<DrumBeat: August 1, 2007 The Oil Drum Easy Come, Easy Go..>

105 comments on The House is poised to debate and pass an Energy Bill this week...get your thoughts in...UPDATED

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

auntiegrav on July 31, 2007 - 10:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

b) whether or not it is a regressive tax (i.e., it hurts the poor more than the rich).

Consumption taxes are a lot less regressive than a dead planet.

Since this is discussion of the energy bill, I agree that a fuel tax should be considered to some degree, but better handled at the state level for exemptions and rebates for farming, etc, since most states already have a system for that. However, as consumption taxes go, it is regressive. After considering how it hurts the poor, then perhaps they can start considering The Fair Tax, which prebates the poor end amount to everyone so that low consumers don't pay any tax. To do this with the energy tax would be cumbersome and invasive. To do it on a consumption-wide basis means you only need an address or a bank account and a name, and since everyone gets the same amount, there is no need for major monitoring systems.
After all, oil is being consumed by all consumption, not just transportation. Transport costs get transferred to the end products anyway, so why not just tax the end products and reduce overall demand for CWDN ('stuff' we don't need)?

Sorry for the ramble.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dryki on July 31, 2007 - 11:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It's less and less obvious to me that consumption taxes affect the poor more than the wealthy. So they drive the poor into an underground economy. Or they barter time for vegetables, work in a community garden or swap. Those are options not really open to the wealthy. [They pay their lawyers or politicians for tax breaks instead.]

Another way to think about that is how much can be swapped and bartered or self-produced vs how much must be purchased in coin-of-the-realm. That gets you into the "Two Income Trap" where women earning a wage find themselves worse off than some of those not earning a wage but home-producing otherwise.

If people can get off the consumption treadmill, then the consumption tax is less of an issue. The caveat, though, is that it becomes a "sin" tax; we need to encourage what we do not want to generate revenue.

cfm in Gray, ME

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on August 1, 2007 - 11:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

CFM;
So what is the upshot on 'Sin taxes'? Are they less effective because the government becomes dependent on the revenues, and may be less vigilant in eradicating the 'sin'? ( I guess that's what you were saying there.. it took me a second to unravel it) The heavy taxing on cigarettes, for example. Is it worth it? Is it also just taking cruel advantage of Addiction, instead of working to cure it? (Whether for Nicotiene or Gasotiene)

What about a scaled tax reward system for Utilities that are investing in distributed RE technologies?

Do we want better Gov't programs for helping to create and enhance the development of US-owned RE businesses?

I'm not really policy Savvy, (I don't think I can even SPELL savvy!) but then again, some of the policies I hear coming out of DC convince me I'm not that far behind the Senate, either way! So can you see past programs that have really been good examples of the kind of public planning that we could model current efforts on?

Thanks,
Bob Fiske

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
auntiegrav on August 1, 2007 - 1:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

If people can get off the consumption treadmill, then the consumption tax is less of an issue. The caveat, though, is that it becomes a "sin" tax; we need to encourage what we do not want to generate revenue.

I'm sorry if this may digress, but this issue needs to be fleshed out more in discussions.

High parking fees are a "sin" tax on having too many cars in the city, set at a 'price point' which maintains flow of revenue.
What about raising someone's insurance premiums just enough to keep them as a customer, but not enough to lose the income?
We do this stuff all the time. We just have to apply it properly from the long-term picture of humans as a species.
Conservatives get scared when you start reducing their profit revenue POTENTIAL, and Liberals get scared if you reduce the potential of future government revenue. It's time we reduced it all and be conservative about how much government we really need in the future. Jack up taxes until people actually stop doing stupid things, then get rid of the overhead we created to WATCH them do stupid things instead of STOPPING them from doing stupid things.

What are our grandchildren getting for all the oil we are burning up? If we don't make ourselves pay the true costs, THEY will simply have to pay much more in the long run.
Changing some economic paradigms now is better than trying to survive on a planet full of plastic McDonald's toys and Roundup-flavored Cheez Doodles.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

105 comments on The House is poised to debate and pass an Energy Bill this week...get your thoughts in...UPDATED

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version