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

[skookerasbil]

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.

Helana.......these people are mental cases. They think pumping 80 billion a month from the FED is sound fiscal policy.

Make it a point to read Paul Krugman in the NY Times. He's a big time Keynesian guy.....and really believes it is the economic model of prosperity for all.( operative phrase is "for all"). The guy is NEVER right on anything. Important to read him to know how hopeless the world view is of all of these AGW fascist k00ks.

 

[bedowin62]

carbon is the basic building block of all life on Earth

who is surprised the maniacally-greedy Left wants to tax it?


idiots and hypocrites

 

[Crick]

I was hoping the government would start taxing you for the carbon you've wasted with that simulacrum of a brain. ;-)

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

Hey moron we have to pay them to form their committees and take bribes from lobbyists.

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.

If it doesn't fund it's own expenses then it's not revenue neutral is it?

 

[editec]

Done FAIRLY I would not object to this plan.

But it is already unfair at inception.

Example...the amount of carbon players will be allowed to use depends on how much they use now.

What does that mean?


That means that the least efficient industries extant will be given indulgences for having been pollutors.

Does that really make sense?

I don't think so.

 

[Crick]

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?

Hey moron we have to pay them to form their committees and take bribes from lobbyists.

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.

If it doesn't fund it's own expenses then it's not revenue neutral is it?

Is it that you have no interest in actually discussing this topic or no ability?

 

[Crick]

Done FAIRLY I would not object to this plan.

But it is already unfair at inception.

Example...the amount of carbon players will be allowed to use depends on how much they use now.

What does that mean?


That means that the least efficient industries extant will be given indulgences for having been pollutors.

Does that really make sense?

I don't think so.

I think the idea is to avoid driving them out of business the first night the plan goes into effect.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

Hey moron we have to pay them to form their committees and take bribes from lobbyists.

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.

If it doesn't fund it's own expenses then it's not revenue neutral is it?

Is it that you have no interest in actually discussing this topic or no ability?

It's that a revenue neutral tax does not exist and what's more will never exist because that is not the way government operates.

Any tax will even one that says it will "give back" 100% of the money collected will cost us more than if we didn't implement that tax.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Taxes do fund jobs but it's a mistake to say it's a revenue generator, that's impossible. If you tax the private sector to pay a public employee $50,000 a year, for example, his taxes won't cover the salary, especially when you account for the pension, medical, etc. benefits.

Revenue neutral would mean something costs exactly what it collects, another impossibility since everyone involved collects a salary. And the only way they will be environmentally neutral is when they are dead.

 

[Crick]

Were you under the impression that the government will hire one tax collector for every single taxpayer?

 

[Iceweasel]

Were you under the impression that the government will hire one tax collector for every single taxpayer?

Is that what I said? The point was that no matter how many are taxed to pay for the government job it isn't a boost to the economy. Public jobs are an expense. We do need government jobs but the idea that hiring folks to give them good jobs is somehow an economic boost is wrong.

 

[sameech]

Just because you spend whatever you take in does not make it revenue neutral; and

There is no practical way to allocate it to energy costs because energy is the US is largely never state-owned; and

This would be be the same sort of fiasco that happened with the "soil banks". We paid farmers not to grow and then end result was that rich people bought up a whole bunch of land they had no intention of farming just to get the check for not farming it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Nope.

I do admit we need to seal the border and evict millions of illegals.

If you want to support that, because it will also reduce emissions, feel free.

 

[HenryBHough]

I do admit we need to seal the border and evict millions of illegals.

If you want to support that, because it will also reduce emissions, feel free.

Much would depend upon what The Obama Regime is feeding them for free.......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

We do not.

We have a gasoline tax that pays for bike paths in Virginia and high speed rail boondoggles that will go nowhere because they are dependent on obsolete technology. If you knew half as much as you think you do you would know that the gasoline tax hasn't been used for its intended purpose for decades, which probably explains why you think taxes are free market innovations.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Done FAIRLY I would not object to this plan.

But it is already unfair at inception.

Example...the amount of carbon players will be allowed to use depends on how much they use now.

What does that mean?


That means that the least efficient industries extant will be given indulgences for having been pollutors.

Does that really make sense?

I don't think so.

I read a proposal once where the government would set carbon limits on a per capita basis, and issue carbon use certificates to individuals. Those individuals would then buy their carbon emissions using the certificates, and would be free to sell any carbon points they don't use to the highest bidder, or simply hoard them because they think it is good for the environment. That sounds like a plan I might be able to support, if the details were fleshed out properly. Poor people who use less carbon would be able to actually earn some money, and Al Gore would be forced to live the life he wants to force on everyone else who is not Al Gore.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Were you under the impression that the government will hire one tax collector for every single taxpayer?

Were you under the impression that you can make witty comebacks?

 

[Crick]

Were you under the impression that the government will hire one tax collector for every single taxpayer?

Is that what I said? The point was that no matter how many are taxed to pay for the government job it isn't a boost to the economy. Public jobs are an expense. We do need government jobs but the idea that hiring folks to give them good jobs is somehow an economic boost is wrong.

The idea is that a revenue neutral carbon tax will:

1) Encourage companies and individuals to reduce their CO2 emissions
2) Help individuals pay for the increased cost of low carbon energy and transportation

It is not intended to be a boost for the economy. The administration necessary to operate such a tax is not overwhelming.

 

[Crick]

Were you under the impression that the government will hire one tax collector for every single taxpayer?

Were you under the impression that you can make witty comebacks?

This comment was not addressed to you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Were you under the impression that the government will hire one tax collector for every single taxpayer?

Were you under the impression that you can make witty comebacks?

This comment was not addressed to you.

Were you under the impression that that makes a difference to your level of stupidity?