• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

the carbon tax people have a point

KLATTU

KLATTU

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
19,259
Reaction score
6,899
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Forget climate change, this is outrageous
Cx8-CQTVIAAzsR9.jpg
 
11Bravo said:
thats why i take back roads. takes me about 4 more hours to get 90 miles at least im not sittin still
Click to expand...

Stay at the office till late. ;)
 
joG said:
Stay at the office till late. ;)
Click to expand...

thought about it. gotta be home for prayers at 6. the wife was pretty adamant about that
 
I think what most advocates of a carbon tax miss, is the difference between a want and a need.
Sin taxes have some effect on wants, but not so much on needs.
People own homes away from public transportation, the question of them burning fuel to get to work is not
something they have a choice in in the near term. Adding a tax burden only reduces their disposable income,
or drives them into money problems or bankruptcy.
If there were some alternative that were not taxed, the story might be different, but as of now, there is no
viable alternative.
 
I don't know how anyone lives in LA.
 
longview said:
I think what most advocates of a carbon tax miss, is the difference between a want and a need.
Sin taxes have some effect on wants, but not so much on needs.
People own homes away from public transportation, the question of them burning fuel to get to work is not
something they have a choice in in the near term. Adding a tax burden only reduces their disposable income,
or drives them into money problems or bankruptcy.
If there were some alternative that were not taxed, the story might be different, but as of now, there is no
viable alternative.
Click to expand...

Depends on who the advocate is, I think.

The useful idiots probably suffer from the condition you've described. But there is a class of carbon tax advocate who just doesn't give a damn. They are in it for the money and don't care what kind of burden is put on people.
 
Personally, I fully believe that carbon taxes/credits in all their forms and UN climate initiatives are entirely a function of governments that are deficit spending and need new sources of income and entities that wish to transfer wealth from rich countries to poor countries.

The problem, quite clearly however, is that any carbon tax is a regressive tax hitting hardest at those least able to afford it because virtually all necessities of current life are either impacted by or created with carbon based materials. As a result, governments that favour carbon taxation are then required to take that tax and rather than use it to fund alternative energy sources, which by the way does nothing to alter the need for carbon based materials in other uses, and instead use it to subsidize both industries that cause the most pollution and citizens too poor to afford the unnecessary hit. All the while, not a damn thing is done to reduce man made contributions to the environment.

It's a shell game, nothing more, nothing less. It is raping the consumer in a social engineering exercise on the grandest of scales by liberal elites. It has failed miserably in Europe where it has been enacted, and is being enacted by spendthrift liberal elites in Canada and California with predictably terrible results. This past year, the carbon trade/credit system in California and Quebec gained about a 10th of the expected revenue from the initiative and the governments give so many exemptions and subsidies to the heaviest polluters to keep them from moving business elsewhere. Why stop heavy polluters from moving elsewhere if your goal is to reduce carbon emissions? Simple answer - their goal isn't to reduce emissions, it's to reap massive increases in revenue so they can play the game of winners and losers and redistribute wealth.

The British Columbia government in Canada has the best of a bad lot when it comes to carbon taxes. They've made their program totally revenue neutral to the government. All revenue generated by the tax is returned to consumers in the form of tax credits. In that way, consumers can both reduce their tax burden and reduce their expenditures by seeking out lower carbon alternatives to their consumption. But even there, after several years, the reduction in over all carbon emissions is so miniscule as to be irrelevant. But it has, as an added bonus, create a new, large government bureaucracy to manage the initiative - something the liberal elites of this world just adore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom