QuoteAlthough I agree a Carbon tax is an essential component of reducing consumption of FFs, like all end-user sales taxes it's highly regressive and hits low income people much harder than it does the rich. Fuel for transpotation to work and home heating consumes a much larger percentage of a min wage worker than it does a CEO. While the Starbucks barrista may not be able to afford gas for the beater he drives to work to serve lattes to the CEO, the CEO will still easily have plenty of money to buy fuel for his Private Jet to fly down to Brazil for afternoon coffee break and have his coffee brewed from beans recently picked and roasted on his plantation just outside of Rio.
You have not bothered to do any research on the subject. If you had you would know they are fundamentally different.
If you don't like me being so blunt, too bad. If I am not blunt about this then you (concerning this idea) are no better than a troll who comes in and throws a hand grenade into this discussion.
Get clear on this. What you call a 'tax' is collected at the point of origin AND NOWHERE ELSE. This is an iron clad rule of carbon dividends. This way all proceeds are passed on to all people equally. As it can only be collected at the point of carbon extraction carbon dividends cannot be an actual tax. It is impossible to itemize carbon dividends on a receipt. Taxes can always be visible.
Iron clad rule number one, essential for equal distribution of dividends.
Second rule, you can't call carbon dividends a tax. GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GET THE MONEY. Tax money always goes to the government.
Carbon dividends never do. The money is EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED TO ALL CITIZENS.
Iron clad rule number two, essential for equal distribution of dividends.
This second rule makes sure the final math is not fucked up so pay attention.
If your CEO fuels his private jet and carbon dividends have added $250 dollars on the cost of an hours flight the CEO is going to get $125 dollars BACK into his personal account. On which he will pay income tax. Unearned riches transferred from the corporation to the rich, the horror you think? Like that never happens? Relax there is more.
THE BARISTA GETS THE OTHER $125. On which they too will pay income tax if they manage to make more than the standard deduction, which AS A BARISTA they will not!
Calling carbon dividends a 'tax' makes sense insofar as it is money collected by the government. But there any similarity ENDS.
Carbon dividend is not a 'tax", as the money DOES NOT GOT TO GOVERNMENT. None of it. No sixty-forty split, nothing to fuck up the math of the final distribution checks.
Back to the weekly distribution. The barista only spent $80 for the week on gas. The Barista only paid $12 extra because of what was taken by collecting the carbon dividend when the oil came out of the ground.
The fucker who flew in the private jet is going to get $6 from the barista, and the barista is going to get $6 back.
Now add it up. Both the CEO and the barista get a weekly distribution. Your troll comment:
QuoteFuel for transpotation to work and home heating consumes a much larger percentage of a min wage worker than it does a CEO.
Is irrelevant. Percentage here is without any relevance at all. What matters here is that the barista will always use less fuel than the CEO. They pay less and get more back than they pay in.
$125 + $6 = $131
The barista only spent $80 on gas but got $131. That is $51 ahead and the barista will be able to get a coffee at AM PM and a $2 chocolate twist on their way to work every day FOR FREE.
And so will I.
* Some say citizen assemblies would determine the tax rate. Iron clad rule three.
** The cost of the fuel in the private jet was about $1670.00 A 15% carbon dividend was collected in that total.
*** To all Putin haters. Hope Putin does not find out about Carbon Dividends and order that all Russians get one.
**** The CEO spent his $125 on cheap sex, got a disease from it. Then he wound up getting a divorce.