Obama May Levy Carbon Tax to Cut the U.S. Deficit, HSBC Says
By Mathew Carr – Bloomberg News
Barack Obama may consider introducing a tax on carbon emissions to help cut the U.S. budget deficit after winning a second term as president, according to HSBC Holdings Plc.
A carbon tax starting at $20 a ton of carbon dioxide equivalent and rising at about 6 percent a year could raise $154 billion by 2021, Nick Robins, an analyst at the bank in London, said today in an e-mailed research note, citing Congressional Research Service estimates.
“Applied to the Congressional Budget Office’s 2012 baseline, this would halve the fiscal deficit by 2022,” Robins said.
h/t to WUWT reader “dp”
Revenue bills originate in the House which is controlled by the Republicans. Carbon tax won’t happen.
The US is in a very precarious financial condition. Yes, we will have to raise money. A carbon tax is better for the US that any other carbon policy, such as cap and trade. Wall St. really wanted cap and trade because they would be able to write all sorts of financial instruments on carbon, derivatives and whatnot. Another chance to fleece the rubes. If the carbon policy of the US is a tax, it will make it a lot harder to have cap and trade in some future presidency.
I don’t like to get taxed, I don’t like my energy prices to be higher.
But the fiscal cliff is a reality. We have to deal with it. I’d rather have a carbon tax as part of dealing with the fiscal cliff — even though I don’t buy the BS from Michael Mann and the other purveyors of histrionics about the immediacy of huge harm from warming — as part of a deal to get us off the fiscal cliff, if it means we can bury cap and trade.
But carbon tax only affects the richest 1% right? LOL
Welcome to the United States of Greece.
Big quake just occurred.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/
Problem is, those $154 billion by 2021… are completely irrelevant. US Treasury just came out expecting the $20 trillion debt to hit by the end of this year. And that’s just for this year. Then Obama will undoubtedly raise the level again and eventually, well, we all know how that will end.
More taxes lead only to one thing: more spending. I mean, Austria, for example, has the highest tax income ever these days and what is happening? Our national debt is rising like crazy. Why? Because even with our high taxes our so called leaders spend money they don’t have. The more taxes you have, the more freely politicians spend.
First, you bribe voters with public money. Then, you bankrupt the country. Then, you increase taxes for working class to pay the debt, so you can continue to bribe voters by other people’s money.
Sounds like positive feedback.
There it is. No deficit and no warming planet equals Carbon tax. You could see it coming.
It will just be spent on more wasteful programs and shuffled off into regime chums pockets
The irony of course is that a carbon tax would be very regressive, hitting those who can least afford it the hardest. So much for the dems caring for the little guy. Using weather as an excuse to tax the public , how pathetic! Looks like WUWT will have its hands full for the next 4 years trying to educate the public about what’s really going on in weather & climate.
Keep fighting the good fight ! That’s all that can be done.
Right after reassuring the voters of Ohio they need not worry about their fledgling energy industry and revived heavy metal manufacturing.
Once the number of voters that derive all or part of their income from taxation outnumber the number of voters that are the subject of taxation the destination is inevitable.
People that derive income from taxation and return some of that taxation derived income to the government in fact pay no tax; they simply return an amount that will be given to them next year.
Socialism requires, and seeks to create, people that are dependant on income from taxation. It took 10 Trillion dollars to create the necessary dependants, the die is cast.
The United States will follow California on their voyage to the Mediterranean coast.
When will John Galt stand up?
All revenue (tax) measures must originate in the House. Obama cannot get a tax increase bill passed.
Applied to the baseline… as in IF DC doesn’t continue to spend like a shopaholic watching the “Buy Everything” cable channel at 3 in the morning (leave sailors out of this). That’s gonna happen. Hey, I’ll give you a good price on….
ericgrimsrud says:
November 7, 2012 at 8:51 am
CO2 in the atmosphere is a benefit, not a harm. We should be subsidizing the introduction of more CO2, not penalizing it.
With, well, perhaps 2 or 3 thousand such taxes, the deficit might be affected. Somewhat.
Looks like the 47% have figured out how to keep the free stuff rolling in. But sooner or later America will run out of other people’s money to spend. Because it is always so.
California is the next Italy.
New York is the next Spain.
And Washington D.C.is Athens on the Potomac.
John says:
November 7, 2012 at 8:53 am
Yes we do need to decrease the deficit. However the history of tax increases is that they NEVER decrease deficits. The reason for this is two fold.
First new taxes slow the economy, meaning revenues from other taxes go down, at least partially offseting the money colleced by the new tax.
Second, new money is always spent.
As a result, every single time taxes have been raised, the deficit has gotten worse, not better.
Besides, we are already over taxed.
When a lazy electorate is given the choice of hard work and Santa Clause, which will children choose?
Yup.
And a carbon tax is just another trick out of the big red bag.
(Romney had 2.5 million fewer votes than McCain. Apparently we’re not teaching work ethics anymore.)
John says:
November 7, 2012 at 8:53 am
“But the fiscal cliff is a reality. We have to deal with it. I’d rather have a carbon tax as part of dealing with the fiscal cliff — even though I don’t buy the BS from Michael Mann and the other purveyors of histrionics about the immediacy of huge harm from warming — as part of a deal to get us off the fiscal cliff, if it means we can bury cap and trade.”
John,
Like a person who lives in perpetual debt, the government is comfortable with current annual deficits of over $ 1 trillion. I say this because for the past 3 years we have had annual budget deficits of that amount. If they weren’t comfortable with it something would have changed. So how can you expect an additional flow of income into the federal government to be applied to a deficit they are so comfortable with? No, they will simply spend it and the annual deficits will remain the same or go up and the national debt will continue to rise until you will need a wheelbarrow of dollars to buy a beer. And it will be an import because all domestic companies will have been taxed out of business.
So our manufacturing base becomes less competitive in the world market and China eats more of our lunch. Let’s make everything union also and make them pay part of that to treasury also. The state of Illinois has the highest debt to resident level of $ 7,200 per man, woman and child. California is second with $ 3,600 per man, woman and child. Any correlation yet? We need more government and less business.
OooooH! Wow!!!
154 billion!!!
Half-a-month’s worth of Fed spending.
So – the truth is out – use a Carbon tax to raise revenue! – you poor folks in the USA will end up like the Aussies. No doubt we will be next……..(insert the worst expletives you can think of, and thats what should be appearing here to describe what I think of these bar stewards!)
The budget deficit for the last 4 years has been over a trillion dollars. Now we will add full blown Obama Care, while the social security debt balloons and the percentage of the population on some form of the dole grows larger every year. Yet, this article indicates that the budget deficit will be around 300 billion dollars in 2012, more than a 70% reduction from this year!
In a pigs eye!
A carbon tax will just make it harder for everyone to make a living, especially the poor, who pay a greater percentage of their income on energy than the more well-to-do.
A carbon tax is like a new ‘sin’ tax. Tobacco and alcohol are heavily taxed because there use is considered bad and, therefore, easy to the populace to agree on higher taxes. Now carbon has been sufficiently demonized that the administration may feel they can get a ‘sin’ tax applied to it. The difference, however, between carbon based energy and tobacco and alcohol is obvious: the latter are harmful to you health, while carbon based energy is the life blood of our economy and the only thing that keeps us from returning to a pre-industrial life style.
If I where trying to covertly destroy the United States of America, I would be all for a carbon tax.
markx says:
“…
Wonder how long it will take them to realize they have been played?”
You obviously have not read Atlas Shrugged. They never do learn. They continue to blame the ‘greedy industrialist”
In the real world, new taxes on businesses are not on the table, no matter what some bank in London thinks.