I skimmed through the page and the linked website, but I couldn’t find any specific amounts. How much do they want to tax, and whom?
The proposal handwaves that the 1% are responsible for a large percentage of global warming emissions. But if that is the problem, why not tax those emissions directly?
Emissions are hard to track. We all know the answer is to tax fossil product extraction and import, with the idea that all fossile materials are bought to be burned or made into other things that are eventually burned.
Canada has implemented a carbon tax. Maybe I’ve been living under a rock, but I haven’t heard of it being particularly difficult to implement. As I understand it, the tax is implemented at the source, and then made revenue neutral by redistributing the revenue equally to all taxpayers.
If you burn more carbon, you pay more. If you are efficient, you get more money back than you paid in taxes.
I skimmed through the page and the linked website, but I couldn’t find any specific amounts. How much do they want to tax, and whom?
The proposal handwaves that the 1% are responsible for a large percentage of global warming emissions. But if that is the problem, why not tax those emissions directly?
Emissions are hard to track. We all know the answer is to tax fossil product extraction and import, with the idea that all fossile materials are bought to be burned or made into other things that are eventually burned.
Unsurprisingly the lobby groups hate that.
Canada has implemented a carbon tax. Maybe I’ve been living under a rock, but I haven’t heard of it being particularly difficult to implement. As I understand it, the tax is implemented at the source, and then made revenue neutral by redistributing the revenue equally to all taxpayers.
If you burn more carbon, you pay more. If you are efficient, you get more money back than you paid in taxes.
I’ve heard good things. Also quite a bit of FUD. That means it’s working ;)