| I entered this thread to congratulate the French for getting this one right. Then is see the bill was struck down because it isn’t onerous enough. In its ruling, the French council said the tax was flawed because it would have primarily raised the cost of fuel for vehicles and heating even though there are many other sources of emissions. "Tax fairness" is a legitimate argument to stop the Greens, as well as ObamaCare. The plaintiff's went with what they saw would work within their Constitutional law, which is a great legal strategy to stop an over-reaching Executive Branch. Incidentally, France's three branches of government is similar to the US in this regard. Remember that Al Capone went to Alcatraz not because of murder, conspiracy or direct violation against 18th Amendment (Prohibition), but because of income tax evasion and various violations of the Volstead Act. |
I appreciate the comments seeking to clarify. There are other ways to look at things, and I think it’s reasoned to point out an alternate view.
This little tidbit, “The council ruled late Tuesday that the bill contained too many exemptions for polluters, broke with past practices and threatened to make tax collection unfair.” cause me to think the reason for the object wasn’t exactly what it was claimed to be.
The bill contained too many exemptions for polluters?
I’m still not convinced the taxation issue is what fostered the smack-down, but I do think it’s a reasonable alternative opinion.
Watch and see if this doesn’t turn into a tax nightmare next year. I suspect that’s the case, and deep down I think you probably agree.
There are some important disctinctions there as to how we may want to use additional, clever means to fight bammy. Like tax “fairness” and constitutionality of the individual mandate, et al.