China Joe’s “No Tax Pledge” Could Sink His Climate Scam Initiative Or Something

Hmm, what would be his “no tax pledge”? That he wouldn’t raise taxes on people making less than $400k a year. Which has morphed into families at $400k, individuals at $200k. And Warmists think this is a problem, as they want Everyone Else but themselves taxed

How Biden’s No-Tax Pledge Could Sink His Climate Change Initiative

Nowhere is President Biden’s ambitious policy agenda more in conflict than in his triple aim of funding a major infrastructure initiative, attacking climate change, and never raising taxes on households making less than $400,000. He has a terrific opportunity to achieve the first two promises, but he cannot if he sticks to that no new tax pledge.

Last week, my TPC colleague Len Burman blogged about why Biden’s no new taxes pledge is such a bad idea. This week, my colleague Thornton Matheson described how Congress could use energy taxes, such as a carbon tax, to help pay for Biden’s ambitious domestic spending agenda. And The Washington Post recently endorsed a carbon tax to fund Biden’s $2 trillion-plus infrastructure plan. But the president prefers instead to raise taxes on multinational corporations and, perhaps later, on high-income households.

Say, I wonder who would pay for these carbon taxes?

If you polled economists of all ideological persuasions, you’d find overwhelming support for a carbon tax. By taxing “bads” rather than goods, it could significantly reduce carbon emissions and slow climate change. And, depending on how it is designed, it could raise a substantial amount of revenue to pay for clean water, more public transit, and better roads (though the latter may also conflict with his climate change goals).

If you polled citizens, and explained exactly what would happen with carbon taxes, how many would support them when they understand that their own lives and money will be effected significantly? And our system of government is designed that they can’t go all Fascist in declaring things “bad” that aren’t. There’s a heck of a lot of difference between fossil fuels and, say, heroin. Nor should Government be regulating to modify behavior for things that are not actually bad. Heck, some would argue that they shouldn’t, at least at the federal level, be regulating things like heroin. If dumb asses want to do it, let them be dumbasses. Their power would be to stop it from being imported and crossing state lines.

But, as the president himself would say, here’s the deal: No serious carbon tax can exempt roughly 98 percent of households from a tax increase. While the president has made fighting climate change one of his top long-term priorities, he has effectively precluded a carbon tax—arguably the single most effective tool to accomplish this goal.

Funny how it doesn’t mention what percentage should be taxed, eh?

By itself, a carbon tax would reduce after-tax incomes on all households that use carbon-based goods and services—gas for their vehicles, plastic containers, airplane rides, most electricity. In effect, it would raise taxes on everybody, except those very few who have managed to live completely off the grid.

Max Herman is letting the reality out of the bag. He then goes on to note a few of the ideas where a portion of the taxes are refunded back to citizens. Not all, of course. Not noted is that this makes citizens even more reliant on government, where so many will be appreciative instead of saying “you nimrod cultists raised my cost of living and I’m supposed to be indebted to your charitably? GFYS.”

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “China Joe’s “No Tax Pledge” Could Sink His Climate Scam Initiative Or Something”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    The more the right-wing accuses Democrats of being fascists the more we understand their projection. Now taxes are fascist according to Teach. As a nation we discriminate between good and bad all the time. Pollution is bad and we regulate it. Tobacco is bad and we regulate it, including by taxation. But taxing carbon is a bridge too far, LOL.

    How do you lessen the impact on the poor and working class? Tax rebates.

    The American right-wing had its ass handed to it in the 2020 elections – both in the presidential and the Senatorial elections. It was a shock. The GOP could try to make their policy proposals more attractive to voters or they can continue to lie about the election, complain about Dr. Seuss and encourage violence among their followers.

  2. david7134 says:

    Look at Jeff trying as hard as possible to get something going, pathetic.

  3. Hairy says:

    The current cost to offset the average American’s carbon footprint is about $150
    That is much much less than the 1 trillion (over 10years) tax cut that Trump gave to the super rich

    • Jl says:

      Nice try, John, but the tax cut was to virtually all taxpayers., with appropriately the same percentage cut to all groups.
      And you continually talk of carbon offsets without first proving carbon offsets are even needed. Please enlighten us, John

      • Kye says:

        Hairy, all you do is advertise for Elon Musk and his Tesla car and repeat the unprovable meme that it only costs $150 per year blah….blah….blah.

        Do you drive a Tesla or are you the typical leftist do what I say not what I do?
        Do you pay $150 every year in carbon offsets and if so to whom or are you the typical leftist do what I say not what I do?

        I will gladly collect your carbon offset money and that of any other leftist who desires to virtue signal without actually doing anything.

        Once again, just for Hairy:

        “Investors were waiting for the Biden Administration to go ahead with its push for 500,000 EV charging stations, and they were not disappointed. Biden’s so-called ‘American Jobs Plan’, despite its name, a series of hyperspending giveaways to China and special interests, called for those 500,000 charging stations, and ChargePoint’s stock, as expected, shot up on the news.

        ChargePoint already controls as much as 70% of the EV charging market and is the likeliest beneficiary from Biden’s push to have taxpayers, many of them working-class and middle-class, subsidize wealthy Tesla and luxury electric SUV owners, with convenient charging stations for their urban and suburban lifestyles.

        When Biden picked Jennifer Granholm to be the Secretary of Energy, she, like many public officials, had a complex history of radical advocacy and special interest involvements.

        But one part of her career has received very little attention even in light of today’s announcement. And that may be inevitable because asking the media to report on conflicts of interest involving Biden officials, instead of on his dogs, may be asking too much of journalism.

        In 2016, Granholm was picked to serve on ChargePoint’s board of directors.”


Pirate's Cove