Actually, it’s not that bad an idea.
He openly states that the carbon tax is just to raise revenue in lieu of a sales tax. Nothing undrhanded there.
And while energy costs would definetely surge, he’s right that they would be offset by the reductions in corporate and personal taxes.
Let’s face it folks, the money has to come from somewhere...
Of course politically it’s a non-starter anyway - mainly because of the kind of reactions you’ll see here.
Much better to shout “something must be done” I guess than to actually consider what that might be.
Kinda like the OWS people that way...
We need to roll back the regulations and cut the spending and lower taxes, NOT start figuring new ways to tax and grow government.
Let’s face it. The Monet needs to QUIT coming. Spending cuts. Period.
I agree with you that we need to actively consider solutions, not kneejerk reactions to words such as “carbon.”
I wrote upthread that my main concern about this author’s proposal is that the tax would once again be hidden. The point of a national sales tax is to make it OPEN and NOTORIOUS. This is the way to make Congress accountable if and when they do try to raise the rate.
Since everyone would be paying it, and since everyone would be aware of the rate (it’d be right there on every receipt), Congress would have to do a very good job to sell a tax hike to the entire nation at once and get away with it.
I’m also not sure I agree with the author’s view that a national sales tax would be so difficult to implement and cause corruption and so on. Times have changed with how everything is accounted for by computers, with credit cards, etc.
Good grief, California apparently has had no problem tracking Amazon purchases for purposes of imposing state income tax.
Just saying I don’t think “process problems” should be the determining factor in evaluating a bold proposal such as this one at this point. Yes, they matter. But they should lead as to whether the idea itself is worthy of pursuit.