[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Nov 14 2008, 02:38 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 12 2008, 07:34 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 13 2008, 02:11 AM, said:

if you add to the price of a car, how will that affect car sales? i mean, the big 3 are already bleeding money, begging for a bailout... i can't see how increasing the cost of the vehicle helps anything

it looks to me as if the desire for a carbon tax keeps people from looking at the bigger picture (how it will affect all of us)... now i'd be all for *cutting* taxes (even no corporate tax) on companies that had safe and reliable alternative sources of power... give companies an incentive to invest and produce

In a shocking move, Jimmy comes out in favor of tax cuts...

Seriously, is there any time that you aren't in favor of tax cuts? This comment is (essentially) meaningless noise.

Can you (or Mike) give ANY examples where you think increases taxes is the right policy decision?

equally shocking, you come out in favor of tax hikes, especially on businesses... in any case, i can't think of very many tax hikes i'd be in favor of... i especially think the progressive income tax (actually, almost any income tax) is extremely unfair

A brilliant and thoroughly unexpected rejoinder....

As always, the depth of your intellect and capacity for original insightful thought never ceases to amaze.

One slight problem: I think that my views on taxs are lot more diverse than yours or Mike's...

Case in point: Most of the proposed implementations of a carbon tax are designed to be revenue neutral. One of the unfortunate characteristics of a carbon tax is that they are extremely regressive. (The burden of the tax falls much more heavily on the working class than on the weathy). Accordingly, most of the proponents of a carbon tax, myself included, argue that the income collected by this tax should be refunded in the form of Income Tax and FICA rebates...

Thanks for playing
Better luck next time

(Oh yeah, on an related point: Carbon taxes really aren't taxes that fall on business. I recommend that you take a look at the concept of a the incidence of a tax, along with price elasticity)

[luke warm]

as usual your argumentation takes the ad hominem route... you can't seem to help yourself

give examples, richard... pick a carbon tax you like, assume it's in place, and tell me how it would affect the average 500/mile per day trucker... would his costs go up? what about the price of whatever it is he's hauling? would jobs be gained or lost?

and i do understand that the more diverse the tax implementation one favors, the more complicated it becomes... but it doesn't follow that you are as brilliant as you think you are, or that those who don't agree with your positions are morons...

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Nov 14 2008, 02:27 PM, said:

give examples, richard... pick a carbon tax you like, assume it's in place, and tell me how it would affect the average 500/mile per day trucker... would his costs go up? what about the price of whatever it is he's hauling? would jobs be gained or lost?

Creative destruction is a well known phenomena. Its been around forever. The expression dates back to Schumpeter, if not earlier...

You can't have economic change without hurting some folks and helping others. The rise of the automobile drove buggy whips manufacturers out of business. A carbon tax will hurt forms of transportation that currently enjoy an undeserved subsidy... (Our failure to tax well known externalities is a subsidy to economically inefficient forms of transportation)

I feel bad for the trucker. But ***** happens...

I will note that I specifically argued that a carbon tax should be announced well in advance and pahsed in over time in order to allow the economy to make a smooth and orderly transition...

Quote

as usual your argumentation takes the ad hominem route... you can't seem to help yourself

Jimmy: Don't think for a minute that I don't notice all your little digs in your usual posts. The difference between our posting style is that I don't pretend to hide my distaste for you...

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Nov 14 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

(Our failure to tax well known externalities is a subsidy to economically inefficient forms of transportation)

That's the whole point. The difficult thing is to quantify those externalities. The rest is just technical details.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Nov 14 2008, 07:45 AM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 14 2008, 02:27 PM, said:

give examples, richard... pick a carbon tax you like, assume it's in place, and tell me how it would affect the average 500/mile per day trucker... would his costs go up? what about the price of whatever it is he's hauling? would jobs be gained or lost?

I feel bad for the trucker. But ***** happens...

I will note that I specifically argued that a carbon tax should be announced well in advance and pahsed in over time in order to allow the economy to make a smooth and orderly transition...

as far as truckers go, the feeling bad wouldn't stop with them - it touches almost every good and service in the country, prices would skyrocket... and yes, you did say you'd phase it in over time

Quote

as usual your argumentation takes the ad hominem route... you can't seem to help yourself

Quote

Jimmy:  Don't think for a minute that I don't notice all your little digs in your usual posts.  The difference between our posting style is that I don't pretend to hide my distaste for you...

you don't pretend to hide your distaste for anyone who disagrees with you, richard... society (or civilization) is all about hiding our distaste for others... i know it doesn't much matter here, but i can't believe you'd use these same tactics in a r/l discussion... i honestly can't recall, in a serious discussion anyway, using that particular fallacy... i could have forgotten, though, after all i *am* a 1.25/.36

[TimG]

luke warm, on Nov 14 2008, 06:18 PM, said:

as far as truckers go, the feeling bad wouldn't stop with them - it touches almost every good and service in the country, prices would skyrocket...

Maybe these rising prices would be, in part, offset by localized production.

Quote

i know it doesn't much matter here, but i can't believe you'd use these same tactics in a r/l discussion

I think he could and would. Richard will never win any elections.

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Nov 15 2008, 07:09 AM, said:

Quote

i know it doesn't much matter here, but i can't believe you'd use these same tactics in a r/l discussion

I think he could and would. Richard will never win any elections.

I have been lucky enough to lead a fairly sheltered life...

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Nov 15 2008, 02:18 AM, said:

as far as truckers go, the feeling bad wouldn't stop with them - it touches almost every good and service in the country, prices would skyrocket...

Carbon taxes will raise the price of goods and services that cause carbon to be released into the atmosphere. That is the basic idea behind the tax...

I wish that everything wash sunshine and lollipops...
Its not.

The world (the US especially) has been living beyond its means for quite some time now. People are going to need to tighten their belts somewhat.

As I said earlier in the conversation, most carbon tax proponents argue that the tax should be implemented in a manner that is revenue neutral. The money collected by the tax should be refunded in the form of income and FICA tax rebates.

Ideally, the tax will cause people to shift consumption away from energy intensive consumables while not having too bad an impact on the standard of living.

Will it be perfect? No...
Will some people be hurt? Yes...

However, these negative impacts are primarily a function of the fact that we've been drawing on a bank account for a very long time. When you stop borrowing, life gets more painful.

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on Nov 15 2008, 08:22 AM, said:

However, these negative impacts are primarily a function of the fact that we've been drawing on a bank account for a very long time.  When you stop borrowing, life gets more painful.

And the longer we push this into the future, the more painful it will get.

Fortunately the young people in the US have gotten involved in politics. The young have the biggest stake in fixing this fast, and should insist upon it.

[helene_t]

To the extent that fuel taxes reflect externalities that affect current standard of living (e.g. traffic accidents, noise, costs of building, maintaining and policing roads) the standard of living may go up as a fuel tax causes resource allocation to improve. Of course this is way over-simplified.

Of course to the extent that fuel taxes reflect some putative long-term externalities (climate change) it seems reasonable to assume that short-term standard of living would be aversely affected. Especially if the revenue is used to subsidize public transport, sustainable energy projects etc.

OTOH, income taxes and VAT have some nasty side effects which don't apply to taxes on raw materials such as oil and coal to the same extent, I think. There are all kinds of un-productive ways for citizens and companies to reduce their income tax. Does that apply to e.g. carbon tax as well? My guess is that it wouldn't to the same extent. I might be wrong.

[y66]

Just talked to a young guy at work yesterday who moved closer in (we work downtown). The rent in his new place is higher, but his commute is now 15 minutes each way vs 1 hour previously. Now he has a life in the evening and he lives in a part of town where a lot of young people are living, walking around and doing stuff together.

You could tell from a mile away that something really good had happened to this guy.

Have seen this happening for some time now in many cities in the U.S. But now it's accelerating.

[Gerben42]

I don't see much fun in commuting either. I live very close to where I work, and enjoy it every day as I bike next to the traffic jams of cars of all the employees who happen to live somewhere else than they work. It's worth the extra rent.

[hrothgar]

Here's an interesting excerpt from Obama's speach to the governor's conference

Quote

The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. ...

My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process.

That will start with a federal cap and trade system. We will establish strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80% by 2050.

Further, we will invest $15 billion each year to catalyze private sector efforts to build a clean energy future. We will invest in solar power, wind power, and next generation biofuels. We will tap nuclear power, while making sure it’s safe. And we will develop clean coal technologies.

This investment will not only help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil, making the United States more secure. And it will not only help us bring about a clean energy future, saving our planet. It will also help us transform our industries and steer our country out of this economic crisis by generating five million new green jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced.

But the truth is, the United States cannot meet this challenge alone.

I'm definitely happy that the President elect Obama is recognizing this as a major policy initiative. I'm less pleased with his remedy. (I think that a carbon tax is a simplier instrument and more effective instrument than cap and trade)

[helene_t]

I wouldn't be too worried. He will obviously have to introduce a carbon tax as well, but the feel-good stuff about setting targets and creating jobs is more suitable for a speech.

[PassedOut]

helene_t, on Nov 19 2008, 09:13 AM, said:

I wouldn't be too worried. He will obviously have to introduce a carbon tax as well, but the feel-good stuff about setting targets and creating jobs is more suitable for a speech.

I agree. He's going to have to use his position to overcome the anti-global-warming propaganda fed to US citizens for many years. When enough people understand the gravity of the situation, he'll have the support he needs to do more.

His speech was a good start.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Nov 15 2008, 08:22 AM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 15 2008, 02:18 AM, said:

as far as truckers go, the feeling bad wouldn't stop with them - it touches almost every good and service in the country, prices would skyrocket...

Carbon taxes will raise the price of goods and services that cause carbon to be released into the atmosphere. That is the basic idea behind the tax...

that would be everything walmart (to pick one of thousands) sells, everything every grocery store in america sells, all clothing, etc etc... yeah, i guess it would hurt a few of us

PassedOut, on Nov 19 2008, 09:24 AM, said:

helene_t, on Nov 19 2008, 09:13 AM, said:

I wouldn't be too worried. He will obviously have to introduce a carbon tax as well, but the feel-good stuff about setting targets and creating jobs is more suitable for a speech.

I agree. He's going to have to use his position to overcome the anti-global-warming propaganda fed to US citizens for many years. When enough people understand the gravity of the situation, he'll have the support he needs to do more.

His speech was a good start.

assume for a moment that we do absolutely nothing.. what grave situation do you foresee?

[cherdano]

luke warm, on Nov 19 2008, 12:19 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 15 2008, 08:22 AM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 15 2008, 02:18 AM, said:

as far as truckers go, the feeling bad wouldn't stop with them - it touches almost every good and service in the country, prices would skyrocket...

Carbon taxes will raise the price of goods and services that cause carbon to be released into the atmosphere. That is the basic idea behind the tax...

that would be everything walmart (to pick one of thousands) sells, everything every grocery store in america sells, all clothing, etc etc... yeah, i guess it would hurt a few of us

What part of "revenue neutral" don't you understand?
Ah I guess, Democrats raising taxes MUST be bad (regardless of whether they are lowering others).

[awm]

luke warm, on Nov 19 2008, 01:19 PM, said:

assume for a moment that we do absolutely nothing.. what grave situation do you foresee?

Well let's see....

More severe hurricane seasons hitting the southeast coast of the US. Already starting to happen?

More severe drought conditions in a number of areas. Yup, seeing that too?

Melting glaciers causing problems in Alaska (mostly for wildlife, but to some degree for people too).
Also happening, but maybe we don't care about those alaskans?

In the longer term, serious flooding as the water levels rise. Hasn't really happened yet, but an awful lot of major cities would be below sea level with a rise of just a couple inches...

[luke warm]

cherdano, on Nov 19 2008, 01:28 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 19 2008, 12:19 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 15 2008, 08:22 AM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 15 2008, 02:18 AM, said:

as far as truckers go, the feeling bad wouldn't stop with them - it touches almost every good and service in the country, prices would skyrocket...

Carbon taxes will raise the price of goods and services that cause carbon to be released into the atmosphere. That is the basic idea behind the tax...

that would be everything walmart (to pick one of thousands) sells, everything every grocery store in america sells, all clothing, etc etc... yeah, i guess it would hurt a few of us

What part of "revenue neutral" don't you understand?
Ah I guess, Democrats raising taxes MUST be bad (regardless of whether they are lowering others).

take the one example, arend, and explain the "revenue neutral" concept to me... just trucks, forget shipping or rail or air, taking into account all aspects of society that would be touched how do we make the trucking of goods and services revenue neutral?

awm, on Nov 19 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 19 2008, 01:19 PM, said:

assume for a moment that we do absolutely nothing.. what grave situation do you foresee?

Well let's see....

More severe hurricane seasons hitting the southeast coast of the US. Already starting to happen?

More severe drought conditions in a number of areas. Yup, seeing that too?

Melting glaciers causing problems in Alaska (mostly for wildlife, but to some degree for people too).
Also happening, but maybe we don't care about those alaskans?

In the longer term, serious flooding as the water levels rise. Hasn't really happened yet, but an awful lot of major cities would be below sea level with a rise of just a couple inches...

have any of those things happened in the past? say in a cyclical fashion? if so, what caused it? i do know (well, not personally - i've read it) that co2 levels dropped from an atmospheric high of about 80% to about 20 or 30% over the course of a few thousands of years... do you think that during this long drop there were periods of drought, killer hurricanes, etc? i'm just asking

[cherdano]

Jimmy, a "revenue neutral tax change" means raising some taxes (carbon tax) while lowering others (say, VAT). So you would pay more at Walmart for products with high energy costs, and less for products with low energy costs (maybe high labor costs).
[Did you intentionally shift the discussion back from "higher prices at Walmart hurting all of us" to "higher costs associated with trucking"?]