<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Conservative economists agree: Taxes rule!]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by sunflower http://www.grist.org/article/mankiw-very-much/ Tue, 18 Sep 2007 03:07:00 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/mankiw-very-much/1 Carbon Imports & Exports

Do we tax coal exports or just outlaw that?  Do we carbon tax oil imports?

]]> Carbon Imports & Exports

Do we tax coal exports or just outlaw that?  Do we carbon tax oil imports?

]]> Comment #2 by mkayser http://www.grist.org/article/mankiw-very-much/ Tue, 18 Sep 2007 03:24:50 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/mankiw-very-much/2 Kudos to Mankiw

Kudos to Mankiw for consistently throwing his weight behind this idea. He's got some clout, hopefully people listen.

I am not sure whether he's right that a global carbon tax is politically easier to create than a global cap-and-trade regime. But, if a carbon tax is less likely than cap-and-trade to give money to coal companies, I'm for it. Carbon tax is regressive, so give the revenue to poor folks a la the Tufts proposal, don't waste it on coal companies.

]]> Kudos to Mankiw

Kudos to Mankiw for consistently throwing his weight behind this idea. He's got some clout, hopefully people listen.

I am not sure whether he's right that a global carbon tax is politically easier to create than a global cap-and-trade regime. But, if a carbon tax is less likely than cap-and-trade to give money to coal companies, I'm for it. Carbon tax is regressive, so give the revenue to poor folks a la the Tufts proposal, don't waste it on coal companies.

]]> Comment #3 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/mankiw-very-much/ Tue, 18 Sep 2007 04:33:41 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/mankiw-very-much/3 Well one way to force other countries to do it

Well one way to force other countries to do it.

Simply put a tariff on the imports if there isn't a carbon system in the other country.

That would get them to switch to carbon taxes real quick ;D

]]> Well one way to force other countries to do it

Well one way to force other countries to do it.

Simply put a tariff on the imports if there isn't a carbon system in the other country.

That would get them to switch to carbon taxes real quick ;D

]]> Comment #4 by Delay And Deny http://www.grist.org/article/mankiw-very-much/ Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:32:13 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/mankiw-very-much/4 The Boston Gas Party


Imagine free thinking citizens hurdling millions of Carbon Tax certificates into the harbor, once they realize what a sham the whole AGW thing is.

Global Warming = Global Taxation = Global Fraudsters

John Bailo
Sutext:


]]> The Boston Gas Party


Imagine free thinking citizens hurdling millions of Carbon Tax certificates into the harbor, once they realize what a sham the whole AGW thing is.

Global Warming = Global Taxation = Global Fraudsters

John Bailo
Sutext:


]]> Comment #5 by KiraMarch http://www.grist.org/article/mankiw-very-much/ Tue, 18 Sep 2007 06:21:06 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/mankiw-very-much/5 Mankiw's misconceptions

There are a few problems with Mankiw's arguments.

One is his view that carbon tax revenue would be used for "good" purposes, and that a carbon cap would raise no money. In reality, it could cut either way -- under a cap, revenue from an auction of carbon allowances could fund good things, and carbon tax revenue could get shanghaied into support for heavy carbon-emitting interests (oil companies hold no sway with Congress, right?).

Nat Keohane, the director of Environmental Defense's economic policy and analysis, did a post on this yesterday... it outlines other troubles with Mankiw's column, and is quite accessible, especially for one econ PhD arguing with another econ PhD. :-)

http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/09/1 ...

]]> Mankiw's misconceptions

There are a few problems with Mankiw's arguments.

One is his view that carbon tax revenue would be used for "good" purposes, and that a carbon cap would raise no money. In reality, it could cut either way -- under a cap, revenue from an auction of carbon allowances could fund good things, and carbon tax revenue could get shanghaied into support for heavy carbon-emitting interests (oil companies hold no sway with Congress, right?).

Nat Keohane, the director of Environmental Defense's economic policy and analysis, did a post on this yesterday... it outlines other troubles with Mankiw's column, and is quite accessible, especially for one econ PhD arguing with another econ PhD. :-)

http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/09/1 ...

]]>