HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » If you were Obama, would ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:26 AM

If you were Obama, would you trade a carbon tax for keeping income rates the same?

I read this OP today and found it interesting. Carbon tax are mentioned as a means to raise revenue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/why-conservatives-should-want-a-carbon-tax/2012/11/16/e96ebc4a-300f-11e2-af17-67abba0676e2_blog.html

Hurricane Sandy put climate change back in the political conversation, but at the moment, actual action looks unlikely. Yes, during his victory speech last week, President Obama said that he would take action on reducing emissions, but the administration has yet to put a proposal on the table. There was some hope — among liberals — that a tax on carbon could be part of a “grand bargain” related to the fiscal cliff. Rather than raising tax rates, the government would place a tax on emissions, which would both incentivize green technology and raise needed revenue. But as the Hill reports, Republicans have absolutely no interest in going down that road:


So, if you had to trade to get a carbon tax, would you? Would you give up raising income taxes?

15 replies, 962 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply If you were Obama, would you trade a carbon tax for keeping income rates the same? (Original post)
BrentWil Nov 2012 OP
Angry Dragon Nov 2012 #1
rock Nov 2012 #2
BrentWil Nov 2012 #8
ProSense Nov 2012 #3
AndyTiedye Nov 2012 #4
BrentWil Nov 2012 #9
lalalu Nov 2012 #5
Arcanetrance Nov 2012 #6
99Forever Nov 2012 #7
Jackpine Radical Nov 2012 #10
Cicada Nov 2012 #11
karynnj Nov 2012 #12
msongs Nov 2012 #13
Progressive dog Nov 2012 #14
HopeHoops Nov 2012 #15

Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:28 AM

1. Nope

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:34 AM

2. No

Obama has already said, "one time only." And that time is past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rock (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:38 AM

8. He is in a better position..

But we will be seeing cuts in SS, Medicare, etc. That is a reality. They won't be as deep because he has some leverage on taxes.

That said, I think a carbon tax is important for the future of mankind and the planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:35 AM

3. Hell no! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:37 AM

4. Would Need a More Progressive Income Tax Schedule to Make Up for REgressive Carbon Tax

A "carbon tax" would be highly regressive, hitting the poor the hardest, so income taxes would need to be more progressive to make up for it, and public assistance would need to be increased as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyTiedye (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:40 AM

9. It would depend how it is structures...

But that very well could be the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:37 AM

5. NO, NO, and once again NO.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:37 AM

6. No

While both are important to help our future without a country that's solvent climate change measures will amount to nothing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:38 AM

7. Fuck no.

Enough bullshit. Tax the greedy bastards, HARD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:48 AM

10. I think I'd go hard-line

and commence an information campaign (catapulting the truth) explaining how the Republicans are petulantly refusing to take steps to protect us from more environmental disasters because they want tax breaks for the rich.

On the East and Gulf Coasts I'd talk about how the Republicans are setting us up for another Katrina/Sandy.

In the midwest/southwest, I'd talk about droughts, floods and bizarre weather patterns that permit the spread of invasive pests, etc.

Take it to the fuckers. Use the social media & alternative press. Get these discussions going everywhere & get local groups forming to discuss & advance local initiatives. Get the kids excited. Maybe start inventing video games premised on themes such as salvaging the Earth in the face of climate change, sort of like the old Sim City game but with more action.

And put forward a massive jobs program to build a new green infrastructure. You know the litany. Wind & solar; high-speed rail (300 kph +); fiber-optics everywhere. Put America at least in a league with South Korea in bandwidth.

Do as much of this as possible with public works programs, and kick the shit out of the Republicans when they won't go along with a repeal of the Reagan-era "anti-WPA" law.

In other words, Obama ought to actually become the socialist monster that the Teabaggers have already painted him to be.

Take no prisoners. --Well, I don't really mean that. It would be fine to prosecute Romney & the rest of the Republican gang for all their indictable offenses.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:16 AM

11. Yes, global warming is real

A carbon tax isn't particularly regressive, it's pretty much a tax spread over the entire economy. So it hits rich and poor roughly at the same rate, the tax is roughly proportional to income. And it will lower greenhouse emissions. So if it is set high enough to raise the same amount as eliminating tax cuts on rich then the environmental benefits seem to me worth it. Since Repubs won't go for much of a tax hike on the rich anyway. I don't think we can get the Bush tax cuts on the rich totally eliminated - since the Repubs would rather see the end of the world first. Of course best would be both more tax on the affluent and a carbon tax. We will take over the house before too long, when Texas goes blue, and we can get a fairer tax code then. We're not going to make much progress before then anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:27 AM

12. No, it is less progressive than the tax cuts that he is asking for

When Gore and others have proposed a carbon tax (or anything else - like cap and trade - which implicitly assigns a cost to carbon - they always included rebates to people most affected by this. The reasons was that a carbon tax would be a huge tax to a middle class or working class person who drives an old car and lives in an area where coal is used to create electricity or heat homes. (It is even possible that Bill Gates, living in Washington state where there is substantial hydro-electrical energy could get a lower tax (or only slightly higher) tax on his home and cars than a hypothetical worker in - say, Pennsylvania. Compare this to raising that top rate to Clinton levels.

That said, I am 100% behind efforts to tax carbon because it really is critical that the US lead on this. The only way that this could ever pass the Senate is if the regions that are dependent on coal which would bear the brunt of the tax got back part of that money to the state to protect the people who had nothing to do with choosing for their electric company using coal over natural gas or hydro electric.

If you remember in 2009 and 2010, John Kerry worked hard to try to get a bill that could pass the Senate on climate change. You might remember that early in that process the "coal state" Senators signed a letter that essentially was concerned about the burden on their states. The signees included people like Sherrod Brown (who worked with Kerry on this very issue), Feingold, Harkin and others. The solution was to use the "revenue" for research, to aid converting to better forms of energy and to avoid the burden falling disproportionately on people who had nothing to do with the decision on which on energy source.

I think that the goal of taking in enough revenue should NOT be mixed with using financial incentives to move the country off fossil fuels - though I am 100% for both goals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:48 AM

13. if you were a serial liar perhaps nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:27 PM

14. no you do not trade a progressive tax for a regressive tax nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrentWil (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:04 PM

15. It isn't "raising" taxes on the 250K+ crowd - it's not renewing the Bush cut.

 

There's a major difference there, but don't expect to hear that from FOX or Rush.

And no, I wouldn't trade. I'd just insist on letting the $250K+ crowd tax cut expire. Personally, I wouldn't mind if they let ALL of the Bush cuts expire. That was a major reason why the economy tanked.

The carbon tax, as currently proposed, is so full of loop-holes it looks like swiss cheese. Obama needs to keep his foot firmly planted and demand what he wants. Let the House squirm around for a while and focus EVERYTHING on the intransigence of the House. That was perhaps the primary factor in the overwhelming defeat of the GOP on the 6th. It's their turn to back down and find a compromise. Obama has the power here and he needs to use it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread