Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax Creates Jobs, Cuts Emissions, Grows Economy

[ScienceRocks]

Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax Creates Jobs, Cuts Emissions, Grows Economy
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/16...ax-cuts-emissions-creates-jobs-grows-economy/
In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy

Posted on 13 June 2014 by dana1981

A revenue-neutral carbon tax or fee is a proposed policy to address global warming that's become increasingly popular, particularly in the US. It's a simple concept – put a much needed price on carbon pollution, but return all the revenue that's generated to taxpayers (for example with a monthly refund) to offset rising energy costs. This approach appeals to political conservatives, because it's a free market solution that doesn't increase the size of government.

British Columbia (BC) launched a revenue-neutral carbon fee in 2008, with the tax offset through a matching reduction income taxes. So far it's been very successful, decreasing carbon pollution while the BC economy performed just as well as the rest of Canada's. The carbon tax has 64% support among BC voters.

The main source of opposition to carbon pricing is the perception that it will 'kill jobs' or otherwise hurt the economy. However, economic forecasts have rarely been done for a carbon fee in which 100% the revenue is returned to the taxpayers. Under proposed revenue-neutral carbon tax legislation, about two-thirds of taxpayers are projected to receive more in refunds than they pay in higher energy prices. It's a net financial gain for most people. This is a key factor that differentiates a revenue-neutral carbon tax system and its economic impacts from other carbon pricing systems.

A new study from Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) models this type of policy. REMI has been developing regional forecasting and policy analysis models since 1980. In their study (full report here, summary here), REMI modeled the regional and national economic impacts of a revenue-neutral carbon tax starting at a modest $10 per metric ton of carbon dioxide in 2016, growing steadily by $10 per year each year. They broke the US into nine distinct geographic regions.

Personnally, I'd give 50% back to the tax payers and 50% for fusion research. We're going to have to develop a reliable replacement for fossil fuels. This and a full campaign to install solar around the world.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax Creates Jobs, Cuts Emissions, Grows Economy
Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax Creates Jobs, Cuts Emissions, Grows Economy
In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy

Posted on 13 June 2014 by dana1981

A revenue-neutral carbon tax or fee is a proposed policy to address global warming that's become increasingly popular, particularly in the US. It's a simple concept – put a much needed price on carbon pollution, but return all the revenue that's generated to taxpayers (for example with a monthly refund) to offset rising energy costs. This approach appeals to political conservatives, because it's a free market solution that doesn't increase the size of government.

British Columbia (BC) launched a revenue-neutral carbon fee in 2008, with the tax offset through a matching reduction income taxes. So far it's been very successful, decreasing carbon pollution while the BC economy performed just as well as the rest of Canada's. The carbon tax has 64% support among BC voters.

The main source of opposition to carbon pricing is the perception that it will 'kill jobs' or otherwise hurt the economy. However, economic forecasts have rarely been done for a carbon fee in which 100% the revenue is returned to the taxpayers. Under proposed revenue-neutral carbon tax legislation, about two-thirds of taxpayers are projected to receive more in refunds than they pay in higher energy prices. It's a net financial gain for most people. This is a key factor that differentiates a revenue-neutral carbon tax system and its economic impacts from other carbon pricing systems.

A new study from Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) models this type of policy. REMI has been developing regional forecasting and policy analysis models since 1980. In their study (full report here, summary here), REMI modeled the regional and national economic impacts of a revenue-neutral carbon tax starting at a modest $10 per metric ton of carbon dioxide in 2016, growing steadily by $10 per year each year. They broke the US into nine distinct geographic regions.

Personnally, I'd give 50% back to the tax payers and 50% for fusion research. We're going to have to develop a reliable replacement for fossil fuels. This and a full campaign to install solar around the world.

I do not understand why this is so hard for people to understand, taxes have nothing to do with the free market.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no such thing as a revenue neutral tax.

 

[skookerasbil]

This is the biggest load of bullshit Ive ever seen posted in this forum......and that's saying something.


Look at the countries who sold this crap tot he public years ago.....like Australia. The pushback there has been fierce. Its been a disaster.

What the leftist ideologue never considers is answering the question, "As compared to what?"


Carbon taxes are enormous job killers!!! Huge.......why the **** do you think that Cap and Trade went down in flames? It was hugely unpopular.......and now this idiot president is ******* the people via executive fiat. But that's always been the plan......bury the country in regulatory costs.......death by suicide.


Worst of all......carbon taxes HAMMER the poor.....which doesn't matter at all to the ideologues!!! They already have these idiot voters in their back pocket because they cant think for themselves.


Carbon regulation burden heaviest on poor, Stanford economist finds




Matthew is a very smart guy.......but highly naïve. He has proven that to us many times over.

 

[HenryBHough]

Implementation of a carbon tax in Australia brought on regime change that will last for decades.

Carbon tax for America? BRING IT ON!

 

[Crick]

I do not understand why this is so hard for people to understand, taxes have nothing to do with the free market.

People might have an easier time understanding "this" were you to actually explain what you're talking about. The statement "taxes have nothing to do with the free market" is about as informative as the sound of my cat coughing up a hairball. I don't mean that to be critical of your content, just your mode of delivery. What are you trying to say?

 

[Crick]

There is no such thing as a revenue neutral tax.

In 1931, there was no such thing as a 64 bit, quad core processor.

Do you mean to say it is impossible to create one? If so, would you care to explain why you think that the case?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I do not understand why this is so hard for people to understand, taxes have nothing to do with the free market.

People might have an easier time understanding "this" were you to actually explain what you're talking about. The statement "taxes have nothing to do with the free market" is about as informative as the sound of my cat coughing up a hairball. I don't mean that to be critical of your content, just your mode of delivery. What are you trying to say?

I am trying to say you are an idiot without being blunt about it. Taxes come from government attempts to regulate the market, which is why they have nothing to do with the free market.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Crick]

I am trying to say you are an idiot without being blunt about it. Taxes come from government attempts to regulate the market, which is why they have nothing to do with the free market.

When you made that statement, I had posted nothing in this thread. So when you say you were trying to say I was an idiot, I have to conclude you have me confused with someone else.

These particular taxes come from an effort to control the consumption of a commodity rather than functioning of a market. And there is no such thing as a free market. All markets are either explicitly or inherently constrained; either by code, statute or regulation; or by external structures unaffected by the operation of the market itself.

So, again, what are you trying to say?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am trying to say you are an idiot without being blunt about it. Taxes come from government attempts to regulate the market, which is why they have nothing to do with the free market.

When you made that statement, I had posted nothing in this thread. So when you say you were trying to say I was an idiot, I have to conclude you have me confused with someone else.

These particular taxes come from an effort to control the consumption of a commodity rather than functioning of a market. And there is no such thing as a free market. All markets are either explicitly or inherently constrained; either by code, statute or regulation; or by external structures unaffected by the operation of the market itself.

So, again, what are you trying to say?

You are the only one that didn't understand it, that makes you the idiot, doesn't it?

 

[Crick]

I see no evidence that ANYONE understood or yet understands what you're talking about.

What it looks like is that you made an offhand sound-bite of a remark that had no thought or knowledge behind it and you can't explain what it means because you never knew in the first place.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax Creates Jobs, Cuts Emissions, Grows Economy
Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax Creates Jobs, Cuts Emissions, Grows Economy
In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy

Posted on 13 June 2014 by dana1981

A revenue-neutral carbon tax or fee is a proposed policy to address global warming that's become increasingly popular, particularly in the US. It's a simple concept – put a much needed price on carbon pollution, but return all the revenue that's generated to taxpayers (for example with a monthly refund) to offset rising energy costs. This approach appeals to political conservatives, because it's a free market solution that doesn't increase the size of government.

British Columbia (BC) launched a revenue-neutral carbon fee in 2008, with the tax offset through a matching reduction income taxes. So far it's been very successful, decreasing carbon pollution while the BC economy performed just as well as the rest of Canada's. The carbon tax has 64% support among BC voters.

The main source of opposition to carbon pricing is the perception that it will 'kill jobs' or otherwise hurt the economy. However, economic forecasts have rarely been done for a carbon fee in which 100% the revenue is returned to the taxpayers. Under proposed revenue-neutral carbon tax legislation, about two-thirds of taxpayers are projected to receive more in refunds than they pay in higher energy prices. It's a net financial gain for most people. This is a key factor that differentiates a revenue-neutral carbon tax system and its economic impacts from other carbon pricing systems.

A new study from Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) models this type of policy. REMI has been developing regional forecasting and policy analysis models since 1980. In their study (full report here, summary here), REMI modeled the regional and national economic impacts of a revenue-neutral carbon tax starting at a modest $10 per metric ton of carbon dioxide in 2016, growing steadily by $10 per year each year. They broke the US into nine distinct geographic regions.

Personnally, I'd give 50% back to the tax payers and 50% for fusion research. We're going to have to develop a reliable replacement for fossil fuels. This and a full campaign to install solar around the world.

This approach appeals to political conservatives, because it's a free market solution that doesn't increase the size of government.

How large will the carbon tax department become?
The carbon tax rebate department?

A great way to cut our emissions would be reducing the number of unskilled illegals who break our laws by entering our country.

They'd release less CO2 back in their home country.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I see no evidence that ANYONE understood or yet understands what you're talking about.

What it looks like is that you made an offhand sound-bite of a remark that had no thought or knowledge behind it and you can't explain what it means because you never knew in the first place.

Of course you don't, that would take the intellectual capacity to see the obvious.

 

[Kosh]

WOW! How far left of the OP..

How much did you give to the church of AL Gore to make this post?

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no such thing as a revenue neutral tax.

In 1931, there was no such thing as a 64 bit, quad core processor.

Do you mean to say it is impossible to create one? If so, would you care to explain why you think that the case?

If the government is doing it it will cost us.

The only way to do it is to make sure all the expense of the new agency that needs to be created is covered by the tax collected. IOW all the costs of the senate and house, all the cost of acquiring, heating cooling and upkeep of the offices necessary all the costs of the employees hired to work at this new agency all the cost of collecting and reimbursing etc must be covered by the tax collected.

Do you really think that government will run like that?

If you do I have a unicorn farm for sale in Brigadoon I can sell you.

 

[Crick]

A great way to cut our emissions would be reducing the number of unskilled illegals who break our laws by entering our country.

They'd release less CO2 back in their home country.

As stupid as this is, at least you admit we need to cut emissions.

 

[Crick]

There is no such thing as a revenue neutral tax.

In 1931, there was no such thing as a 64 bit, quad core processor.

Do you mean to say it is impossible to create one? If so, would you care to explain why you think that the case?

If the government is doing it it will cost us.

The only way to do it is to make sure all the expense of the new agency that needs to be created is covered by the tax collected. IOW all the costs of the senate and house, all the cost of acquiring, heating cooling and upkeep of the offices necessary all the costs of the employees hired to work at this new agency all the cost of collecting and reimbursing etc must be covered by the tax collected.

Do you really think that government will run like that?

If you do I have a unicorn farm for sale in Brigadoon I can sell you.

I have no problem with that idea at all, but how do you think that will happen? Do you think the carbon tax department will keep some of the money collected in its own bank accounts to pay its own bills without making use of the Treasury? You don't see the potential for the mismanagement of taxpayer dollars under such a scheme? And you include the House and the Senate as a cost of running this carbon tax department. What were you smoking when that idea came to you?

It appears to me that what you're really aiming at is to require that the department cover its own costs which would make it impossible to refund 100% of the money collected to the taxpayers and give you and yours a cudgel with which to try to beat the idea down. It will cost money to operate the department. It costs money to DO anything, whether you are the government or the most modern, streamlined and efficient business on the planet. There's no such thing as a free lunch. The question is how much value you GET for your money. Getting a significant reduction in carbon emissions, a modest transfer of funds from emitting industries to individual taxpayers to help them cope with the increased cost of energy and transportation all for the cost of implementing this tax in a system already well equipped to collect taxes, is an excellent value.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

There is no such thing as a revenue neutral tax.

Nor is there any tax which creates jobs and grows the economy.

Matthew has been going full rdean for the last several days.

 

[Crick]

We have a gasoline tax which pays for the construction and maintenance of our road and highway system. Is that accomplished without employing any labor?
We have an income tax which pays for the operation of our government and its military forces. In 2012 that totaled 4,013,000 people (jobs).
Those taxes also fund projects and programs in the private industry: building ships, aircraft and other weapon and support systems for our military. Operating research and development facilities. Funding university research projects. Housing developments. School loans. Small business loans. Farm loans and subsidies.

The idea that no jobs are supported by our tax dollars is simply absurd.