What is Digg?52 Comments
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22I bristle at the idea of new taxes. The government has shown to be wasteful, and can't even account for what they take now. The idea that it would somehow decrease taxes in the long run is a joke. The government will get dependent on the new tax and and if it does change people's behavior then they will just have to find a way to replace it with another new tax when the revenue goes down. The article even halfway admits it's a problem, but somehow the author thinks congress is competent enough to make it work.
- Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Missouri enacted a law in the 90s where any new taxes require a majority of the CITIZENS approval. It's been quite effective and has forced the state to control t's spending. It's annoyed the legislators a lot too, which is fine by me. :) An increased cigarette tax has even been voted down twice now, and they're trying yet again. (taxes on the poor are frowned upon, even tho it's a red state)
- RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Not to mention the gigantic new government beaurocracy that will be neccesary to determine the taxation of each CO2 producing activity and then enforce the taxes. Then there will be the related blizzard of auditors, lawyers, CPAs, forms, deadlines, red tape, etc that businesses and individuals will have to deal with, draining yet more life out of our society. The environmental movement has lost its ***** mind if they think all this is a reasonable solution to a problem that relies heavily on assumptions and computer models.
- rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12There is already a tax on carbon and taxing it more would not do anything to "save the planet". Let the marketplace set the price of carbon and it will control consumption. Secondly, anyone that believes that politicians would create a zero sum tax has to be smoking something illegal. Politicians only want more of your money and will confiscate it any way they can.
- egbert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9That right, it does not hurt big business. The extra cost for shipping will be passed right back to the consumer. So you will end up paying more for food because it cost more for the farmer to harvest it and ship it. All consumer products would go up in price because of shipping. Airline ticket prices would rise. So you would be taxed twice... once for your carbon emissions and again paying the extra cost for products.
- TidalTrader2005, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Anytime you hear the words "Create a new tax"---don't walk, run. Taxes do nothing more than transfer money that could be utilized effeciently by the consumer and the marketplace TO an entity known almost solely for its inability to do ANYTHING effeciently.
There are far better ways to encourage effecient energy use than by giving the government another angle into our pocketbooks! - elephantdog, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14***** taxes, I'm taxed enough. You have extra money and want me to burn clean fuel, pay me!
- dfratz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I live in Canada in the province of Quebec. Just as a little background, Quebec is probably the most liberal place in Canada if not North America and as such the government has a very socialist/interventionist slant. In any case, they have just decided to implement a carbon tax on the big oil companies. The result? The big oil companies will pass the tax on in the form of increased gas prices. Just food for thought.
A better idea would be to give tax and other types of incentives to encourage companies to make their operations more environmentally sound. - VorpalK, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Tarzan:
What part of ***** TAXES don't you get? - JimNtexas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Companies don't pay taxes. Taxes are just another cost passed to the consumer.
When you tax something, you get less of it, so this tax would discourage energy use. It would put GM under, maybe Ford also.
Any offset from the payroll or income tax would be quickly gone, especially if the tax loving Democrats came to power. These higher taxes would further depress the economy, resulting in less tax income to the government from all sources.
It's not well understood here on Digg, but the fact is that as result of the Bush tax cuts income to the government from taxes is way up, in fact government income is at an all time high. This is why the deficit is falling fast and why if the government just doesn't touch the tax system we will have a surplus in just a few years, even if the war in Iraq continues.
Lower taxes means more income to the government, because taxes discourage investment and commerce. Just ask yourself how much income the government would get if it just taxed 100% of income, as they do in North Korea. Compare that with Hong Kong where prior to the reversion to China they had no income or capital gains taxes, yet their government was rich. Read Milton Freedman for more information. - Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5how about we just tell people who can work but dont want to, to start working or they wont get wont get a dime of taxpayer money
- MarkStrube, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Yeah, since "conservatives" have done so much for making gov't smaller, which would inherantly decrease taxes. These days it's a lot more complicated, and the problem is a lot bigger than simply "liberal" or "conservative"... these terms don't mean much anymore when the only real difference between the parties is the method in which they choose to grow gov't.
- VorpalK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Here's a better idea:
Keep your ***** hand out of my wallet.
That is all. - Glidedon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If you want artificial energy shortages this is the way to go.
- RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Setting something as important as tax policy on computer models looking 50 to 100 years into the future is irresponsible and stupid. Who knows what knew technologies will be invented in that time frame that might eliminate CO2 emmissions entirely.
- eonblue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4/agreed
Money is power and power is corruption. Our government is corrupt enough, we don't need to give it more fuel.
More money doesn't mean a better outcome. Inefficiency should be a crime, especially with taxpayer money. - freddo411, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It would be foolish to taxes forms of energy that may emit carbon dioxide when energy production is highly associated with health, wealth and productivity. Climate variability is not something that needs to be "solved", nor is the alleged global warming proven to be human caused.
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I don't know about other states, but in NC, there is a gas tax here that is a percentage of price. That's right, every time the gas station owner raises the prices, the state gets an increasing share of revenue. In these days of high gas prices, talk about adding insult to injury.
Regardless, taxes on fuel consumption have a negative ripple effect on the economy that nobody wants. Think about it. Everything in your house, everything you own, was delivered on a truck. Artificially inflating the price of gas would be a huge drag on the economy. - Ragnar0k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5This already exists, it's called emission trading, and the pollution units of currency are known as "carbon credits".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credits
The problem with this seemingly ingenious idea is that it doesn't hurt big business (or alas, it would never get passed in the first place, now would it?) as well as a long dispute about the ability to measure carbon output accurately.
It's a messy system, killed by a bureaucracy, like most ideas implemented by the government.
``Ragnarok - hoppdawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Fair tax is a great idea. Do you think the US could ever implement it though?
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No one ever said the free market works perfectly. But, it is the best system we have have. How successful has communism or socialism been?
- hoppdawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We need nuclear power plants built across America to power the separation of hydrogen from oxygen and when that happens, we will have a hydrogen economy that will end pollution and reliance on foreign sources to supply $75/barrel oil. Period.
This is the US's only long term option.
As much as I do not favor the French, as of 2005, 78% of all of France's billed electrical energy was generated by 58 nuclear reactors, the highest share in the world. France closed its last coal mine in April, 2004, and currently relies on fossil energy for less than 10% of its electricity production.
Building up our nuclear generation capabilities will help the US to stop flooding the middle east with money and stop flooding the atmosphere with CO2. - VorpalK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That would presume the capability to think of issues like this rationally, rather than in terms of what "that neato prof in junior college taught me. He didn't dock my scores when I skipped half of the classes to smoke dope and protest ***** I didn't really understand so he's KEEN" told them.
- MarkStrube, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There were plenty of non-smoking restaurants before the ban. And just so you realize... a restaurant or bar is not a "public place." It is private property where the public is allowed to enter, in most cases provided they make a purchase. At some point the government will make a law that you don't like which violates private property rights... so please don't support this, as it's just a step towards that violation.
- saska, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Brilliant. Tax energy, the one thing everyone consumes, and place the highest burden on the historically cheapest sources, thus taxing the poorest segment of the population at the highest rate.
Funny, that sounds like a Republican plan. - Anth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1After 10 or so years your income taxes will just go right back up to what the were before. Why? Because this will just push people a little more to be efficient wrt carbon emissions.
We have this problem in our state - the tobacco settlement for the states is based on how the sales are of tobacco products. If your rate of tobacco sales goes down, then the amount you get from the settlement goes down. So as the number of smokers decreases, the income from that goes down. Our state decided to fund a scholarship fund for high school students to send them to college - and now the program is starting to run out of money because so many people are quitting smoking. - samnmax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Charlotte: I agree that taxes that artificially increase the price of something aren't well advised, but gas taxes are meant to address two things:
1) Road construction
2) Cost of pollution
Lets assume there were no gas taxes. These costs have to be paid in some manner. Either road construction is coming from other taxes, or it's not happening and the roads are going into disrepair, making it more expensive to drive. With pollution, either it's being cleaned up, or it's being left in the air, adversely affecting everyones health.
So, with no gas taxes, who pays for that? Everyone! Whether it be through tax dollars or otherwise, those who may not be responsible for these costs ends up paying them. This is known as a 'negative externality', which is well understood flaw of laissez-faire economics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality)
The solution? Make the people causing the pollution and using the road pay for it. Gas taxes are pretty good way of accomplishing this. Unfortunately, it's hard to be perfect, as some types of vehicles may cause more damage to roads than others per gallon, and some people may not be using the gas for road use at all, but it's a lot better than nothing.
What the article is essentially suggesting is nothing actually new or special. Obviously how it's administrated by the government will be a big issue as to how well it works. The costs of a poorly implemented system could override the benefits. Perhaps limiting that money to only go to uses such as environmental cleanup might make sense, but I'm not sure it's so bad for money to go elsewhere as well. A society might decide they are willing to deal with air that's somewhat polluted if they can pay for other things, or lower other taxes. - crash331, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3All taxes suck. Buried,
- obsequies7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Charles Wheelan's idea sounds profoundly keynesian, if not socialist, IMO.
The simplest way to embrace green technology, is to buy green products and invest in green companies and give to green charities. if others embrace these ideas, you'll profit as well. it's a voluntary action. unlike another coercive tax. - dragonopolis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Great! Let us raise the amount we pay for electricity and other forms of energy. I already think we pay way to much as it is (your a fool if you think gas prices don't affect electricity prices). Government is so willing to spend millions of dollar on WAR but helping the American people by spending millions on changing its dependence on oil and fix other economical problems is out of the question. Personally, I think we should go to an overall federal sales tax rather than targeting specific products. That way, people who purchase products in this country would be contributing regardless if they are a citizen or not (this would take care of the idea that illegal immigrants hurt the economy because they are not tax paying citizens) and a little more fair tax wise. Also, People who are poor tend not to buy as much because they have less surplus money than someone who has more money to spend. This, in a sense, is like a tax break for the poor because by not able to buy products they are also not paying taxes and somebody with more money is paying more taxes because they are spending more. Poverty stricten people could be given a tax exempt card to further aid those in need.
I swear one of the many reasons we went to war against Great Britian and gained are independence was for crappy taxation practices. Our ancestors didn't like specific or targeted taxation (Boston Tea party over Taxes on Tea, Whisky Rebellion because of Taxation on Whisky Stills - I hope you get the point I could go on) and if you notice they picked up their weapons and did something about. I feel we don't need resort to that level of persuasion, however, in today's America, we just bend over a take it in the ........ well you know what I mean.
What has happen is there seems to be enough American people brainwashed by our government in to thinking that this old school of thought taxation method is the only way to solve our usage problems which is wrong. This style of taxation does reduce usage but creates a negative reaction among the populace. Also as usage goes down, so does the amount of money generated by the taxes and thus the organizations that relied on this money either convince the Government into raising Taxes to compensate or siphon money from elsewhere thus affecting others areas not directly related to the problem the tax was initially trying to solve in the first place. This type of taxation punishes people for their choices that they freely have a right to do such as smoking or don't have a choice because it is a necessity such as no other fuel Alternatives we have to use oil or using a gas powered vehicle but having other economical solution for instance ( which, by the way, is our only choice of travel for the most part in the U.S. Most of the Country is not as blessed as New York City with all the available choices of transportation within a city).
I personally don't digg it. - MarkStrube, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This won't reduce taxes, it will just consolidate them, and create another beurocracy. You have far too much faith in the ability of your legislators to make taxes "fair." Since when have any taxes been fair? Fight the good fight to REDUCE or GET RID of taxes completely, not just changing the way in which our money is stolen from us.
- maskott, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I'd rather reform taxes to only 1 point of overall taxation. Something along the lines of the FairTax (HR 25).
www.fairtax.org - Langford, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The concept is interesting, but we would need to aware of the fact that not all energy related pollution is carbon based.
- krispykremlin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Not that I agree with the article, but a free market doesn't always work right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality (Yeah, it's theory, but so is saying that the free market will regulate a good properly.)
- mrkotter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0not freedman! The man who said, "inflation is a monetary phenomon."
Look how that turned out. - dfratz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What we need is a Manhattan Project where the government will encourage the development and deployment of alternative energy sources. It amazes me that we as a species have done so much in terms of innovation, yet we still burn fossil fuels for power. Its time for a change and sadly the government is the only way it will happen. This means we need politicians with the courage to act.
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wow, a surplus in a few years. Hmmm, Clinton had a few years of surpluses.
http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm - mrkotter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0so a new tv is efficient?
- krispykremlin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I'm not arguing against capitalism, but simply pointing out that even the free market doesn't always properly regulate a good when externalities are involved. Textbook examples include pollution and drugs. It's a core part of the same theory that backs up anyone who makes the claim that we should leave regulation to the free market.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1steps to more money
1. get rid of the illegal imigrants or require II parents of legal children to get a citizenship
2. put watch towers by the fenses
3. get rid of programs we dont need
and that is all - mrkotter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0how about a land tax?
- Tyr7BE, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"The big oil companies will pass the tax on in the form of increased gas prices."
One side effect of this would be people switching to alternative sources of energy in droves, forcing the gas company to clean up. It's not _all_ bad. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4what part of revenue neutral dont you get?
- dragonopolis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I also wanted to add that it wasn't taxation that Lowered the Amount of smokers in America but education. This is what I mean by Brainwashed. If it wasn't for education about the effects of smoking people would still be smoking in Great Numbers today and I would have to suffer while I enjoy my meal at restaurants as there would be no ban on smoking in enclosed public places (I'm allergic to certain chemicals used in Cigarettes). Another no digg for the article.
- spott, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I don't think you read the whole article. This isn't a single tax, its a tax package. The average person (someone who uses an average amount of energy) will be taxed for that energy, but they will also receive a tax break in other areas aproximately equal to the amount they are taxed (payroll, income, etc). This means that the average person has no net increase or decrease in their taxes. Those who use more than the average persons energy will have a net increase in their taxes (more energy tax, same income tax break), and those who use less energy will get a net decrease in their taxes (less energy tax, same income tax break).
All this does is reward people for using less energy, wich is a good thing. Its not raising taxes, its not lowering them, and our skies will thank us.
I hope someone picks up on this and pushes it. - uttles, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9Ah, good ol liberals. Their solution to everything is simply "raise taxes"
- scott1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1BOTH Consertives and Liberls want to raise taxes so they can keep there paycheck $165,000 a year(+ all those bribes form lobbyist who might be trying to raise the tax on avearge citizens so they can pay less taxes)
- Splicer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Isn't this exactly what the Kyoto Protocol was supposed to do?
- MarkStrube, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Steps to more money:
1. get rid of the illegal Iraq war, and the illegal military bases we have in 100's of countries
2. get rid of all illegal gov't agencies (CIA, FBI, DEA, FDA, FCC, etc etc)
3. get rid of all gov't socialist programs (health care, welfare etc)
4. open the borders, since now it doesn't matter... they can no longer leech off the system, and the "threat" of terrorists crossing the borders is down (even though they can cross now anyways)
Then all they can do is add to the economy (there's no such thing as "stealing jobs," learn some basic economics... the only time that happens is due to increasing the "minimum wage" which just costs employers more, causes them to fire people, drives the cost of products up, and levels people who have worked for years for higher wages with new employees - and this all is ultimately causing inflation, so it ends up helping nobody.)
You'll never have "more money" by simply "getting rid" of illegal immigrants... it can never happen, the gov't is incompetent at everything it does. All we need is step #3 from your list, and it will make your steps 1 and 2 unnecessary wastes of money. - daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Liberals want to raise taxes on everyone.
GOPers want to raise taxes on their kids and grandkids only. -
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is