Comments on: One way to help the national debt: a carbon tax

By: gAnton

gAnton — Tue, 03 May 2011 03:48:56 +0000

According to the Genevan convention, hunting down and assassinating a named individual is a war crime. What you sow, thereof shall you reap . And “burying” his body at sea is not going too help much, but I guess when you murder someone, his body is your property and you can do what you want with it.

So Obama thinks that the world “will be a better place without Osama bin Laden”. I hope that I am not on Obama’s “the world will be a better place without” list of names. Also there are many people in this world who hold the same opinion about Obama (I happen to be one of them, but I’m not in favor of murdering anyone).

I’ve read tons of information about 9/11, but I’ve never heard a word about why they did it–what was their motivation? My fellow Americans and I have no real idea of what’s going on.

Sure, too many innocent Americans were killed in 9/11, but many innocent Afghan and Pakistan woman, children, and babies have been killed by US guided drone bombardment. I remember that a bridal group of about 50 woman were going down the road when the group was hit by a drone that killed over 30 (including the bride); but the bombings continued and who cares about the consequences, right? The numbers are suppressed, but I’ve never heard the phrase “collateral damaged” used in a 9/11 context. I think that the number of innocent killed in Pakistan and Afghanistan far exceeds that 0f 9/11, but that’s just my opinion–I really don’t know.

By: DanToronto

DanToronto — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:35:44 +0000

Some of the commentators to Mr. Easterbrook’s column obviously do not like taxes. However, while Mr. Easterbrook wrote about a carbon “tax”, the point he was making, that is, putting a price on carbon pollution, does not necessarily require a traditional tax (where the money collected goes to the government). One alternative is a carbon fee and dividend program. A levy is applied to carbon pollution (the fee portion of the program). The funds collected do not go to the government. Instead, they are distributed to the general population (the dividend portion of the program). If the distributions are paid out equally on a per capita basis, then those who pollute more end up as overall losers, while those who pollute less end up a overall winners (financially that is). This is but one alternative, and there are others. For those who do not like taxes, this is a reasonable alternative for pricing carbon pollution.

By: nadie

nadie — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:53:35 +0000

I agree totally that a greenhouse gas tax is the only way to go. Other solutions increase burocracy and the already huge target area for Congressional “deals” for industry. However, it should not be used as a major cash-generation scheme for Uncle Sam. Any greenhouse tax must be offset by income tax breaks for low-to-moderate earners. Otherwise, it would be horribly regressive. Such a tax will inevitably increase the price of EVERYTHING as fuel and energy costs are passed on to consumers. (That’ll be offset over time as innovation palliates the effect, but that will probably take at least a decade.)

By: CharlesHigley

CharlesHigley — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 02:46:32 +0000

Just because you can tax something does not mean that you should.

In this case, there is no legitimate case for taxing carbon as CO2 is a benefit, as plant food, and thermodynamically leads to little bit of cooling. It is only the EPA, backed by the fallacious reports by the IPCC, that claims the need and the ability to control CO2. This is nothing but a power grab by a rogue government agency. They would literally control our economy. This was not what they were set up for.

The EPA exists at the will of Congress and will eventually be castrated by Congress.

It is also unethical and illegal to tax something to generate funds to fund something totally unrelated. The inability of the government to do this keeps them from just plain taxing anything they want. They have to present a rational case for taxing something before it can be made into law. AND, thus, the government has to reign in spending rather than simply creating new revenue streams to cover their profligate spending.

By: TownDrunk

TownDrunk — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 23:34:40 +0000

Agree w/ Gregg on this. We are using the same fossil fuel technology that we used 100 years ago. A carbon tax creates an incentive to move to cleaner fuel sources. if we don’t do make the change, some other country will. i don’t like lagging behind India and China. as for taxes, GE just paid no taxes on 14 billion in profits. we raised taxes on high earners in the mid 90s and the economy took off. the idea that reforming the tax code for high earning corporations and restoring the income tax rates to pre-2001 levels would restrict growth is just false. by the way, we were promised that employers would start hiring again if the tax cuts were extended last November. unemployment is still just under 9 percent. progress is incremental, right?

By: mheld45

mheld45 — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 22:26:30 +0000

@BCCritic: “Each new dollar created also generates a dollar of debt”?? I don’t think so. The Fed is monetary authority. It “prints” money by adding zeros to each bank’s account at the Fed. In other words, it “creates” money just by saying so, nothing more. It’s not like we have to borrow money from the Chinese in order to put liquidity into the system. We could get out of debt tomorrow by simply “creating” (electronically by adding zeros) as much money as is needed. Of course, that would make the currency worthless, but it would not incure any new debt, as you claim.

By: Acetracy

Acetracy — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:14:06 +0000

Gasoline tax is already in place and is the best carbon tax there is. However, slapping on another tax that will just be paid by the US consumer is stupid. Already the US middle class is paying out nearly over 50% of their income in taxes (Fed, state, local, sales, real estate, etc.).

What we need is a wealth tax of 2% on all net worths over $10 million. That would balance the budget very quickly and rectify the stupid tax give aways started by Reagan and continued by Bush2 and Obama.

By: mheld45

mheld45 — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 03:49:27 +0000

Well, I’m not quite as eloquent as Mr. Crimsondrac, but the sentiment is correct. Easterbrook, if you’re in favor of a carbon tax, fine, make the case, but don’t claim it’s going to help the nat’l debt. Taxes restrict growth. There is only a finite amount of capital in the economy and when the gov’t hogs more than necessary, the private sector has LESS, period. A smaller economic base produces less revenue for the gov’t to confiscate, and so forth. Higher taxes are the start of a death spiral. Chopping down gov’t debt must be done through lower spending coupled with economic growth in the private sector, which in turn depends on the availability of capital… get it? Obviously not.

By: jeff81201

jeff81201 — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:56:48 +0000

Yes, yes a thousand times yes. A carbon tax would be so good on so many different levels. Cut greenhouse gases, pay off debt, encourage efficiency, spur alternative energy development.

Tax carbon, not income.

By: CTF

CTF — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:06:48 +0000

I agree that EPA regulation is not the best case scenario, but we still must do something to stem the tide of global climate change and we must do it now. It’s time to stop putting political expediency ahead of good public policy and take a look at the alternatives to a fundamentally-flawed cap and trade system and to EPA regulation. A revenue-neutral carbon tax not only avoids the evasion and market manipulation of cap and trade, it would reduce emissions, incentivize “green” R&D AND return the revenue to families already struggling under the weight of the current economic downturn. It’s a win for the economy and for the environment.