Save the World With A Tax Cut

One of the few accurate criticisms of An Inconvenient Truth was the way it deliberately avoided difficult policy prescriptions. For one thing, there was no mention of a high carbon tax, one thing our country (and atmosphere) desperately need. (And liberals aren't the only ones endorsing a carbon tax. See this list of Pigou club members...)

In an eloquent speech yesterday at NYU, Gore made up for any wonkish details that his movie left out. I was most struck by his proposal to replace all payroll taxes with pollution taxes.

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.

P.S. Curious about the math? In a comment on Ezra Klein's blog, Nicolas Beaudrot does some quick budgetry:

The US produced roughly 6 million metric tons of CO2 last year. Social Insurance taxes brought in $733 Billion in revenue Table F-3. A gallon of gas produces 20 pounds of CO2.

The math says ... $.06 per pound of CO2, or $1.20 per gallon of gas. pre-2004, gas was about $4.50/gal US in Europe, and below $2.00/gal in most of the States. This means we could enact a CO2 tax and still pay less than Europeans pay for gas (which is around $6.50 today).

What's more, the payroll tax is almost entirely born by the worker. Someone who makes $40,000/year and drives 18,000 miles in a 20 mpg car (or cars) would still come out way ahead.

Obviously, there would be losers, particularly some heavy industry and equipment manufacturers and in areas where a daily commute of 100 miles isn't unheard of. But a co2 tax doesn't change the basic equation of energy profitability. It just takes it from ludicrously profitable to ridiculously profitable.

Tags

More like this

Krugman is is on fire today, as he has been for a while, this time talking about the tax cuts. But, even he makes an essential error that all the democrats seem to be making.
I'm no fan of tax expenditures. I'm not even particularly fond of most tax deductions regardless of whether or not they're based on religion. Taxes should be about raising revenue, and a complex tax code just makes inserting more loopholes--as well as outright cheating--even more possible.
Julia Gillard has done a backflip and agreed to introduce a budget-neutral carbon tax after last year promising not
Yesterday, the President told Kansas: "if you vote Democrat, you're voting for a tax increase."

principally on CO2

I know there's talk of a tax on breathing, but that's a bit ridiculous, no?

:)

By Joe Shelby (not verified) on 19 Sep 2006 #permalink