What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
139 Comments
- yugandhar, on 10/12/2007, -8/+53makes sense to me!! anyone thiks this doesnt make sense?
- peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+36Makes sense to me too, I think that's the problem with the proposition. It makes sense, American citizens benefit from it, not just a few companies or a small segment of the population....and it's probably going to be very popular amongst voters....which means it probably won't ever happen.
Am I a cynic? Am I a pessimist? There's a Kazakh proverb I recently heard.
A pessimist is a well informed optimist. - Obvioustroll, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27Great holy havoc! A democrat just proposed replacing Social Security taxes with a consumption tax?!?
But I thought Social Security didn't need reform? - isthisnametaken, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18How about just get rid of payroll taxes in general?
Then he'd get my vote. - longboarder543, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20So because I live in a big city and commute a long way to work, (80 miles round trip), now I get raped by big oil and the government. Sounds good to me.
- Sentrosi, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20LMAO haha....yeah...I thought Social Security was the "perfect system". Read the comments on that site, someone actually said that "payroll taxes are just another right-wing method of forcing tax burden on the poor". A stupider thing I have never heard.
- Drewboy64, on 10/12/2007, -17/+30At least Gore is doing something about it. Better than our president. Gore's movie about global warming, really depicts what is really going on, and how we really need to get our act straight before to much harm has been done (not to sound like a hippie lol).
- inkyblue2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15@longboarder
yep, that's precisely the point. a nation willing to endure 80 mile commutes is a nation that uses a ***** of gas and emits a lot of CO2. taxing that would be an incentive to go find a closer job. fortunately, that closer job will pay better under the new system than it would have under the old system because of the lack of payroll taxes. win/win situation!
in theory, anyway. the amount of havoc this would wreak on the economy is beyond my meager ability to fathom. imagine-- companies see their business models go upside down overnight, $25 worth of books from amazon.com suddenly cost $200 to ship to your house, heating costs shoot off the charts, new englanders forget what california fruit even tastes like. even if these changes are phased in over 10 years, they'll still rock every boat in the water, and sink more than a few.
i'm all for a pollution tax. i'm all for a *substantial* pollution tax. i think ramping up a pollution tax over the next, say, five years, seeing what effects it has, and *then* talking about how it fits into the nation's revenue picture is the way to go. complete replacement of the payroll tax is at least economically dangerous, and more likely insane. it's not like 100% of the nation's expenses scale with the amount of pollution we produce, so why structure taxation as if they did? the present system undervalues pollution as an externality, yes, but that is not an argument for going hog wild and substantially overvaluing it. - petenicely, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23Al Gore is our Huey Long.
The Dems are going to have to ride his ideas to win back Congress. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22sounds like a plan to me.. no income tax in texas.. then no national income tax.. i'll sell my house, and no longer pay property tax.. and i won't buy anything ever..
now i only have to get around the whole dying thing.. - e68895f, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16remember what happened to Huey Long ??
- seanmac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11---After reading comments furthur down I'm not so sure of this. Someone who is familiar with Gore's proposal should clarify, please -----
As I understand it, the article seems to refer to payroll taxes (employers have to match what employees pay for social security, medicare, etc.) not income tax. So you'd pay the same amount of taxes. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18Screw Gore. He's messing up my plan to buy cheap real-estate in Antarctica. It's a buyers market down there now, but in 50 years? Oooh boy
- awfulshot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10its CO2 not C02 (zero)
- Obvioustroll, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@seanmac:
Dude - either you aren't old enough to work, or you don't live in America.
In America, there are many different kinds of taxes. Local taxes. Property taxes. "Work Privelege" taxes.
Payroll taxes are assessed against both employees and employers. At the federal level, there are two. One tax is used to fund Social Security, and one is used to fund Medicare. Both are flat taxes, and both tax you at about 5% of your pay. No deductions, no withholding, no variable rate.
To make it even better, the government then turns around and charges your *employer* the same amount.
In other words, these two taxes take 20% off the top of what your pay would be, if your employer gave it to you instead of having to give it to the government. - trejrco, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17Forget the CO2 talk, just think FairTax ... /TJ
- omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16"Now I'm going to fly around in my personal jet that emits more C02..."
Apparently you've never heard of carbon offsets. - kingyubba, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9um, Republicans expanding the powers of the goverment is a reversal...
what happened to smaller government? - ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Who's Rush? Like the band?
And while it's not techinically renewable, spent fuel can be reused, and it also produces less radioactive waste than coal and no CO2. - lumnar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Excellent idea. If we don't end up baking ourselves alive, the solution will be something like this. People who think this is unfair or would hurt the economy forget that environmental damage ends up costing someone eventually. It's just a matter of who. So really nothing is saved by not shifting the burden onto corporations. In fact, by encouraging corps to be more efficient, the overall economy benefits because of less waste (i.e. increased productivity per dollar).
The only argument against this, is an an argument for the status quo. That the current economy and the current people who are made rich by it are best served by keeping things more or less the same. - clashbomb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12bang?
- e68895f, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11"Since we all emit........does that mean we all get taxed too??? "
only if you sell that CO2 in plastic bags.... - biffsputnik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@irregardless
From TFA: "For the last fourteen years, I have advocated the elimination of all payroll taxes — including those for social security and unemployment compensation — and the replacement of that revenue in the form of pollution taxes — principally on CO2." - FIGJAM, on 10/12/2007, -13/+19Gore wants to eliminate payroll taxes in favor of a tax on CO2 emissions....Since we all emit CO2 as a by product of respiration, does that mean we all get taxed too????
/Scarcasm off - ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9What happens when we start using nuclear power and other renewable power more and eventually tax income goes down so low that we cant pay for all the entitlement programs like social security, medicare, wellfare......
...
...
I AM ALL FOR THIS! - fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Yes, cut the payroll tax. You want to boost the economy? Put more money directly in the hands of a large number of people on a weekly/biweekly/monthly basis. I been saying this since Bush first proposed tax cuts.
- aamer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@plarp:
While I agree with Al Gore's plan, I don't think he's calling for an end to Federal Income Tax. I think he is just calling for an end to other payroll taxes. So you would probably still have to pay income tax. Then again, I may not understand what his plan is :-) - gwalbridge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7He has openly said that he will not be running for president. I know that politicians lie out of their teeth every second of every day, but I'm sure he knows that he would lose a lot of votes for his aggressive views on emissions and "green" power. It simply wouldn't be worth it.
- gwalbridge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Cynicism for the win.
- lumnar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8RTFA. He's not arguing for a change in tax rate, but a shift in tax burden.
- washingtonydc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5care to elaborate on junk science?
- loudnobnoxious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Corporations pay "Corporate Tax" now but the problem is that they don't pay it. They pass it off to you already included in the price of the item. No one is suffering because big business has lobbyist to fiddle with the system. We are suffering because of this system that includes the IRS and any and every tax you can think of.
- omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"'payroll taxes are just another right-wing method of forcing tax burden on the poor.' A stupider thing I have never heard."
But here's one way it's true: there's a cap on the payroll tax, so the burden of taxation is higher on the poor and middle class than it is on the wealthy. One solution to the Social Security "crisis" is to remove this cap, but Republicans would never hear of it (they wouldn't even raise the minimum wage without getting rid of the estate tax). - nokla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm getting tired of Gore's CO2 emissions.
- stan205, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think that's the point. Those that work get taxed through payroll anyways so it's a replacement.
- andreatwork, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9peritonlogon:
Yeah, he's working hard, alright. That's why he's not entering the Kyoto protocol! No... wait... - CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@omaryak. There IS a cap on SSI but not on Income Tax. In fact, the Income tax is "progressive", which means that the more you make, the higher your rate is.
http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=150856,00.html - Veretax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4heh I knew Gore had gone nutball on us, but goodness. This kind of tax scheme gives no incentive toward actually conserving fuel, and it gives no incentive to discourage folks from commuting. Like it or not peopl ehave those 80 mile commutes because of where companies have built themselves. Its the corporations at fault not the people. Typical liberal, it isn't the government's fault its the people ha ha ha. I'm going to laugh about this for some time.
- newezra, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Best point yet. So Gore is proposing that we fund government services by relying on the release of CO2 into the atmosphere so that it can be taxed?
What's wrong with this picture?
**exhales a big breath and sends $0.01 to the government** - HoldenMyOwn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7How does the "lockbox" fit into this equation? ;)
I'm a die-hard Republican, but if this means paying less taxes, I'm in.
Dems cutting taxes is quite a reversal. - sibhod, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8But apparently you woke up fresh, and ready to troll.
Freezing CO2 emissions is part of the solution. - ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I have to agree. This is an actual plan that is outside the box, whether it's a good idea or not, at least it's finally something thats been put out there.
- sibhod, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@ViperDiamao
A freeze means no increases in CO2 emisisons, not a sudden stopping of anything producing CO2. The problem is pollution regulations are continually loosened, yet disguised as a 'Clean Air Act' or whatever. Gore just wants us to, at the very least, stop the increase of CO2. Then from there we can work on actual reductions. - Zensal, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I'm a UPS worker and my job would disappear. Not only that, but I couldn't get to work anymore. Some of you are lucky and live somewhere where there is a great public transportation system. Then there are people like me who have almost non-existent public transportation in a large city. I have no other means of getting to work.
I don't think he realizes what this would do to the economy. Our nation was built on the principal that we are big, open and don't mind moving around. The cost of shipping/commuting/breathing would skyrocket.
Instead of making my life worse, why don't we just put a smaller tax on pollution and then use that money to research alternate means of getting energy. No one else is going to fund it. Oh, wait. Big oil is buying the government. Never mind. - BrewmasterC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Interesting proposal.
Effects:
1.Make US taxpayers spend billions re-figuring their finances to cope with the new law, but there would be savings not having to compute payroll tax.
2. Make employers shift their energy needs to "CO2 neutral" sources (bio/wind/nuclear).
3a. Make human labor in some areas cheaper than machine labor, which might in turn lower unemployment, but also make the economy less efficient in the near term.
3b. Supercharge the service sector and take a whack at the manufacturing sector. Now even more US goods will be produced abroad. This would probably raise the trade deficit even higher on all manufactured goods, but for some service areas (like call centers) these jobs might come back to the US.
3c. Non-manufacturing stocks would shoot up like a rocket, manufacturing stocks would tank.
IMHO tax policy should aim at being sector-neutral so we can reap market benefits and only skim enough to stave off inflation/deflation. Shifting some environmental costs from enforcement to taxation might be more efficient, but doing it at this scale could be harmful.
Currently most US taxes fall into the areas of property, wages, capital gain, and transaction based. Property is very cheap to figure, but isn't dynamic. Wage taxes are assessed only to working class citizens. Capital gain taxes only hit larger transactions. Transaction based taxes are highly dynamic, but have the sometimes nasty effect of artificially "eliminating the middle man" because the tax compounds as goods travel through the manufacturing pipeline.
Off the top of my head a small property tax at the local level to encourage efficient land use, a small sales tax to get dynamic tax revenue, a larger CO2 based sales tax to offset environmental costs, and a capital gains tax as the main valve for inflation/deflation seems like the right mix.
Although, if the congress's spending was tied to GDP increases we wouldn't need taxation at all to curb inflation... - koko775, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Wrong. He in fact said that he had not ruled it out, but had no plans to run.
- badfrog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"For the last fourteen years, I have advocated the elimination of all payroll taxes"
I don't remember that in 1999... I remember him saying the rich don't pay their fair share and tax cuts were a bad idea. - garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Uhm... Since when did the Feds own all corporations? This isn't 1955 USSR.
- Thuktun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Flatulence tax. Methane is a greenhouse gas, after all.
- Obvioustroll, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That's very true. Unfortunately, any time any one - of either political party - attempts to change how these taxes are levyed, their political career abruptly ends.
One of the biggest problems is that both programs were launched as "insurance policies" rather than government welfare. In other words, the expectation was that each person was paying for their own care. Now, that's not true, but after selling to the middle class that way, they get very upset when you talk about either cutting their benefits or raising their "premiums" just because they aren't poor. -
Show 51 - 100 of 139 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