Comments on: A Tactical Error on Cap and Trade? http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5020 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5020&cpage=1#comment-12690 Roger Pielke, Jr. Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:12:12 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5020#comment-12690 -5-Oliver Yes, perhaps. However, I think that the Rs have a stock answer for this question: "what tax will you raise if you don’t do this our way?” -5-Oliver

Yes, perhaps.

However, I think that the Rs have a stock answer for this question:

“what tax will you raise if you don’t do this our way?”

]]> By: Oliver Morton http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5020&cpage=1#comment-12688 Oliver Morton Wed, 04 Mar 2009 12:05:16 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5020#comment-12688 Not so sure it's an error. a) they need all the revenue they can get -- this budget still has big deficits in the out years from what I've seen. If they genuinely plan to push on cap and trade, then they might as well count the money on the assets side. b) this means, if the administration can do the framing, that opponents to cap and trade need to explain where they will get extra compensating revenue -- ie "what tax will you raise if you don't do this our way?" Not so sure it’s an error. a) they need all the revenue they can get — this budget still has big deficits in the out years from what I’ve seen. If they genuinely plan to push on cap and trade, then they might as well count the money on the assets side. b) this means, if the administration can do the framing, that opponents to cap and trade need to explain where they will get extra compensating revenue — ie “what tax will you raise if you don’t do this our way?”

]]> By: Les Johnson http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5020&cpage=1#comment-12666 Les Johnson Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:40:25 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5020#comment-12666 Roger: I think that a carbon tax could not help but be used as a wealth redistribution program, by any politician. In our last election in Canada, Dion, as candidate for Prime Minister, promised the Green Shift. Supposedly it was revenue neutral, but even Dion's own candidates called it a "wealth distribution" program. The largest in Canadian history, to boot. The web site for the program showed it to be ostensibly revenue neutral, but when parsed, showed most of the proceeds going to low income families. I do agree, though, that if we actually do need to reduce CO2, then a carbon tax is the way to go. More specifically, Mckitrick's TTT Tax, where tax is dependent on the tropical tropospheric temperature. The old adage applies: <i>If you want more of something, reduce the taxation level on the item. If you want less, increase the taxation.</I> Roger: I think that a carbon tax could not help but be used as a wealth redistribution program, by any politician.

In our last election in Canada, Dion, as candidate for Prime Minister, promised the Green Shift. Supposedly it was revenue neutral, but even Dion’s own candidates called it a “wealth distribution” program. The largest in Canadian history, to boot.

The web site for the program showed it to be ostensibly revenue neutral, but when parsed, showed most of the proceeds going to low income families.

I do agree, though, that if we actually do need to reduce CO2, then a carbon tax is the way to go. More specifically, Mckitrick’s TTT Tax, where tax is dependent on the tropical tropospheric temperature.

The old adage applies:

If you want more of something, reduce the taxation level on the item. If you want less, increase the taxation.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5020&cpage=1#comment-12652 Roger Pielke, Jr. Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:21:01 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5020#comment-12652 -2-tomfid Yes, you are correct. But a carbon tax could be designed to have more or less distributional effects. I think that separating out the need to put a price on carbon from redistributional tax policies would be tactically smarter. But as Maurice points out there are a lot of motivations here. And of course, there is an awful lot going on in the budget that has nothing to do with carbon, and selling these parts of the package are important as well. -2-tomfid

Yes, you are correct. But a carbon tax could be designed to have more or less distributional effects. I think that separating out the need to put a price on carbon from redistributional tax policies would be tactically smarter.

But as Maurice points out there are a lot of motivations here. And of course, there is an awful lot going on in the budget that has nothing to do with carbon, and selling these parts of the package are important as well.

]]> By: tomfid http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5020&cpage=1#comment-12650 tomfid Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:15:55 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5020#comment-12650 Fiscal (or revenue) and distributional neutrality aren't the same thing. Your proposed mode of achieving revenue neutrality would probably be regressive, due to the distribution of carbon consumption discussed a few posts back. The carbon tax burden would fall disproportionately on the lower quintiles, and the tax relief would benefit primarily the upper. Fiscal (or revenue) and distributional neutrality aren’t the same thing. Your proposed mode of achieving revenue neutrality would probably be regressive, due to the distribution of carbon consumption discussed a few posts back. The carbon tax burden would fall disproportionately on the lower quintiles, and the tax relief would benefit primarily the upper.

]]> By: Maurice Garoutte http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5020&cpage=1#comment-12645 Maurice Garoutte Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:18:03 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5020#comment-12645 After reflecting on the consequences of the proposed cap and trade tax on the reduction of carbon and the redistribution of wealth we can either: Assume that reduction of CO2 was the motive and conclude that President Obama made a bone headed error. OR Assume that President is an intelligent man with very bright advisors and conclude that the motive was redistribution of wealth. After reflecting on the consequences of the proposed cap and trade tax on the reduction of carbon and the redistribution of wealth we can either:

Assume that reduction of CO2 was the motive and conclude that President Obama made a bone headed error.

OR

Assume that President is an intelligent man with very bright advisors and conclude that the motive was redistribution of wealth.

]]>