Here comes carbon taxation.
Maybe we will have to wear masks to measure the carbon dioxide we exhale.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-0 … -says.html
Assuming we go with the highest number provided by WikiAnswers for the amount of CO2 a person would exhale annually, if you charged on a per person basis it would be about 9 dollars for breathing, per year.
Or we could see that a carbon-tax would not be placed on individuals and even a tax for goods or businesses will probably not be proposed.
On the off chance that it is, it likely will not pass all the way through Congress, and since the President can't write legislation it will not get off the ground.
Of course, we cannot ignore the under lying reasons for the tax considered in the first place: the desire to cut the deficit, cull environmental damage and promote taxes on larger businesses.
Actually, it is part of the UN agenda and is a great way to increase revenue and reduce the deficit, I believe your article post read to cut it in half by 2020...This will be an incentive for corporations to be clean and therefore keep our air breathable...I have never understood why people think we should just be "entitled," to live in the greatest country on earth, with the greatest infrastructure and shouldn't have to pitch in on the upkeep, it's absurd, Do you get your house for free? Should we all be given houses and food too because we were born in this country. The conservative side of the isle does a lot of lip service about responsibility...well, news flash...paying taxes to "keep" our country beautiful and clean is all of our responsibility!
Do you honestly believe that carbon tax will do anything, anything at all for our environment?
Let's please review in our minds what happens with taxes collected. They get spent ala Social Security.
yes Fae, they get spent...that is why they are collected, for that upkeep I was speaking about, taxes build roads and bridges, pay wages to your garbage pick up guys, invest in schools etc. etc......SS is emptying out because the baby boomers are ageing through the system, and something will need to be done to make it solvent....I have said many times the cap just needs to be removed, or at least raised considerably, and the voila, solvent....When companies pay taxes on CO2 they will fight harder to keep those emissions at the very bottom, cleaner air...when cigerettes and tanning bed visits have higher taxes, it feeds into the healthcare system because skin and lung cancers are a top killer....taxes are genious, taxes have all chip in to the big pot that pays for the countries upkeep, that we are all responsible to do.
How much higher do cigarettes need to be? Tax more spend more, democrats will never understand! All money is generated from the private sector!! The government can't do anything but redistribute OUR money, they will burn through any money collected and then raise taxes again and again. They will never stop until we become Greece!
My point is they usually get spent for anything....and I do mean anything...except that for which they were collected. When you charge a corporate facility a carbon tax for their operations it does not change what the carbon is doing. it only places money in the general coffers where it goes out somewhere else. Another ruse to raise taxes.
So public education is a ruse?
Also, how do you expect the pricate sector to reduce government debt?
No...public education is not a ruse.
Taxing the air to get the funds is ridiculous and akin to the draconian taxes on such things as cigarettes.
We can't stop breathing and many of them can't stop smoking so let's take advantage of them.
There are people actually deluded enough to believe that carbon tax will do something for the environment.
It is not the job of the private sector to reduce government debt. Carbon tax will not reduce government debt and you know it. No tax ever does or has. You can only reduce debt when you cut spending.
Ah, so went I stop buying things my house loan goes away?
Don't be absurd.
Try this. Completely run your checking account out to the end of the overdraft protection. Max out any credit cards you may have. Leave them that way for six months and then see if you can get any more. Go for it big fella.
You still say how not paying a debt will make it go away. Cutting spending is great when you can, but people are sick, education is expensive and roads need to be built and whether you think that that happens or not is no matter. God, this box is awful small .
I didn't say not paying a debt would make it go away. Reducing the level of spending will help keep it from growing. There cannot be enough taxes levied to pay the deficit down. There are not enough rich people.
The only things that happens is money gets raised for a social program that goes over budget and you have more deficit.
Now....you knew that before you started the argument.
And now here we are, on the narrow edge... Lol
Spending does need to be cut, and revenues raised...cutiing out corporate wefare to oil companies will be a great start in the cutting process...
Welfare implies it is a gift from the government, it is the oil companies money to begin with!
No it's not, we have a democratically elected government which charges a rightful tariff for operating on US soil, once that money is taxed it's property of the public ie. the government and it is the government's money to do with as they wish within the boundaries of the constitution
IT IS THE OIL COMPANIES MONEY, GOVERNMENT CONFISCATES MONEY AND REDISTRIBUTES IT.
Nope government charges a tariff for the services provided including the protection and sanctity of the state as legally prerequisite and known by all US businesses. Taxes are not confiscation they are payment for services rendered.
You know the jargon don't you?
You should have been a lawyer Josak. Does not change what he or I said.
BP - beyond petroleum. The era of the internal combustion engine is over. Set a new course. We have the technology and know how to do it better. Shame on the oil companies.
Oh you mean those EMPLOYEES of the PEOPLE?
Damn shame we didn't fire a few of the worst the other night...instead they hired a liar(Warren) and re-elected a man in a mental hospital who is under ethics investigations(Jackson Jr.).
Yup the people rehire their favored employees very recently, too bad you didn't like the choice.
Yeah.....I would like to see how loudly you would scream if those were the other party.
Those two are wrong and you know it.
I voted third party, but you are correct I preferred Obama, unlike some here however I am a gracious loser so no there would have been no whining about it from me.
A third party vote is not wasted. We need an "Independent Party" to drive out of this rut. Josak is bold enough to be a forerunner.
Find someone who is worth it and for God in Heaven' sake DON'T say Ron Paul.
It takes more than wanting there to be a third party and waiting every four years to try and get a President elected because of it. You get someone right and get a base and I am there.
Actually no matter who I voted for it would have been "wasted" my state went blue by a mile.
My point, my man.
Too bad there can't be a good alternative there but no one puts in the leg work to get it up and running.
You can't do enough leg work to make Romney a good choice for president.
Why don't you understand the government has no money of its own? Government does not produce one single thing that creates money, ALL money is created in the private sector!! ALL OF IT!
Combined "1%" and corporate profits 21.5 trillion yearly.
current deficit 1 trillion yearly
Which means a 4.8ish increase in taxes on both those groups would get rid of the deficit right now.
I am not suggesting that's the best course but your claim is just wrong.
Please, don't be foolish. We need to stop polluting the atmosphere. This may not be the best way to do it, but I am sure you have a better idea. What is it?
How is collecting money going to prevent what we do to the atmosphere?
That tax is not going to stop pollution any more than the tax on cigarettes stops the smoker. You know that full well. In fact, if everyone stopped smoking all we would hear about is how are we going to pay for it.
Am I not right?
No your not right, people have the free will to smoke or not, raising the price maybe even deters some, but using that tax in the insurance industry helps to pay for inevidable cancers...if you are saying they do not spend the money where they should that is a different arguement and worth researching, it is all on-line, youcan read every penny spent from the treasury on-line
Smoking has reduced massively in the same period if we could get the same carbon results that would be amazing, not the best example to use .
Other posters are also correct in stating that this money will be much less than than is required to fix the problems we are already seeing as a result of global warming (despite the clueless loons shouting it's a conspiracy) expert calculations put the economic cost of global warming on our economy this year at over 200 billion.
You are right. I am just trying to focus on what we should do to curb pollution.
By the way, I quit smoking cigarettes. Price was not the issue.
Carbon tax is almost like saying Ok you pay this and you can do what you like.
It will not solve an environmental problem. Only Al Gore believes that and if you wish to follow hi down a primrose path be my guest. He bought a mansion in one of his self-proclaimed future flood zones. Something wrong there.
Even if it has no impact on pollution (it has been successful in reducing it in several countries which have already done this so that is doubtful) the money raised can be spent on improving technology for greener energy and reducing the damage of climate change, either way it helps prevent global warming.
I am not naive enough to believe that will happen with that money.
It's already happening. Money is being spent in precisely that way, your doubt is irrelevant, it's easy to write into the bill anyhow that the money can only be spent in that way if necessary.
And surely you know better than that statement holding up under the test of time. If you want money to be mishandled give it to a politician.
Money given to the government created the most powerful nation on earth and made our lives possible, if you want a look at what life without government is like check out Somalia which has the worst quality of life in the world and is the only country where people don't give politicians money. Do politicians always spend money perfectly? Hell no. Do they usually spend it badly? evidently not.
Yes.....at one time it made the most powerful nation on earth.
It now makes the most powerful third world country on earth thanks to the grifters who are in power.
The people are in power. We are the ones who support substandard pay and labor regulations in China every time we take that trip to Walmart. We buy oil, no matter what the price.
Great. Get a bicycle and shop at a Mom and Pop. I don't care.
What technology is that man? i owned a hybrid and you will note that is past tense. Biggest piece of crfap I have ever bought. Then take it to the dealer for and oil change or something. You or I or all of us here don't have the money needed.
I have a Chevy Coblat that gets 32 mpg. i do my thing.
I worked at Harris. Google it. We can do better. It doesn't matter what you do . . . gas is past.
Look don't come on here and tell me to Google something. make your case.
Fiesty! Harris is a technology corporation. Their research and development is off the chart.
We have advanced technology, but still produce and deliver electricity the same way Edison did. We need to change the grid paradigm and go modular. There are other fuels that don't pollute for our vehicles. We don't need to have an automobile culture. It is unsustainable, anyway.
I don't understand why people who claim they want change for the better are so oppositional to changing for the better.
Even by your dubious third it's an incredible achievement, people need a government to cooperate and work together efficiently, simple as that, money paid in taxes is money well spent the vast majority of the time.
God Josak i know you know better than to 100% back that last statement.
It's the simple truth, I have actually helped plan state government budgets in the past, you would be amazed how efficient and well run the system is to get the most out of every dollar.
It's actually not that hard to go to council planning financial meetings or review state spending, as a citizen you have the right to examine all state spending records 9 to 5 Monday to Friday, if you are actually interested in something other than complaining, see if you can spread the budget better than the team of economists they hire.
Yeah, and there is something wrong with Sarah Palin building a McMansion under a three hundred year old saguaro cactus in the Sonoran Desert.
The difference being she wasn't out demanding funds be raised for the McMansion and Al Gore directly benefits from his fraud.
And what the hell does Sarah Palin have to do with any of this?
No. If it's expensive for a company to pollute, they loose competitiveness (and therefore profit). To maintain both they will need to reduce their carbon footprint. Companies that do will prosper, companies that don't will suffer.
Basically it's a way of using market forces to encourage social responsibility. An example of ensuring the profit motive at the heart of capitalism has a positive impact on society rather than a negative one.
Welcome to Capitalism 2.0
If you have an extra expense you raise prices to offset.
Welcome to Economics 101.
Fae, you raise prices your no longer competitive, you lose business, same reason we have been beating ourselves out of jobs, buying less expensive goods from China...
It depends on who you are competing with and if they are in the same boat.
That is the point, that they are all in the same boat, level playing field, same rules apply, that's why and how it works
So therefore their existence is being threatened by taxation.
It is not a threat Fae, it is their duty and responsibility...We talked about that before, we are not entitled to live in this great country for free, there is no free lunch...this attitude bothers me the most because the Republican party rails against entitlement programs for the poor and disabled yet convinces their supporters that they should not have to pay taxes, it's absurd, and contradictry, Same as they are pro-life but for execution...It just does not make sense...It is common knowledge that taxes are a price of all citizens for the good of all citizens...This is why I asked you if you had ever been to India...streets full of packed down trash, traffic goes in all directions, there are the very wealthy with servants and the poor in tent cities...That is the direction the far right wing has been pushing us towards...that is why the grass roots showed up and voted Obama back in to office...everyone needs an even playing field of opportunity.
Not at all, when they reduce emissions the tax goes down simple as that, they provide the only risk through their existence by reckless pollution.
Obama wants to tackle the deficit? Oh ho! Why doesn't he actually cut spending, stop borrowing and stop raising the debt ceiling? That's absolutely correct: because he has absolutely no interest in cutting the deficit.
He knows that the environmental message is as dead as dead, so he has to at least posture towards a relevant issue to get anywhere.
Why carbon taxes would make diddly-difference to the debt problem, even if the money was used to pay it back:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jboTeS9O … plpp_video
Combined "1%" and corporate profits 21.5 trillion yearly.
current deficit 1 trillion yearly
Which means a 4.8ish increase in taxes on both those groups would get rid of the deficit right now
Stop relying on youtube videos.
As for the income of a Carbon tax, much cleaner Norway raise about 1.5 Billion American a year in a country of 4.9 million people, even if America was as "clean" as Norway which it is nowhere near that is still a population equivalent of 100 billion which is 10% of the deficit every year.
This years debt is closer to 4 trillion, and corporate profits only 1.66 trillion for 2010 (that's the latest year I have data for). I don't know where you're getting your data from. In any case, your premises assume that the debt isn't going to increase in that time from over-spending and borrowing, and it is.
In total, including unfunded liabilities, the debt is something like 117 trillion.
I'm not 'relying' on Youtube videos - it was to demonstrate the problem to other people in a simple manner.
The debt solution.10% tax across the board (no deductions). Okay, Washington DC, tht's all you get for your budget. Spend it wisely. As far as debt to China. Welcome to capitalism. Investments are risky. Sorry about your luck . . . you just lost all of yours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Unite … ral_budget
yes it's Wikipedia but fully referenced.
Deficit for 2011 is the highest ever (reduced in 2012) 1.56 trillion.
Corporate profits have been rising but I think your error was you saw 1.6 trillion per quarter and assumed annual because that makes sense for the figures.
Sooner or later, you have to quit taking stuff to the pawn shop. You just have to be broke.
I think I've figured it out on both counts:
Wikipedia uses the official government statistics - the US government doesn't use standard accounting rules to calculate the budget, by missing out promised retirement benefits. Corporations are expected to account these. This brings the deficit closer to 5 trillion this year
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/real-d … /id/440170
My figures for corporate profits come from the Wall Street Journal (corporate shills, maybe, maybe not), and it definitely says 'annual' here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 95484.html
See I take where that is coming from with a grain of salt and know in my heart of hearts this is spin.
This isn't spin, but is opinion of an author based on the provided facts, so if you can take the same set of facts and build a different scenario, what would it be? What would be your personal spin on those same provided facts be?
I don't believe the Obama victory indicates people want to be taxed more. That's silly.
Nobody wants to be taxed more. This is an attempt to put a mandate of sorts on the face of it and it just does not fit.
The election went the way it did simply because Romney was about as good as McCain or Dole. That's it.
He couldn't get relatable enough to enough people.
But "Please tax me more"? That's like "please slam my big toe with a hammer"!
The parts you are rejecting are the facts of the article, not the opinion of the author...facts are facts...I was trying to understand how these facts can be spun negativley...and I was not giving Obama the credit, this article implies this is the way citizens vote, they will vote and pass taxes on themselves, such as a wheel tax in order to maintain and build bridges and roads, I have voted for that everytime, I want my small town to have good roads, schools, maintenance of property...Have you ever been to India?
It's exactly what it means, liberals are on averae 6% wealthier and they elected Obama who is going to increase taxes the message there is pretty darned clear, some of us are happy to make sacrifices for the good of the country. As Stephen king put it "Please tax me more for F*&%$s sake".
Taxing the very air itself? Oh really?
Don't hold your breath...
Your comment is so funny and makes a point.
by My Esoteric 20 months ago
The latest analysis of who benefits most (in terms of percentage change) from Donald Trump's tax plan. It was done by an Obama economic adviser AND agreed to by the conservative Tax Foundation (funded by corporations, the Koch Foundation, among others). Therefore it is essentially a...
by A James Di Rodi 5 years ago
Why is taxing the rich so difficult?
by Dalriada Books Ltd 6 years ago
Shall we implement "Fat Tax" on fast food or on overweight person in order to fight obesity?Lawmakers in UK and Sweden proposed 'fat tax' on fast food, but in reality it's not easy to do that. It might be easier to implement fat tax on person in order to fight obesity, The tax could...
by safiq ali patel 5 years ago
From January 1st 2013 Taxes in the United States of America go upwards. People in the United States of America will pay higher taxes from this day. What is your opinion of these Tax Rises?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
income redistribution and having a rescue me mentality? What makes so many people extremely hesitant to accept self-responsibility and self-accountability? Don't they realize that many people are in dire life and socioeconomic circumstances because of poor decision making and life choices on their...
by yaswanthk 4 years ago
Are more and more taxes and bigger government good for your country or only for politicians?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|