Gore: No payroll taxes, only Pollution Taxes

Stylerod · 09-19-2006, 05:39 PM

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore on Monday suggested taxing carbon dioxide emissions instead of employees' pay in a bid to stem global warming.

"Penalizing pollution instead of penalizing employment will work to reduce that pollution," Gore said in a speech at New York University School of Law.

The pollution tax would replace all payroll taxes, including those for Social Security and unemployment compensation, Gore said. He said the overall level of taxation, would remain the same.

"Instead of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees it would discourage business from producing more pollution," Gore said.

I don't get it. Would it be safe to say that most employers don't create greenhouse gasses in their line of work?

Say; Blockbuster, Walmart, Costco, McDonalds, Microsoft, Grocery Stores etc. So in order to make up for that lost revenue they would have to tax the living fuck out of Airlines, Car manufacturers, power companies, Bus lines, Taxi services, Steel mills.

Is it just me or is this idea retarded?

Scrum · 09-19-2006, 05:41 PM

It would all come out in the wash.

Stylerod · 09-19-2006, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

It would all come out in the wash.

Well that was less than informative. Thanks!

kinggovernor · 09-19-2006, 05:44 PM

I would like to see a study on this

hsmith · 09-19-2006, 05:45 PM

how about the gov't stop subsidzing everything and we see the real costs of our standards of living. then people will make the correct economic choices.

WickedLou9 · 09-19-2006, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I don't get it. Would it be safe to say that most employers don't create greenhouse gasses in their line of work?

Say; Blockbuster, Walmart, Costco, McDonalds, Microsoft, Grocery Stores etc. So in order to make up for that lost revenue they would have to tax the living fuck out of Airlines, Car manufacturers, power companies, Bus lines, Taxi services, Steel mills.

Is it just me or is this idea retarded?

Looks pretty retarded to me.

I guess all business produce some greenhouse gasses. Even if it's by proxy. IE we use 10 kajillion killowat hours of electricity and that translates into X tons of CO2 emissions.

Stylerod · 09-19-2006, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

how about the gov't stop subsidzing everything and we see the real costs of our standards of living. then people will make the correct economic choices.

That might be good for another thread, not sure what it has to do with pollution tax, but hey, thanks for posting

Stylerod · 09-19-2006, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Looks pretty retarded to me.

I guess all business produce some greenhouse gasses. Even if it's by proxy. IE we use 10 kajillion killowat hours of electricity and that translates into X tons of CO2 emissions.

Unless they have a Nuclear plant nearby.

Scrum · 09-19-2006, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Well that was less than informative. Thanks!

Nothing would end up changing. Everyone would pretty much wind up paying the same.

beez · 09-19-2006, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I don't get it. Would it be safe to say that most employers don't create greenhouse gasses in their line of work?

Say; Blockbuster, Walmart, Costco, McDonalds, Microsoft, Grocery Stores etc. So in order to make up for that lost revenue they would have to tax the living fuck out of Airlines, Car manufacturers, power companies, Bus lines, Taxi services, Steel mills.

Is it just me or is this idea retarded?

I figure BB/Costco/etc. would have to pay a "pollution fee" or whatever to their shipping companies. That would get passed on to the end consumer eventually.

WickedLou9 · 09-19-2006, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Unless they have a Nuclear plant nearby.

yeah I don't know how they would deal with that. Some business might be near the hoover dam. no CO2 there. some might be near a wind farm. Seems like it would just be totally impossible.

Stylerod · 09-19-2006, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by beez

I figure BB/Costco/etc. would have to pay a "pollution fee" or whatever to their shipping companies. That would get passed on to the end consumer eventually.

Ok, but how would they figure out that fee? Right now, it's pretty easy. You pay a % of your income. Would that mean they wouldn't charge the shipping companies with that fee since BB/Costco/etc is already being charged?

Stylerod · 09-19-2006, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Nothing would end up changing. Everyone would pretty much wind up paying the same.

How do you figure? Is it from the detailed plan that Gore laid out?

beez · 09-19-2006, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Ok, but how would they figure out that fee? Right now, it's pretty easy. You pay a % of your income. Would that mean they wouldn't charge the shipping companies with that fee since BB/Costco/etc is already being charged?

I'm sure the companies would just tack on the carbon fee to the cost of the item for the customer (let's say Costco). I'm also sure that the tax would get standardized to some monetary amount per gallon of fuel burned in the type of engine they use. So Costco pays shipping + carbon tax + whatever else to the shipping company. Then Costco sells the products for cost (price paid per item plus shipping costs) + markup + sales tax with carbon tax being part of the shipping costs.

Stylerod · 09-19-2006, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by beez

I'm sure the companies would just tack on the carbon fee to the cost of the item for the customer (let's say Costco). I'm also sure that the tax would get standardized to some monetary amount per gallon of fuel burned in the type of engine they use. So Costco pays shipping + carbon tax + whatever else to the shipping company. Then Costco sells the products for cost (price paid per item plus shipping costs) + markup + sales tax with carbon tax being part of the shipping costs.

So let's see. The shipping company that brings us the crude would get carbon taxed for shipping it here. Then the refinery that refines the crude would get carbon taxed. Then the trucking company that ships the fuel to the gas station gets carbon taxed. Then the company that fills up with that gas gets carbon taxed when they deliver their goods.

It's like a Democrats wet dream! They can tax the same commodity 4-5 maybe 6 times!!!

I'd like to see more details about his plan. But I'm guessing he has none.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-19-2006, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

So let's see. The shipping company that brings us the crude would get carbon taxed for shipping it here. Then the refinery that refines the crude would get carbon taxed. Then the trucking company that ships the fuel to the gas station gets carbon taxed. Then the company that fills up with that gas gets carbon taxed when they deliver their goods.

It's like a Democrats wet dream! They can tax the same commodity 4-5 maybe 6 times!!!

I'd like to see more details about his plan. But I'm guessing he has none.

How is that any different then taxing the same money over and over as it changes hands?

I actually am not opposed to this as I normally am with something gore proposes. However, my assumption is upon viewing the details we'd have SIGNIFICANT disagreements with how to implement it.

beez · 09-19-2006, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

How is that any different then taxing the same money over and over as it changes hands?

It's basically the same thing except you're taxed in terms of pollution produced rather than money earned. The less you pollute, the less you get taxed which is probably preferable to reducing income to reduce taxes.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-19-2006, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by beez

It's basically the same thing except you're taxed in terms of pollution produced rather than money earned. The less you pollute, the less you get taxed which is probably preferable to reducing income to reduce taxes.

If implemented properly thats not an entirely bad idea, however, this plan and everything I've found is sorely lacking details

My assumption and admittedly its from personal bias and I could be wrong, but that assumption is that gore would implement it in such a way as to stiffle business activity and severely hamper businesses that have any significant carbon emissions (virtually all fortune 500 companies).

beez · 09-19-2006, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

If implemented properly thats not an entirely bad idea, however, this plan and everything I've found is sorely lacking details

My assumption and admittedly its from personal bias and I could be wrong, but that assumption is that gore would implement it in such a way as to stiffle business activity and severely hamper businesses that have any significant carbon emissions (virtually all fortune 500 companies).

Maybe but given the slow pace such huge changes to the tax code move at, any company with such significant emissions would have time to at least formulate a plan to help themselves out. The beauty of the idea is that even if a company with huge carbon emissions would get clobbered immediately, that clobbering is the incentive to clean up its act. But yeah there are no details right now so we're all just making stuff up.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-19-2006, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by beez

Maybe but given the slow pace such huge changes to the tax code move at, any company with such significant emissions would have time to at least formulate a plan to help themselves out. The beauty of the idea is that even if a company with huge carbon emissions would get clobbered immediately, that clobbering is the incentive to clean up its act. But yeah there are no details right now so we're all just making stuff up.

It's those incentives that are great, but if you spin the economy off into a period of heavy inflation then is that really a good thing? Some inflation is good and necessary but the question is how much?

How many companies go bankrupt? How many small businesses dont start up because they know they'll have a high tax bill?

These incentives are what I like, but managing the incentives is the hard part. Something this plan is lacking.