GOP - Pushing for Carbon TAX

[GURPS]

Old-Guard Republicans to Push Carbon Tax at White House Meeting


Paulson, who served as Treasury secretary under President George W. Bush, previously has advocated a carbon tax through his eponymous think tank, the Paulson Institute. Baker, who served as secretary of state and Treasury secretary under two Republican administrations, as well as former Secretary of State George Shultz, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. founder Rob Walton and Sequoia Capital Operations LLC partner Thomas Stephenson, among others. Economic advisers to former presidents George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan also are involved in the effort.

"Climate change poses an unacceptable risk to our climate and to our economy," Paulson said in a statement. "Putting a price on carbon is by far the most efficient and effective way to restrict emissions."

Baker himself conceded he remains "somewhat of a skeptic about the extent to which man is responsible for climate change" but the "risks are too great to ignore."

[clip]

Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney described the proposal in a tweet as a "thought-provoking plan from highly respected conservatives to both strengthen the economy and confront climate risks."

when has a TAX ever strengthened anything

 

[Hijinx]

when has a TAX ever strengthened anything

Taxation because they cannot think of anything else to do.
Tell this guy Paulson to shove it where the sun don't shine.

 

[This_person]

when has a TAX ever strengthened anything

Hopefully such a thing is laughed out.

 

[Larry Gude]

when has a TAX ever strengthened anything

Where to start?

How about the military?

Highways? Medical advancements? Food and water quality? Regulatory protections for consumers? Regulatory controls over mining and oil companies?

Border control?

Maybe the internet?

Social Security?

The space program?


Or should all of that have been left up to the warm compassion of entities solely motivated by profit?

 

[Hijinx]

Where to start?

How about the military?

Highways? Medical advancements? Food and water quality? Regulatory protections for consumers? Regulatory controls over mining and oil companies?

Border control?

Maybe the internet?

Social Security?

The space program?


Or should all of that have been left up to the warm compassion of entities solely motivated by profit?

LMAO who will be the first one to say Republicans are just like Democrats for trying to raise taxes?
Go get 'em Larry.

 

[SamSpade]

I think for once - it's clever. The GOP is notorious for classically UNCLEVER stunts.

As I understand it - they agree to carbon taxes in exchange for eliminating regulations. That's brilliant.
Pay a tax the left wants - eliminate stupid regulations that tax them otherwise - it's win-win.

 

[Hijinx]

I think for once - it's clever. The GOP is notorious for classically UNCLEVER stunts.

As I understand it - they agree to carbon taxes in exchange for eliminating regulations. That's brilliant.
Pay a tax the left wants - eliminate stupid regulations that tax them otherwise - it's win-win.

I like that Sam.

 

[This_person]

I think for once - it's clever. The GOP is notorious for classically UNCLEVER stunts.

As I understand it - they agree to carbon taxes in exchange for eliminating regulations. That's brilliant.
Pay a tax the left wants - eliminate stupid regulations that tax them otherwise - it's win-win.

Regulations, by definition, are not laws. With conservative (let's hope) control of the EPA, those bad regulations can be rolled back without anything other than good management and leadership.

Now, in 4-8 years, when a liberal regains control, those regulations can come back.

If we change the LAW to restrict regulations, there would be some merit. Otherwise, it's like "I'll gladly give you a spending cut next year for a raised tax today" problem that conservatives have fell for (or, let us think they fell for) for many, many years.

Taxing a natural emission is wrong. Punishment for progress is wrong. If they want to gain a non-carbon-emission world, they need to fund the useful sciences (you know, like Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says they have the authority to do) to do research into finding a useful, meaningful, cost-effective way to replace the carbon-emitters. Until that is done, all that happens is an increase in cost because there are no viable alternatives.

Now, who gets that money?

 

[This_person]

Where to start?

How about the military?

Highways? Medical advancements? Food and water quality? Regulatory protections for consumers? Regulatory controls over mining and oil companies?

Border control?

Maybe the internet?

Social Security?

The space program?


Or should all of that have been left up to the warm compassion of entities solely motivated by profit?

Is it your contention that higher taxes strengthen the economy? Why not go to 100% then?

 

[Larry Gude]

LMAO who will be the first one to say Republicans are just like Democrats for trying to raise taxes?
Go get 'em Larry.

How would you propose to pay for stuff? Or just make your little tojo-esque hit and run comments?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I think for once - it's clever. The GOP is notorious for classically UNCLEVER stunts.

As I understand it - they agree to carbon taxes in exchange for eliminating regulations. That's brilliant.
Pay a tax the left wants - eliminate stupid regulations that tax them otherwise - it's win-win.

What's stopping the next Democratic president to not only use (and possibly expand) this Carbon Tax in addition to imposing the very regulations they want to get rid of in exchange for this tax now?

And let's be clear, the GOP, and Trump, hated an idea of a Carbon Tax last year. Now it's a good idea?

Not to mention, I thought the GOP was against wealth re-distribution?

The blueprint involves a $40 tax on every metric ton of carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels, with the price climbing over time. To avoid an undue burden on the poor from the higher energy bills that would result, the projected $200 billion to $300 billion in annual revenue would be redistributed to households in the form of quarterly checks from the Social Security Administration. Families of four would see an average annual payout of $2,000 under the plan, they say.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...cans-begin-push-to-tax-carbon-cut-regulations

Amazing stuff that the GOP is for this. Anyone who believes in real free markets would be against this horrific tax.

 

[SamSpade]

What's stopping the next Democratic president to not only use (and possibly expand) this Carbon Tax in addition to imposing the very regulations they want to get rid of in exchange for this tax now?

And let's be clear, the GOP, and Trump, hated an idea of a Carbon Tax last year. Now it's a good idea?

Not to mention, I thought the GOP was against wealth re-distribution?

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...cans-begin-push-to-tax-carbon-cut-regulations

Amazing stuff that the GOP is for this. Anyone who believes in real free markets would be against this horrific tax.

I guess if you see the writing on the wall - that Democrats in the White House in eight years as an inevitability - maybe they see a carbon tax as inevitable as well.

I think what it does is buy time.

 

[Larry Gude]

Is it your contention that higher taxes strengthen the economy? Why not go to 100% then?

Do they or can they? Do they always? No. Can, and do they sometimes? Of course. This isn't an either/or issue. It is complex and it boils down to a point you and I disagree on; I say 'promote the general welfare' and you pointed out that it's even more in my favor' provide.

From that standpoint, taxes are an integral part of the economy. There is a case to be made for periods of 100%, and 0%, tax rates. And all points in between. To the question I was responding to, clearly, taxes have strengthened, and weakened, the economy throughout the years.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I guess if you see the writing on the wall - that Democrats in the White House in eight years as an inevitability - maybe they see a carbon tax as inevitable as well.

I think what it does is buy time.

How? Trump already planned (or claimed to anyway) roll back regulations and help out the coal industry. Now this tax, which will tax the hell out of the coal industry, is a good idea? What's it buying time from?

It should be a warning if Trump's Sec of State Rex Tillerson (Exxon's once CEO) backs (he did at one point at least) a Carbon Tax.

There shouldn't be, nor does there have to be given the GOP majority, a compromise of taxing rate payers (let's be honest here, our electric bill WILL go up) in order to roll back the regulations Trump claimed he'd do during his campaign. A tax that gives more money to those who can't pay their own electric bills by that well-run agency called the Social Security Administration.

It's inevitable a Democrat will be back in the White House and if we've learned anything since, well, ever, the federal government loves power and it rarely chooses to give power back to the people. I have very very little confidence that we won't see major climate change taxes coming in the future.

 

[This_person]

Do they or can they? Do they always? No. Can, and do they sometimes? Of course. This isn't an either/or issue. It is complex and it boils down to a point you and I disagree on; I say 'promote the general welfare' and you pointed out that it's even more in my favor' provide.

From that standpoint, taxes are an integral part of the economy. There is a case to be made for periods of 100%, and 0%, tax rates. And all points in between. To the question I was responding to, clearly, taxes have strengthened, and weakened, the economy throughout the years.

You are right that it is more accurate, from the point of view of what is legally enforceable, to say "provide for the general welfare...", but, of who? Well, to answer that, just read the rest of the clause, and you will find it is that Congress may raise taxes to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States federal government.

Taxes, as a general rule, do not strengthen the economy, but I get your point they are necessities. Absolutely agree.

 

[Larry Gude]

You are right that it is more accurate, from the point of view of what is legally enforceable, to say "provide for the general welfare...", but, of who? Well, to answer that, just read the rest of the clause, and you will find it is that Congress may raise taxes to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States federal government.

Taxes, as a general rule, do not strengthen the economy, but I get your point they are necessities. Absolutely agree.

Totally disagree on the bold. Disagree on the preamble meaning.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[GURPS]

Now, who gets that money?

according to the OP give Checks to the poor to the tune of $ 2000 each

The blueprint involves a $40 tax on every metric ton of carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels, with the price climbing over time. To avoid an undue burden on the poor from the higher energy bills that would result, the projected $200 billion to $300 billion in annual revenue would be redistributed to households in the form of quarterly checks from the Social Security Administration. Families of four would see an average annual payout of $2,000 under the plan, they say.

Not to mention, I thought the GOP was against wealth re-distribution?

Amazing stuff that the GOP is for this. Anyone who believes in real free markets would be against this horrific tax.

which is why I posted the Article ....

IF and ONLY IF this would the the one time shot at reigning in Green House Gas Regulations I MIGHT go along with it
But as we all know the next Democrat Party run administration can just come right back with new EPA Regulations just like Obama did ...
Progressives will not be satisfied until Coal and OIL are shut down completely and everything runs on Wind and Solar no matter the cost

so no, this is not a clever dodge .... just more statist bull

It's inevitable a Democrat will be back in the White House and if we've learned anything since, well, ever, the federal government loves power and it rarely chooses to give power back to the people. I have very very little confidence that we won't see major climate change taxes coming in the future.

 

[This_person]

Totally disagree on the bold.

Fair enough! Proper spending on constitutional requirements will, as a general rule, take the money out of the economy and put a portion of it back into the economy to do the tasks. That's all good. But, the taxing itself is not what strengthened the economy, it was the wise spending of the money. The tax robbed the economy, the proper spending put some portion of it back.

Disagree on the preamble meaning.

And, we know the preamble has no legal standing. We know article one, section eight does, which says:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States...

The legal standing of the general welfare clause is to pay for the government, not to help out the people. We are not a communist country - we do not owe our general welfare to the government as individuals, it is the other way around.

 

[This_person]

according to the OP give Checks to the poor to the tune of $ 2000 each

Wow! Create a slush fund and pay back a portion to the people providing the slush fund to keep them from revolting. What a scam!

 

[Larry Gude]

And, we know the preamble has no legal standing. We know article one, section eight does, which says:

The legal standing of the general welfare clause is to pay for the government, not to help out the people. We are not a communist country - we do not owe our general welfare to the government as individuals, it is the other way around.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States...

So, how would congress do this, provide for the general welfare?