Global Warming Tax Voted Down in France
Twitter
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Stumble
Reddit
The arbitrary nature of these “Carbon Taxes” shows how ineffective they are at “saving the planet” and why they are just the stuff of Liberal ideas as to how to squeeze as much money from whomever they can so as to fund their social programs:
France’s constitutional court rejected a proposed tax on carbon emissions, saying a web of exemptions violated the principal of equality and rendered efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions ineffective.
The tax, which would have started on Jan. 1, was set at 17 euros ($24.38) per ton of carbon-dioxide emissions, President Nicolas Sarkozy said in September. To make the tax more palatable, he partially or fully exempted power plants, public transport, airlines, farming and fishing, as well as 1,018 older cement, steel and glass factories.
In all, 93 percent of all industrial carbon emissions in France would have avoided paying the full tax, the constitutional court said in a decision published on its Web site. The tax would have fallen disproportionately on fuel for heating and cars, it said.
“The court ruled that the system of exemptions, due to their extensive nature, were contrary to the objective of fighting global warming and contravene the principle of equality before the tax system,” the court said.
The court rejected all the articles relating to the carbon tax in the government’s 2010 budget.
And so it is with all government spending programs… the more the money, the more political the taxes are. A smaller government which consumes less money and has smaller programs is best. After all, every dollar you take away from a tax payer is one less dollar they have to invest, spend, or save whereas every dollar the government takes in is another dollar to be spent on political supporters, lobbyists, etc…
Did you like this article? Get new articles daily for free via RSS or Email.
5:32 PM
Harrison, completely off topic. Almost steered off the road this morning coming into work listening to an interview with one of the passengers of NWA 325. There may have been a 2nd bomber. Stop by when you get a chance.
.-= Dean´s last blog ..A 2nd bomber? =-.
11:35 PM
I’m not sure this story proves your point. It sounds like the court found this tax unconstitutional because it did not tax enough, or was not fairly apportioned according to the French constitutional system. But the principle of reducing carbon emissions by taxing them is sound. Any economist will tell you that if you want less of something, you tax it. And the great thing about taxes is that all the money raised by taxes comes back to us in one form or another, as opposed to the enormous amount of money that we spend on oil, which mostly goes abroad to enrich the wealthy families of Arabian sheiks, or the social programs of Hugo Chavez. So if we raised taxes on carbon emissions, and spent less on foreign oil, we would all be much better off.
.-= Joe Markowitz´s last blog ..Thank you Dick Cheney =-.
9:31 AM
It is more why the tax was found unconstitutional that I find interesting. Essentially it was applied to car owners and people who use oil, coal, natural gas to heat their homes. Thus my point being those who can afford good lobbyists (oil, gas, etc…) did not see any taxes imposed – at least until the initial plan was approved. Pure politics (not saving the planet).
Joe you raise an interesting point regarding taxation. Why would Obama want to raise taxes if, as you say, you get “less of something”? Wouldn’t that mean the more Democrats tax income, investments, etc… the “less” of those the country will have? Is that the best way to grow an economy, create jobs, and raise the standard of living… to tax it and thus have “less” of it?
3:17 PM
My point was that there is a good argument for raising the gas tax, from both an environmental and economic point of view, if what you want to do is reduce oil consumption, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And whether we used that revenue to build roads and bridges, or to reduce other kinds of taxes, we would still benefit from paying higher gas taxes.
But speaking solely about the income tax, there is an argument that marginal tax rates on those with high incomes are too low. Remember that in the 1950′s the highest marginal tax rate was 90%. Nowadays some people get upset if you talk about raising it back up to the 39% we had under Clinton. You could argue–and I would argue–that one of the reasons we have had an increase in inequality, and a shrinking of the middle class, is that we have lowered marginal tax rates on those with the highest incomes too much. I’m not saying we should go back to 90% tax rates, but remember that when we did have 90% tax rates, there was not much point to paying people millions of dollars in income, since almost all of it went to the government. If we raised the marginal tax rate somewhat, that might also lessen some of the popular resentment about Wall Street bonuses, and other excesses of the very wealthy.
.-= Joe Markowitz´s last blog ..Thank you Dick Cheney =-.
7:35 AM
Joe, the top rate was 91% until 1963 (it was 94% in 1945). In 1945 if you made over $199,999.00 you paid it, in 1963 if you made over $399,999.00 you paid it. However, in 1945 the median income was $2,379.00 so very few people paid that tax. Median income for 1963 was just $5,807.00 so few people paid that tax, either.
Your point (obviously you read the recent article about returning to the high income tax) is somewhat mooted by the fact that the median income for 2008 was $48,021.00. I don’t think the “popular resentment” as you call it about Wall Street bonuses is really all that much.
And the “shrinking middle class” has more to do with the fact that after WWII the U.S. was the only country in the world with any manufacturing capability thus all Americans benefited whereas today we must compete against other countries. I don’t think the tax rate would “help” reach your goal.