupe.

Economics isn't your strong suit I see.

That's okay, finances and business aren't for everyone.

I've spent the last 36 years in finance and business. Primarily in the energy industries.

How long have you been jacking off to your wet dreams?

 

[bripat9643]

The Christian Science Monitor – CSMonitor.com / Text

The beauty of a carbon tax – and its exemption for the poor




By Paul Boudreaux / January 10, 2013

...The policy arguments for a carbon tax are compelling. Economists have convinced the environmental community that market-oriented systems, as opposed to inflexible commands, are the best way to regulate. The simplest and most efficient way to change people’s behavior is to tax them; everyone is then encouraged to look for efficient ways to avoid the taxed activity...
...A carbon tax would hit big polluters, most notably electrical power producers. They would be encouraged to eschew carbon-laden coal for relatively cleaner natural gas, or even cleaner sources of energy. But they would not be mandated to do so; each producer would make judgments based on its own criteria and supply structures...
...A simple exemption, however, could make the tax burden much lighter for poorer Americans, while at the same time encouraging even greater conservation. The idea is simple: Each household would be exempted from the tax for a modest amount of electricity per month or year; the exemption would be most effective if the system also imposed only minimal usage charges for electricity below the cutoff. The system would recognize almost all households need to use some electricity, but that consumption beyond the minimum would be taxed...

(read rest at Link)
The beauty of a carbon tax ? and its exemption for the poor - CSMonitor.com

You're forgetting the stupid part of a carbon tax: CO2 isn't a pollutant. The last thing this country needs is more taxes. Only greedy, boot licking drones want other people to send more of their paychecks to the government.

 

[SSDD]

More assumptions based on terribly flawed computer models. There is nothing beautiful about taxing a harmless trace atmospheric gas.

Simply, and typically, incorrect once again.

Still waiting for some actual proof that atmospheric CO2 is driving the climate.

It is clear that you can't provide it as evidenced by your neverending stream of computer output in lieu of actual measured evidence.

It is obvious that you have never considered the concept of an error cascade or how it might affect climate science. Lets see if we can bring the concept into clear focus for you.

The whole climate issue, as it stands today is based on trenberth's energy budget. His work is simply taken to be fact and is used as a reference in nearly every work done that supports the AGW hypothesis...if not referenced directly, then references to other works that reference his work are used. In short, if his work is flawed, then every work that assumed he was correct is also flawed.

Prove trenberth's energy budget is correct. Show me actual measured proof that his work is spot on accurate.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The carbon tax: The only tax that will raise the price of absolutely everything.

How can that not be a good thing.

 

[SSDD]

What you cant avoid is the increase in doing business, and thus the passed on cost increase to consumers. Or maybe people can eat in resturants in the dark.

His sort think this sort of thing is "beautiful" all the time and they never consider that their beautiful ideas inevetably end up hurting the people who can least aford to pay for their ideas. I can aford an increase in my energy bill. I will complain about it, but it isn't going to change my lifestyle. There are people, however, who live on the ragged edge where any increase in the price of anything brings on a decision as to whether to pay for this, or pay for that.

The results of such thinking were made clear during the infamous heat wave that wasn't in france that resulted in the deaths of about 14,000 people. The heat never exceeded typical summer temperatures in Denver, CO, and it happened in an industrialized country. The problem was that energy taxes were so high there that people on fixed incomes were unable to afford air conditioning...mainly the elderly. Those people had to deicde whether to eat or pay for cold air. They chose to eat and the heat killed them.

A rise in energy costs will be devestating to the people who live on the ragged financial edge.

 

[Mr. H.]

A rise in energy costs will be devestating to the people who live on the ragged financial edge.

There's got to be some Executive Orders that could take care of that little inconvenience.

 

[skookerasbil]

Not going to happen........100% certainty.

Redistricting by Republican governors since 2010 makes it virtually impossible for the left to take back the House any time before 2020. Even center left representatives in the House arent going to support slamming constituents with mega-electricity bills.

Most of the environmental nutters have the political IQ of a small soap dish.

"mega-electricity bills?"

what are you muttering to yourself about now?

pwned s0n.....................


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4]Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket - YouTube[/ame]



s0n.....propaganda BS is brilliant stuff until it gets decimated by the facts.