Author Topic: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan  (Read 833 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« on: February 09, 2017, 12:59:23 PM »

Offline Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12059
  • Tommy Points: 330
Some prominent Republicans (James Baker, George Schultz, Martin Feldstein, others) are proposing a carbon tax. Prominent Dems (Larry Summers, others) are supportive.

I hope this turns into something that both sides can work on. More here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/09/larry-summers-why-we-should-all-embrace-a-fantastic-republican-proposal-to-save-the-planet/
Celtics fan for life.

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #1 on: February 09, 2017, 01:14:16 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15094
  • Tommy Points: 1043
I doubt it. I don't see anyone among the authors of this proposal who has any real leverage in DC right now. I'm also afraid that any idea that leads off with recognizing the human influence on climate is stillborn with the current administration.
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2017, 01:15:22 PM »

Online saltlover

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8301
  • Tommy Points: 1831
I hope so too, but "anything-tax" proposals have been DOA in the political climate for quite some time.

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2017, 01:18:04 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30921
  • Tommy Points: -28199
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Trump and conservatives oppose it, and it would be a regressive tax passed on to consumers, greatly increasing gas and energy prices.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2017, 01:18:36 PM »

Offline Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12059
  • Tommy Points: 330
I hope so too, but "anything-tax" proposals have been DOA in the political climate for quite some time.

They could call it the "carbon refund" since the money goes to people, not just to the USG.
Celtics fan for life.

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2017, 01:19:42 PM »

Offline Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12059
  • Tommy Points: 330
Trump and conservatives oppose it, and it would be a regressive tax passed on to consumers, greatly increasing gas and energy prices.

Trump might oppose it (news to me). As far as "conservatives" clearly not all conservatives oppose it as it was crafted by a group of conservatives, not liberals.
Celtics fan for life.

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2017, 01:27:58 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30921
  • Tommy Points: -28199
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Trump and conservatives oppose it, and it would be a regressive tax passed on to consumers, greatly increasing gas and energy prices.

Trump might oppose it (news to me). As far as "conservatives" clearly not all conservatives oppose it as it was crafted by a group of conservatives, not liberals.

Not everyone is "conservative" or "liberal".

Regarding Trump:

Quote from: Trump, May 2016
.@thehill Your story about me & the carbon tax is absolutely incorrect—it is just the opposite. I will not support or endorse a carbon tax!


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2017, 01:32:41 PM »

Offline gift

  • Isaiah Thomas
  • Posts: 960
  • Tommy Points: 103
Ah yes... let's get in the business of making money off of things that we are supposedly trying to eliminate.

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2017, 01:35:22 PM »

Offline Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12059
  • Tommy Points: 330
Trump and conservatives oppose it, and it would be a regressive tax passed on to consumers, greatly increasing gas and energy prices.

Trump might oppose it (news to me). As far as "conservatives" clearly not all conservatives oppose it as it was crafted by a group of conservatives, not liberals.

Not everyone is "conservative" or "liberal".

Regarding Trump:

Quote from: Trump, May 2016
.@thehill Your story about me & the carbon tax is absolutely incorrect—it is just the opposite. I will not support or endorse a carbon tax!

Thanks for the update on Trump. Too bad!

As for the comment about everyone not conservative or liberal, yes, I know. Hence my response to you above.

The point is that this is an idea that already has appeal across a range of people with different political outlooks. And hence, could (should) garner bi-partisan support.
Celtics fan for life.

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2017, 01:39:20 PM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22770
  • Tommy Points: 922
  • What a Pub Should Be
The sad thing is that I'm becoming more & more convinced that no one is going to attempt to do anything about the environment until its way too late.  Too many people caught up either denialism or simply turn a blind eye because proposals like this hurt their bottom lines are are "too restrictive".


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2017, 01:48:51 PM »

Online saltlover

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8301
  • Tommy Points: 1831
Trump and conservatives oppose it, and it would be a regressive tax passed on to consumers, greatly increasing gas and energy prices.

This is called the "incidence" of a tax.  The "payer" of the tax depends on the elasticities of supply and demand of the taxed product.  The more elastic the supply, the greater the ability of the supplier to reduce quantities and raise prices.  The more elastic the demand, the greater the ability of consumers to shift away from the taxes product, the reducing demand and putting downward pressure on prices.  These two factors divide the cost of the tax based on the ratio of supply elasticity and demand elasticity.  If demand is at all elastic (which it very much is in the case of energy), consumption will fall (which is the goal of the tax.)

Here's a bit more on tax incidence: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence

There has been some research on gas taxes in the US.  Taxes at the state level were found to be almost all shifted to the consumer (between 75% and 97% depending on the state).  This is because suppliers can shift fuel supply from high tax states to low tax states.  Market size matters too, however, as California consumers paid 75% of the tax while Vermont consumers paid 97% of the tax.  At the national level, however, it was about a 50/50 split.  Gas retailers lowered prices by 0.47 cents for every cent of tax, while consumers paid 0.56 cents more.

http://are.berkeley.edu/~jperloff/PDF/gastax.pdf

There is pass-through.  It is highly unlikely to be a 100% pass through, or anything close.  There is a reason energy companies spend billions in lobbying.

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2017, 01:52:38 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30921
  • Tommy Points: -28199
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
The sad thing is that I'm becoming more & more convinced that no one is going to attempt to do anything about the environment until its way too late.  Too many people caught up either denialism or simply turn a blind eye because proposals like this hurt their bottom lines are are "too restrictive".

Even the proponents of the deal think that it would raise gas prices 36 cents per gallon. That's without considering the impact on electricity and heating prices.

Like most tax increases, this one would impact the working poor the most. There's gotta be a different solution than raising the price of gas by 20% (with built in further increases).


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2017, 01:57:53 PM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22770
  • Tommy Points: 922
  • What a Pub Should Be
The sad thing is that I'm becoming more & more convinced that no one is going to attempt to do anything about the environment until its way too late.  Too many people caught up either denialism or simply turn a blind eye because proposals like this hurt their bottom lines are are "too restrictive".

Even the proponents of the deal think that it would raise gas prices 36 cents per gallon. That's without considering the impact on electricity and heating prices.

Like most tax increases, this one would impact the working poor the most. There's gotta be a different solution than raising the price of gas by 20% (with built in further increases).

Well, there is.   Most likely its in alternative energy innovation, research, & development along with making it more mainstream.  Unfortunately, the forces seem to be against that due to the present establishment in fuels & energies.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2017, 02:04:52 PM »

Offline Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12059
  • Tommy Points: 330
Trump and conservatives oppose it, and it would be a regressive tax passed on to consumers, greatly increasing gas and energy prices.

This is called the "incidence" of a tax.  The "payer" of the tax depends on the elasticities of supply and demand of the taxed product.  The more elastic the supply, the greater the ability of the supplier to reduce quantities and raise prices.  The more elastic the demand, the greater the ability of consumers to shift away from the taxes product, the reducing demand and putting downward pressure on prices.  These two factors divide the cost of the tax based on the ratio of supply elasticity and demand elasticity.  If demand is at all elastic (which it very much is in the case of energy), consumption will fall (which is the goal of the tax.)

Here's a bit more on tax incidence: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence

There has been some research on gas taxes in the US.  Taxes at the state level were found to be almost all shifted to the consumer (between 75% and 97% depending on the state).  This is because suppliers can shift fuel supply from high tax states to low tax states.  Market size matters too, however, as California consumers paid 75% of the tax while Vermont consumers paid 97% of the tax.  At the national level, however, it was about a 50/50 split.  Gas retailers lowered prices by 0.47 cents for every cent of tax, while consumers paid 0.56 cents more.

http://are.berkeley.edu/~jperloff/PDF/gastax.pdf

There is pass-through.  It is highly unlikely to be a 100% pass through, or anything close.  There is a reason energy companies spend billions in lobbying.

Boiling it down for twitter audience:

Econ evidence suggests some pass thru to consumers, perhaps 50-50, but depends on elasticities, more here: http://are.berkeley.edu/~jperloff/PDF/gastax.pdf
Celtics fan for life.

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2017, 02:08:09 PM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3635
  • Tommy Points: 659
The sad thing is that I'm becoming more & more convinced that no one is going to attempt to do anything about the environment until its way too late.  Too many people caught up either denialism or simply turn a blind eye because proposals like this hurt their bottom lines are are "too restrictive".

Even the proponents of the deal think that it would raise gas prices 36 cents per gallon. That's without considering the impact on electricity and heating prices.

Like most tax increases, this one would impact the working poor the most. There's gotta be a different solution than raising the price of gas by 20% (with built in further increases).

Well, there is.   Most likely its in alternative energy innovation, research, & development along with making it more mainstream.  Unfortunately, the forces seem to be against that due to the present establishment in fuels & energies.

Yes, this is a common tactic for people who don't want change: "don't do X, there must be a better way."

"Yes, we could do a massive infrastructure and technology investment, increase employment, increase taxes to help fund something that would have positive long term benefit and immediate economic benefit from the ground up..."

"No I  don't want to do that either."

(Code: don't do anything. probably won't affect me directly).