Climate change taxes

[protokol]

Most climate change skeptics say the main reason for the ideology is for governments to claim more in taxes. I have two questions:

A. Are there any taxes that apply to individuals? I have only found information about taxes that apply to businesses, eg. UK Climate Change Levy

B. Why would TPTB need to create/take advantage of a fraudulent climate change ideology to claim more taxes? Couldn't they just claim this money by increasing traditional taxes?

I would have thought that increasing traditional taxes would result in more tax income -  there would be no opportunity for businesses to decrease the tax they pay by using more renewable energy, and there would be no chance of scaring away big oil companies, and the subsequent revenue they bring into the economy.

[saddampbuh]

i thought the reason was to pay for and force expensive unpopular unnecessary renewables on us

[protokol]

i thought the reason was to pay for and force expensive unpopular unnecessary renewables on us

What's the benefit for governments with this hypothesis?

[Spendulus]

Most climate change skeptics say the main reason for the ideology is for governments to claim more in taxes. I have two questions:

A. Are there any taxes that apply to individuals? I have only found information about taxes that apply to businesses, eg. UK Climate Change Levy

B. Why would TPTB need to create/take advantage of a fraudulent climate change ideology to claim more taxes? Couldn't they just claim this money by increasing traditional taxes?

I would have thought that increasing traditional taxes would result in more tax income -  there would be no opportunity for businesses to decrease the tax they pay by using more renewable energy, and there would be no chance of scaring away big oil companies, and the subsequent revenue they bring into the economy.

It's all about creating schemes with high opportunity for graft. 

Although the answers to your question obviously vary by country, in the USA the standard tax schemes do not have a great deal of opportunity for direction corrupt practices - flat out sending money to your friends and such.  Many "loopholes" in the tax code have been established to pay off one industry segment or another.  But that pales in comparison to the opportunity for graft with the climate change schemes.

[pedrog]

Taxation is a great way to disincentivize the purchase of a particular product that may be harmful, like tobacco or alcohol beverages, making it more expensive it is less available for people and it has to be acquired with moderation.

Gas, AFAIK, has special taxes since ever, but with all pollution we are faced with this kind of product its use has to be moderated and even made obsolete, for the energy industry to change and invest in better more clean forms of energy production in a timely manner extra taxes on gas and coal are applied.

[saddampbuh]

What's the benefit for governments with this hypothesis?

profit for the corporations that own them

[protokol]

Most climate change skeptics say the main reason for the ideology is for governments to claim more in taxes. I have two questions:

A. Are there any taxes that apply to individuals? I have only found information about taxes that apply to businesses, eg. UK Climate Change Levy

B. Why would TPTB need to create/take advantage of a fraudulent climate change ideology to claim more taxes? Couldn't they just claim this money by increasing traditional taxes?

I would have thought that increasing traditional taxes would result in more tax income -  there would be no opportunity for businesses to decrease the tax they pay by using more renewable energy, and there would be no chance of scaring away big oil companies, and the subsequent revenue they bring into the economy.

It's all about creating schemes with high opportunity for graft. 

Although the answers to your question obviously vary by country, in the USA the standard tax schemes do not have a great deal of opportunity for direction corrupt practices - flat out sending money to your friends and such.  Many "loopholes" in the tax code have been established to pay off one industry segment or another.  But that pales in comparison to the opportunity for graft with the climate change schemes.

Interesting point, did something like this happen with the Solyndra scandal? I don't know a lot about it, but I think there was a huge amount of grant money donated that was never paid back after the company went bankrupt. And I suppose some of this money (plus other funds?) may have been siphoned out by corrupt officials?

It's not instantly obvious to me why the opportunity for graft would be so much higher with CC schemes, maybe because of the hysteria surround CC and because it's a relatively new issue? I need to do some reading up on this, thanks for the prompt.

[protokol]

Taxation is a great way to disincentivize the purchase of a particular product that may be harmful, like tobacco or alcohol beverages, making it more expensive it is less available for people and it has to be acquired with moderation.

Gas, AFAIK, has special taxes since ever, but with all pollution we are faced with this kind of product its use has to be moderated and even made obsolete, for the energy industry to change and invest in better more clean forms of energy production in a timely manner extra taxes on gas and coal are applied.

I think you're describing the "official" reason for the taxes, as a means to curb fossil fuel usage. This makes sense, but I was more interested in the "ulterior motive" that many climate change skeptics believe the governments have for these taxes.

[protokol]

What's the benefit for governments with this hypothesis?

profit for the corporations that own them

Yeah but the big oil companies are some of the richest in the world, so why penalise them while making minimal profit from much smaller renewable energy companies? Please explain what you mean.

[RitzBitzz]

Taxation is a great way to disincentivize the purchase of a particular product that may be harmful, like tobacco or alcohol beverages, making it more expensive it is less available for people and it has to be acquired with moderation.

Gas, AFAIK, has special taxes since ever, but with all pollution we are faced with this kind of product its use has to be moderated and even made obsolete, for the energy industry to change and invest in better more clean forms of energy production in a timely manner extra taxes on gas and coal are applied.

so your argument is to make one sector of industry prosper by wiping out the competition?

[pedrog]

I think you're describing the "official" reason for the taxes, as a means to curb fossil fuel usage. This makes sense, but I was more interested in the "ulterior motive" that many climate change skeptics believe the governments have for these taxes.

Care to share what that ulterior motive may be?

so your argument is to make one sector of industry prosper by wiping out the competition?

Sort of.

In some well established industries there is low to zero innovation, one being the energy sector, if you want to push innovation and drive funds to research and development one can increase the cost of the legacy system, this will drive change much quicker.

[RitzBitzz]

I think you're describing the "official" reason for the taxes, as a means to curb fossil fuel usage. This makes sense, but I was more interested in the "ulterior motive" that many climate change skeptics believe the governments have for these taxes.

Care to share what that ulterior motive may be?

so your argument is to make one sector of industry prosper by wiping out the competition?

Sort of.

In some well established industries there is low to zero innovation, one being the energy sector, if you want to push innovation and drive funds to research and development one can increase the cost of the legacy system, this will drive change much quicker.

at what cost though?

[pedrog]

I think you're describing the "official" reason for the taxes, as a means to curb fossil fuel usage. This makes sense, but I was more interested in the "ulterior motive" that many climate change skeptics believe the governments have for these taxes.

Care to share what that ulterior motive may be?

so your argument is to make one sector of industry prosper by wiping out the competition?

Sort of.

In some well established industries there is low to zero innovation, one being the energy sector, if you want to push innovation and drive funds to research and development one can increase the cost of the legacy system, this will drive change much quicker.

at what cost though?

Clean air, clean rivers, clean land, less cancer, live longer...

[protokol]

I think you're describing the "official" reason for the taxes, as a means to curb fossil fuel usage. This makes sense, but I was more interested in the "ulterior motive" that many climate change skeptics believe the governments have for these taxes.

Care to share what that ulterior motive may be?

I don't know, that's why I made this thread!

[NUFCrichard]

I think you're describing the "official" reason for the taxes, as a means to curb fossil fuel usage. This makes sense, but I was more interested in the "ulterior motive" that many climate change skeptics believe the governments have for these taxes.

Care to share what that ulterior motive may be?

An inhabitable world in the future? Energy independence?  Near free energy in the future after the infrastructure is in place?

They all seem like decent motives for trying to stop climate change.  There are taxes on Cigarettes and Alcohol too, that is to discourage their use.  The same can be true of dirty energy like Oil and Coal.