,
6 tweets,
8 min read
Read on Twitter
@daveregrets @MarkVinPaul @gregorytcarlock @noahqk @hal_harvey Yes a carbon tax is moderately progressive when distribution is measured across lifetime income/expenditures rather than annual income (which isn't as good a measure of economic security/standing).
@daveregrets @MarkVinPaul @gregorytcarlock @noahqk @hal_harvey This is especially true when accounting for automatic adjustments on cost or living indexed benefits. Social security payments, food stamps, etc all go up when costs of energy/goods go up, so if carbon price drives prices, indexed benefits and transfers also go up. Important.
@daveregrets @MarkVinPaul @gregorytcarlock @noahqk @hal_harvey So I pretty strongly disagree @MarkVinPaul that a carbon tax is not a fair or appropriate way to raise revenue for a *portion* of the expenditures and investments we need to make. Progressive income taxes and smart use of debt instruments round out the package for me.
@daveregrets @MarkVinPaul @gregorytcarlock @noahqk @hal_harvey You'll also see my "plan" in brief linked above is built to protect households from energy cost increases by keeping CO2 price low, offsetting effect on energy prices w/subsidy for clean energy/mitigation + (if needed) targeted transfers. Lots of ways to design progressive policy
@daveregrets @MarkVinPaul @gregorytcarlock @noahqk @hal_harvey Transfers probably most important for those whose employment situations are impacted, not due to energy cost increases, IMO. Although may need some additional transfers for lowest income households (EITC expansion perhaps).
@daveregrets @MarkVinPaul @gregorytcarlock @noahqk @hal_harvey Per capita dividends are definitely not the only way to build a progressive policy -- and definitely not what I think is most likely to prove either politically effective or environmentally effective, even if it appears more efficient in an idealized form.
