[Newfie]

I think if he really wanted this to pass, then he should raise money for a project, and when that project is done, then so is the tax.
If he just sais .... pay me, and I promise it'll be grand, I am not sure how many people would believe him.

Personally I think he should raise money for an electrified train network, linking each state capital which you could drive trucks onto.
get that sorted then worry about other projects if this is can be carried off

Simon

Simon,

I agree in principal. But there are far, far better ways to use the money than electrified railways. That is just supporting more of the same big business consumerism that got us where we are.

We need to focus on doing with less, effiency. We don't need better ways to haul junk, we need to use less.

So as to be more positive I'll offer one possible alternative.

Use the money to rebuild the US electric power distribution system converting it to HVDC which has immediate effiency gains and allows energy to be shared between regions more easily. This would be tied into large solar and wind production fields in the SW Which could also be subsidized by this tax.

I'm sure there are other valid ideas.

[Outcast_Searcher]

My first reaction to this is just that while taxes were never raised on the super rich, there has been an ACA penalty fine passed, and healthcare costs are up, and now this new oil tax proposal. That's a tax on working and middle class.

You're view is so slanted on things like taxes, that you have little credibility.

The ACA raised taxes mostly on the rich.

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-taxes/

First, you don't have to pay the penalty tax if you have a valid health plan. Second, up to several multiples of the poverty line, families can get subsized rates on ACA plans, so at least in theory, no one should need to pay the penalty. Now if people choose to pay the penalty for ideological reasons or because they refuse to buy an "affordable" plan, that's their decision -- it is really a penalty, not a tax raise for the middle class.

The biggest tax increase is the 3.8% new tax on investment income for wealthy filers (more than $200,000 AGI, single, or $250,000 for a couple). For older rich people, add a 0.9% increase on the same income levels for Medicare part A taxes.

For everybody else, aside from the 2.5% bump in the amount you have to pay in medical expenses (including medical insurance) before medical expenses are deductible, the tax increases are negligable except for business owners (generally, rich people). But guess what. Poor people don't tend to itemize, so this tax generally doesn't impact them.

.....

This tax increase on oil would be long overdue. It's not nearly enough, but it's a start. And rich idiots with giant SUV's, yachts, planes, etc. will burn FAR more oil than a poor person who rides a bike or takes the bus, BTW. But let's not talk about that, since the subject of the poor acting responsibly is so politically taboo on the left.

[Sixstrings]

Tweet from Paul Ryan:

Paul RyanVerified account ‏@SpeakerRyan 19h19 hours ago
Here's my response to President Obama's new oil tax proposal.

Republicans savage Obama's oil tax plan
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-oil-tax-gop-reaction-218774

How Obama's Oil Tax Would Cost Americans
http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2016/02/05/how-obamas-oil-tax-would-cost-americans.html

It's not a serious proposal, but rather it's "laying out his vision of where the country should go:"

Republicans on Hill, Campaign Trail Reject Obama Oil Tax

Host Carl Quintanilla was skeptical the tax would ever be implemented. "There's no real chance this is going to see the light of day, is there?" he said.

"In general, the president's approach is laying out his vision of where the country should go, talking about what he thinks needs to be done to strengthen our economy," Furman responded. "And we'll be discussing with Congress, pushing the idea forward, but certainly I wouldn't be taking any single proposal and ask, Is it going to pass this year? I'd ask, Is it a good idea, can we push the idea forward?"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/republicans-on-hill-campaign-trail-reject-obama-oil-tax/article/2000946?custom_click=rss?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=TWSAutoTweet

[Outcast_Searcher]

Lol, I doubt even Bernie would touch this socialist thing with a ten foot pole.

Why is raising taxes on something that is destroying the biosphere "a socialist thing"?
Do you know what socialism means? You sound like someone from the far right with that statement.

Look at the comments on the articles I posted. People get MAD about a gas tax.

So what? EVERYONE relies on the transportation network. Most to a very large extent. Voter whining should not be the measuring stick for policy making. (And both sides do it, they just listen to a different set of whiners).

The oil tax proposal is a out of touch with reality in America kind of move to make.

Gas tax? Uh, no.

You sir, are the one out of touch with reality. AGW isn't the result of magic. The transportation network can't be supported by magic. Claiming any tax raises at all, no matter what, must be only on "the rich", given the proportion of income taxes the rich pay compared to everyone else is out of touch with reality. (You do have a lot of company there, from the far left). It's also delusional to act like only "the rich" engage in behavior (like fossil fuel burning) that needs to change.

[Sixstrings]

First, you don't have to pay the penalty tax if you have a valid health plan. Second, up to several multiples of the poverty line, families can get subsized rates on ACA plans, so at least in theory, no one should need to pay the penalty.

A lot of things are supposed to work "in theory."

I grant I'm not an expert on the ACA, but I think it's fair to say the ACA obviously needs a bit of work. In my little anecdotal world, premiums and copays are up, that's what I hear from everyone.

I knew a couple guys that wanted the ACA, but they still couldn't afford it even with the subsidy, so they've still got no insurance. I guess they're in that 10% group that's still uncovered.

I didn't even want to argue about ACA, the point is that: wages have not gone up, wages are down, healthcare costs are up, some states are already raising gas taxes to fight climate change -- so now is just not a good time for an additional federal gas tax.

This tax increase on oil would be long overdue. It's not nearly enough, but it's a start. And rich idiots with giant SUV's, yachts, planes, etc. will burn FAR more oil than a poor person who rides a bike or takes the bus, BTW. But let's not talk about that, since the subject of the poor acting responsibly is so politically taboo on the left.

The transition from oil will happen on its own, or with other kinds of incentives other than a regressive gas tax.

What do you mean by the poor aren't acting responsibly? They shouldn't drive to work? (a lot of working class already don't have cars anymore. That's just from bad economic times for multiple years.. no punitive tax needed..)

Bottom line, most people don't like new gas taxes. Especially in rocky economic times.

[Sixstrings]

You sir, are the one out of touch with reality. AGW isn't the result of magic. The transportation network can't be supported by magic. Claiming any tax raises at all, no matter what, must be only on "the rich", given the proportion of income taxes the rich pay compared to everyone else is out of touch with reality. (You do have a lot of company there, from the far left). It's also delusional to act like only "the rich" engage in behavior (like fossil fuel burning) that needs to change.

Outcast, if you want to see carbon taxes passed, then the only way to get that done would be the Australian equation -- first you win the war on poverty and get universal healthcare and get a good economy going and get good working and middle class wages in the economy.

And THEN you can tackle the next problem, like climate change.

You seem to not care about poor people. If you're not aware of the massive transfer of wealth that's been going on for the last 20 years, and 40 years, from the working and middle class to the 1% and wall street -- then I guess we can't have a debate.

You want the poor to pay a gas tax. But the problem is, there's so many poor (and they have a vote), that they won't vote for the gas tax.

Not even the upper middle class, or rich, will vote for a gas tax. Nobody likes a gas tax. A lot of people will drive clear across town, just to save a nickel a gallon.

Here's the thing.. I'm in the middle on the eco issue.. yes, there's things government can do to encourage alternative energy. BUT.. sometimes it seems like carbon taxes are pushed on the eco issue when really it's a regressive tax grab.

I don't disagree with you on the core issue -- transitioning from FF -- but also I think you can't just wreck the oil industry either, nor stick it to elderly and working class with regressive taxes on people who can least afford it.

Anyway don't get mad at me.. I guess this thread is just a general "in favor of carbon taxes" thread, but all I've done is said what the political reality is. The fact is that no Democrats came out in support of this idea.

[Sixstrings]

All I'm saying is what the political reality is.

And as a Democrat, I'm saying NO NEW TAXES on working and middle class -- BEFORE coming through on living wage first. And getting the economy rolling some more. It's not right to come out with a tax, without doing the other thing first.

It's not even economically sound to put any taxes on the real main street economy, when growth is sputtering as it is.

[Outcast_Searcher]

What do you mean by the poor aren't acting responsibly? They shouldn't drive to work? (a lot of working class already don't have cars anymore. That's just from bad economic times for multiple years.. no punitive tax needed..)

Bottom line, most people don't like new gas taxes. Especially in rocky economic times.

First, you are the one claiming that poor people shouldn't ever pay taxes, even if they are the ones behaving in a way that has social costs (like burning fossil fuels).

Second, go ahead and act like "bad economic times" is when there is relatively steady and constant global economic growth if you want. You fit right into the hard core all doom all the time crowd, but outside the objective world of economics, where things like economic output are measured with actual data. Since Spring of 2009, economic times in the US or globally haven't been "bad", even if they haven't been stellar.

Third, whining that taxes which are designed to benefit humanity are "punative" might make political hay, but it does NOTHING to solve serious real world problems like AGW via fossil fuel burning.

[Plantagenet]

It's not even economically sound to put any taxes on the real main street economy, when growth is sputtering as it is.

You must have missed Obama's press conference this morning celebrating how great the US economy is right now. The US just hit a 4.9% unemployment rate-----anything below 5% is FULL EMPlOYMENT dude!

We'll never have a better chance to put in place a carbon tax. Oil prices are so low no one will even notice.

The Ds should speak out and get behind Obama's $10bbl oil tax RIGHT NOW and use this issue to win the congress in the 2016 election.

[Outcast_Searcher]

You sir, are the one out of touch with reality. AGW isn't the result of magic. The transportation network can't be supported by magic. Claiming any tax raises at all, no matter what, must be only on "the rich", given the proportion of income taxes the rich pay compared to everyone else is out of touch with reality. (You do have a lot of company there, from the far left). It's also delusional to act like only "the rich" engage in behavior (like fossil fuel burning) that needs to change.

Outcast, if you want to see carbon taxes passed, then the only way to get that done would be the Australian equation -- first you win the war on poverty and get universal healthcare and get a good economy going and get good working and middle class wages in the economy.

And THEN you can tackle the next problem, like climate change.

You seem to not care about poor people. If you're not aware of the massive transfer of wealth that's been going on for the last 20 years, and 40 years, from the working and middle class to the 1% and wall street -- then I guess we can't have a debate.

Well, if declaring things as true that are clearly untrue is "debating", then I guess you have the floor.

First, your assumption that you have to "win the war on poverty" before you can tackle other problems is absurd. Considering how much of "poverty" is self inflicted, we'll NEVER solve that problem, so why even bother trying to do anything else? Right?

Second, just because for you, poverty is the MAIN issue, doesn't mean you're right about everything.

How do you know I don't care about the poor? I'm willing to bet that I've done more in terms of specifically helping both individual families and groups like homeless men and homeless veterans, by writing big checks and paying attention to how they are used, than you or the vast majority of people howling about "poor people" on the internet.

Three examples: How many roofs have you paid to put on homeless shelters that keep 130+ homeless people in a safe and protected environment in your city (or anywhere)? How many checks have you written to pay for a full time social worker to counsel homeless men who can't get jobs due to social and emotional coping problems, to try to give them a shot at becoming able to hold down jobs? How many families have you fully supported and kept off the street for over a year (while their church abandoned them and the government ignored them) until their disability benefits kicked in?

Just assuming that I "don't care about the poor" just because I refuse to join the empty rhetoric of the "successful people are bastards and hate the poor" of the far left might make you feel good, but it doesn't mean you have a CLUE what you are talking about.

And I do acknowldege that since the middle of the Reagan era that wealth inequality has been growing in the US. Blame spreadsheets and the technology they represent, not some evil rich people or Reagan. Blame the politicians and the people who elect them that don't do anything meaningful about improving educational opportunities (including the far left), instead of same random successful people.

If you can't admit that the whole problem isn't "rich people", then yes, I agree we can't have a meaningful debate.

[SeaGypsy]

We actually pay the 45 cents plus 10% GST on the full price- a tax on a tax. This issue has copped a lot of critique since introduction of GST in the late 90's- under Howàrd- our most famous right wing PM- who also handed every taxpayer a thousand buck check, calling it a stimulus payment, bailed out no banks, in response to the GFC. This and a large infrastructure investment meant we didn't even have a recession.

The fuel tax is bipartisan, has been since inception, so it's a non issue for voters. Talk of GST spread to all consumables- including food, is happening, with bipartisan recognition that subsidy will have to apply through tax concessions & grants to low income earners & welfare recipients.

Seeing 6 frothing at the mouth over 25 cents a gallon- wow. So to fill the 20 gallon tank on a modern buzz box will cost $5 more, to drive about 500 miles- a cent a mile. Ouch. Double ouch.

Where does the money come from to fund Bernie style, Australian bipartisan normality? Tax. One way or another, Tax.
You can't hate offshoring, automated job destruction etc & expect the top few percent of earners to stick around while they pay ever increasing shares of the tax burden. Tax needs to be seen as reasonably fair to all & investment which creates employment needs to face minimum taxation to avoid increasing offshoring.

Australia spends nationally about half the total tax take directly on financial support to disadvantaged people, a vast amount every fortnight. Out of the other half they have to run everything else including the national medicare system & state hospitals.

The schism of the American left- who want to hang on to certain ideas to grim death despite those ideas flying in the face of their stated goals. Democrat when it comes to welfare, Republican when it comes to taxes, with both being draconian right by comparison to other modern countries generally & zero ability to achieve bipartisan sensible tax reform, medicare reform, education, infrastructure, etc etc. The most powerful country in the world is run by incompetent schmucks, which must be what people want right?

[C8]

1. This is definitely a tariff (which could provoke retaliation on US oil)

2. it is not a serious proposal that BO expects will pass but is PR intended to win green votes for Dems this fall (and some votes from oil states that would welcome a tariff)

[Sixstrings]

It's not even economically sound to put any taxes on the real main street economy, when growth is sputtering as it is.

You must have missed Obama's press conference this morning celebrating how great the US economy is right now. The US just hit a 4.9% unemployment rate-----anything below 5% is FULL EMPlOYMENT dude!

If the economy is improving a bit, then maybe that has something to do with historic low energy costs?

Maybe it would be wise to not mess up a good thing, and keep energy costs low for a while.

We'll never have a better chance to put in place a carbon tax. Oil prices are so low no one will even notice.

Mmmmhm, that's what government always does. Sneak that tax in there while people won't notice, because they'd yell louder about it when prices head back up and then you try to put the extra tax on, so put the tax on while the price is low.

It's an old trick. They did this very same thing the LAST time gas tax was raised, 24 years ago. 1992. Weren't prices really low back then too?

I say phooey on it. Gas is cheap, let it be cheap, Pharoah let our people be free! And let them happily motor and create businesses, and buy things, and stuff.

There's no hard rule in life that says people can't ever have a good thing, Plant, and you gotta slap a tax on it.

Squashing this gas tax is one good thing house Republicans have done.

The Ds should speak out and get behind Obama's $10bbl oil tax RIGHT NOW and use this issue to win the congress in the 2016 election.

Definitely. Hillary Clinton should come out strong for climate change and start campaigning on raising gas taxes.

T. Boone Pickens says it's "the dumbest idea ever:"

‘Dumbest idea ever?’ T. Boone Pickens sees possible intent of Obama’s oil fee proposal

T. Boone Pickens ✔ @boonepickens
Obama's $35 billion/year oil tax would bankrupt O&G industry. Oh, wait. That may be the point.
http://twitchy.com/2016/02/04/dumbest-idea-ever-t-boone-pickens-sees-possible-intent-of-obamas-oil-fee-proposal/

Some progressives hail Obama for being even more progressive than Clinton OR Sanders:

What’s a ‘progressive’? Obama shows Sanders, Clinton with new oil tax
http://kylewingfield.blog.myajc.com/2016/02/05/whats-a-progressive-obama-shows-sanders-clinton-with-new-oil-tax/

President Obama says screw it, and proposes a tax on oil.
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/129200/president-obama-says-screw-it-proposes-tax-oil

The Hill, says oil tax would be "a war on the poor:"

Obama's oil-barrel tax latest in war on the poor
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/268410-obamas-oil-barrel-tax-latest-in-war-on-the-poor

Obama's $10 Oil-Tax Pipe Dream
The president is proposing a big per-barrel fee. It won’t be passed by this Congress, but what about the next?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/obamas-10-oil-tax-pipe-dream/460062/

[Sixstrings]

1. This is definitely a tariff (which could provoke retaliation on US oil)

2. it is not a serious proposal that BO expects will pass but is PR intended to win green votes for Dems this fall (and some votes from oil states that would welcome a tariff)

It's a bit different from a tariff in that it would be applied to domestically produced oil that's sold here, and then ALSO imported oil.

And then oil drilled here that's EXPORTED -- is NOT taxed.

So essentially -- just exporting the pollution, anyway.

The only eco argument that could be made though, is just that this could encourage the US to go more green energy and that *eventually* the green energy spreads to the developing world too, after we have it first. But while we are going green, we'd be exporting pollution that whole time.

The thing is like a tariff though, as far as oil exporters selling to the US would have this $10 a barrel tax so yeah you're right, there could be trade retaliation. It's like a tariff, without the benefit of a tariff (favoring domestic production).

But I just wouldn't be for a gas tax hike right now in general, it wouldn't be good for the main street real economy, and common sense tells me the last time they raised the gas tax was 1992 when prices were low. And this is just a chance to raise it again, that's all.

[Sixstrings]

Where does the money come from to fund Bernie style, Australian bipartisan normality? Tax. One way or another, Tax.

Well SG, you can't raise working class wages by putting a new tax on the working class.

To improve income disparity, you'd have to go to where the money is at -- hedge funds on wall street; the money is not in Joe Sixpack's pocket, at the pump. It's in Manhattan, the Hamptons, and Martha's Vineyard.

This is a philosophical catch-22 for the left -- where climate change action policy conflicts with classic pro labor ideology, improving wages for the working and middle class.

Some climate change ideas are actually *regressive* and about making the poor MORE poor, so they don't use as much fossil fuels.

Most importantly -- there are other things government can do, to favor and encourage green energy, *without* a tax on oil. You don't necessarily have to punish one thing, to encourage the other thing.

[SeaGypsy]

6 +

1- how can government fund proper decent social programs such as safety net & single payer health, without raising taxes?

2- so tax the top few percentile more. How does this support wealthy Americans staying & investing in America?

3- increase minimum wage by about double. Sort out stable welfare systems- then talk about raising taxes. Is this not classic cart before horse?


Offshoring is a huge threat to the US economy. Doubling minimum wages would simply force inflation, negating the nominal pay rise- well after the ship has sailed- in the well fared waterways to Chindea.

[Sixstrings]

1- how can government fund proper decent social programs such as safety net & single payer health, without raising taxes?

If the government would pass the kind of taxes on the rich that Australia has then okay -- I'd sign up for a FIFTY cent gas tax.

Australia has carbon taxes, but it's also got like a $15 or $20 minimum wage. And it's got free universal healthcare, nobody ever has a bill to pay, and that's funded with something like a flat 1.5% tax that everyone pays -- including billionaires and financial rich (if I understand it correctly).

So okay, that's all groovy. If we want to be Australia then we just need the whole package, that's all I'm saying. But not just the carbon tax part. That's not fair.

2- so tax the top few percentile more. How does this support wealthy Americans staying & investing in America?

Watch the last debate and listen to Bernie talk about how truly gargantuan the financial sector wealth is. I think they could afford a little tax, more than some elderly senior citizen struggling to survive on $12,000 a year social security. Or some 25 year old working 3 part time jobs, to try to come up with $20k a year and find money to fill the gas tank up with to get to work, and somehow pay for childcare too.

3- increase minimum wage by about double.

And that's all I'm saying, here. A gas tax would be groovy if Obama had passed working class living wage FIRST.

He campaigned on $12 an hour. Of course Republicans were against it -- but O could have fought for it. But he didn't. He never really made it a priority, and it's been 7 years now.

So okay, pass the $15 living wage -- then okay, put the oil tax on too, and while we're at it throw in a hedge fund tax as well and then things would be fair all around.

Offshoring is a huge threat to the US economy. Doubling minimum wages would simply force inflation, negating the nominal pay rise- well after the ship has sailed- in the well fared waterways to Chindea.

Therefore Seagypsy, if that's how it is and we're competing with China -- then we cannot impose carbon taxes on our economy, that China would not on theirs.

I rest my case.

But I disagree with you though -- big corporations over here, bix box stores and corporate chains, they could put in a $15 minimum wage and then progressives could have their carbon tax too, and then it would work out and the main street economy would grow (with the wages stimulus) and yet there would also be incentive there too, for green energy.

[Sixstrings]

Consider this woman, that Bernie talked to in Iowa:

Bernie Sanders Comforts Emotional Iowa Woman Struggling To Live On Minimum Wage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7abasLvwyw0

What kind of progressive would want to put a new gas tax on people like her, WITHOUT having raised the minimum wage first?

People Can't Live on $12,000 a Year | Bernie Sanders
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85MW7PAa-IY

They sure as heck can't afford more carbon taxes.

In the above video, that retiree says she already has to close off parts of the house in the winter because even with energy assistance she still can't afford to heat the whole house.

She says she doesn't go out, she can't afford new clothes, she gets by with the same pair of shoes for three and four years.

A 25 cent gas tax, and home heating oil price increase, would hit someone like that pretty hard.

[wildbourgman]

This Obama trail balloon was never intended to really pass. If this was a serious idea Obama would have simply set it up as a tariff on imported oil and he would have possibly received some bipartisan support.

Now the democrats running for president would be crazy to even think about touching this idea.

Sixstrings, you can forget about a living wage, because we are now relegated to the kind of jobs that aren't productive enough to allow employers to pay a living wage. When the country is broke as we are and when your country and companies are addicted to the type of growth that can no longer be achieved you can't utilize government fiat to enforce regulations that will kill the patient in order to save them.

[Sixstrings]

This Obama trail balloon was never intended to really pass. If this was a serious idea Obama would have simply set it up as a tariff on imported oil and he would have possibly received some bipartisan support.

That's a VERY good point.

If it were a serious proposal, then it should have been straight tariff and that would achieve the same ends, while not hurting domestic oil industry either and perhaps they'd be okay with it like that, and it would still favor green energy.

BUT -- working class and elderly are still left holding the bag. Legilsation should be taking EVERYONE into account, NOT just environmentalists and oil industry. It's gotta make labor / consumers happy, too.

Obama's proposal, as it stands, just makes the environmentalist group happy.

Sixstrings, you can forget about a living wage, because we are now relegated to the kind of jobs that aren't productive enough to allow employers to pay a living wage. When the country is broke as we are and when your country and companies are addicted to the type of growth that can no longer be achieved you can't utilize government fiat to enforce regulations that will kill the patient in order to save them.

I'd disagree with you on that part. Republicans were saying "minimum wage will destroy jobs" even way back with John F. Kennedy, Republicans have ALWAYS said the same thing on that:

May 8, 1962 - President John F. Kennedy's Address at the Convention of the United Auto Workers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNvqjn7z5h8

(incidentally, that speech sounds a lot like Bernie Sanders)

"Harry Truman once said there are 15 or 20 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington, to protect their interests. And that the interests of the great mass of other people is the responsibility of the President of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it." -- JFK

"Why it is so difficult to secure passage of a minimum wage paying somebody a dollar or a dollar ten an hour, I do not understand. But it is regarded in some circles as highly radical, and highly inflationary." -- JFK

This argument is so old, it's been going on for sixty and seventy years. And then the wage gets raised and guess what, nobody notices anything different except the real main street economy grows more and working and middle class are a little better off than they were before.