NYC mayor urges carbon tax to cut individual taxes

[jpak]

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN0256503920071102

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York city Mayor Michael Bloomberg called for a national greenhouse gas tax on Friday, saying it would slow global warming and fund a $500 a year tax cut for the average taxpayer.

Under his plan, polluters like energy companies and utilities would have to pay $15 per tone of greenhouse gas they emit. The money would pay for a cut in federal payroll taxes, giving the average taxpayer the $500 a year break.

The energy industry likely would pass on the cost of the new tax to the consumer, the mayor admitted on his weekly ABC radio show. "So yes, it gets passed on, but the people who suffer the most get the benefit in the other direction, and the whole world benefits because we pollute less," he explained.

Companies that develop innovative technology to slash greenhouse gases would get some of the anti-pollution tax revenues in the form of tax credits from a new fund, Bloomberg said, according to a copy of the speech will give at a U.S. mayors conference in Seattle.

<more>

[XemaSab]

1. This sounds like it could be a regressive tax, ultimately

Poor people already pay a lot in heating and cooling costs, and anything that encourages the poorest of the poor to push household temperatures out of the range of safety... I can't get behind. :(

Other than that, I'm intrigued. :)

[TwilightGardener]

2. Interesting. If the tax cost would be passed onto the consumer, what

would be the motive for the companies to reduce their emissions? A 500-a-year tax break might make up for that though...hmm.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Never mind--I finally read the rest of the article, and Bloomberg sez

companies would get tax breaks for developing ways to cut greenhouse gases, thus that would be their incentive to reduce emissions. I wonder if a higher energy cost to consumers would really work to cause people to switch lightbulbs, turn down thermostats, etc.--or would it just piss us off? I have to give him credit for innovative thinking.

[bananas]

4. Gore talked about this in his policy address at NYU last year

http://www.nyu.edu/community/gore.html

<snip>

For the last fourteen years, I have advocated the elimination of all payroll taxes - including those for social security and unemployment compensation - and the replacement of that revenue in the form of pollution taxes - principally on CO2. The overall level of taxation would remain exactly the same. It would be, in other words, a revenue neutral tax swap. But, instead of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees, it would discourage business from producing more pollution.

Global warming pollution, indeed all pollution, is now described by economists as an “externality.” This absurd label means, in essence: we don’t to keep track of this stuff so let’s pretend it doesn’t exist.

And sure enough, when it’s not recognized in the marketplace, it does make it much easier for government, business, and all the rest of us to pretend that it doesn’t exist. But what we’re pretending doesn’t exist is the stuff that is destroying the habitability of the planet. We put 70 million tons of it into the atmosphere every 24 hours and the amount is increasing day by day. Penalizing pollution instead of penalizing employment will work to reduce that pollution.

When we place a more accurate value on the consequences of the choices we make, our choices get better. At present, when business has to pay more taxes in order to hire more people, it is discouraged from hiring more people. If we change that and discourage them from creating more pollution they will reduce their pollution. Our market economy can help us solve this problem if we send it the right signals and tell ourselves the truth about the economic impact of pollution.

<snip>