RE: A few ideas regarding rebalancing the economy
February 21, 2011 at 5:08 am
(This post was last modified: February 21, 2011 at 5:18 am by theVOID.)
(February 21, 2011 at 3:29 am)Chuck Wrote: The point of carbon trading is not just to encourage reduction in overall carbon emission. It is more importantly to rationalize the allocation of carbon emission according to the magnitude of economic benefit associated with the emission. If by emitting CO2, even lots of it, an entity can bring greater benefit to the society than the CO2 it might emit would cost the society, then the society will renumerate the emitter for the benefit in excess of the cost of CO2, and the emitter is able to use the income to facilitate the benefit and it's associated emission. If on the other hand another entity brings less benefit to society than the co2 it emits might cost the society, then its remuneration would be inadequate to cover its CO2 emission, and it must reduce it's emission or shut down.
That's a very good point, mind changed
(February 21, 2011 at 4:23 am)fr0d0 Wrote: 1. Your higher earners will all leave the country or invest outside the country unless you can implement your system globally.
The tax increase would be marginal but significant for the people earning lower wages, the tax would be redistributed as a percentage of their current tax rate, but it wouldn't be a great deal.
Not only that but now businesses can sell their product tax free, reducing the cost and making their exports cheaper, this could increase output and create jobs quite easily, make them more competitive even when the tax adjustment is taken into account.
Quote:2 + 4. Gov't get less > services suffer. Private services suck: proven
Too much government = More rules, more crimes (and subsequently more spending on prosecution) more inefficient cashflow etc = DEBT!
Quote:4. Encourages businesses with a higher carbon footprint. Counter productive for lower emissions.
Chuck changed my mind on that, it's a better system, though I don't see why you think it would be counter productive for low emitters, they are the ones who have an easier path to reducing their footprint because smaller changes will have a larger impact on the overall picture - Compare this to an Aluminium smelter, they would likely have to invest their own resources into completing projects because the emission costs new equipment that is more efficient are substantial.
.
