BJ Lawson Would Replace Income Tax with Carbon Tax?

[BenIsForRon]

You can ride a bike to work and use a wood stove for heat, so yes, technically you don't need oil. Of course, that may not be practical, especially the wood stove part. And I don't doubt you need a car in you current situation, especially if you have a 20+ minute commute. I'm just saying it won't be economically sustainable for much longer.

 

[Pepsi]

The way I see it, a carbon tax will make it easier for them to enact a one-child policy in America.

 

[Knightskye]

I guess it is a good way to get Democrats on his side. But I'd prefer a sales tax.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3732181/



What would that tax besides gas at the gas station?

And is that Constitutional?

ha. What a dumb proposal. Improvement to the income tax, but why? Why tax the one thing that already costs so damn much?

 

[worl]

What do you have to say about Chuck Baldwin's proposal to eliminate the income tax and replace it with a 10% tariff?

The founding fathers did collect tax revenue from tariffs.

You are exactly right & Baldwin got this from the constitution. Put the burdon on the corp.s that left this country & put people out of work for cheep labor. These people have no alegence & should recieve no favors. Repeal nafta,cafta & all other trade agrements that are unfair.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

You are exactly right & Baldwin got this from the constitution. Put the burdon on the corp.s that left this country & put people out of work for cheep labor. These people have no alegence & should recieve no favors. Repeal nafta,cafta & all other trade agrements that are unfair.

Corporations? Government created corporate status, Baldwin was just revealing his mercantilistic roots.

 

[MikeStanart]

There is only one option to get rid of the IRS and the income tax.

That is to abolish it and replace it with nothing.

Anyone who would replace the income tax with another tax is a fascist.

You really don't understand politics, do you?

You can't do something so radical as removing all taxes without causing trouble. You have to do things gradually. And your attitude is uncalled for.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

You really don't understand politics, do you?

You can't do something so radical as removing all taxes without causing trouble. You have to do things gradually. And your attitude is uncalled for.

I called for his attitude, so it is is called for.

 

[bbagnall]

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3732181/
What would that tax besides gas at the gas station?

And is that Constitutional?

You brought up a good issue here that I didn't know about. Adding a carbon tax seems very interventionist to me, and the fact that it could be a cash cow for government makes me uneasy.

A better solution would be to redefine property rights as Ron Paul endorses, which would make it illegal to harm others or pollute the property of others. I'm not aware of the details of such a plan, but the gist of it seems to be that state governments of the progressive era started favoring the rights of business over individuals and allowed them to pollute common resources like flowing rivers and air. That needs to be changed.

As Ron says (paraphrasing) if pollution is bad, why would we allow others to do it as long as they pay us money?

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

You brought up a good issue here that I didn't know about. Adding a carbon tax seems very interventionist to me, and the fact that it could be a cash cow for government makes me uneasy.

A better solution would be to redefine property rights as Ron Paul endorses, which would make it illegal to harm others or pollute the property of others. I'm not aware of the details of such a plan, but the gist of it seems to be that state governments of the progressive era started favoring the rights of business over individuals and allowed them to pollute common resources like flowing rivers and air. That needs to be changed.

As Ron says (paraphrasing) if pollution is bad, why would we allow others to do it as long as they pay us money?

Exploring ways to eliminate the income tax is not "adding a tax" While this is a fine philosophical discussion, one should understand the nature of politics and the exacting language one must use. The key word I see in BJ's statement is "explore"...

And those that would withdraw support, over this theoretical side issue in the cause of Liberty, are ridiculous to me

 

[Shotdown1027]

Lawson was simply saying that the Carbon Tax would at least pass constitutional muster,while the income tax doesnt--and that the Carbon Tax COULD be considered as a replacement.

Honestly, my ideal situation is to see the Income Tax phased out over 5 years and replaced with nothing. Tarriffs would also be lowered, hopefully to nothing or to a VERY small percentage. A balanced budget amendment would be passed while we cut away at our military spending, all the unconstitutional departments, etc (all over the course of 4-6 years) and this would lead us towards paying off the national debt. We could speed up that process by selling off Federal property (to charities, trusts, etc. For example, Yellowstone might be sold to the State of Wyoming or to the Sierra Club). If we still couldn't make ends meet, the Federal Government would have to ASK the states for revenenue.

 

[ksuguy]

Lawson ain't no son of a bitch and Kucinich ain't no commie infiltrator.

Well I can't support anyone that likes the idea of a carbon tax. It's a terrible idea and sure to lead to even more government interference in everybody's lives.

And Kucinich is a communist. He's all about big government. I know some people on the left wing side of this movement like him because he happens to agree with Ron on certain foreign policy issues, but he is 100% wrong on many things, especially the 2nd amendment.

 

[MRoCkEd]

his post

I am opposed to net new taxes, and believe that reducing spending as well as eliminating our counterproductive income tax code is the most important goal we should strive for in pursuit of economic growth.

I am also in agreement that we need a serious conversation about the consequences of a debt-based monetary system, and the resulting need to perpetually enslave our nation to higher taxes and less freedom as a result of growing interest payments on perpetually-growing debt.

My question, though, is how do we get from Point A to Point B? It seems that we will need taxation to fund government, and I believe that we should tax things we don’t want, and not tax things that we DO want. That is, don’t tax income — we want more jobs, income and productivity. How about taxing consumption that has negative side effects? My support for a so-called “carbon tax” reflects a desire to get to a method of taxation that is direct, Constitutional, and takes into account “negative externalities” — that is, hidden costs which affect everyone negatively.

I’m less sanguine about the FairTax, because that puts the federal government (directly or indirectly) in a position of control over *every* retail transaction. Even essentials like food. It seems odd that we should have to pay tax to the feds to eat.

The idea of a “consumption tax” targeting consumption that is non-sustainable, non-renewable, and that has negative effects on the environment is more justifiable, however. Regardless of whether one believes that climate change is man-made, there are negative side-effects to consuming nonrenewable resources at accelerating rates. So why not tax nonrewable consumption to reflect the fact that burning stuff dirties our environment?

Bottom line is that I’m absolutely committed to reducing the size, scope, and complexity of government. Cap and trade is a disaster waiting to be gamed by corporate interests, and a simple, well-executed carbon tax targeting negative externalities could be, in my opinion, a great replacement for a disastrous system of income, capital gains, and estate taxation.

Downsize DC has some excellent commentary on the fallacy of cap and trade here:

http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/93

BJ

 

[Knightskye]

Wouldn't the carbon tax be less effective over time? People would switch to renewable energy, which would result in less revenue to the government.

A sales tax would keep its effectiveness, because it's transactions, not just things that pollute.

It seems odd that we should have to pay tax to the feds to eat.

How about keeping warm over the winter, or filling up the tank to drive to work?

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Well I can't support anyone that likes the idea of a carbon tax. It's a terrible idea and sure to lead to even more government interference in everybody's lives.

And Kucinich is a communist. He's all about big government. I know some people on the left wing side of this movement like him because he happens to agree with Ron on certain foreign policy issues, but he is 100% wrong on many things, especially the 2nd amendment.

Your rhetoric is ridiculous. For one, a person can dislike all taxes and still look for politically expedient ways to reduce the tax burden and eliminate the federal income tax (for starters). Further, to state you wouldn't support a liberty candidate over his willingness to explore alternatives to our broken system is childlish. I would love to know who you supported in your congressional races. It seems to me, with your narrowmindedness, you would have trouble supporting anyone. Unless of course you have a full slate of candidates whose every statement reflects your values exactly.

About Kucinich, having a poor position on issues like the 2nd amendment does not make one a communist. Having socialist ideas does not even make one a communist. As I stated, your rhetoric is ridiculous

 

[MRoCkEd]

Your rhetoric is ridiculous. For one, a person can dislike all taxes and still look for politically expedient ways to reduce the tax burden and eliminate the federal income tax (for starters). Further, to state you wouldn't support a liberty candidate over his willingness to explore alternatives to our broken system is childlish. I would love to know who you supported in your congressional races. It seems to me, with your narrowmindedness, you would have trouble supporting anyone. Unless of course you have a full slate of candidates whose every statement reflects your values exactly.

About Kucinich, having a poor position on issues like the 2nd amendment does not make one a communist. Having socialist ideas does not even make one a communist. As I stated, your rhetoric is ridiculous

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Wouldn't the carbon tax be less effective over time? People would switch to renewable energy, which would result in less revenue to the government.

A sales tax would keep its effectiveness, because it's transactions, not just things that pollute.



How about keeping warm over the winter, or filling up the tank to drive to work?

I think people switching to renewables would be a good thing. I, also, think that the reducing revenues would work just fine with a corresponding reduction in gov't overall. I have been too busy to do much exploring of these issues and have no idea of the best way to fund a limited Gov't and the best way to get there. For certain electing people like BJ, who understand the underlying issues and are steadfast in their desire to reduce the size and scope of the federal gov't, is essential to move us towards our overall goals

 

[Truth Warrior]

Does that mean that BJ sold out and has bought into the bogus AGW UN scam and con?

 

[Knightskye]

I think people switching to renewables would be a good thing. I, also, think that the reducing revenues would work just fine with a corresponding reduction in gov't overall. I have been too busy to do much exploring of these issues and have no idea of the best way to fund a limited Gov't and the best way to get there. For certain electing people like BJ, who understand the underlying issues and are steadfast in their desire to reduce the size and scope of the federal gov't, is essential to move us towards our overall goals

Or maybe they'd do like supermarkets do.

When produce is heavy, they usually charge less per pound, because the weight will make the cost high enough. And when something is light, they charge a lot more to get the price where they want it.

So with less money coming from the carbon tax, would they raise the rate, to get the same amount of revenue?

 

[RPTXState]

First let's replace the pro-income tax, pro-war, pro-Patriot Act David Price with the anti-Income tax, anti-war, anti-Patriot Act BJ Lawson and THEN we can worry about the feasability of a Carbon Tax...

Lawson will listen to his constituents. Price won't. Thats more than enough reason to support him.