Details of the Horrible Carbon Tax Bill

Reposted from Americans for Tax Reform

Posted by John Kartch on Wednesday, November 28th, 2018, 12:01 AM PERMALINK

ALERT: Call Florida Republican Congressman Francis Rooney at 202-225-2536 and ask him why he has signed onto this vicious Democrat tax which seeks to impose a backdoor two-child limit.

 

Democrat Florida Congressman Ted Deutch has introduced a carbon tax bill to impose a new national energy tax on the American people. The bill is a massive tax increase which will increase utility bills and the price of all products and services. In classic politician-speak, Deutch has dubbed it “The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2018.”

Voters across the USA — even in blue areas — have consistently rejected carbon taxes when faced with the issue at the ballot box. See the timeline here. On top of that, Paris is burning as hundreds of thousands of French citizens — yes even the French — protest that country’s own carbon taxes.

Despite all this, Democrat Deutch just can’t take a hint. Let’s look at the details of Deutch’s horrible bill:

Imposes a massive and continually racheting national energy tax, allowing politicians to raise taxes without ever having to vote. Just like the French proposal that starts with a big tax that gets more oppressive with time, the bill imposes a $15 per ton carbon (energy) tax, increasing by $10 per year into the future. Within five years the tax would automatically rise to $55 per ton. For reference, the carbon tax handily rejected by blue Washington state voters in November started at $15 and ratcheted up by $2 per year. Perhaps Deutch thinks the voters just want to be taxed at even higher rates.

Shovels taxpayer money into a giant vat for IRS, EPA, and State Department bureaucrats. The IRS and EPA will develop a cozy relationship — and what’s not to love about that — to siphon cash from the vat of taxpayer funds for what the bill calls “Administrative Expenses” and “Other Administrative Expenses.” For reasons unclear, State Department bureaucrats will also have access to the vat of taxpayer funds. What could go wrong?

Gives broad powers to IRS chief to find new products and entities to be carbon-taxed. The IRS is directed to work with the EPA in order to find more tax targets: “Any manufactured or agricultural product which the [Treasury] Secretary in consultation with the [EPA] Administrator determines” is a tax target. The newly-carbon-taxed items will be added to the long list already specified in the bill: Iron, steel, steel mill products including pipe and tube, aluminum, cement, glass, fiberglass, pulp, paper, chemicals, and industrial ceramics.

Gives broad powers to the EPA chief. The bill gives czar-like powers to the EPA chief including the power to impose “monitoring, reporting, and record-keeping requirements” on Americans. The bill also gives the EPA chief power to conduct investigations and force “information collection.”

Establishes a creepy DC-based “Carbon Dividend Trust Fund” that seeks a backdoor two-child limit on families. The “Carbon Dividend Trust Fund” leftovers will somehow be routed from DC on a per-person basis and households with more than two children are considered unworthy: The legislative language specifically imposes “a limit of 2 children per household.”

Here it is, straight from the bill text:

“A carbon dividend payment is one pro-rata share for each adult and half a pro-rata share for each child under 19 years old, with a limit of 2 children per household, of amounts available for the month in the Carbon Dividend Trust Fund.”

Gives broad powers to the Treasury Department to issue even more rules and regulations. The bill language states:

“The Secretary shall promulgate rules, guidance, and regulations useful and necessary to implement the Carbon Dividend Trust Fund.”

Imposes income tax on the carbon tax “dividend.” Yes, the government fleeces the taxpayers and sends the carbon tax money to DC, where it is siphoned off by bureaucrats. Then a leftover “dividend” is supposedly sent out to the countryside where it is then subject to income tax! Here is the bill language:

“(D) FEE TREATMENT OF PAYMENTS. — Amounts paid under this subsection shall be includible in gross income.

A tax on a tax, which will likely increase the complexity of your annual tax filing. Here’s an idea — how about not taking the money from taxpayers in the first place?

Greases the skids for a European-style Value Added Tax, a cash cow for big government by erecting a complex carbon tax border adjustment scheme.

Authorizes armed carbon tax enforcement agents. The bill authorizes armed carbon tax enforcement agents to collect the new tax on energy used by Americans. As if customs enforcement doesn’t already have enough on its plate, the bill states:

“The revenues collected under this chapter may be used to supplement appropriations made available in fiscal years 2018 and thereafter –

“(1) to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in such amounts as are necessary to administer the carbon border fee adjustment.”

……….

ALERT: Call Florida Republican Congressman Francis Rooney at 202-225-2536 and ask him why he is supporting this vicious tax which seeks to impose a backdoor two-child limit.

Stay tuned to www.ATR.org for more horrible carbon tax updates.

Read the full story here.

HT/Colin

0 0 votes
Article Rating
99 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 2, 2018 2:18 am

Not to worry, just rejoice and look forward to the UN Climate Change Conference in Katowice, Poland, where 23,000 delegates have decamped to sell you their wares.

Reply to  vukcevic
December 2, 2018 2:32 am

…. the coma must be in the wrong place, but that is what the BBC news reader said and as everyone knows, the beeb is never wrong when the climate change is concerned, or maybe not.

climanrecon
Reply to  vukcevic
December 2, 2018 2:42 am

… with free publicity and marketing courtesy of the fawning MSM.

Reply to  vukcevic
December 2, 2018 4:12 am

Beeb got it right ! 23,000 delegates ! OMG !

BillP
Reply to  vukcevic
December 2, 2018 5:12 am

It appear that it is only that low because Katowice was not large enough for more, see: http://climatetracker.org/katowice-is-not-large-enough-to-host-cop24-this-is-how-the-polish-presidency-plans-to-solve-it/

They should limit attendance to people who walk all the way from home.

Ian
Reply to  vukcevic
December 2, 2018 8:07 am

Your tax dollars/GBP hard at work.

RLu
Reply to  vukcevic
December 2, 2018 9:21 am

Wouldn’t it be a nice gesture, to temporary shut down the Coal plants in honor of the Conference. The models predict light winds and wet snow for the coming weeks. Both wind and solar energy production in the area will be nearly zero. So meetings can be held in daylight between 09:00 and 16:00.
Of course, without electricity, it is difficult to pump fuel from underground bunkers to refuel airplanes. When the delegates are done, they can either walk to Gdansk, where they can board a sailing vessel. Or they can walk to Budapest and take a ferry to the Black Sea.

Sam Pyeatte
Reply to  RLu
December 4, 2018 3:36 pm

Give the eco-freaks an action item idea to proceed on: Follow the instruction manual “Rainbow Six” by Tom Clancy.

Bloke down the pub
December 2, 2018 2:31 am

A limit of two children per family? Considering that some religions/races tend to have larger families, this legislation could be thought of as racist.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
December 2, 2018 2:42 am

Projected population density, selected EU countries 2012-2080. Sources; Eurostat, ONS.
comment image

Bryan A
Reply to  vukcevic
December 2, 2018 9:41 am

Not to sure about that Two Child Limit wording though.

It could be understood as a restriction on the number of children allowed per family. As is being inferred in the article.

Or

It could also be understood as an income tax that is charged against 2 adults and up to 2 children per household regardless of the number of children in the household such that each household would pay two to three pro-rata shares at most.

“A carbon dividend payment is one pro-rata share for each adult and half a pro-rata share for each child under 19 years old, with a limit of 2 children per household, of amounts available for the month in the Carbon Dividend Trust Fund.”

JohnWho
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
December 2, 2018 6:22 am

I’m reading it as the dividend payment would only apply to up to 2 children per family. It is not limiting families to 2 or less children.

Not only is this Carbon Tax a bad idea but the Bill appears to be poorly written.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  JohnWho
December 2, 2018 7:14 am

That’s the way I read it. There’s no way they meant you can’t have more than two children.

Sheri
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 2, 2018 7:34 am

Isn’t that similar to what China did? You don’t get rewards for more than 2?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Sheri
December 2, 2018 8:04 am

It is also similar to what the State of WV did when they increased the PEIA Premiums (Public Employees Insurance Agency) by something like $10/month, …… but any public employee who claimed they “didn’t smoke cigarettes” were given a $10/month DISCOUNT on their PEIA Premiums.

“DUH”, ya can’t penalize employees for tobacco use …… but ya can reward employees for not using it.

MarkW
Reply to  Sheri
December 2, 2018 3:03 pm

In China, it was a one child policy, and the state would force women who were carrying a second child to have an abortion.

Barbara
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 2, 2018 2:41 pm

“There’s no way they meant you can’t have more than two children.”

Of course there’s a way, Jeff. At least for Conservatives. These are DemoncRats. after all.

Stephen Brown
Reply to  JohnWho
December 3, 2018 2:20 pm

The Bill is written in such a manner that Lawyers can make a mint out of arguing just what the wording means. The Bill was drafted BY lawyers FOR lawyers.

Warren
December 2, 2018 2:45 am

Haven’t seen a Tweet from Trump on this bill?

Warren
December 2, 2018 2:54 am

Rooney . . .
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/republican-rooney-emerges-as-a-leader-on-climate-change/
Working hard for the renewable energy lobby.

Zig Zag Wanderer
December 2, 2018 2:58 am

There is no actual 2 child limit! They are proposing that the ‘refund’ is limited to each family, so larger families don’t get a disproportionate amount.

I think it’s completely insane, but at least get your headline right!

Warren
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 2, 2018 3:06 am

I believe we (almost all) understood what was meant by the headline.

Reply to  Warren
December 2, 2018 4:35 am

On the home page of WUWT, it says,
“Call Florida Republican Congressman Francis Rooney at 202-225-2536 and ask him why he has signed onto this vicious Democrat tax which seeks to impose a backdoor two-child limit. ”

Strictly speaking, I believe this is called a blurb, not a headline. Nevertheless, it gave me exactly the wrong impression, as it seemed to imply that families would be somehow limited to 2 children.

Limiting a wrong-headed tax overall seems like a good thing. However, it could be interpreted as having smaller families subsidizing larger ones.

BTW, as carbon taxes will almost surely be strongly regressive (when comparing members of the upper class to the middle class; though not necessarily when comparing the middle class to the lower class), I’ve long predicted that it is Republicans who will deliver this “gift that keeps on giving” to the globalists (probably as a “bipartisan effort”)

Surely, while Trump has had an opportunity to drive a stake through the CO2 catastrophist religion, he’s been an abysmal failure on that score. He can’t even be bothered memorizing (and then reciting) a handful of factoid when expressing his apparently ignorant opinion on climate change. But there are probably10’s of millions of Americans who believe in CO2 catastrophism, and about half of them can vote. In Australia, you have students striking over climate change fears.

I have predicted that, unless Trump gets his act together, he could be facing a humiliating defeat in 2020, by virtue of a mobilized “climate change” vote, alone. https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald_GoodAndBad/comments/9xuyy7/trump_related_trumps_failure_to_counter_global/

Trump’s failure is not purely his own. His advisers are apparently worse than useless. I suspect they contain a fair amount of globalists who are happy to sabotage Trump’s more nationalistic goals. Thus, they are happy to see Trump come off as a climate science ignoramus.

Trump’s shoot-from-the-hip, Bart Simpson-like “I’m no genius” approach to communicating to the public about the issue is seen as particularly idiotic from the results of the excellent intelligence squared debate on the issue. In their format, the poll the audience before and after the debate. After a mere 1 hour and 38 minutes, here are the results:

pre-debate: for = 29.88% against = 57.32%
post-debate: for = 46.22% against = 42.22%

See “IQ2US Debate: Global Warming Is Not A Crisis” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass&t=198s If you skip ahead to 1:38:26, you will see the results of the debate.

Unlike Trump’s worse-than-useless advisers (apparently), I would advise Trump to hold such debates right in the White House, say every couple of months. (Topics in this vein could focus on dtata fudging, extreme weather events, omitted variable fraud, the wide spread replication crisis,
the GCM models versus Nir Shaviv’s analysis, etc.) The CO2 catastrophists are not going to go away, even as their shabby claims are progressively decimated. There is too much money flowing in their direction, plus they have 30 years of brainwashed and falsely propagandized acolytes going for them.

Thus, by continuing to CREDIBLY hammer on this issue, Trump would continue to profit from the issue. It would be “the gift that keeps on giving”.

Instead, Trump and his team’s political incompetence threaten to end his Presidency after 4 years, instead of eight. It is hard for me to fathom such political incompetence….

Sheri
Reply to  metamars
December 2, 2018 7:40 am

It’s hard for me to fathom such childish impatience. He’s halfway through his term yet people are already complaining he failed. I guess some people don’t know how long a presidential term lasts. Worse, they voted for a Messiah that walked on water and now they are mad they voted for a fantasy and will vote for any demon that runs just to get even for their own complete lack of contact with reality. Condemn the entire country to control of crazies because of one’s inability to grasp reality. The progressives are not the only ones completely out of touch with reality.

Reply to  Sheri
December 2, 2018 8:23 am

Certain things are largely within Trump’s ability to control, and other things aren’t.

E.g., during the campaign, I saw both Trump and Pence asked about climate change, and both their responses were insulting to the intelligence of any citizen who was looking for insight and leadership on the issue. Neither had bothered spending a half hour memorizing some talking points on the subject.

This is certainly within Trump’s (and Pense’s) complete control. There was no need for them to look so ignorant.

After assuming the Presidency, his potential to teach on the issue, and thereby make the long-coveted taxation and usurpation of political power associated with ‘solving’ climate change that much more unlikely, has only grown. Ah, but his actual effort in this area is another story. Still the same old dilettante! Still the same old Bart Simpson!

Even if Trump managed to undue every law and regulation premised on CO2 catastrophism, his successor could undue his ‘unduing’ in a matter of a couple of years. That is what makes Trump complete failure to tackle the public ignorance of the real state of climate science so revolting. He is playing with fire.

If he gets crushed in 2020, via the ‘climate change vote’, alone, he will deserve every bit of it. He may enjoy playing President, but some of us had higher hopes (if not expectations) for him..

J Mac
Reply to  Sheri
December 2, 2018 11:30 am

Sheri,
+100!

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  metamars
December 2, 2018 7:40 am

You might consider taking something for that TDS ….

Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
December 2, 2018 8:33 am

And you might consider the words of Teddy Roosevelt:

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/147358-patriotism-means-to-stand-by-the-country-it-does-not

This country could use more patriots, and fewer tribalists.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
December 2, 2018 7:47 pm

Gee metamars was either delighted with Obama or he wrote angry posts two yards long if Trump gets this much juice. Trump’s shortcoming is he didn’t realize the huge size of the crocodile population in the swamp. Along with everything else hes being tried as a traitor, corrupted federal judges are throwing sand in his eyes, the MSM wrote their news a couple of years in advance and looped it…

This president is actually saving the whole world. Yeah, he can be exasperating, but how has kissing babies and having fireside chats worked for you. We better take your pen away when he wins even bigger in 2020. BTW, the economy has been growing at double the rate that Nobel economists said was the new normal 1.5-2%.

Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
December 3, 2018 6:41 am

@Gary Pearse

Do you have red herrings and straw men for breakfast every day?

Trump evidently hasn’t invested 30 minutes in memorizing some talking points, nor invested a relatively small dollop of time heading off a delusional and dangerous ‘movement’ (CO2 catastrophism), for either political or moral reasons. In spite of the fact that the domestic political aspects of CO2 catastrophism could destroy and humiliate him in 2 short years, and the globalist aspects of CO2 catastrophism could enslave you to globalists (whose most enlightened view of you is as a resource consumer and revenue producer that is best made to go away, or else controlled), you feel compelled to make excuses for him.

I suppose that if Trump had a drinking problem, you’d be trying to slip him a drink or two. After all, being President is such a tough job – the man needs to unwind!

If Trump gets crushed in a couple of years, I personally would blame not just Trump and his ‘advisers’, but also his sycophantic followers who automatically lower their standards rather than dare criticize their tribal leader.

I think it was Freeman Dyson who explained irrational tribalism like so: Since we evolved in small groups, and hunted beasts far stronger than us, it was more important to all be on the same page, rather than to be correct.

If anybody is curious about the irrational need to make excuses for Trump, I suggest reading the chapter on religion in E.O. Wilson’s book on sociobiology, “On Human Nature”. Global warming fanaticism is a religious behavior, as is ‘dear leader-ism’. Whether that dear leader is Kim Jong-il, Obama, Trump, or anybody else, it’s basically the same, primitive behavior that once had great survival value, but doesn’t bode well for a rational democracy.

icisil
Reply to  metamars
December 2, 2018 7:43 am

IMO Trump could shift the dialectic from I’m right/you’re wrong to solutions. Say “OK you say the science is settled and we need to switch to low carbon energy. Why are we spending $2.5 billion per year on climate research if the science is settled? Let’s instead put those monies into research for what you say we need, i.e., low/zero carbon energy. At the moment it’s technologically impossible to transition to low/zero carbon energy without collapsing the economy and causing the devastation that you say you’re trying to avoid. Let’s put climate research money into low/zero energy research so that we can transition safely as feasible technology becomes available.”

Reply to  icisil
December 2, 2018 8:08 am

Well, I certainly could buy in to Trump making the case that further research is useless if the science is settled, and it’d be smarter to spend the money on alternative science.

However, that would be in addition to, and not instead, smashing CO2 catastrophism to pieces.

Trump should also steer the conversation to cost benefit analyses, such as Lomborg’s work.

Also, as I’ve recently argued, people need to eat, whether there are food shortages due to extreme weather related to a 2 deg C cooling and a new solar minimum, as Zharkova et. al. is predicting; or else extreme weather related to a anthropogenic CO2 2 deg warming. So, Trump could change to one of common purpose in storing food reserves; and if Zharkova predicted food shortages of 2028 to 2032 materialize, we can all avoid starvation scenarios while the CO2 catastrophists decide whether or not they want to apologize, or not.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  metamars
December 2, 2018 10:41 am

Just so you don’t confuse the results of that debate. The alarmists led by Gavin Schmidt of NASA presented no evidence of global warming caused by CO2. Gavin simply brought up many other analogies that had no relation to the global warming debate. The audience changed its mind at the end of the debate and agreed with the skeptics . There is no crisis.

Anthony Violi
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
December 3, 2018 2:10 pm

And that’s because no such evidence exists. And therein lies the problem, people refused to be fleeced of their cash by something that does not exist. the people are not stupid, and are also much greater in numbers than the Left can possibly imagine, every policy like this is one step closer to Paris happening across the Western World.

MarkW
Reply to  metamars
December 2, 2018 3:07 pm

A president has 100s of issues he needs to deal with.
Abandoning because he doesn’t spend all of his time on what you consider to be the most important is somewhat childish.

Reply to  MarkW
December 2, 2018 5:59 pm

Thinking in terms of “abandonment” is somewhat childish. And not very patriotic, either. See my quote of Teddy Roosevelt, above.

This is not just one of “100s” of issues. It’s considered an existential issue by probably 10’s of millions of voters. Trump won in 2016 because of the electoral college, and 70,000 votes cast in his direction in critical states and districts. If he and his team are too politically incompetent to do the math, to spend a half hour memorizing some talking points, and to spend a relatively small amount of time educating the public, then Trump deserves to lose in 2020.

In Australia, 15,000 children skipped school to protest over what they call “climate change”. http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/12/01/thousands-of-australian-children-skip-school-to-protest-for-greater-action-on-climate-change/

The population of Australia is 24 million. The US population is 323 million. So, those 15,000 Australian kids are equivalent to 201,875 US school kids. So, roughly 400,000 parents that they can give the stink eye to, unless they vote for a “climate change” candidate.

And, of course, in two years time, a big chunk of such high schoolers will be able to vote, themselves.

How does 70,000 voters compare to 400,000+ ? Do you grasp what the math is telling you, from a purely pro-Trump/anti-Trump political angle?

I can’t make this much clearer…..

Hivemind
Reply to  metamars
December 2, 2018 10:07 pm

The tax is as much as the gov’t can get. The refund is limited to 2 children per family. Hence, it is creating an effective inducement not to have more than 2 children. The blurb clearly and accurately says “backdoor 2 child limit”, which is what you see here.

Reply to  metamars
December 3, 2018 9:04 am

Video contains footage of Australian students protesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuYo-lEzhH4

Any US activist, with similar POV, should be thinking of emulating this in the US.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Warren
December 2, 2018 7:17 am

“I believe we (almost all) understood what was meant by the headline.”

But did the writer understand? It would seem not, or they’re being willfully obtuse.

Marcus
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 2, 2018 8:09 am

I think most intelligent people took it to mean you will be penalized (taxed more ) if you have more than 2 children..pretty straight forward.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 2, 2018 7:38 am

Families with more children will pay more in carbon taxes…but get smaller dividends. Hence families of 2 children and smaller will receive disproportionate share while those witj more than to pay a disproportionately high share.

HotScot
December 2, 2018 3:03 am

VAT. Introduced into the UK in the 70’s @8% on non essential items with the promise that it would see a fall in overall taxation as it was a ‘targeted’ tax. Very roughly, I was paying around 30% of my salary as a lower rate tax payer to central government which covered virtually everything in the public domain.

Fast forward to 2018. VAT is now at 20%, our taxation system has been decentralised so we pay separate taxes for Council Tax locally, we now pay for water as it was seen as a commodity and sold off, our rail network is now privatised as is our national grid……etc. Overall I agree with privatisation but not as a government route to collecting more taxes whilst selling off the family silver.

Then there are innumerable stealth taxes (40 or so at my last count) like those on fuel bills to support the growing intermittent renewables sectors.

In 2016 The Adam Smith Institute found that tax receipts (in the UK) are projected to be 42% of net national income and takes workers 154 days to cover.

This is our governments perception of progress, squeeze us all until the pip’s squeak.

Reply to  HotScot
December 2, 2018 3:33 am

In France is even worse, it appears that French had enough.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  HotScot
December 2, 2018 4:40 am

In 2016 The Adam Smith Institute found that tax receipts (in the UK) are projected to be 42% of net national income and takes workers 154 days to cover.

This is our governments perception of progress, squeeze us all until the pip’s squeak.

If governments could tax us at 100%, they would still run out of money.

Ferdberple
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 2, 2018 9:36 am

That won’t stop them from trying.

The peasants revolt was due to a 1 in 7 tax by the crown. We are taxed 1 in 2. Perhaps the deplorables are not revolting enough.

BillP
Reply to  HotScot
December 2, 2018 5:25 am

Get your facts straight:

There has long been a local tax, it was called Rates. This was then changed to Community Charge, commonly known as the poll tax. Which was changed to Council Tax. Rates were paid by property owners, so if you were renting you would not have paid them directly, but the owner would have included them in your rent.

The nationalised water boards charged for the water, there has been a move from a fixed annual charge to metered charging, but you always had to pay somehow.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  HotScot
December 2, 2018 10:05 am

stealth taxes

The word “tax” does not come out of the mouths of politicians. At the next election a video clip of them saying “tax” can be shown over, and over, and … That’s bad for re-election.

In the Left coast State of Washington, the recent “carbon” tax bill was written as a fee. It was voted down.
Years ago the cost of a vehicle license was hundreds of dollars. About $30 was used to support the process of issuing plates and keeping records. The State did not want anyone to know where the rest of the money went. I do know some went to schools. The school authorities screamed the loudest when a citizen’s initiative disclosed the “stealth” and folks got to vote to get rid of it.

Peta of Newark
December 2, 2018 3:42 am

too many rats in the cage

old construction worker
December 2, 2018 4:26 am

‘Shovels taxpayer money into a giant vat for IRS, EPA, and State Department bureaucrats. The IRS and EPA will develop a cozy relationship — and what’s not to love about that — to siphon cash from the vat of taxpayer funds for what the bill calls “Administrative Expenses” and “Other Administrative Expenses.” ‘ That would take the fund out of the budget process. Wouldn’t that be the same as “taxation without representation”?

cedarhill
December 2, 2018 4:53 am

And you thought the human caused global warming was dead?
If Danny Rapp had been friends with James Hanson in 1988, he would have resurrected his old hit with a few changes in lyrics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCo8S1D47gc

It has a life of it’s own.

Flight Level
December 2, 2018 4:57 am

An respectable and respected by all old “steam gauges” captain used to say: -Once, it’s bad luck, twice it’s suspicious, thrice it’s a sabotage.

Don’t you realize someone, something is at war with the USA and the rest of the world, and slowly winning ?

Warbirds, missiles, bombs won’t help. What happens is beyond terrorism.

TSA is supposed to keep PAX and crews safe. Ok, roger tat.

On the other hand, aerodynamically unstable fuel saving wing profiles, reduced fuel reserve policies, restrictions on weather avoidance detours, noise abatement scriptures from hell, a whole set of potentially deadly fuel efficiency based rules threaten more lives that any media will ever dare to tell.

Global WW3,4,5 … are en-route via insidious totalitarian energy control.

Bruce Cobb
December 2, 2018 5:04 am

A snowball’s chances in hell would be greater than this bill’s chances of getting passed. Still, the fact that it is being proposed, and has support is frightening. Those who propose it are traitors, as it is un-American.

john
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 2, 2018 6:02 am

Speaking of heck…

http://dailybail.com/home/welcome-to-hell-alberta-passes-carbon-tax-whos-next.html

I penned this awhile back and the headline photo says it all.

R Shearer
Reply to  john
December 2, 2018 8:24 am

That reminds me of Neil DeGrasse saying he was only searching for Uranus on her solar system tattoo.

MarkW
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 2, 2018 3:10 pm

Just because it doesn’t pass is no reason why Republicans shouldn’t run with this bill as a major part of their campaigns in 2020.

Remind the people as to what they have to look forward should the Democrats ever get back into power.

Ewin Barnett
December 2, 2018 5:22 am

This gives us a glimpse into how the woke Progressive Utopia will be funded. Since almost every effort to create the wealth that we must have to purchase our food, clothing and shelter requires the use of energy, a tax on carbon is a tax on living.

Taxing incomes, with all the myriad of reporting requirements, exceptions and deductions, was itself a horrible injury to our liberties. We have lived with this insult for over 100 years, so long that most people cannot imagine life without it. We see proposals like the Fair Tax that would fund government while moving us towards liberty. Instead of advancing towards liberty, too many people seek to move us yet further away from it and increase government intrusion and control even more by taxing life itself.

When proposed solutions to climate change are far more about giving government more money and thus more powe than they are about really mitigation of the climate p, we should wake up to the real motivations involved.

BillP
December 2, 2018 5:49 am

The communist intent in this proposal is clear from the idea for redistribute the money. If must be a carbon tax it should be a replacement for another tax, e.g. abolish income tax or at least take most people out of it by having a tax free allowance much higher than the average income.

The proposal plan would require a huge number of bureaucrats to collect the money and another huge number of bureaucrats to distribute it. If it replaced another tax then the bureaucrats currently collecting that could be redeployed to collect the carbon tax.

Also the redistributing is proposed to be in a communist manner, bribing people to do what the state wants.

Note: I do not agree that we need to reduce CO2, and I want tax to be low; however, I accept that the government needs some money and taxing carbon emissions is no worse that taxing income.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  BillP
December 2, 2018 6:06 am

Oh yes it is. Way worse. It’s purpose is in fact to shift the way that we produce energy, and the effect would be devastating for the economy.

Gamecock
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 2, 2018 7:39 am

Gasoline taxes are a carbon tax. They have not devastated the economy.

Ferdberple
Reply to  Gamecock
December 2, 2018 9:57 am

Then why the need to rebate a dividend. Why not simply tax accumulated capital. Why tax expenditures on the necessities of life.

If you have a billion dollars in assets shouldn’t you pay more tax than someone living day to day that owns nothing.

Yet all too often the billionaire pays no tax while those least able pay the greatest share.

Gamecock
Reply to  Ferdberple
December 2, 2018 10:46 am

“Yet all too often the billionaire pays no tax while those least able pay the greatest share.”

What planet do you live on?

Gamecock
Reply to  Ferdberple
December 2, 2018 10:48 am

“Why not simply tax accumulated capital.”

Why not just kill old people and take their stuff?

MarkW
Reply to  Ferdberple
December 2, 2018 3:13 pm

The richest 10% pay over 80% of all income taxes.
The bottom 50% pay less than 1%.

Anyone who wants to tax assets is someone who is consumed with jealousy that there are people who have more than he does.

MarkW
Reply to  Ferdberple
December 2, 2018 3:14 pm

What planet does he live on?
One where the purpose of government is to take stuff from others and give it to him.

Steve Heins
Reply to  Ferdberple
December 2, 2018 3:25 pm

“Anyone who wants to tax assets is someone who is consumed with jealousy”

LOL @ MarkW, asset taxes are very very common. Ever hear of “property taxes?” You know, they tax you on the real estate you own?

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Gamecock
December 2, 2018 11:41 am

Ok, so we have a “carbon tax” in gasoline taxes. Why do we need more? Why does the existence of one carbon tax mean that creating more carbon taxes won’t cause any devastation? $55/ton would add another $0.50 per gallon to the gas tax…that is about the full amount of the average state and federal gas tax combined. And then you look at electric rates, where it is projected to average $1,000/yr per household from what I read. Plus the trickle-down to every product where costs will be passed-down to consumers.

Gas taxes go towards the roads we use. They are an investment in one of our key infrastructure elements. Carbon tax would go to…the Solyndras, the Algores, ???

Gamecock
Reply to  BillP
December 2, 2018 7:38 am

“I accept that the government needs some money and taxing carbon emissions is no worse that taxing income.”

I agree. I see two keys to taxes being legitimate: they are applied generally and levied in equal amounts or equal rates. Carbon taxes will hit most everybody, and all will pay the same.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Gamecock
December 3, 2018 8:05 am

No – is there some service provided for the tax other than just bilking us. And there is not.

John the Econ
December 2, 2018 5:59 am

When the state asserts a right to tax carbon in any form, there will be absolutely no aspect of your life that will be free of government micromanagement. It’s the perfect excuse for totalitarianism.

john
Reply to  John the Econ
December 2, 2018 6:11 am

How you could go to PRISON under Alberta NDP’s new carbon tax law

http://www.therebel.media/ezra_levant_show_may_25?safari_redirect

Yesterday Rachel Notley introduced a new massive carbon tax in Alberta, that will take effect on January 1st. I’ll walk you through some of it. It’s over a hundred pages.

They don’t even pretend that it’s about global warming. Yes, the law is called the “Climate Leadership Implementation Act”. But we submitted an access to information request, asking for any environmental studies showing the effect this tax will have on the world’s climate.

They have no such studies.

Oh, and why does this law talk about hiring “undercover officers”? Who can, it says, come into any building, office, store, garage, farm, whatever. Inspect anything, look for anything, take any document, use your computer. No search warrant.

I’ve inserted the entire bill below, so you can read it yourself.

The word “levy” appears 260 times. “Tax” appears another 55 times. “Warrant,” as in a search warrant — 15 times. “Search”, eight times. “Seize”, three times.

“Prison” or “imprisonment” is in there 15 times. “Fine” is in there 19 times.

john
Reply to  john
December 2, 2018 6:49 am
William Astley
Reply to  john
December 2, 2018 8:36 am

Canada gets what it deserves for picking an ex High School Drama teacher with zero industry experience to lead the country.

Due to the brand-new Canadian carbon tax, Canadian energy intensive industry will leave and is leaving to move the US and other countries where there is no ‘Carbon’ tax.

Canada has a balance of trade issue (primarily tourism, Canadians who can afford it, take vacations in warm places, when it is cold in Canada) and is running a yearly deficit which is now out of control.

Canada has the third largest oil reserves in the world and is losing $20/barrel due to a lack of pipeline space to the West Coast and is importing foreign oil (east coast of Canada) due to the lack of pipeline space to East Coast.

Rather than build no brainer pipelines (Gateway Pipelines to the west coast and Energy East Pipeline to the east coast) which will bring in hundreds of billions of dollars in new resource taxes for the Canadian Government and will bring tens of thousands of construction jobs, the Liberals forced all Canadian provinces to each set up job killing carbon taxes.

Ferdberple
Reply to  William Astley
December 2, 2018 10:08 am

High School Drama teacher with zero industry experience
≠=======
Every election we are free to choose between an incompetent or a crook.

Flight Level
Reply to  john
December 2, 2018 6:51 am

Somehow the bad guys made it thru the hijacked by media democracy.
An office boy needs to exhibit more qualification than a politician. Would you stay onboard a plane where prior push-back the purser makes the following call:

-And now Ladies and Gentlemen, we will proceed to democratically elect who amongst you would be our first officer and captain for this flight.

Scary, isn’t it ?

Exactly what happens at state level. You, we, are governed by those who have demonstrated electoral proficiency since no other competences are required.

Barbara
Reply to  john
December 2, 2018 8:00 pm

Does Premier Notley expect to be re-elected?

Alberta has been and still is a target for shutting down fossil fuel production. If this can be done, then lookout USA.

Carbon taxes are demand side management tools.

Walter Horsting
December 2, 2018 7:30 am

Let the progressives who support Sharia Law try to implement the two kid families on the Muslims.

Sheri
Reply to  Walter Horsting
December 2, 2018 7:42 am

Muslims will be exempted from the law. That will be added should the bill ever make it to the floor.

Bob Weber
December 2, 2018 8:32 am

This is the revenge of the Bushettes.… all because Big Gov and all of us just have to be forced into indentured servitude to Big Finance (Goldman Sachs) until the end of time…

MarkW
Reply to  Bob Weber
December 2, 2018 3:16 pm

The paranoia is strong in this one.

Bill Powers
December 2, 2018 9:08 am

Saw this coming the first time I heard the term Carbon Credits from ALGORE. The vision of an elaborate IRS system complete with refund checks. The politicians and bureaucrats dumb “We the People” down in our public school system so they become easy dupes. The ignorant dupe doesn’t see the taxes because they rigged the system to “steal” it before it gets to u then Uncle Sugar redistributes a lot of it, often laundered through the Corporatocracy to Congress Critter off shore bank accounts and they leave just enough to give you a small refund at the end of the year and the average voter thinks that it is Uncle Sugars benevolence they need to be thankful for.
Well coming to a utility company near you a benevolent refund of the utillity bill you pay they will call “unused Carbon Credits” or some such nonsense and the High School Graduates with an 8th grade reading proficiency will be so grateful for their “handout” from Uncle Sugar of small portion of the money that was “stolen” from them that they will vote for their crooked Congress Critters in the hopes of getting even bigger Carbon Credit Refunds in the future. We are so rewarded by Uncle Sugar that my bottom has become chapped. Please pass the KY jelly and the condoms.

December 2, 2018 9:18 am

I get how Deutch gets away with spouting this nonsense in Looney Lefty Boca, but how does Rooney get away with it in Deep Red SW Florida. (Ft Myers, Coral Gables)?

December 2, 2018 9:55 am

Any carbon tax is an atrocity perpetrated on a gullible society. The gullibility is a demonstration of a failed education system.

The 30 year temperature decline 1945-1975 and flat trend 2002-2014 both with steadily rising CO2, demonstrate that CO2 has little if any effect on climate.

Global Warming ended in about 2002 as shown by the slope change in average global temperature trend. comment image
The temporary temperature ‘hump’ (el Nino), now about over, is just that, temporary.

Sara
December 2, 2018 10:24 am

Okay, while all of you guys are complaining about this, I did the hard part, which is figuring out how this proposed slush fund tax would affect me personally. And it is nothing but a tax to be funneled into a slush fund from which this greedy bunch in Congress can extract whatever they want, no questions asked.

I pulled out my January 2018 gas bill, because January is always the time of year when I use the most gas for heating, plus cooking and heating water. And before anyone says “Electric heat is cheaper” – uh, no, it isn’t. We had a power outage on Thursday night that required four hours to fix.

My gas invoice for January 2018 was $119.84. Of that amount, $64.46 was the charge for 149.6 therms of natural gas. The rest was taxes and delivery charges, including a few cents for environmental fees. A reasonable amount for a small house and I don’t keep the thermostat set high. Since this proposed tax is a per ton usage tax, it is not one tiny bit cheap. Using the end growth rate to $55/month for a tax that will be funneled into a slush fund and nothing else, it makes my monthly gas bill completely unaffordable, period.

My gas usage in tons for January 2018 was 3.7747892954361 tons. There’s a site that does such conversions. I reached the conversion factor by dividing their result by 149.6 (therms) and got 0.0242325, which I can use for any of my monthly gas bills. But that tonnage taxed at $55/ton adds $206.14 to my gas bill, with a total of $325.98, and completely unaffordable amount that I could never possibly pay.

This is real-world stuff, the same as my estimate on what IPCC’s carbon tax would cost me – something over $21,000/per month, based on cubic footage usage, an outlandish amount that no human being should be expected to come up with – EVER!!!

If this isn’t the biggest and worst proposed ripoff on the planet, then what is it?

That fund is nothing but a slush fund and the people who will get hit the hardest are people whose incomes are modest, not people who live in overpriced McMansions on 12 acre estates in the more affluent ‘burbs. This asinine idea, if implemented, will force landlords who own apartment buildings to shift the burden of heat to their residents by raising rents to an equally unaffordable price.

So what are us peons supposed to do if we can’t pay this tax? Live in the streets, and under bridges? I have difficulty understanding why a greedy politician like Deutch thinks it’s okay. But then, he doesn’t have a heating bill to pay, and probably gets his boxers in a bunch if the air conditioner shuts off.

Steven Hill (from Ky)
December 2, 2018 10:55 am

If this passes I will stop reporting income honestly…..

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Steven Hill (from Ky)
December 2, 2018 12:31 pm

So you’re the one who does that!

Steven Hill (from Ky)
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 2, 2018 12:37 pm

No but I should, we are no longer an honest society or even close to one…

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Steven Hill (from Ky)
December 2, 2018 2:51 pm

I do my bit to help. I know that the taxman is very, very busy. I don’t like to overburden them with information, it’ll only waste their precious time! 🙂

John Shepherd
December 2, 2018 11:22 am

Here is how a bill becomes law. Since this is a tax bill it must originate in the House. It must pass both Houses of Congress and be signed by the President. If the President vetos a bill it can be overridden by a 2/3 majority of each House to become law.

Now, what is the probability of this bill becoming law? Answer:. Zero

Steven Hill (from Ky)
Reply to  John Shepherd
December 2, 2018 12:01 pm

Maybe I should stop reporting it all just in case? 🙂

stevek
December 2, 2018 12:56 pm

Obamacare was a stealth tax as well. This is the new way of the left, they have figured out how to tax in a sneaky way.

Steven Hill (from Ky)
Reply to  stevek
December 2, 2018 1:23 pm

The left is in control, the right has a weak pair……..the right has total control and could not reverse it. I am sick of them all.

David S
December 2, 2018 1:30 pm

The bill is H.R.7173 – Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2018. You can read it here:
https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr7173/BILLS-115hr7173ih.xml

tom0mason
December 2, 2018 2:04 pm

‘Carbon Tax’, eh?
Would that hurt the UN elites and their mates?
“The price of up-market rustic-style alfresco dining with award winning chefs preparing the BBQ steaks over a bed of gold leaf covered mixed salad, and Fine Cognac drenched diamond studded petit charbons de bois briquettes inflammable, is almost too high already.
How very tiresome, upping the tax on diamonds and charcoal. “

MarkW
December 2, 2018 2:54 pm

Even if this bill dies in committee, it needs to be front and center in every Republican campaign for 2020.

Sara
December 2, 2018 4:07 pm

Here’s a minor update on what’s going on with Macron et les gilets jaunes.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-protests-divide/fractured-france-diesel-tax-protests-expose-macrons-achilles-heel-idUSKCN1NY248

I believe his private world has been shook up a little bit. He is rapidly losing popularity with the voters and the talk not is regarding Marine LePen.

As the article says, French households are having a difficult time holding things together because of Macron’s insistence on raising taxes.

Neo
Reply to  Sara
December 3, 2018 9:34 am

France: Come for the cool centrist, stay for the riots.

Kramer
December 3, 2018 2:58 am

Because there are so many more middle class than rich people, the bulk of tax revenue from a carbon “tax-and-dividend” would come from the middle class.

This then reduces the pressure to increase taxes on the rich.

I think the rioters in Paris understand this.

old white guy
December 3, 2018 5:43 am

golly what could one possibly think would be wrong with a tax on every breath you take? stupid freaking people.

eck
December 3, 2018 6:38 pm

Thanks Charles (aka ctm),
I thought all of the “enviro-nut” politicians were here in CA. Guess we’re not so unique after all!

%d bloggers like this: