It’s much more likely that countries could agree on a carbon price than that they could agree on a system of caps that differs like [the White House – EPA plan] does among states.”
Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson, in Time To Tax Carbon, Harvard magazine, Sept-Oct 2014.
Comments
Sagesays
I left this comment on the Harvard Magazine website:
I am the greatest advocate for a carbon tax, as the only truly effective way to reduce emissions, but the revenue can be used either for (1) flat dividend or (2) reduce taxes on work (payroll and self-employment taxes). Using the revenue to cut taxes on capital is a regressive money grab by the wealthy, and would be another tax disproportionately levied on the poor, just like sales tax and work taxes. I would vehemently oppose a carbon tax if it’s yet another turn of the screw against the poor, which is what Jorgenson is describing. Another Harvard economist, N Gregory Mankiw, has been in favor of a carbon tax for years. It makes sense. A carbon tax simply makes sense. Every economist without blinders on sees that. But how the revenue is used is a political matter. Clearly, capital would *love* a money grab, but i am not going to give it to them. You don’t get to say “sure, we’ll save the world, if you just give us more money”. That’s a false choice. I see this along clear class lines. It’s translucent and it’s ugly. Cutting taxes on *work* as opposed to capital would lead to more employment and more labor-based processes rather than capital-intensive processes. That is clear to any economist worth their salt. It would stimulate the economy in the way we *want* — and when i say “we” i mean *most* of the people in this country, not simply the investment class who live off of their dividends, in short the 1%. I cast my lot with the 99%. I will *not* allow a carbon tax to be hijacked by the 1%.
Sage says
I left this comment on the Harvard Magazine website:
I am the greatest advocate for a carbon tax, as the only truly effective way to reduce emissions, but the revenue can be used either for (1) flat dividend or (2) reduce taxes on work (payroll and self-employment taxes). Using the revenue to cut taxes on capital is a regressive money grab by the wealthy, and would be another tax disproportionately levied on the poor, just like sales tax and work taxes. I would vehemently oppose a carbon tax if it’s yet another turn of the screw against the poor, which is what Jorgenson is describing. Another Harvard economist, N Gregory Mankiw, has been in favor of a carbon tax for years. It makes sense. A carbon tax simply makes sense. Every economist without blinders on sees that. But how the revenue is used is a political matter. Clearly, capital would *love* a money grab, but i am not going to give it to them. You don’t get to say “sure, we’ll save the world, if you just give us more money”. That’s a false choice. I see this along clear class lines. It’s translucent and it’s ugly. Cutting taxes on *work* as opposed to capital would lead to more employment and more labor-based processes rather than capital-intensive processes. That is clear to any economist worth their salt. It would stimulate the economy in the way we *want* — and when i say “we” i mean *most* of the people in this country, not simply the investment class who live off of their dividends, in short the 1%. I cast my lot with the 99%. I will *not* allow a carbon tax to be hijacked by the 1%.