Posted on 03/13/2013 9:55:23 AM PDT by eagleye85
On Tuesday, four Democrats in Congress unveiled a brand-new proposal for a carbon tax. The set-up is simple: The U.S. government would slap a fee on fossil-fuel emissions and refund the revenue back to the public.
But there’s a twist: The precise details of the carbon tax have yet to be thrashed out. The four lawmakers are soliciting public comments for how big the tax should be and how best to rebate the money. The proposal is being put forward by Reps. Henry Waxman and Earl Blumenauer, as well as Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Brian Schatz. Here are the key questions they’re wrestling with:
1. What is the appropriate price per ton for polluters to pay? The draft contains alternative prices of $15, $25 and $35 per ton for discussion purposes.Those are four big questions in designing any carbon tax, and they’re not easy ones. So let’s take a look at each of them in turn:
2. How much should the price per ton increase on an annual basis? The draft contains a range of increases from 2 percent to 8 percent per year for discussion purposes.
3. What are the best ways to return the revenue to the American people? The discussion draft proposes putting the revenue toward the following goals, and solicits comments on how to best accomplish each: (1) mitigating energy costs for consumers, especially low-income consumers; (2) reducing the Federal deficit; (3) protecting jobs of workers at trade-vulnerable, energy intensive industries; (4) reducing the tax liability for individuals and businesses; and (5) investing in other activities to reduce carbon pollution and its effects.
4. How should the carbon fee program interact with state programs that address carbon pollution?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
It’s the BTU tax all over again.
A:Don't
Q: What’s the best way to design a carbon tax?
$1 per atom.
Let’s see how that goes.
There is none.
Its nothing more than an attempt to monetize thin air and finally and firmly enslave all of us.
‘Rats need to be heavily taxed based on their respiratory CO2 output.
And this tax would create many more bureaucrats to run the program.
” (2) reducing the Federal deficit”
Wink, wink. We are spending $1.50 for every$1.00 we take in. If this works out we could spend even more.
How about levying a Hypocrites Carbon Tax on every enviro-nazi group that flies to meetings all over the globe, drives the highways in SUVs, and heat/cools their lavish digs using fossil fuels?
I just know that the democrats have every intent of tying a carbon tax to approval of the Keystone pipeline.
I just hope that conservatives have the courage to stand and sacrifice the pipeline if that’s what it takes.
Best way is to take your carbon tax a shove it up your oops!
Every time a politician opens their mouth, tax the f*** out of them for all of the oxygen they’re burning up for producing nothing useful. If they’re lucky, we might allow them a credit for producing plant food, via CO2, but also tax the f*** out of them for the carbon that they consume. The message might sink in, but politicians aren’t known for being the brightest bunch.
I dunno, what’s the best way to cut your own throat? Rusty knife? Chainsaw? Helicopter rotor?
I saw Kelsey Grammar on FOX this morning saying that he lost hundreds of thousands investing in wind power. Sadly he doesn’t appear to have learned much because he says “big wind” is still viable. (He didn’t mention the taxpayers being the primary “investors” in it.)
Create a law which defines the jail terms and fines levied against those who propagate this scam.
Don’t tax it BURN IT!!!
What you said... Ditto.
“Q: What’s the best way to design a carbon tax?
A:Don’t”
I would add after the Don’t: Even Think About It.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.