http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2008/09/15/think-tank-dont-shift-carbon-revenues-dividend-them/ Pricing carbon efficiently and equitably Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:39:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2008/09/15/think-tank-dont-shift-carbon-revenues-dividend-them/comment-page-1/#comment-34443 Carbon Tax Center » Carbon Revenue Recycling is Focus of Capitol Hill Briefing Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:25:18 +0000 http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2008/09/15/think-tank-dont-shift-carbon-revenues-dividend-them/#comment-34443 [...] as payroll taxes, vs. distributing revenues equally with pro rata dividends. But Dinan and the new RFF study caution that unlike a straight dividend approach, tax-shifting out of payroll taxes would be [...] [...] as payroll taxes, vs. distributing revenues equally with pro rata dividends. But Dinan and the new RFF study caution that unlike a straight dividend approach, tax-shifting out of payroll taxes would be [...]

]]> http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2008/09/15/think-tank-dont-shift-carbon-revenues-dividend-them/comment-page-1/#comment-34426 David Collins Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:51:29 +0000 http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2008/09/15/think-tank-dont-shift-carbon-revenues-dividend-them/#comment-34426 Interesting. Theoretical work that figures both carbon taxes and Cap'n Trade would benefit The People if revenues were redistributed on a count-noses basis. What is interesting is not the conclusion, but rather that yet another organization is coming to see this issue in the way many of us have been championing for years. The conclusion that keeping some of the money in Government hands, to be invested in "energy efficiency programs", would be beneficial makes a person (like me, for instance) wonder how good the rest of the analysis is. The main benefit I can find is that this approach might sell this program to Congress, because it would give our elected representatives money to hand out, endearing themselves to various and sundry constituencies. But it makes me wonder if there is a way to turn Cap'n Trade into Carbon Tax. I see the latter as a silk purse, the former as a sow's ear.  Yet Cap'n Trade looks like something which can be accomplished; while if there were a fine racehorse named Carbon Tax, it would be disqualified from the running.  How can Cap'n Trade be made to morph into Carbon tax? Interesting. Theoretical work that figures both carbon taxes and Cap’n Trade would benefit The People if revenues were redistributed on a count-noses basis. What is interesting is not the conclusion, but rather that yet another organization is coming to see this issue in the way many of us have been championing for years. The conclusion that keeping some of the money in Government hands, to be invested in "energy efficiency programs", would be beneficial makes a person (like me, for instance) wonder how good the rest of the analysis is. The main benefit I can find is that this approach might sell this program to Congress, because it would give our elected representatives money to hand out, endearing themselves to various and sundry constituencies. But it makes me wonder if there is a way to turn Cap’n Trade into Carbon Tax. I see the latter as a silk purse, the former as a sow’s ear.  Yet Cap’n Trade looks like something which can be accomplished; while if there were a fine racehorse named Carbon Tax, it would be disqualified from the running.  How can Cap’n Trade be made to morph into Carbon tax?

]]>