Author Topic: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan  (Read 1369 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2017, 02:11:23 PM »

Online saltlover

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9450
  • Tommy Points: 2059
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

Essentially, but also that this is something that is best done nationally, because energy suppliers can shift to states with lower taxes.  California has a slightly better chance because it's so freaking big (and if they did it tandom with Oregon and Washington it would be better still, but still less good than nationally.)

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2017, 02:14:33 PM »

Offline gift

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1116
  • Tommy Points: 121
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).

Or it's possible the same people can propose multiple bad ideas. Not even saying that's the case here. But your argument is very presumptive.

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2017, 02:20:55 PM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3827
  • Tommy Points: 696
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).

Or it's possible the same people can propose multiple bad ideas. Not even saying that's the case here. But your argument is very presumptive.

Fair enough. But I'm tired of a party that 1. denies something needs to be done, despite allocating resources to cover up their own data and actually run media confusion campaigns to downplay the known issue. 2. once enough public opinion sways that probably something should be done (ie 97+% of all scientists, a majority of americans, and nearly all developed nations), they consistently, using every excuse in the book, stand in the way of any idea for anything from incremental to massive change, and the one change they do seem to advocate would be to decrease regulations where possible, because that has worked, oh, never percent of the time.

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2017, 02:27:32 PM »

Online saltlover

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9450
  • Tommy Points: 2059
Personally, I think cap-and-trade is by far the best solution for carbon reduction.  We very successfully reduced sulfur dioxide emissions in the US -- by 43% from 1990 to 2007, to below 1980 emissions levels.  The cost wasn't trivial ($1.1-$1.7 billion spent over a decade), but it wasn't exorbitant either given that it was spread over a long period of time and across 3200 coal plants. Before the cap-and-trade program was conceived, the estimated cost of reduction was $6.1 billion.

http://voxeu.org/article/lessons-climate-policy-us-sulphur-dioxide-cap-and-trade-programme

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2017, 10:45:47 AM »

Offline gift

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1116
  • Tommy Points: 121
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).

Or it's possible the same people can propose multiple bad ideas. Not even saying that's the case here. But your argument is very presumptive.

Fair enough. But I'm tired of a party that 1. denies something needs to be done, despite allocating resources to cover up their own data and actually run media confusion campaigns to downplay the known issue. 2. once enough public opinion sways that probably something should be done (ie 97+% of all scientists, a majority of americans, and nearly all developed nations), they consistently, using every excuse in the book, stand in the way of any idea for anything from incremental to massive change, and the one change they do seem to advocate would be to decrease regulations where possible, because that has worked, oh, never percent of the time.

Agreed. On this and many other issues, the republican party is a problem because they are completely disinterested in solutions.

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2017, 11:01:02 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16062
  • Tommy Points: 1128
Personally, I think cap-and-trade is by far the best solution for carbon reduction.  We very successfully reduced sulfur dioxide emissions in the US -- by 43% from 1990 to 2007, to below 1980 emissions levels.  The cost wasn't trivial ($1.1-$1.7 billion spent over a decade), but it wasn't exorbitant either given that it was spread over a long period of time and across 3200 coal plants. Before the cap-and-trade program was conceived, the estimated cost of reduction was $6.1 billion.

http://voxeu.org/article/lessons-climate-policy-us-sulphur-dioxide-cap-and-trade-programme
Given the timeline and the scale, this is extremely trivial.
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2017, 11:06:25 AM »

Offline chilidawg

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1635
  • Tommy Points: 208
Trump and conservatives oppose it, and it would be a regressive tax passed on to consumers, greatly increasing gas and energy prices.

Isn't this exactly how it's supposed to reduce carbon emissions, by raising prices?  The only way our carbon output goes down is for alternatives to be less expensive.  Carbon tax addresses one half of that equation.

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2017, 10:33:00 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32745
  • Tommy Points: -28003
  • 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.

Isn't this exactly how it's supposed to reduce carbon emissions, by raising prices?  The only way our carbon output goes down is for alternatives to be less expensive.  Carbon tax addresses one half of that equation.

Right: the part that will squeeze the working poor.  With no feasible alternatives in place, you're harming the economy and the most vulnerable Americans for no reason. This would have no appreciable effect on worldwide carbon emissions and would likely have no long-term environmental impact. It would raise energy prices, and that's about the extent of it.


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 #23 on: February 11, 2017, 10:44:33 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16062
  • Tommy Points: 1128
Trump and conservatives oppose it, and it would be a regressive tax passed on to consumers, greatly increasing gas and energy prices.

Isn't this exactly how it's supposed to reduce carbon emissions, by raising prices?  The only way our carbon output goes down is for alternatives to be less expensive.  Carbon tax addresses one half of that equation.

Right: the part that will squeeze the working poor.  With no feasible alternatives in place, you're harming the economy and the most vulnerable Americans for no reason. This would have no appreciable effect on worldwide carbon emissions and would likely have no long-term environmental impact. It would raise energy prices, and that's about the extent of it.
Considering that USA accounts for 15% of the world's carbon emissions, which is more than any country not named China, I'm not entirely certain about the validity of this statement.
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #24 on: February 11, 2017, 11:01:29 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14606
  • Tommy Points: 916
Quote
It would raise energy prices, and that's about the extent of it.

Which, would raise the price of everything because most goods take energy to make or transport.

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #25 on: February 11, 2017, 05:03:26 PM »

Offline gift

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1116
  • Tommy Points: 121
Trump and conservatives oppose it, and it would be a regressive tax passed on to consumers, greatly increasing gas and energy prices.

Isn't this exactly how it's supposed to reduce carbon emissions, by raising prices?  The only way our carbon output goes down is for alternatives to be less expensive.  Carbon tax addresses one half of that equation.

Right: the part that will squeeze the working poor.  With no feasible alternatives in place, you're harming the economy and the most vulnerable Americans for no reason. This would have no appreciable effect on worldwide carbon emissions and would likely have no long-term environmental impact. It would raise energy prices, and that's about the extent of it.
Considering that USA accounts for 15% of the world's carbon emissions, which is more than any country not named China, I'm not entirely certain about the validity of this statement.

You're not entirely certain about the validity of the statement or you're quite certain the statement is not valid?

Both are reasonable, but in one case it might be advisable to not support a massive tax plan without knowing if it is even effective. In the other case, you should be able to show how the statement is not valid.

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #26 on: February 14, 2017, 06:11:17 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16062
  • Tommy Points: 1128
Trump and conservatives oppose it, and it would be a regressive tax passed on to consumers, greatly increasing gas and energy prices.

Isn't this exactly how it's supposed to reduce carbon emissions, by raising prices?  The only way our carbon output goes down is for alternatives to be less expensive.  Carbon tax addresses one half of that equation.

Right: the part that will squeeze the working poor.  With no feasible alternatives in place, you're harming the economy and the most vulnerable Americans for no reason. This would have no appreciable effect on worldwide carbon emissions and would likely have no long-term environmental impact. It would raise energy prices, and that's about the extent of it.
Considering that USA accounts for 15% of the world's carbon emissions, which is more than any country not named China, I'm not entirely certain about the validity of this statement.

You're not entirely certain about the validity of the statement or you're quite certain the statement is not valid?

Both are reasonable, but in one case it might be advisable to not support a massive tax plan without knowing if it is even effective. In the other case, you should be able to show how the statement is not valid.
I guess it was another way to say, "I haven't had a reason to work out the numbers for something like this, but given the relative magnitude of USA's emissions share it's likely that any successful domestic  carbon reduction program will be felt on a global level". Sorry if it was ambiguous.

Also, rest assured, regulatory policy of this magnitude will always have a robust economic impact analysis attached to it.
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Bi-partisan possibility: carbon tax plan
« Reply #27 on: April 07, 2017, 01:09:20 AM »

Offline SuddenFame

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 261
  • Tommy Points: 28
Trump and conservatives oppose it, and it would be a regressive tax passed on to consumers, greatly increasing gas and energy prices.

Bingo!
Aside from the fact that global warming is essentially a fraud religion, based on spurious information, put forth by con-artists from East Anglia in Cambridge, England.

God Bless Donald Trump
Greatest President since Ronald Reagan