Is a carbon tax taxing an input of production or taxing the externality created by the production process?
Tax de Carbon
- Thread starter 80watts
- Start date
Carbon tax is not strictly an excise tax in the way we are applying it. The externality of which you speak would be an emission tax (like good old aircare) or the excise tax we have now. but since emissions are hard to assess the tax is therefore on input.
Yes, it is not an excise tax. It is also not a consumption tax. It is also not a VAT. It is also not a productivity tax. Whether one supports or opposes a carbon tax, it is purely a tax on what some consider a negative externality. The closest comparison would be a sin-tax, like tobacco taxes. It is meant to try and modify behaviour.
Carbon tax, the cost of carbon, is charged based on carbon emitted not consumed. Therefore, the carbon tax is taxing emissions.
Incorrect.
Carbon tax is levied on carbon content of fuels. It does not levy on outputs because the measurements costs would be astronomical. You can't tax emissions the same way you can't tax people's farts.
Sorry mate; but the price of carbon is emissions based.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climate-change/planning-and-action/carbon-tax
Incorrect.
A tax on an input directly used by major factors of productivity is a tax on productivity.
Petroleum is not an elastic product, like alcohol or tobacco. It must be used regardless of price given current technology.
Incorrect.
"carbon dioxide equivalent emissions" is not emissions. It is a plain language term used to describe carbon content that results in emissions.
Otherwise, it would just be Carbon Dioxide emissions.
The method for which a tax is collected doesn't mean that the product is being taxed. For example, in BC the method of collecting the carbon tax is at the pump. This makes the carbon tax highly visible to whomever consumes petroleum; however, it does not mean consumption of petroleum is being directly taxed.
incorrect.
Point of sale tax is a recoupment. Carbon tax is levied at production level in BC at $40 a tonne. This is a direct tax.
Correct, but human breaths are not taxed because it's futile.
Please google definition of carbon tax.
Lol. Listen mate; you clearly are opposed to a carbon tax, and that's certainly an opinion you are entitled to. And clearly you passionate about attempting to convince others of your opinion. At the very least; if you're going to take a position on the carbon tax your credibility would be enhanced if you did the research to know what the carbon tax is actually taxing. Trying to redefine the word emissions and maintaining that the carbon tax is based on fuel content when the government literature on the carbon tax tells us otherwise only undermines your own credibility.
The carbon tax taxes carbon. It says so in the name.
Carbon is not an emission. It is a basic element. It is not called an emission tax for a reason.
Please google definition of carbon tax.
I don't know why you want to argue about something like this. It's sort of like saying boy scouts is for everyone and not just for boys.
Your Google definition is irrelevant; the fact is that in BC the carbon tax is priced based on emission and not carbon content of fuel. Perhaps you are unaware that pricing carbon (i.e. A carbon tax) can be implemented in many ways. In BC, the government chose to tax emissions. Perhaps there are other jurisdictions that choose to tax based on carbon content, but that's just not the case in BC.
Incorrect.
Carbon Tax is taxed per tonne (weight) and not per cubic feet (aerosol content). Nor is it called a Carbon Dioxide tax because it doesn't apply to the gas, only the input thereof that causes it.
Chemical properties and availability can change. It's both inefficient and unfair to tax the actual emission because it's not:
A) Calculable
B) Economically feasible to keep track of it.
Alcohol Tax taxes Alcohol by Volume. GST taxes goods and services. Carbon tax therefre only applies to carbon in its original chemical form and not when it has been aerosolized into emission. Taxes are always named for what they actually apply, not what you think they apply.
Taxing something for the purpose of reducing emissions and taxing emissions are not the same thing. There's a specific reason that a carefully selected language is used - "carbon dioxide equivalent emissions" - and not "carbon dioxide emissions".
You know what would be fun? A alcohol content tax that taxed how many boobies you see when you are drunk rather than the ABV.
Last edited:
They have that....it's the five bucks you stuff into the Strippers panties....
You two are giving me a headache.
An accurate description of an until recently dormant 9 year PERB member who has now hijacked three threads recently by being this:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lVWOK8A43r4" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Please stop. No one cares about your numerous nitpicky attempts in all three hijacks to score debating points by narrowing the discussion to an insignificant issue, usually a point of language, that detracts from the overall discussion on major topics of concern.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lVWOK8A43r4" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Please stop. No one cares about your numerous nitpicky attempts in all three hijacks to score debating points by narrowing the discussion to an insignificant issue, usually a point of language, that detracts from the overall discussion on major topics of concern.
