Talk:Carbon tax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve tax-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-priority on the Project's priority scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Inconsistent

This article says that NZ had plans in 2005 of being the first country to introduce a (national) carbon tax, in 2005. It then reveals that several countries introduced (seemingly national, as far as the article suggests) carbon taxes in the 1990s. This is inconsistent. Clarification? Metamagician3000 09:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what was intended with the original wording, but since the NZ tax was canned, and it's covered in greater detail later in the article, I've removed the reference to it in the introduction.-gadfium 02:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about the impartiality of the section discussing the negative effects of a carbon tax-perhaps it should be labeled as such? To me, it appears that it is trying to sell a position on the issue rather than remaining impartial.Light Dragon 01:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Flat Tax

The article states that "any flat tax is regressive," which I am pretty sure is false. The author may have been thinking of a fixed tax, which is a one-time lump-sum tax, as opposed to a flat tax, which is a constant percentage tax.

In a regressive tax, the tax rate decreases as the amount of taxable activity increases. An example of a regressive carbon tax would be $10-per-ton of carbon on pollution up to 100 tons, and a $5-per-ton rate for anything above 100 tons. Another example of a (fixed tax) regressive tax would be if all polluters, no matter how large or small, had to pay $200. This is not the case in the context of a flat carbon tax, where individuals or companies would be taxed at a constant rate, say $10 for every ton of carbon produced, no matter how much they polluted.

There is a big difference between a fixed tax and a flat tax. A fixed tax creates an incentive not to pollute in the first place, but no incentive to stop polluting once you have started. A flat tax creates a constant incentive to pollute at a lower rate than you would without the tax.

The author's original point of redistributing money from the rich to the poor still holds in either case, as the rich will on average cause more pollution than the poor, who could be reimbursed if the government saw fit. 64.0.136.140 01:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petition

There's a pro-Carbon tax petition here:

[1]

I was going to add it to the external links, but having signed the petition I don't want to be accused of spamming. If someone else could add it though that would be great. --cfp 11:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a government site, so I think it's not leading down a slippery slope of spamming if we add it. It doesn't give much information, though, which is mostly what an encyclopedia should be concerned with. — Sebastian 22:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debatepedia external link acceptable?

Not clear if this is an appropriate link. Although the web pages is useful in comparing the pros and cons of a carbon tax and cap-and-trade system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.98.193 (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a link to a site that fails our guidelines. I have removed it. -- SiobhanHansa 02:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The link (third footnote) "2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers" does not work

Oneredsock 19:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)one red sock

[edit] The calculations

The calculations presented here are all in Imperial system. Could we please also have the calculations for mks (metres, kilogtrams, seconds) standard international notation? John D. Croft (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Those calculations are quite interesting and look to be a good "back of envelope" theoretical approach. However, it doesn't show any evidence that this is an actual model being considered anywhere, or if it is just someone soapboxing their own ideas. For that reason I have added an 'OR' tag until it can be properly referenced. Ephebi (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)