Poll: Carbon consumption tax replaces income tax?

[canis582]

I am doing this because I want to see what the attitudes are on this board.

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
Its an either keep it the same, or base it on consumption for businesses and individuals?

[/ QUOTE ]



the pole no make sense to me..


income of carbon???



Also: Howzabout NEITHER a fantasy carbon tax NOR an income tax?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I am doing this because I smoke a lot of pot and silly questions like this make perfect sense when I'm stoned.


[/ QUOTE ]

[NeBlis]

Consumption taxes in general make more sense. But im gonna need more clarification.

[canis582]

You mean like an actual detailed scheme?

Do you support the commission of such a plan?

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
You mean like an actual detailed scheme?

Do you support the commission of such a plan?

[/ QUOTE ]


I guess that you mean that a tax would be charged based on a persons actual impact on the environment rather than how much cash they have in the bank. In this case I agree with you in priciple, but am unsure that carbon impact alone is a reliable and reasonable method to use.


note: i am using the word evironment to include all impact on the world rather than only in the "spotted owl sense"

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You mean like an actual detailed scheme?

Do you support the commission of such a plan?

[/ QUOTE ]


I guess that you mean that a tax would be charged based on a persons actual impact on the environment rather than how much cash they have in the bank. In this case I agree with you in priciple, but am unsure that carbon impact alone is a reliable and reasonable method to use.


note: i am using the word evironment to include all impact on the world rather than only in the "spotted owl sense"

[/ QUOTE ]

poor people as a group have a bigger impact on the environment than rich people. It's time they paid their fair share.

[NewTeaBag]

On 2nd thought, I think it's a marvelouss idea to get politicians in the buisniess of creating new laws and taxes based on unconfirmed science and then trusting another governement buracracy to enforce said laws with minimal understanding of the root science.


I can't see any flaws in this idea.

[Moseley]

You don't need either. The EPA has not raised the required MPG on autos sold in the U.S. in over 2 decades.
CA wants to have the right to raise it on cars within their own state.

There are over 100 different types of vehicles sold throughout the world that get over 40 MPG, yet only 2 of them are sold in the U.S. and they are the expensive ones.

The only choice (which is a good one)that the lower income people have is the Kia Rio, that comes in at a 10k price tag and 38 MPG.

Bush's tax cut gave businesses a windfall of income that the rich have used to pollute the world.

I know a contractor, who was able to purchase a 100k Hummer for his business and write off the whole thing since it weighed so much.

My wife worked for a Co. whose CEO did the same thing, as he had several sites throughout VA/MD/WV that he traveled to and wanted to be able to get to all of them no matter what the weather. Since he couldn't get as good a tax break buying a 60k SUV, he bought the 100k Hummer.

[AlexM]

Hmm, given a choice where I'm taxes no matter what and a choice where I can avoid being taxed... Hmm...

This question sucks btw.