Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan
Because a tax internalizes the costs of environmental pollution. Emitters will then seek out opportunities to minimize their costs. A cap and trade does the exact same thing just in a different way. Both policies are quintessential market mechanisms.
|
Both policies together are part of a market. If they authors meant simply insititute a tax on one part of the economy they probably would have said that. I guess we simply disagree on what a market approach is.
Quote:
It is passed along, through the tax...
|
Isn't the idea that consumers will not feel the pain? Gas prices, heating prices, transport prices will not go up thanks to reductions in fuel tax? Or do I have that wrong?
Imagine a cigarette tax that taxed manufacturers but promised a pack of smokes would cost the same thing. Would that be considered anything other than a tax on the manufacturers? Would anyone think it would reduce the amount of cigarette sales?
Maybe I'm just too cynical. But when the libs themselves call this a social spending initiaitve, when I haven't heard emissions reduction targets or stated goals other than to tax and spend, and when the majority of the costs are paid where they won't get votes anyway, I smell politics, not policy.