How did such a modest and potentially beneficial adjustment to the tax code become virtually undiscussable?That last line is so disingenuous as to be a complete joke.
Simple answer: because that is not what actually gets implemented. When the carbon tax was implemented in Australia, for example, the revenue was used to expand the welfare state – not reduce the tax burden. Worse – income tax rates to lower income individuals were increased.
Now there is an argument to having a carbon tax where that tax is considered as part of the overall tax system. Then we would have to consider the dead weight losses associated with a carbon tax and the dead weight losses associated with the taxes that it replaces. This would involve an honest debate and evaluation of the technical merits and demerits of a carbon tax. I have zero confidence given on what we have seen to date that such a debate could or would be possible.
How can a person who runs a blog that for years and years and years has been absolutely full of "climate change is not a serious issue, if it exists at all" content complain that it's impossible to have a "proper" debate on a carbon tax?
Does he think people don't notice his hand on the tiptruck pouring bullshit into the well of public discourse while simultaneously claiming that it's impossible to reason with people who want him to stop doing that but won't taste the water?
3 comments:
except sinkers does not either read nor understand budget papers. The price ob carbon was instituted ( note not a carbon tax) and receipts as a % of GDP FELL.
mind you he was so worried about its impact on the poor but of course he did not want the GST changed which had a much larger impact on the poor.
Oh dear
I've had a different reaction to Catallaxy in the last six years. I couldn't read it without losing my temper. I find them far less offensive these days. We need a new generation of updated coal electricity generators to heal our grid, even though in the longer run we need to upgrade our coal for other purposes, and move to other forms of electricity generation. The quickest way to heal things is to increase royalties on our exports and start building more coal generators, even though in later decades we may be able to slowly let them dwindle again.
I don't really get your complaint here? Sinclair is being pretty even-handed here isn't he? Did the money really go to the welfare state? Or did it go to the public service more generally? Its not a rhetorical question, I've been out of the loop.
Post a Comment