Skip to comments.The Most Sensible Tax of All (Massive Carbon Tax Set for Zero's 2nd Term)
Posted on 07/05/2012 10:10:16 AM PDT by mojito
ON Sunday, the best climate policy in the world got even better: British Columbias carbon tax a tax on the carbon content of all fossil fuels burned in the province increased from $25 to $30 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, making it more expensive to pollute.
This was good news not only for the environment but for nearly everyone who pays taxes in British Columbia, because the carbon tax is used to reduce taxes for individuals and businesses. Thanks to this tax swap, British Columbia has lowered its corporate income tax rate to 10 percent from 12 percent, a rate that is among the lowest in the Group of 8 wealthy nations. Personal income taxes for people earning less than $119,000 per year are now the lowest in Canada, and there are targeted rebates for low-income and rural households.
The only bad news is that this is the last increase scheduled in British Columbia. In our view, the reason is simple: the province is waiting for the rest of North America to catch up so that its tax system will not become unbalanced or put energy-intensive industries at a competitive disadvantage.
The United States should jump at the chance to adopt a similar revenue-neutral tax swap. Its an opportunity to reduce existing taxes, clean up the environment and increase personal freedom and energy security.
Lets start with the economics. Substituting a carbon tax for some of our current taxes on payroll, on investment, on businesses and on workers is a no-brainer. Why tax good things when you can tax bad things, like emissions?
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
You can tell where this is headed. The left is already in a lather at the prospect of a 2nd Zero term. When I exhale, that's an emission. I'm waiting for Zero's 2nd term when he proposes a breathing tax to be implemented by executive fiat. The Roberts' court has already said that such a tax is constitutional. Add that to the ruling that said the EPA can do whatever it likes to regulate carbon dioxide "pollution" and you can see that your days of liberty are numbered.
Welcome to tyranny. Have a happy, emission-free day!
“This was good news not only for the environment but for nearly everyone who pays taxes in British Columbia, because the carbon tax is used to reduce taxes for individuals and businesses.”
What happens when the energy companies raise their rates?
Someone there actually believes that the House will propose & pass such a tax?
What about the Carbon Based Life Forms infesting the Enterprise?
The cost of heating a home in BC is substantial in winter. Some will have to go without heat this winter.
These creeps are nuts.
If it's really revenue-neutral, then doing nothing at all is a more sensible option.
The US should jump at the idea of a tax on lies in the media.
“The United States should jump at the chance to adopt a similar revenue-neutral tax swap. Its an opportunity to reduce existing taxes, clean up the environment and increase personal freedom and energy security.”
I have never, in my adult life, ever read such a moronic and utter falsehood in my life. The fecking Commies at they dying rag NYT want war, they may get it. Reduce taxes? Carbon HELPS the eco-system. Personal freedom incrased? By whom, bicyclists? Energy security? For whom, Solyndra or Lightsquared?
This is Commie garbage...
Just another reason to vote Obama out, and as many Democrats in the House and Senate that we can muster! And we can point to this tax, along with all the new Obamacare taxes, as good reasons to defeat him, when talking to our friends, family, etc.
We're in a new "post-constitutioanl" era where the left can do whatever it likes (thank you Justice Roberts). The EPA can “regulate” carbon, and by regulate they can impose fines. The CJ just ruled that there's no difference anymore between fines or penalties, and taxes.
One of the authors Bauman, is a Left Wing economic comic:
The NYT is running out of lies and resources...dipping into the hipster comedians?
Yes, it is, and not in the way the authors apparently mean. "Sensible" is a liberal code word for "it sounds reasonable, so no need to actually think about it."
Trouble is the “Law of Unintended Consequences” has not been repealed! Fossil fuel and energy generated from it is relatively cheap. Nuclear power isn't going to be an alternative, only very expensive and very inefficient “renewable energy” will be tax exempt. Business and industry needs energy to do what they do... and so they will do it elsewhere.
BC will lose its manufacturing base, as energy prices climb, and corporate taxes remain static, or are increased to make up for revenue loss due to business flight from the province. The result? Less revenue, more unemployment, and another unintended utopian economic disaster.
If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
And if it stops moving, subsidize it"
- Ronald Reagan
Now we can have the Volt tax and everyone who doesn;t own one can be fined.
That's a really big "if". In fact it's so big I would never trust the accounting used to deem the swap "revenue neutral".
Why? Haven't things been getting better under Harper or is that the reason?
A carbon tax has one advantage: It is effectively a sales tax that is easier and less invasive to collect but for one use I can think of: How do they collect a carbon tax from people who heat their homes with wood?
Green Energy Leaves 800.000 Germans In The Dark
The other author, Ms. Hsu, is apparently of Chinese extraction. Not that I wish to appear bigoted against Chinese, but I wonder why Ms. Hsu is not writing glowingly of a carbon tax being imposed in Peking...
They’re going to outlaw wood burning fire places, and the burning of wood for any reason what so ever. They’ll tax you for emission and you can’t fuel your home, heat your water or cook your food. You will have to depend on the government supplied energy if you want to survive.
They won’t stop until we are batteries in their machine.
I was referring to our provincial government — Harper is federal. I should have made that more clear.
“How do they collect a carbon tax from people who heat their homes with wood? “
They don’t, nor should they. Firewood isn’t a fossil fuel — new trees take the CO2 out of the atmosphere, as quickly as old ones are burned up.
Electricity mostly escapes the carbon tax here; on the basis that it’s mostly hydro generated. That wouldn’t be the case in most places.
You are right about the ease of collecting the tax — it’s much cheaper to administer than a cap and trade scheme would be.
Is that anything like a "temporary" tax?
You do realize that every last penny of "carbon taxes" is ultimately passed on to consumers to pay, through higher energy costs and higher prices for goods that require energy to produce and put on the shelves (ie., everything)?
What’s Up With That ran an article the other day saying our CO2 emissions are close to 1990 levels all because of the cheap availability of natural gas and power companies switching to it from coal.
It mattereth not how SENSIBLE it is; taxes MUST be raised SOMEWHERE to pay the damned BILLS we’ve run up!
Either that or vastly devalue our money; which you are seeing every time you go to buy something.
You’re finally getting it!
I knew that, but there is a coat-tail effect when the party in charge of the national government is looking better that helps local government from the same party. With Harper doing as well as he is and Obama such a disaster in the US, I was wondering what was the attraction of a leftist government in BC.
They dont, nor should they. Firewood isnt a fossil fuel
Unlike coal, nether is oil and gas. They are mineral fuels formed from methane left over from the planet's formation remaining in solution with the earth's mantle then polymerized by bacteria deep in the crustal layer.
That's awesome, except carbon dioxide is not pollution.
The enumeration of Orwellian double speaks in this plausible plagiary of 1984 dwarfs an operating system’s capacity to process very large integers.
“You do realize that every last penny ....”
Yes, and that’s why I called the carbon tax a “least bad” policy, rather than a “good” one. I also said that it would be just plain “bad”, if the revenues are earmarked for wasteful “green energy” projects, rather than being used to offset other taxes.
It’s hard to pick the “worst” policies — but, I’d probably start with government subsidies and mandates to induce the burning of food for fuel (e.g. corn ethanol). The CAFE would be high up there. CAFE will create all sorts of distortions and inefficiencies in the auto industry — all of which will be passed on to consumers (particularly those who need larger vehicles). Shutting down coal plants, the oil sands, pipelines, etc. are all very bad policies, when measured against costs to the consumer. And on, and on ....
“I was wondering what was the attraction of a leftist government in BC.”
So are a lot of us here.
“Unlike coal, nether is oil and gas. They are mineral fuels formed from methane left ....”
I’m coming around to accepting that theory, at least with regard to natural gas. It makes “peak oil” look very premature.
As I alluded in my original post with the reference to "temporary" taxes, this lying horse manure about "offsetting other taxes" is a laughable eye-roller. Genuine "offsets" never happens and never will. With scumbag big government and politicians, it's ALWAYS about grabbing MORE money. Any new tax (in this case a "carbon tax") is strictly a politician money grab. The taxes that are "offset" WILL go back up, and (surprise, surprise) so will the "carbon tax". It is all a cynical con job.
This "carbon tax" is not "the least bad" - - it is a duplicitous abomination designed to facilitate massive additional confiscation from society's producers. There is no shrugging this off and surrendering with the conclusion that, "well, it could be worse", and this nightmarish new tax is, "the least bad", anymore than you would prefer pancreatic cancer to lung cancer.
Good luck up there, eh.