Skip navigation
10comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Emily Church

Jul 17, 2014
11:42

Member


1 |
Share via:
How would the proposed tax affect lower middle class households (i.e. between 150% poverty line and median)?

Climate Colab

Aug 5, 2014
08:22

Member


2 |
Share via:
1. This has the potential to get some conservatives thinking about what they could "get" out of climate action, even if they aren't convinced (or can't say they're convinced) by the science of climate change. As such, it's a very helpful proposal. To make it more palatable to conservatives, I'd suggest a toning down of the need for international dialogue. Better to talk about how the border adjustment would make it in our trading partners' interests to follow with "commitments of analogous stringency"--even in the absence of an international agreement. I have some qualms about the proposal not being revenue-neutral, but deficit reduction might give conservatives some cover, especially since they'd be getting corporate tax reduction. The subsidy to the poor (not sure how that's done, please expand) would be attractive to the left and would provide some protection to conservatives who would otherwise be attacked for cutting corporate income taxes and making up the revenue by taxing the poor through a carbon tax. This proposal smartly fits our desperate need for corporate tax reform and can capitalize on the concern over corporate inversion transactions. 2. This proposal does not break new ground in overall concept, but represents a thoughtful and fairly complete carbon tax reform package design. What the proposal does not make explicit is how this particular tax can be made politically feasible - some of the design elements seem to have political viability in mind, more details would be welcome. For instance, provide an A-to-B roadmap/strategy of how to actually implement the proposal. Specific details will help you in the final judging round.

Climate Colab

Sep 3, 2014
12:21

Member


3 |
Share via:
Overall, excellent job of thinking both about the design of a carbon tax policy as well as the politics of implementing this policy. Welcome attention to how policy design can manage the different needs of economic constituencies.

Elizabeth Fisher

Sep 16, 2014
05:24

Member


4 |
Share via:
Is there a problem with the math here? Corporations pay in total only about $200 Billion/yr in taxes so saving $800 Billion over 10 years might give some of those corporations more money back than they paid in...Corporations in total only make about $900 Billion/yr in Taxable Income per the GAO. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/04/13/150441259/what-america-pays-in-taxes

Osero Shadrack Tengeya

Sep 17, 2014
05:46

Fellow


5 |
Share via:
Hi Adellemorris and friends, kindly consider to vote for my proposal shown in the link below https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300206/planId/1002 Thanks in advance.

Anne-marie Soulsby

Sep 23, 2014
02:18

Member


6 |
Share via:
Hi Adele, Please consider voting for my proposal, https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300801/planId/1309001 Good luck with your entry! Asante/Thank-you @conserveaction

Victor Blanco

Oct 4, 2014
11:36

Member


7 |
Share via:
Congratulations!!! Please check the "Discusion Section" in the "Community" label... Proposal of activity during the Conference Session of 2014 Winners... https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/discussion#discussion%3DpageType%3ATHREAD%2CthreadId%3A1337218

Helena Roberts

Nov 7, 2014
06:54

Member


8 |
Share via:
A corruption of a legitimate carbon fee and dividend proposal that instead of helping people, it instead helps corporations further dodge their tax obligations. Just slapping the name "Pro-Growth" on this tax cheating scam is putting lipstick on a Pig! The fact this won a "Judges Choice" de-legitimizes the Co-Lab and the entire process: The game is rigged by the judges.

Garret Whitney

Nov 8, 2014
08:08

Member


9 |
Share via:
I totally agree with robertsr2k. That this is a corporate scam should be obvious, it could have been written by Paul Ryan. How did this win?

Woody Henderson

Apr 6, 2015
12:56

Member


10 |
Share via:
I'm concerned about the exported fuels provision. No carbon tax if the fuel is exported? Exported fuels are the most greenhouse gas intensive of all as they are shipped using bunker oil to countries with less or no restrictions on burning. This provision has clearly been created to benefit targeted companies. Who are they? How has this slipped by Climatecolab? "Taxes would be rebated to exported fuels, so as not to disadvantage US exporters of globally traded commodities."
ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.