View Single Post
  #19  
Old 05-13-2019, 08:17 AM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Confused. Money doesn't have to be spent where it's earned. The profits that Procter & Gamble make from toothpaste don't need to be spent on toothpaste development; they can be spent marketing the new P&G detergent or potato chip. Government spending needn't match up with an associated revenue source.

The reason a carbon tax addresses climate change is because it changes incentives. Someone debating what kind of car to buy will be influenced by the price of gasoline.

Yes, if the carbon tax is successful in reducing the use of carbon fuels, then that revenue source will dry up, and another way must be found to meet the SocSec shortfall. But that's not a deal-killer for the SocSec rebate. My proposal is more modest than Yang's or Medicare-for-all or even, for that matter, the stupid Bush-Cheney War. Let's not get hung up on exactly how to fund it.

I don't see multiple employers being a big problem. The employer would estimate the SocSec tax as best as he can given information employee provides. This is already the way Income Tax withholding works. It would probably be the employee portion, not the employer portion, that gets the rebate, though details are subject to refinement. (For starters, rebate might be based on wage level — someone working two $12/hour jobs might get a bigger rebate than someone working one $25/hour job.)
So are you saying $300 billion in social security taxes combined with $300 billion in fossil fuel taxes and an additional $300 billion in other taxes to fix the social security shortfall? Is the gasoline tax going to be used to subsidize the renewable energy sector or used to fund social security?
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 05-13-2019 at 08:18 AM.