Want to cut the deficit? Try a carbon tax.

Good idea,....the middle class needs more taxes on them

 

You are failing to dazzle me with any brilliance. If you feel you can make a valid point, please begin do so.

 

Brilliance? Its very simple stuff. That you keep missing the point, that your original comment over common sense lacked sense, is perhaps a little predictable

 

I'm still awaiting a point to be made. If you feel you've made a point, I must admit that I have missed it completely as I find no clearly defined facts which I can comment on much less agree to as being producable or reproducable.

Perhaps you took offense to the use of the term "common sense" and ignored the remainder of that post?

 

First off, this assumes that carbon causes environmental damage. I don't believe that. If you do, the first thing you should do, is kill yourself. Your existence creates carbon dioxide. That said...

Carbon output has increased in Europe where they have an effective carbon tax. Nearly everything human beings do, involves the use of carbon. The idea that you can reduce carbon, and have growth in human activity, is insane, and stupid.

Now, when I say that, people think I mean you can't reduce individual activity. That's not true. You can. But if you want to grow your economy, and growth the wealth of society, that's no possible without increasing the use of carbon. Which is why carbon has been increasing throughout the world, and will do so until the end of time, with or without a carbon tax.

However, as I said you can reduce the standard of living of individuals, specifically of the lower and middle class. By denying them access to low cost energy, you can deny them a standard of living, and reduce their individual use of carbon.

Examples.... Gasoline, Natural Gas, and electricity.

Electricity is measured in Kilo Watt Hours or kWh.


And actually there is a difference of costs between states that have higher taxes on electricity, and more regulations of electricity. California has a very higher electrical cost, whereas Ohio where I live, the cost is actually 8.6¢ per kWh.

Gasoline prices.


And actually these prices are from Feb 2012. Norway is paying $9.34 a gallon right now.

Natural gas prices.


As you can see, the cost on the lower and middle class is drastic. Which is why their standard of living is lower than ours. They can't afford electricity, that's why they don't have AC, or driers for their clothes. They can't afford gasoline, that's why bicycle sales out pace car sales throughout Europe.

Now perhaps this is acceptable to you. That's fine. But just understand that the lower and middle class are the ones that will suffer for this.

Driving up the cost of energy on business, is as always, passed on to the consumer. Which is why nearly everything costs more in Europe. Point being that the rich, and the corporations are not going to pay this cost.

The poor and middle class are. The rich are going to have all the energy they need. If they didn't, you wouldn't have growth in the economy.

Are you ready to triple your electric bill, for the sake of a carbon tax? Are you ready to more than double your gasoline bill, for the sake of a carbon tax? Are you ready to pay triple for gas heat? If you are ok... but just remember, you are not reducing carbon. It's going to continue going up. But you are enriching the people government dishes out your tax money too.

 

As I said, you're deliberately hiding from the point: (1) Scroll back to your original remark; (2) Note its compatibility with reality; (3) Change your understanding of common sense; (4) Pat yourself on the back!

Offence? Nope. You simply made a comment inconsistent with economic reality.

 

If you feel you've made a point, would you be courteous enough to explain it in a clear and concise way relative to the thread topic?
(1) Yes; (2) Its' compatibility with reality is noted; (3) You're asking me to ignore reality; (4) Obviously there's little point in continuing.

I guess we must then agree to disagree, as I have dealt quite well with economic reality for more than 6 decades now.

You're welcome to have the last word if you wish .

 

Nice straw man. Fossil fuel employed by humans causes global warming and ocean acidification, by adding more than the usual ghgs(Principally CO2) which definitely causes environmental damage. The science on this is so voluminous you would have to be blind not to see it, or a denialist.

Since you are on the record of preferring the destruction of civilization rather than paying for a carbon tax I will simply make a note of that. And yes the tax does make a difference. Make it high enough and folks will have to gravitate to nonpolluting sources of energy.

 

I already have. Externalities represent a coercive cost on others. The Coase Theorem demonstrates that those that ignore that coercion, thinking that we can just use law protection, are simply ignoring economic reality.

 

A while back I asked the following question:
"Perhaps you might at least agree, relative to the question asked by the title of this thread "Want to cut the deficit?" that a deficit occurs when more is being spent than one has to spend?"

Are there some who disagree?

 

Treating the government the same way as a bloke's wallet is a very basic error

 

That's what people say, who have not looked at any of the opposing science, which is also voluminous, that you would have be blind to not see it, or an ignorantist.

Since you are on the record of preferring ignorance, to a scientifically supportable position, I will simply make not of that. And no the tax does not make a difference. Make it high enough and the rich will simply pay the tax, while the standard of living for the rest of society, will simply decline.

 

One could argue that the weakness in your argument is the reference to the deficit. For example, if you're interested in maximising the shift to lower pollution energies, then you'd probably want an earmarked tax (with that cash used to subsidise R&D and also provide monies to consumers to improve energy efficiency scores)

 

Well I have and among climate scientists AGW denial is virtually nonexistent. But you are welcome to your modern day flat earth position. Just out of curiosity how do you feel about evolution?

Yeah, we shouldn't tax booze and cigarettes. It just makes them use it more and destroys the economy. Howdy Doody economics.

 

Fine, earmark it. Then it reduces a lot of negative costs and provides a lot of jobs. In the longer run that's a deficit killer. And by the way, what is a real free enterprise that doesn't assume its costs? Fossil fuel is hugely subsidized. Time to end the subsidies(A deficit driver) and start moving toward making various energy sources pay for their real costs.

 

The best work on Economic Rent is by Michael Hudson & Steve Keen at the Fields Institute.

 

I think you are confusing "Economic Rent" with "Unearned Income".
On second thought, I don't think you even know what "Economic Rent" is.

Economic Rent - "the portion of income paid to a factor of production in excess of its opportunity cost."

 

Nope. I'm referring to the reality of inefficient profit and the nature of rent-seeking behaviour. Payment of labour below its worth is the main source of rent

 

No, it is one of the smallest.
The major sources are finance, land & monopolies.

 

Even neoclassical economics assumes monopsony power is the norm in the labour market. Do some reading then get back to me!

 

So?
I do not dispute this is a source of rents, just not the major.

 

Every worker underpaid according to the neoclassical approach? Think about it. You've constructed comment without understanding the nature of modern production.

 

Funny because Reagan and Bush both cut taxes while INCREASING SPENDING hence both left office with huge defecits.

And don't side track this point by bringing up Obama he's a unique basket case in his own league.

 

True, however revenues were much higher because the lower taxes had created a better economy. At the start of Reagan's term for example, revenues were around $500 billion. At the end, they were $900 billion.
That's the point.

And of course Obama gets a pass for running up the national debt far faster then any other president. Talk about hypocrisy.

 

It was nothing more than Military Keynesianism. The opportunity costs involved with the strategy are significant (given civilian expenditures have a greater impact on the economy)