To me, a carbon tax would be an excellent example of libertarian economics at its best! against this libertarian solution, beginning with
Carbon taxes are dying as a policy prescription, because governments that implement them keep getting kicked out of office.
Carbon taxes also aren’t working very well. Energy demand is highly inelastic, and it takes a long time to replace fossil fuels. In the meantime, we’re just taxing people.
I posted my own views in yet another thread.
I think we should debate optimal policies and hope for leadership to pursue them, rather than limit ourselves to what some might consider “politically feasible.” If only “feasible” policies were on the table, women wouldn’t have gotten the right to vote, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have passed, and gay marriage would still be outlawed.
On top of which, I’m still taken aback by the apparent belief that using revenues from a new tax to reduce the trillion-dollar deficit would be another example of liberal over-reach! Let me ask those delighted with the huge deficits of Dubya and Trump: If a trillion-dollar deficit in a time of prosperity is good, would you like a 2 trillion dollar deficit even better?
Of course I would not support a carbon tax in isolation with no other tax code changes. A carbon tax is very regressive; this would have to be compensated by less regression elsewhere. I’ve already mentioned my proposal: Reduction in payroll taxes at the lower income levels.
But changes should be evaluated on their own merits. If deficits are really so wonderful than, sure, pair the $300B carbon tax with $800B in more tax cuts and pump the deficit to 1.5 trillion. If we’d rather reduce the deficit then, couple the $300B carbon tax and $300B SocSec rebate with a $300B income tax hike to reduce the deficit. But don’t pretend that one change necessitates an unrelated change. Changes should be evaluated on their own individual merits.
Finally, for those who think I must be a Stalinist to mention the possibility of reversing the tax cuts for the super-rich, recall that Andrew Carnegie became “the richest man in the world” in 1901 when he sold out to J.P. Morgan’s U.S. Steel Corp. and was suddenly worth $300 million. Those were 1901 dollars of course, but using a standard C.P.I. adjustment that’s still less than $8 billion in 2019 dollars. Google to see what Jeff Bezos is worth today. The Walton or Koch families are worth far more today than the Vanderbilt or Astor families were ever worth, even with the C.P.I. adjustment. The persecution of America’s billionaires that those on the right-wing fret about so much today is … exaggerated.