[billw55]

http://tinyurl.com/8ebyx7s

At least they're being honest.

[cherdano]

billw55, on 2012-September-26, 07:18, said:

http://tinyurl.com/8ebyx7s

At least they're being honest.

I have a larger secret to share with you: The main purpose of any tax is to raise revenue.

Though while we have to raise revenue, we might as well raise it on activities that we want to discourage (violating everyone's property by polluting its air) rather than on activities we want to encourage (engaging in mutually beneficial economic activity, e.g. "having a job").

[billw55]

cherdano, on 2012-September-26, 07:35, said:

I have a larger secret to share with you: The main purpose of any tax is to raise revenue.

Though while we have to raise revenue, we might as well raise it on activities that we want to discourage (violating everyone's property by polluting its air) rather than on activities we want to encourage (engaging in mutually beneficial economic activity, e.g. "having a job").

True of course. But so much of the rhetoric seems to pretend that the only thing they want is to save the world from warming, while the main thing they really want is to bring in a landslide of revenue under cover of a currently popular political issue. I was just happy to see this other aspect reported.

Also, I am pretty sure that extracting $100 billion per year from the economy is going to cost a few jobs here and there.

[Cyberyeti]

billw55, on 2012-September-26, 07:44, said:

True of course. But so much of the rhetoric seems to pretend that the only thing they want is to save the world from warming, while the main thing they really want is to bring in a landslide of revenue under cover of a currently popular political issue. I was just happy to see this other aspect reported.

Also, I am pretty sure that extracting $100 billion per year from the economy is going to cost a few jobs here and there.

More to the point, they are politicians, it means they can give 50M of it back in other tax cuts and look good at the same time.

[WellSpyder]

billw55, on 2012-September-26, 07:18, said:

http://tinyurl.com/8ebyx7s

At least they're being honest.

Don't get your hopes of deficit reduction up too high, though. It looks to me as if someone has got the decimal point wrong somewhere in their calculations and the true scale of reduction in the deficit (assuming no adverse economic effects on other tax receipts) would be between 1.2% and 5% of the deficit, not 12-50%!

[cherdano]

billw55, on 2012-September-26, 07:44, said:

True of course. But so much of the rhetoric seems to pretend that the only thing they want is to save the world from warming, while the main thing they really want is to bring in a landslide of revenue under cover of a currently popular political issue. I was just happy to see this other aspect reported.

Also, I am pretty sure that extracting $100 billion per year from the economy is going to cost a few jobs here and there.

Any tax is going to cost a few jobs here and there. But if you spend that tax money, this government spending
is also going to create a few jobs here and there.
Of course, you could just not tax and still spend the money, and in fact at current US treasury bond interest rates and unemployment rate, that seems like a very reasonable thing to do.

[cherdano]

WellSpyder, on 2012-September-26, 08:14, said:

Don't get your hopes of deficit reduction up too high, though. It looks to me as if someone has got the decimal point wrong somewhere in their calculations and the true scale of reduction in the deficit (assuming no adverse economic effects on other tax receipts) would be between 1.2% and 5% of the deficit, not 12-50%!

Or maybe you confused debt and deficit?

I mean, wow, this thread is bad even by watercooler standards.

[Winstonm]

cherdano, on 2012-September-26, 08:41, said:

Or maybe you confused debt and deficit?

I mean, wow, this thread is bad even by watercooler standards.

We never let data disrupt a personally held narrative.

[billw55]

cherdano, on 2012-September-26, 08:39, said:

Any tax is going to cost a few jobs here and there. But if you spend that tax money, this government spending
is also going to create a few jobs here and there.

Likely true, if the money is spent responsibly. Alas, frequently with government, this is not the case.

cherdano, on 2012-September-26, 08:39, said:

Of course, you could just not tax and still spend the money, and in fact at current US treasury bond interest rates and unemployment rate, that seems like a very reasonable thing to do.

We part ways on this one. I do not believe in spending money we don't have, except in truly dire circumstances.

[WellSpyder]

cherdano, on 2012-September-26, 08:41, said:

Or maybe you confused debt and deficit?

It's always possible, of course. But I did think about whether that particular confusion might be behind the misleading figures in the article before reaching the conclusion I stated.

[hrothgar]

I'm confused:

You're pointing at a report from the Congressional Research Service that discussed revenue generation but doesn't deal with carbon abatement. You claim that this demonstrates that the true purpose of Carbon taxes is to raise revenue.

And yet here we have a second report by the CRS titled "Energy Tax Policy: Issues in the 112th Congress" which focuses on carbon abatement, but doesn't discuss revenue. Using you own logic, I guess this shows that the "true" purpose of a carbon tax is preventing carbon emissions...

But how can both of these be true?

Its almost as if someone, who apparently has little or no direct experience with the CRS, is projecting their own biases onto an article they read in the wire service.

[billw55]

hrothgar, on 2012-September-26, 10:39, said:

I'm confused:

You're pointing at a report from the Congressional Research Service that discussed revenue generation but doesn't deal with carbon abatement. You claim that this demonstrates that the true purpose of Carbon taxes is to raise revenue.

And yet here we have a second report by the CRS titled "Energy Tax Policy: Issues in the 112th Congress" which focuses on carbon abatement, but doesn't discuss revenue. Using you own logic, I guess this shows that the "true" purpose of a carbon tax is preventing carbon emissions...

But how can both of these be true?

Its almost as if someone, who apparently has little or no direct experience with the CRS, is projecting their own biases onto an article they read in the wire service.

Whoever could you be talking about?

Anyway, people infer a lot here. I was not trying to say that this article proves that revenue collection is the true point of a carbon tax (it doesn't) or that the author of the article intended that (unclear but likely not). Personally, I do think that this is the primary purpose of such a tax; that this perspective is rarely presented in media; and that this article offers partial support for this perspective, by showing the amounts potentially involved, and the care CRS has taken to analyze this (at someone's direction - likely a representative).

[dwar0123]

billw55, on 2012-September-26, 12:18, said:

Whoever could you be talking about?

Anyway, people infer a lot here. I was not trying to say that this article proves that revenue collection is the true point of a carbon tax (it doesn't) or that the author of the article intended that (unclear but likely not). Personally, I do think that this is the primary purpose of such a tax; that this perspective is rarely presented in media; and that this article offers partial support for this perspective, by showing the amounts potentially involved, and the care CRS has taken to analyze this (at someone's direction - likely a representative).

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that a congressional research service would show the amounts of potential revenue involved when researching a tax.

I can only imagine your agreeable response if a congressional research service didn't disclose the potential revenue when they did their report on a tax.

[jjbrr]

Stopped reading here WAHSINGTON

[hrothgar]

billw55, on 2012-September-26, 12:18, said:

Whoever could you be talking about?

Anyway, people infer a lot here. I was not trying to say that this article proves that revenue collection is the true point of a carbon tax (it doesn't) or that the author of the article intended that (unclear but likely not). Personally, I do think that this is the primary purpose of such a tax; that this perspective is rarely presented in media;

Bullshit.

If this is true, and I don't believe you for a second, what did you intend to convey when you wrote "At least they're being honest"?

[blackshoe]

US Constitution, Amendment 999 (proposed): Except in cases of war initiated by another nation against the United States, or declared by Congress, or in cases of bona fide national emergency, declared by the President and confirmed by Congress, there shall be no deficit spending by the Federal Government. In the case of war, authorization for deficit spending will cease immediately upon the cessation of hostilities. In the case of national emergency, the declaration of same shall specify the conditions for the ending of that emergency, but in no case shall deficit spending because of such emergency continue for more than twelve calendar months.

Not perfect, but perhaps it's a start.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-26, 18:14, said:

US Constitution, Amendment 999 (proposed): Except in cases of war initiated by another nation against the United States, or declared by Congress, or in cases of bona fide national emergency, declared by the President and confirmed by Congress, there shall be no deficit spending by the Federal Government. In the case of war, authorization for deficit spending will cease immediately upon the cessation of hostilities. In the case of national emergency, the declaration of same shall specify the conditions for the ending of that emergency, but in no case shall deficit spending because of such emergency continue for more than twelve calendar months.

Not perfect, but perhaps it's a start.

Don't you just love it when the rubes pretend they understand how modern economies work?

Seriously, do you have ANY idea what that type of cut in government spending would do?
We'd either need to start running the printing presses like mad or transition to a depression overnight.

[lalldonn]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-26, 18:14, said:

US Constitution, Amendment 999 (proposed): Except in cases of war initiated by another nation against the United States, or declared by Congress, or in cases of bona fide national emergency, declared by the President and confirmed by Congress, there shall be no deficit spending by the Federal Government. In the case of war, authorization for deficit spending will cease immediately upon the cessation of hostilities. In the case of national emergency, the declaration of same shall specify the conditions for the ending of that emergency, but in no case shall deficit spending because of such emergency continue for more than twelve calendar months.

Not perfect, but perhaps it's a start.

I don't pretend to be an expert, but I have long been under the impression that the government should deficit spend when the economy is bad/slow (to stimulate the economy), and run surplusses when the economy is doing well (to pay off the deficits you ran when the economy was slow). It seems the problem is that the second part rarely happens.

I have one other major issue with your proposal. Wouldn't that give the president/congress/political parties/etc. incentive to either start a war or keep an existing war going in order to fund their desired spending levels? That seems like the last thing we need.

[Bbradley62]

lalldonn, on 2012-September-26, 18:33, said:

I don't pretend to be an expert, but I have long been under the impression that the government should deficit spend when the economy is bad/slow (to stimulate the economy), and run surplusses when the economy is doing well (to pay off the deficits you ran when the economy was slow). It seems the problem is that the second part rarely happens.

Agreed. Federal budgets should be balanced in the long term with some years running deficits and some years running surpluses.

[mike777]

I thought the purpose of a carbon tax was to prevent temperature from rising in the first place.

resource-management strategy that can prevent disasters