It was just one idea thrown out by the CBO to plug the deficit gap, but, it is easy to see that this is all political and nothing to do with the environment
CBO SUGGESTS $1 TRILLION CARBON TAX AS FRANCE REELS FROM ANTI-CARBON TAX RIOTS
It’s been just nine days since the French government abandoned plans to increase the carbon tax on fuel, and the congressional budgeting arm is suggesting a $1 trillion tax on carbon dioxide emissions to close the budget deficit.
“This option would impose a tax of $25 per metric ton on most emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States,†reads a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report released Thursday. “The tax would increase at an annual inflation-adjusted rate of 2 percent.â€
The CBO suggested a carbon tax as one of “121 options that would decrease federal spending or increase federal revenues over the next 10 years.†The CBO published several reports looking at the budgetary impacts of a carbon tax.
However, the CBO’s carbon tax suggestion comes after French President Emmanuel Macron and lawmakers were forced to scrap plans to raise fuel taxes after weeks of violent protests. Those protests also spread to Brussels, where protesters clashed with police over fuel tax rises. (snip)
“Many estimates suggest that the effect of climate change on the nation’s economic output, and hence on federal tax revenues, will probably be small over the next 30 years and larger, but still modest, in the following few decades,†the CBO reported.
“Uncertainty about the effects of climate change — and the potential for unlimited emissions to cause significant damage — grow substantially in the more distant future,†the CBO contended.
And that is the CBO becoming political and showing their membership in the Cult of Climastrology in pushing this tax. Recommending raising taxes which will do harm to the middle and lower classes is a Bad Idea.
Unelected Bureacrats at work. Once again here is a tax that is placed on the American people and what is the purpose of the tax? Certainly not to combat global warming OR FIX THE PROBLEM AS THEY FORSEE IT.
No the purpose of the tax is to raise revenues and reduce the budget deficit. If this latest round of tax cuts does not vastly reduce the budget deficit then they should be scraped and the right needs to cede the idea that increased revenues will ever fix budget deficits.
In theory it works but with the little kids in the candy store in DC they only just find more ways to spend money.
I propose that all federal employee jobs become unpaid until such time as the elected figure a way to fix the budget crisis and medicare and Medicaid shortfalls. Not the military just the rest of the Federal government. Of course it will never happen but I bet within a month they would have the budget balanced and amazingly enough the 500 billion snuck off to the pentagon and other secrete projects would be unfunded and voilla. A balanced budget.
All of this was never about the climate; it is and always has been about a new revenue stream for daddy government.
I have a crazy idea – reduce federal spending!
Why that’s just crazy talk!
Privatize entitlements, add a means test, let them earn their revenue off the markets, and end Franklin Roosevelt’s second income tax.
Meanwhile, US emissions are down without any tax being imposed on the populace. Which of course doesn’t matter to them…
CBO has always been political. They’re just coming out of the closet.
When has a tax increase DECREASED federal spending or the deficit?????? Time to buy a yellow vest.
has a tax increase DECREASED federal spending or the deficit
Deficits by Year (billions USD)
1992 $290
1993 $255
1994 $203
1995 $164
1996 $107
1997 $22
1998 ($69) surplus
1999 ($126) surplus
2000 ($236) surplus
2001 ($128) surplus – Income tax cuts
2002 $158
2003 $378 Corp, Cap gains tax cuts
2004 $413
The yearly deficits add up to the overall national debt.
First, Willie never posted a surplus. Those were projections for the out years.
Easily verified.
Second, no deficits do not add up to the debt. There is also payments on the interest owed.
Duh.
You’re just flat wrong on all counts. Then please verify it. Support your claims, thanks.
If these tax increases were good for the middle class, then they should have been popular. Yet, in the 1994 elections, the Democratic Party suffered historic losses. Even though Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell had declared the unpopular HillaryCare dead in September of that year, the Republican Party gained 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate to win control of both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1952.
Second, Messrs. Carville and Greenberg are contradicted by their former boss. Speaking at a fund raiser in 1995, President Clinton said: “Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too.”
Sometimes I just have to respond to a late post. In fact Clinton was elected in 1992 and in 1994 he lost a historic 54 house seats and EIGHT 8 Senate seats and then under the GOP controlled house and senate the Budget was balanced.
Additionally the left loves the mantra that When GWB was elected his tax cuts ended balanced budgets when in fact the reality is his budgets are not even reflected in your numbers until 2002 and AFTER 911 and the beginning of our stupid 17 year war. Subsequently in the middle of all this Hurricane Katrina destroyed one of our largest towns which cost the US government 200 billion to fix.
Now keep in mind the left joined hands with Bush and said lets smash those evil bastards and so the wars began. Wars without end.
Which puts us back to one simple fact. And that fact is Mr. Jethro is repeated folk lore passed down so many times by the hard left that its become fact rather than the fiction with a story behind it. In fact in 2007 the main reason IMO HRC lost to Obama in the primaries was she VOTED TO GO TO WAR. OBAMA had the luxury of not being around but I would have bet he would have voted YES as well as it was a popular idea at the time pushed even by the MSM and Liberal outlets like Washington Post and NY TIMES etc.
As always now you know the rest of the story.
How COULD this decrease the federal deficit or increase revenue when this carbon tax, we were told, was originally supposed to be “revenue neutral”?? Yes, according to the “watermelons”, all of that money would be returned to the tax payers. Remember?
TEACH: Congressional Budget Office Super Enthused To Push $1 Trillion Carbon Tax
Actually, the right-wing Daily Caller was “super enthused” to lie that the CBO was proposing or pushing a carbon tax. The CBO presented over 110 options for cutting spending or raising revenues and an emissions tax was on the list. Only 40 options were for raising revenues, the other 70+ dealt with cutting spending.
Very misleading and TEACH fell for it. Fake news.
TEACH: Can you point out where the CBO was more “super enthused” about emissions taxes than about any other tax or spending option?
Much of what right-wingers believe to be true, is not.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2018-12/54667-budgetoptions.pdf
But the fact they project a gain of 1T shows they like it.