What about Al Gores talk of a carbon tax to replace the taxes we pay now

[madokie]

as a way to finance the government rather than what we presently employ. Personally I like the idea but I admit I haven't given it much thought and have no idea as to how that would work

Edit to more clarify

[sam sarrha]

1. ONLY IF ALL THE CARBON TAX MONEY GOES TO SOLAR, WIND, HEMP SYSTEMS to actually do something about

global warming.. other wise NOTHING WILL CHANGE, the planet will die

hemp oil fuel will tie up carbon in a fuel/carbon loop, it will also prevent deforestation, hemp can provide the same amount of paper /building materials on 20% of logged public land annually, plus plastics, resin glues, ply wood like materials, and food as a byproduct.. we need the trees for other things, just like we need the oil left for other things more necessary than fuel

[madokie]

2. I think what Gore is proposing is replacing all our taxes with a tax based on carbon

you use more things that spews more carbon into the atmosphere the more money you pay. sounds to me like an ideal setup

hes not talking about another tax just a new way to tax. maybe thats why this is not getting much traction is because its being seen as an added tax which is not the case

[sam sarrha]

3. if there's not a direct 'PRIORITY' link in this new tax system to IMMEDIATELY shifting to renewable

fuels and energy.. it is just the same old shit

[madokie]

4. what he is proposing it to replace our present tax system to one that is based on co2

http://londonchronicles.blogspot.com/2006/09/al-gore-proposes-carbon-tax-to-replace.html


Al Gore has proposed scrapping the payroll tax that finances social security, and replacing it with a carbon tax. According to him, the revenues from taxation would remain the same, the difference is the individual would not be taxed for working, giving him a larger incentive to work, and the business would be taxed for polluting, giving it a larger incentive not to pollute.

[sam sarrha]

6. there is a lot more money and money better distributed in resolving the problem.. if we don't change...

we will kill the planet.. there is no "URGENCY" in solving the cause, there is no economic resolution in this problem.. we need to privatize national solar system so we can get something done now.. Clinton's national solar program was said to be able to provide 72% of day time energy needs from 3 or 4 collection sites, from which small wind etc can be funded from..

we need to approach global warming like out hair is on fire..

[madokie]

8. I agree with that but that isn't really what I'm asking

Al is proposing replacing the income taxes from payroll to a carbon tax which to me would be a good idea, the more I read the more I like it.

[sam sarrha]

11. no trading and a Priority use of taxes to solve the problem or it isn't a solution, if we dont get

the oil monkeys off our backs nothing will change, we will continue to bear the load and nothing will change

we need a national program for energy and divert the revenue saved to solving the problem at local levels keeping the revenues in the local economy,rural economies are imploding from money bleeding to DC, China, mexico, walmart and multi national corporations or they will continue to bleed us to death. we are sinking out here people..!!!! help us

a program without details is a program for disaster, the rich will continue to get richer.. as the would collapses

[madokie]

13. I agree with what you're saying a 100%

as long as we allow the big money people and corperations to have lobbiest in washington we will always be taking a fucking so to say. Removing the lobbiest blight from washington in itself would be a big step in the right direction IMO

for instance just like today I am going to buy a ton of wood and I can purchase it in the next town over and save a few bucks overall but no way in hell will I because if I buy here at home some of my tax money stays here in our schools or town etc.

a carbon based tax on products other than food and home would seem on the surface to be good to me. theres lots to be contemplated no doubt.

[karynnj]

7. I think the reason that it hasn't got a lot of traction is that it is a reasonably new

idea and there would need to be very extensive modelling to determine all the downstream impacts. As it is the current tax code is a mess. Various taxes and credits are included that can sometimes lead to decisions that without the tax consequences are non-economic, but become so when taxes are included. There are times when this could be good - if the non-economic action has some non-monetary advantage.

Switching everything to a carbon tax would have the impact of creating more incentive for people to cut their carbon emissions. The question is would the tax be as progressive as the current one. Although carbon emissions are likely correlated to income, I doubt they are linear. People spend more of their income at the lower end. People at the higher end have the assets to buy more fuel efficient technology. I would not agree with a significantly less progressive tax system. (Gore I think compensates for this to some degree by subsidizing lower income people.)

[madokie]

9. something to be looked at, maybe even studied a bit

I was on board as soon as I heard Al propose it a while back but I didn't get into it other than just on its surface. I trust Al to make good decision and based on that I think this needs contemplating

[karynnj]

10. I agree with you - and as you can see, I could hardly

verbalize why going from one system, designed already to do many things, to a completely different one needs a huge amount of analysis to ensure that it does not have major undesirable unintentional consequences. This is not a bad thing - simulating actual plans and looking at the winners and losers sounds fascinating. (Also I notice that you mention in another post that it is the companies that pay the tax, so the impact on people is that it would raise the cost of everything purchased for which carbon is produced.)

It is an interesting idea as it would create an enormous incentive for people and businesses to minimize their carbon usage by explicitly giving it a cost.

[madokie]

12. I think that is the idea

I'm of the school of if a person knows what is going on most times he will make good decisions so this would be raising awareness if nothing else. Our tax system as it is now is so out of kilter as to being fair that there is no way to fix it as it is in my opinion anyway

[AlGore-08.com]

15. Here's an overview of his plan

http://fypower.org/news/?p=1017

It doesn't say so in this write up, but part of point #1 is an aggressive switch to renewable power.

[ThomWV]

5. It would be far to narrow of a tax base (and Grover's wet dream too).

No tax on capital.

[DangerDave921]

14. Um

If you haven't really thought about it and have no idea how it would work, how can you form the opinion that you like the idea?

[madokie]

16. only on its surface do I

armed with the knowledge that what we have now isn't fair or equitable

[porphyrian]

17. It would be nice to finally make corporations responsible for their own pollution...

...as long as they can't get out of paying the carbon tax, anyway.

[TahitiNut]

18. We must stop treating taxes as a PENALTY or FINE.

Taxes are how we share the cost of SELF-GOVERNANCE and this repeated pretense that a tax is some kind of "penalty" plays right into the right-wing memes of "penalizing the rich" and "death tax." Fucking nonsense!

[LeftCoast]

20. Taxes fund the government, but they also strongly effect social policy

The type of tax, how much and what is taxed are all variables which will provide incentives or disincentives to particular behaviors.

[The2ndWheel]

21. "Taxes are how we share the cost of SELF-GOVERNANCE"

I'd say taxes are how we share the cost of increasing the distance of governance. We pay for our own disenfranchisement.

[LeftCoast]

19. From what I've heard of it, it sounds like a very good idea

There would be massive shock as things like gasoline and heating oil went way up while income taxes would become zero though. Potentially, it could be quite progressive. Think of this as a tax on your carbon footprint. The incredibly wealthy often have huge carbon footprints. Lear Jets, 30,000 sq foot mansions, motor boats, RV's...all these things would pay heavy taxes unless they could be made far more efficient.

I can't picture us every instituting this tax in the US though. Not exclusively anyway. Too many powerful people here want their 30ksq foot mansions.