From the Digital Journal -
Using a representative survey of 1,226 American adults, respondents were given ten different ways to spend the revenue from a carbon tax and asked whether or not they would support each of these expenditures. Nearly 80 percent were in favor of using the carbon tax revenue for developing renewable energy, or fixing America's infrastructure, like roads and bridges.
Sort of assumes a tax, and a ”how do you want it spent”, doesn't it?
And from the Citizens Climate Lobby -
This survey specifically asked about “requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a carbon tax and using the money to reduce other taxes (such as income tax) by an equal amount,” so we can’t be sure how much support there is for a carbon fee that would return money to households.
I see a carrot being dangled to reduce your other taxes...:^)
And, from one of the authors of the study -
Another key challenge to implementing a carbon tax is communicating effectively with the public, Carattini says. His team used a model of a Swiss economy to measure the effects of many carbon tax designs on greenhouse gas emissions, the economy as a whole, and low-income households — and then communicated those results to voters in their survey.
“What you need to realize, and what we made clear in the paper, is that regardless of the use of revenues, every carbon tax is going to decrease greenhouse gas emissions,” Carattini said. “If you don’t tell people how the carbon taxes work — and that they work — you may have some opposition.”
The Swiss study, he said, suggests a national carbon tax with a lump-sum transfer would be the most popular amongst voters. “It’s a new tax, but it doesn’t mean you’re getting poorer,” he said. “Under this progressive design, low-income households on average get slightly richer.”
More socialism. Do you think the MSM articles are giving you the full view of the survey and it's results?
Politicians: “Trust us. We are going to add Tax A, but we will reduce Tax B to help you.”
Who wouldn’t believe that?