Of Course, all law makers and Al Gore would be exempt

[rushmc 23]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06427635.htm

Hey, is this dreamdancers fav site?

Quote

New climate strategy: track the world's wealthiest 06 Jul 2009 21:00:13 GMT
Source: Reuters
* World's richest emit about half of Earth's carbon

* Tracking the wealthy could break climate impasse

* New method would follow individual greenhouse emissions

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON, July 6 (Reuters) - To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.

Since about half the planet's climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

As it stands now, under the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol, rich countries shoulder most of the burden for cutting the emissions that spur global warming, while developing countries -- including fast-growing economies China and India -- are not required to curb greenhouse pollution.

Rich countries, notably the United States, have said this gives developing countries an unfair economic advantage; China, India and other developing countries argue that developed countries have historically spewed more climate-warming gases, and developing countries need time to catch up.

The study suggests setting a uniform international cap on how much carbon dioxide each person could emit in order to limit global emissions; since rich people emit more, they are the ones likely to reach or exceed this cap, whether they live in a rich country or a poor one.

For example, if world leaders agree to keep carbon emissions in 2030 at the same level they are now, no one person's emissions could exceed 11 tons of carbon each year. That means there would be about a billion "high emitters" in 2030 out of a projected world population of 8.1 billion.

EACH PERSON'S EMISSIONS

By counting the emissions of all the individuals likely to exceed this level, world leaders could provide target emissions cuts for each country. Currently, the world average for individual annual carbon emissions is about 5 tons; each European produces 10 tons and each American produces 20 tons.

With international climate talks set to start this week in Italy among the countries that pollute the most, the authors hope policymakers will look at the strong link between how rich people are and how much carbon dioxide they emit.

"You're distributing the task of doing something about emissions reduction based on the proportion of the population in the country that's actually doing the most damage," said Shoibal Chakravarty of the Princeton Environment Institute, one of the study's authors.

Rich people's lives tend to give off more greenhouse gases because they drive more fossil-fueled vehicles, travel frequently by air and live in big houses that take more fuel to heat and cool.

By focusing on rich people everywhere, rather than rich countries and poor ones, the system of setting carbon-cutting targets based on the number of wealthy individuals in various countries would ease developing countries into any new climate change framework, Chakravarty said by telephone.

"As countries develop -- India, China, Brazil and others -- over time, they'll have more and more of these (wealthy) individuals and they'll have a higher share of carbon reductions to do in the future," he said.

These obligations, based on the increasing number of rich people in various countries, would kick in as each developing country hit a certain overall level of carbon emissions. This level would be set fairly high, so that economic development would not be hampered in the poorest countries, no matter how many rich people live there.

Is this a limousine-and-yacht tax on the rich? Not necessarily, Chakravarty said, but he did not rule it out: "We are not by any means proposing that. If some country finds a way of doing that, it's great."

This week's climate talks in Italy are a prelude to an international forum in December in Copenhagen aimed at crafting an agreement to follow the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. At the same time, the U.S. Congress is working on legislation to curb U.S. carbon emissions. (Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Beachbum 0]

I like it!!! Carbon tax percentage based on sq. ft. of house over a reasonable size, possibly include something like our homestead exemption that let's you decrease it a little if it is your primary residence (so you would pay full amount on secondary/vacation properties, etc.). Of course, that would never happen, because it's a) basically fair, and b) even if not totally fair, it doesn't favor the wealthy. Add on for multiple vehicles/vehicle weight?? Harder to do anything with travel habits, since tracking that would be rather touchy rights-wise.

I don't like that part about developing countries though. If the technology exists for the already developed countries to do things in a "cleaner" way, that same technology should be used in developing countries even if it must be shared at little to no profit other than the fact that it's helping protect the environment a bit. If we're really going to be "global", then it needs to be extended beyond things that are strictly economics.

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[DanG 1]

Quote

Harder to do anything with travel habits, since tracking that would be rather touchy rights-wise.

Nope. A gas tax does that quite well.

- Dan G

[Beachbum 0]

Not at all ... it appears that the gist of their idea is to hit those who over-use. A straight gas tax doesn't accomplish that since it hits everyone.

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Not at all ... it appears that the gist of their idea is to hit those who over-use. A straight gas tax doesn't accomplish that since it hits everyone.

Ok, WHO decides WHO over uses?

What is YOUR idea of over use?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Um, a gas tx hits those who use more gas harder than those who use less.

If the point is to punish those who use more (literally "overuse") then a gas tax is perfect.

And to rushmc's, "Who decides?" That's up to the individual consumer. Use as much as you want, just be willing to pay for it.

- Dan G

[billvon 2,998]

>it appears that the gist of their idea is to hit those who over-use. A straight
>gas tax doesn't accomplish that since it hits everyone.

It hits people who use more gas harder - and doesn't require an "energy czar" to decide who is using "too much."

[Beachbum 0]

Quote

Ok, WHO decides WHO over uses?

What is YOUR idea of over use?

Certainly not me, thank you! Too many variables involved ... how much of a person's driving is actually necessary (work related, etc.) ... as you point out, what IS the base line?? Then of course you get into choice of travel means (mass transit, what size of car, etc.) which is something I don't really want to see government involved in mandating. Next they'd be telling us we have to live closer to our jobs ... like THAT can work well with a married couple!!

I said I like the concept ... doesn't mean I have all the "how to" answers ... LOL!!! I guess my idea of overuse would include things like someone being ferried about in a limo when it's not even near necessary (I suppose I can see use of them for protective reasons and such), instances such as folks who seldom set foot on it, yet have their yacht ferried from the northeast down the waterway to Florida and back each spring/fall just in case they want to use it during the respective area's season ... can even be people who make a trip to the store every time they think of something they need/want, rather than go once a week (or whatever) and combine trips ... are myriad ways we could cut back our nation's fuel consumption without seriously hurting or taxing anyone. Sadly, it seems to take a financial crowbar to jar most people out of bad habits these days.

and to DanG ... "hits harder" ... exactly ... it still DOES hit everyone, not just the worst offenders as seems the intent of the whole thing.

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Ok, WHO decides WHO over uses?

What is YOUR idea of over use?

Certainly not me, thank you! Too many variables involved ... how much of a person's driving is actually necessary (work related, etc.) ... as you point out, what IS the base line?? Then of course you get into choice of travel means (mass transit, what size of car, etc.) which is something I don't really want to see government involved in mandating. Next they'd be telling us we have to live closer to our jobs ... like THAT can work well with a married couple!!

I said I like the concept ... doesn't mean I have all the "how to" answers ... LOL!!! I guess my idea of overuse would include things like someone being ferried about in a limo when it's not even near necessary (I suppose I can see use of them for protective reasons and such), instances such as folks who seldom set foot on it, yet have their yacht ferried from the northeast down the waterway to Florida and back each spring/fall just in case they want to use it during the respective area's season ... can even be people who make a trip to the store every time they think of something they need/want, rather than go once a week (or whatever) and combine trips ... are myriad ways we could cut back our nation's fuel consumption without seriously hurting or taxing anyone. Sadly, it seems to take a financial crowbar to jar most people out of bad habits these days.

and to DanG ... "hits harder" ... exactly ... it still DOES hit everyone, not just the worst offenders as seems the intent of the whole thing.

the gas tax is as fair as it gets. And to further ilistrate that point just look at the user fee type tax being considered.

You drive a big SUV you buy more gas and you pay more tax. Drive an econo machine you buy less gas and you pay less tax.

The rub? Out government can not do with less money. It is unaceptable for them to do that.
So, the user tax would nail those who drive more period, regardless of the vehicle used



Also, you further my point as well. Who decides? Based on what? On whos beliefs do we force your agenda (not you) on others because you can.

All of this kind of crap removes freedoms. And in the end, other than money, someone having control is all it is really about in the end.

Oh, and it seems you have an idea of what YOU consider "bad habits" based on your comment here. Care to expand?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Not at all ... it appears that the gist of their idea is to hit those who over-use. A straight gas tax doesn't accomplish that since it hits everyone.

You can convert a gas tax into an "overuse" model by establishing a quota of untaxed gas for each person. Then you issue a national ID card that records each persons gasoline usage. You swipe it before you swipe your payment card at the pump, and then if you're over your quota you pay the overuse surcharge. No ID? No gas.

While you're at it, you can link it all into a central database to monitor the locations of all citizens. Add in their background information, ethnic background, sexual orientation, firearms purchases, and more, and it's a great tool for improving our society. While you're at it, you could have it monitor their food intake and exercise, to prevent obesity, which will also reduce healthcare costs. And, of course, it would be your new insurance card, to access your federally provided health benefits.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[DanG 1]

Or you could just apply a straight tax per gallon. Use more, pay more. It's entirely fair and neutral.

But if you prefer to be alarmist, your way sounds better.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Or you could just apply a straight tax per gallon. Use more, pay more. It's entirely fair and neutral.

But if you prefer to be alarmist, your way sounds better.

Uhh, I think you missed his point maybe, completely?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Or you could just apply a straight tax per gallon. Use more, pay more. It's entirely fair and neutral.

I realize you're probably being intentionally obtuse, but;

A straight tax penalizes _all_ use, not just overuse. If you want to hit only _over_ use, you need to have an established level of average use, and then penalize usage above that point.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,998]

>A straight tax penalizes _all_ use, not just overuse.

Agreed. But it places more penalty on those that use a lot. Compare that to a higher car-registration fee, which penalizes everyone the same amount no matter how much fuel they use.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>A straight tax penalizes _all_ use, not just overuse.

Agreed. But it places more penalty on those that use a lot. Compare that to a higher car-registration fee, which penalizes everyone the same amount no matter how much fuel they use.

Car registration fees are based on value here.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,998]

>Car registration fees are based on value here.

Right. But they're the same whether you use 1 gallon of gas a month or 1000 gallons of gas a month. In other words, although a higher fee would penalize drivers, it wouldn't penalize them for using more gas.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Car registration fees are based on value here.

Right. But they're the same whether you use 1 gallon of gas a month or 1000 gallons of gas a month. In other words, although a higher fee would penalize drivers, it wouldn't penalize them for using more gas.

True. I think the gas tax works well. Use more pay more. use less pay less.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

I thought libertarians liked flat taxes.

As pointed out above, a flat gas tax doesn't differentiate between your 1st gallon of use in a month, and your 1000th. Of course if you use 1000 gallons instead of one, you'll pay 1000 times more.

You seem to be working from the premise that it is possible to determine some level of use that is "average" and therefore should be free. Instead look at it this way: everyone who uses gas pays an "average" gas tax, but those that use more than the "average" amount pay more proportional to their overuse. If you are a real gas miser, you get a tax break and get to pay less than the "average" tax.

The only difference between you and I is that I don't think the first X gallons of gas should be tax free.

- Dan G

[rhaig 0]

Quote

I thought libertarians liked flat taxes.

yes, but consumption based taxes are even better.

--
Rob

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

You seem to be working from the premise that it is possible to determine some level of use that is "average"

That was the premise of the article in the original post. That's why I worked from it.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Beachbum 0]

To paraphrase RushMC's line ... I think several missed my point (it wasn't to restart a prior debate). The idea proposed seems designed to tax those who are the worst offenders, while giving a break to those not in that category. A flat tax cannot do that equitably. What if you live in a rural area and the only job you can get requires you to drive 60 - 80 miles each way to reach your job and return home (or any of a myriad of other reasons you might need to use a lot of gas, like trades that require someone to drive a truck to haul tools/supplies of their trade, etc)?? To me, tho it IS probably as fair as we'll ever see in place, a flat tax can't really be fair unless everyone's income and travel needs were at least close to the same. Someone who makes $50,000/year can much better afford the burden than someone making minimum wage. Again, I said I like the concept ... the mechanisms to accomplish it in a fair manner are beyond the amount of thought I will ever put into it (unless someone hires me for that purpose!!).

As for the comment about freedoms ... I agree, and if you notice in my first post I mentioned rights. I'm not one to favor more government intervention relative to most situations. We already have taxes ... trying to make them more effective and fair seems like a good idea to me.

Bad habits? I used those examples mostly because the article referred to it as a limo/yacht tax concept, plus I happen to have lived where I saw how many yachts make that north/south trip each spring/fall. Since I was in a marine school at the time, I was offered jobs helping crew them for the ferry trips. As a result I was able to speak with a fair number of the permanent captains and some owners, and discovered how little a lot of those yachts are actually ever used (or even seen!) by their owners. So yes, I consider that a big waste of fuel for a large portion of them to make the trip down/up the ICW twice a year "just in case". I'm sure that everyone can think of ways that they could help save energy that they don't bother to enact. I do try to do my bit, but I'm as guilty as anyone about some things ... I own a small fishing boat, so need something that can tow it, and skydiving can't exactly be considered a necessary use of fuel ...

Though I'm fairly new to SC and don't read it daily or sometimes even weekly, I'm certain the flat tax has been covered before. I wasn't attempting to debate that ... only to express my happiness at seeing that someone is at least TRYING to have an open mind about it, and seeing if they come up with something better.

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[billvon 2,998]

> What if you live in a rural area and the only job you can get requires
>you to drive 60 - 80 miles each way to reach your job and return home
>(or any of a myriad of other reasons you might need to use a lot of gas,
>like trades that require someone to drive a truck to haul tools/supplies of >their trade, etc)?

Then get a truck that runs on ethanol. Or diesel. Or a PHEV. Or move.

Once you start down the road of "well, he DESERVES a break on his gas because he lives 60 miles away, but the guy who moved closer to work to help the environment doesn't" then you end up with a byzantine patchwork of rules and exceptions that doesn't accomplish the goal and that people find ways around.

>Someone who makes $50,000/year can much better afford the
>burden than someone making minimum wage.

They already have the burden of higher taxation - and that tax money is the money that's used for many of these gas-saving initiatives.

The guy making minimum wage has to buy a car like everyone else. If his gas is cheap (while everyone else's is expensive) he's going to buy that big Ford SUV that's cheap because the rich guy who once owned it is selling it (because the rich guy's gas is now expensive.) If Mr. Minimum Wage's gas is expensive he's going to pass that one by and buy the crappy 2003 Honda that gets 33mpg - and the big SUV is going to sit in that lot, unsold.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

To paraphrase RushMC's line ... I think several missed my point (it wasn't to restart a prior debate). The idea proposed seems designed to tax those who are the worst offenders, while giving a break to those not in that category. A flat tax cannot do that equitably. What if you live in a rural area and the only job you can get requires you to drive 60 - 80 miles each way to reach your job and return home (or any of a myriad of other reasons you might need to use a lot of gas, like trades that require someone to drive a truck to haul tools/supplies of their trade, etc)?? To me, tho it IS probably as fair as we'll ever see in place, a flat tax can't really be fair unless everyone's income and travel needs were at least close to the same. Someone who makes $50,000/year can much better afford the burden than someone making minimum wage. Again, I said I like the concept ... the mechanisms to accomplish it in a fair manner are beyond the amount of thought I will ever put into it (unless someone hires me for that purpose!!).

As for the comment about freedoms ... I agree, and if you notice in my first post I mentioned rights. I'm not one to favor more government intervention relative to most situations. We already have taxes ... trying to make them more effective and fair seems like a good idea to me.

Bad habits? I used those examples mostly because the article referred to it as a limo/yacht tax concept, plus I happen to have lived where I saw how many yachts make that north/south trip each spring/fall. Since I was in a marine school at the time, I was offered jobs helping crew them for the ferry trips. As a result I was able to speak with a fair number of the permanent captains and some owners, and discovered how little a lot of those yachts are actually ever used (or even seen!) by their owners. So yes, I consider that a big waste of fuel for a large portion of them to make the trip down/up the ICW twice a year "just in case". I'm sure that everyone can think of ways that they could help save energy that they don't bother to enact. I do try to do my bit, but I'm as guilty as anyone about some things ... I own a small fishing boat, so need something that can tow it, and skydiving can't exactly be considered a necessary use of fuel ...

Though I'm fairly new to SC and don't read it daily or sometimes even weekly, I'm certain the flat tax has been covered before. I wasn't attempting to debate that ... only to express my happiness at seeing that someone is at least TRYING to have an open mind about it, and seeing if they come up with something better.

Ok, WHAT or WHO is a "worst offender"?

If you live in a city you can (if you want to) ride public transit. I live on a farm and the nearest town to get most of the stuff I need is 20 miles.

The tax we have today on gas is probably one of the most "fair" (if there is such a thing as a fair tax) as you can get.

And here we see again some one wanting to punish another who has worked hard enough, or thought smart enough, to make the cash to afford the things you list.

I guess I have to say "get over it"! There will aways be some one with more than you or me for that matter.

The problem I see in your position is where you are starting from. To me, your beginning premise is flawed.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[marks2065 0]

Quote

To paraphrase RushMC's line ... I think several missed my point (it wasn't to restart a prior debate). The idea proposed seems designed to tax those who are the worst offenders, while giving a break to those not in that category. A flat tax cannot do that equitably. What if you live in a rural area and the only job you can get requires you to drive 60 - 80 miles each way to reach your job and return home (or any of a myriad of other reasons you might need to use a lot of gas, like trades that require someone to drive a truck to haul tools/supplies of their trade, etc)?? To me, tho it IS probably as fair as we'll ever see in place, a flat tax can't really be fair unless everyone's income and travel needs were at least close to the same. Someone who makes $50,000/year can much better afford the burden than someone making minimum wage. Again, I said I like the concept ... the mechanisms to accomplish it in a fair manner are beyond the amount of thought I will ever put into it (unless someone hires me for that purpose!!).

As for the comment about freedoms ... I agree, and if you notice in my first post I mentioned rights. I'm not one to favor more government intervention relative to most situations. We already have taxes ... trying to make them more effective and fair seems like a good idea to me.

Bad habits? I used those examples mostly because the article referred to it as a limo/yacht tax concept, plus I happen to have lived where I saw how many yachts make that north/south trip each spring/fall. Since I was in a marine school at the time, I was offered jobs helping crew them for the ferry trips. As a result I was able to speak with a fair number of the permanent captains and some owners, and discovered how little a lot of those yachts are actually ever used (or even seen!) by their owners. So yes, I consider that a big waste of fuel for a large portion of them to make the trip down/up the ICW twice a year "just in case". I'm sure that everyone can think of ways that they could help save energy that they don't bother to enact. I do try to do my bit, but I'm as guilty as anyone about some things ... I own a small fishing boat, so need something that can tow it, and skydiving can't exactly be considered a necessary use of fuel ...

Though I'm fairly new to SC and don't read it daily or sometimes even weekly, I'm certain the flat tax has been covered before. I wasn't attempting to debate that ... only to express my happiness at seeing that someone is at least TRYING to have an open mind about it, and seeing if they come up with something better.

Quote

outside of personal use, everybody would pay equally for necesities that use fuel. food, medicines, and other goods that use fuels in their production or transportation would increase in price and those costs would be passed to every consumer. cap and trade is a tax that would increase costs in every aspect of our lives, including food, heat, water, housing, and everything else we would buy.

I agree that we need to take care of our enviroment and conserve our resourses, but I think allowing government to tax the shit out of us and control our daily lives by control of our money is wrong. The government doesn't want our money to help us they want it to control us.