Welcome, %1$s. Please login or register.
April 23, 2024, 01:18:36 PM

 
Posts that, in my personal judgement, create too much conflict in the community, may be deleted - If members repost the same topic, they may be banned from future posts - Even though I have disabled the Registration, send me an email at:  vtgrandpa@yahoo.com if you want to register and I will do that for you
Posts: 46156 Topics: 17664 Members: 517
Newest Member: Christy25
*
+  Henry Raymond
|-+  General
| |-+  General Discussion
| | |-+  Carbon Tax
« previous next »
: [1]
: Carbon Tax  ( 9765 )
newt75
Newbie
*
: 4


« : March 28, 2016, 07:23:55 AM »

There is a vast amount of information and commentary about the problems the world faces. The problem of global warming or climate change has been on the table for many years and is increasingly viewed by thoughtful people as reaching a critical stage.

Humans are destroying their habitat and other life forms through excessive population, consumption, and waste.  It is not practicable to reduce population which already far exceeds the the earth's carrying capacity. It is only ethical to support actions and policies which reduce population growth. Something can be done about consumption.

Science identifies the most immediate threat to our existence as climate change caused by the consumption of fossil fuels. Since technology to prevent climate change has not yet been invented, the only way to prevent it's continuation is to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

For those who care, the actions available are as follows. First, reduce personal consumption. Second, convince others to reduce consumption. Third, convince the power structure to adopt and institute policies that make consumption of fossil fuels  uneconomic to users.  A tax on fossil fuel (carbon tax) consumption is the most efficient way to do this.

Worldwide effort to tax carbon should be expanded. The US should adopt a carbon tax, but so far, efforts in Congress have been anemic and unsuccessful.  As a primary contributor to the problem, the US should lead the way. Vermonters again have a chance to lead.

There is a coalition of environmental groups, EnergyIndepentVermont.org, which is actively supporting passage in the VT legislature of a carbon tax (H.395 and H.410 have been introduced). Check out their web site, learn about the issues, join their activities. You will be doing a good thing.
roadrnnr
Jr. Member
**
: 62


« #1 : March 28, 2016, 10:00:44 AM »

Please
Sane people do not want any such thing.
Especially here in VT where it is already to expensive to live
nhibbard
Sr. Member
****
: 393


« #2 : March 28, 2016, 05:17:27 PM »

Taxes like this make sense with many alternatives to vehicle use and fuel available. Like dense cities or well designed commuter areas. Vermont is neither. We can make some changes by giving away funds to help people lower fuel bills but no ones going to do that unless real funds are there and easy to get. There are plenty of good things to do, but lets work with alternatives for now like solar and other renewables that seem to be making some headway. Electric cars may come down in cost in the next couple years and there are better means of storing long term power. Lets see what really works before flooding Vermont with more legislation that no one really understands how to implement.
roadrnnr
Jr. Member
**
: 62


« #3 : March 30, 2016, 07:55:03 AM »

sorry no Cigar,

This is nothing more than another redistribution of wealth Scheme.

All ready admitted  by a bureaucrat in Montpelier it will have no effect on anything environmentally.

Just like all the "Efficiency Charges" on my electric bill that do nothing more than give my Money to some one else to improve their home.

I am sick of it and I am sure Vermonters when given the real facts of this nonsense, like a $1 more per gallon for gas, more to heat your home etc etc and for what?

Absolutely nothing buy Giving Montpelier more money to dole out to others.

Does it work, Just ask all the Angry people in California who are now realizing the effects on their Carbon Tax policy

Here's the Facts:



Commentary: Here Comes the Carbon Tax
by John McClaughry

The Climate Change Warriors are ramping up for a full scale effort in Montpelier .  Not content with the decade long carnival of subsidies, taxes, mandates and sweetheart deals to enrich the renewable energy complex, they’re now going for the brass ring – making you pay the Carbon Tax.

The carbon tax campaign flies the flag of “Energy Independent Vermont”, a coalition of nine environmental lobby groups led by the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG). Here’s the coalition’s argument: Our planet is threatened by the Al Gore-Obama-Sanders-Shumlin Heat Death, now called “climate change” (after “global warming” went on vacation the past 18 years.) The main cause of this coming catastrophe is “carbon dioxide pollution”. This “pollution” is primarily the result of people burning gasoline, diesel, heating oil, propane, and natural gas to stay warm, get to work, grow food, and earn a living. They must be stopped!

The coalition’s way to stop us from generating “carbon dioxide pollution” is to make those fossil fuels so expensive that we’ll have to find some other way to stay warm, get to work, grow food, and earn a living. How will we make those fuels more expensive? Impose a whopping “carbon pollution tax”!

The leading bill (H.412, revised), from Reps. David Deen (D-Westminster) and Mary Sullivan (D-Burlington), calls for starting with a $10 per metric ton tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels in fiscal year 2018. This tax rate would automatically increase by $10 a year for nine more years until it reached $100 per ton in 2027.

According to the REMI study, paid for by long time VPIRG benefactors David Blittersdorf and Matthew Rubin, in 2027 the carbon tax would raise about $500 million a year. Gasoline users would be paying another 88 cents per gallon just for the “carbon pollution tax”. Diesel, propane, heating oil and natural gas users would similarly pay 22-31% more for those fuels. The bill puts the tax on fuel distributors, so customers won’t see it – but they’ll pay it.

The “carbon pollution tax” advocates say, “You’ll pay the tax, but you’ll get it back!” Of course the “you” that will pay is not exactly the same “you” that will (maybe) get its tax dollars back.

First off, this new tax is not ‘revenue neutral” to taxpayers, because VPIRG insists that ten percent of the proceeds – $50 million (in 2027) – be skimmed off the top, into the Clean Energy Development Fund. The CEDF ran out of money when Gov. Shumlin’s favorite extortion target Vermont Yankee shut down. The bill resurrects it as the Vermont Energy Independence Fund (VEIF).

Much of the VEIF funds would be used for more low income housing weatherization, which is why six low-income organizations are supporting the bill. The remainder of the ten percent skim would be used to replace the solar investment tax credit which is scheduled to drop from 30% to 10% at the end of 2016, and without which Big Solar is dead in its tracks. We know this because James Moore, the former VPIRG energy lobbyist now employed by solar developer SunCommon, said so at a February conference.

After the ten percent skim, the remaining proceeds would be used to make up for reducing the Vermont sales and use tax rate from 6% to 5%, a refundable income tax credit, a monthly prebate program for the poor, and a per-employee rebate to employers. At least that’s the promise.

Whether there would even be any proceeds left to redistribute is very much in doubt. The state is running $100 million budget deficits almost every year, and is desperate for money. As the Energy Independent Vermont fact sheet of last November helpfully pointed out, “Based on legislative priorities, carbon tax revenue could of course also be used for other purposes.” Yes, probably so.

And what will Vermonters get for this scheme? Punishing taxes on every user of gasoline, diesel, heating oil, propane, and natural gas. No detectable effect whatever on “climate change”. Even more tax dollars channeled to subsidizing favored renewable energy projects. An exodus of businesses and taxpayers who can’t realistically abandon fossil fuel energy and can’t absorb the higher tax burden. Another big reason for Vermonters to shop somewhere else, despite the promised 5% sales tax.

All this is offset by the bragging rights for VPIRG delegates announcing to national environmental conferences that they were the first to heroically push through a “carbon pollution tax”.

Last month the Carbon Tax advocates finally appeared to recognize how their plan is likely to go over with Vermont voters not terrified by “climate change” – very poorly. Now they say they only want the legislature to pass the whole thing in 2016 (while Gov. Shumlin is still around to sign it), but make it take effect only after other states act.

A better idea would be for the House to vote the carbon tax bill down so overwhelmingly that no one will ever bring it up again, here or anywhere else.

– John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen institute.
« : March 30, 2016, 07:56:55 AM roadrnnr »
Thor
Guest


« #4 : March 30, 2016, 05:03:35 PM »

Why don't we just see how much these Global Warming / Climate Change believers really believe.... and test their mettle. Let's just make this a voluntary tax, if you believe in this stuff..... do your "fair share" and pay the tax voluntarily. For those of us who don't believe, we will keep our money and use it to our liking.

That's simple and fair and it keeps these climate change zealots out of our heathen, non-believers wallets!!
« : March 31, 2016, 07:24:25 AM Thor »
nhibbard
Sr. Member
****
: 393


« #5 : March 31, 2016, 06:27:01 PM »

But then you're not helping pay for the things they want but don't want to pay for. You need to pay for the solar panels I want and my hydroelectric dam too. You can't expect me to voluntarily pay for a whole solar array. :)
GamingWeasel
Full Member
***
: 184



« #6 : April 18, 2016, 04:38:22 PM »

This thread needs to be in the political section where all the partisan zealots can fight over it to their hearts content.

Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
roadrnnr
Jr. Member
**
: 62


« #7 : May 01, 2016, 09:15:02 AM »

http://ethanallen.org/4-29-16-proponents-will-saydo-anything-to-get-their-carbon-tax/

We need to find out who supports this and vote them out before it is to late!
roadrnnr
Jr. Member
**
: 62


« #8 : July 16, 2016, 06:45:08 AM »


Carbon Tax “Quick Facts” Sheet (For the VPIRG Intern in your Neighborhood)
STOP THE CARBON TAX!

The left wing lobbying and activist organization VPIRG is engaged in its annual summer ritual of sending college kids door to door to propagandize citizens. For the second year in a row, the issue d’jour is passage of a statewide Carbon Tax.

Readers who have experienced a VPIRG visit report that these young spokespeople are not revealing to their audience several facts, such as the tax will, among other things, raise the price of gasoline by 88¢ per gallon, home heating oil by $1.02 per gallon, etc.

VPIRG does not have a sterling reputation for honesty when it comes to promoting its causes. (See: More Vermont residents say VPIRG canvassing drive used names fraudulently), so if you want to make sure your name is not misused or your position regarding the Carbon Tax misstated for political purposes, be prepared.

We have put together a list of quick facts for when the VPIRG representative knocks on your door. Use it, and five minutes of high quality entertainment guaranteed. Apparently, they don’t stand up to questioning very well.  (PDF Version: Carbon Tax Fact Sheet)
DO YOU WANT TO PAY AN EXTRA 88¢ PER GALLON OF GASOLINE?
A LOT OF LEGISLATORS WANT TO PASS A CARBON TAX.

 

WHAT IS A CARBON TAX? The proposal on the table is an excise tax on fossil fuels of $100 per ton of carbon when fully implemented, which would amount to a total tax of $500 million a year. For real folks, this translates into adding 88¢ to each gallon of gasoline, $1.02 per gallon of diesel and home heating oil, and similar increases for propane, natural gas, kerosene, butane and aviation fuel. (Other names for the Carbon Tax are “Carbon Pollution Tax” and “Carbon Pricing.”)

WHO GETS HIT HARDEST? Households earning more than roughly $25,000 per year (the top four income quintiles) would shoulder the bulk of the burden. Businesses will pass the added costs onto consumers wherever possible, and these taxpayers would not qualify for proposed income based rebates.

Working Vermonters who commute to a job will be hit hard, as will farmers, tradespeople and others who depend upon trucks, vans and tractors to do their jobs.

The massive discrepancy in fuel prices between Vermont and border states not subject to this radical level of taxation would provide yet another incentive to cross the border to shop, hurting many Vermont small businesses.

WHO BENEFITS? Wind and solar developers, weatherization programs, and other “green” energy outfits will receive 10% of the Carbon Tax revenue to subsidize their businesses and projects.

WHERE DOES THIS STAND? In 2014, Rep. Tony Klein (D-East Montpelier), chair of the House Energy & Natural Resources gave an interview stating that “it’s at least a three-year process,” and that “you don’t [pass a massive tax increase] in an election year.” This means 2017 – after this November’s election – is the target for passage.

WHO IS PUSHING THIS? A coalition of 15 special interest groups called Energy Independent Vermont, led by VPIRG. VPIRG pays seven state house lobbyists and army of summer “interns” going door-to-door to ensure passage of Carbon Tax on Vermonters. There were two Carbon Tax bills put forward in the 2015-16 legislative session (H.395 and H.412). These bills have a combined 28 sponsors (that’s a big number), all Democrats and Progressives.

OVER 90% OPPOSED. In January 2015, the Ethan Allen Institute ran a statewide online survey of Vermonters regarding support for or opposition to a Carbon Tax. 1546 people responded, over 90% opposed the tax.image001
nhibbard
Sr. Member
****
: 393


« #9 : July 19, 2016, 09:19:23 PM »

Funny enough, one of these came by my house. I agree with part of their proposals in concept but told him I thought what was in place was fine and needed to be enforced. Apparently he didn't know that the US has different states with carbon markets for companies who want to create more carbon to buy from those who produce too little.

I'd have to agree that you might educate them more than they thought.
: [1]  
« previous next »
:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!