“A carbon tax should be made revenue neutral via tax offsets in other areas.” [Bloomberg]
“Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) is part of a growing coalition backing a carbon tax as an alternative to costly regulation, giving newfound prominence to an idea once anathema in Washington.”
So we will get a carbon tax AND costly regulation.
If I have the figures right, revenue is 16% of GDP and expenditures are 25% of GDP. Revenue neutral makes no sense at all.
Zactly. We don’t have a revenue problem: we have a spending problem.
(Another) Pandora’s Box is about to be opened, and another Constitution power explicitly reserved for the Congress is about to be handed over to federal bureaucrats who are unelected and fire-proof. In tis particular case, it would be left to bureaucrats to define what counts as “carbon.” How could anything go wrong? If successful, Spineless Republicans are to blame because Democrats are expected to promote this stuff.
What’s the point? The whole reason for the tax is to make energy more expensive so that people will use less (supposedly, although I suspect it’s just to control them better).
People hoping to see energy policy leadership from Exxon were not hoping for this.
… as long as the corporate welfare flows Exxon’s way.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 3,937 other followers