One gets slate floors from Vermont, the other needs to patch their roof with shingles made in Missouri. One goes to violin practice in a Audi, the other carpools to soccer games in a minivan. I still don’t think it’s anywhere near 100-to-1 in terms of carbon emission. And remember, the current, progressive income tax is more than a 100-to-1 ratio.
A hefty gasoline or carbon tax would be an excellent idea. Thomas Friedman likes to point out that had such a tax been imposed two decades ago or so, the price of gasoline would be just about where it is now, but half the price would be going to the U.S. Treasury instead of, indirectly, to the Treasuries of countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
A key problem, as Dopers in the thread have tried to point out to OP, is that such a tax would be very regressive. Unless part of the intent is to increase the rich-poor gap in America, it would be necessary to compensate with some sort of rebate, or more progressive tax elsewhere. One popular proposal is to use carbon tax proceeds to fund Social Security and make the first $50,000 of wages exempt from payroll taxes.
I did point out, if not very clearly, that I acknowledge the up-front need to make some large concession to the poor Americans who pay no income tax nor have any real prospect of ever doing that.
As I understand, 100% of electrical suppliers pay personal income tax, because corporations are “people”, and therefore there is no distinction. Corporations pay tax on their income just as you and I do. There are of course some appalling loopholes that result in some corporations paying no income tax at all, but under my carbon tax scheme, that simply could not happen unless they’d just finished constructing their own solar power farm.
From what I’m reading, an average family of 4 produces 20 tons of carbon dioxide per year. A jet airliner traveling a round rip from New York to Paris produces about 4 tons of carbon dioxide per passenger. That’s 25% of an average family’s entire CO2 budget, just for your daughter’s summer French exchange program… Still think 100-to-1 is too out-there?
That was actually Richard Parker who said that. Careful with the quotes.
Yes, I do. For one thing, I don’t think a person earning $3,000,000, and his family, comfortable though they are, are making 400 round trips to Paris every year. For another, 4 tons is actually 20% of the average family’s 20 tons. For yet another, the calculator here puts the value (New York City (JFK) to Paris (Charles de Gaulle) on a Boeing 777-200ER, one way) at a little over half a ton; so a little over 1 ton for the round trip. My math works out to 1,926 round trips to make their 2,000 tons. Assuming a family of four, for equivalence sake, that’s 481.5 per person, per year, or one round trip to Paris every 0.758 days. Being rich sounds exhausting.
And 100-to-1 is the absolute lower bound we need to reach for your proposal to not be more regressive than the income tax we have now.
Well, a bit of Googling is showing me studies suggesting that wealthy households really only have around double the carbon footprint of the poorest households. So I guess yeah, it would be considerably more regressive than I had figured.