would adopting green tax shift elect Ron Paul?

[nexalacer]

You guys sound like a bunch of slaves arguing over which whip the slave master should use..

Slave 1:"I prefer the bullwhip"
Slave 2:"No, no, no, the cat o' nine tails is better"
1:"Well the bullwhip leaves fewer marks"
2:"Yes, but the cat o' nine tails' marks are not as deep"
etc.

Gross.

 

[SeanEdwards]

You guys sound like a bunch of slaves arguing over which whip the slave master should use..

Slave 1:"I prefer the bullwhip"
Slave 2:"No, no, no, the cat o' nine tails is better"
1:"Well the bullwhip leaves fewer marks"
2:"Yes, but the cat o' nine tails' marks are not as deep"
etc.

Gross.

You think there's not going to be any taxes at all? If you do, I've got some prime Florida real estate to sell you.

Government is not going to cease to exist if Ron Paul is elected.

 

[FreeTraveler]

Why not just really sell out and take all of Rudy McRomBee's positions. That's sure to get him elected.

Geesh, these people who don't understand PRINCIPLES make me want to puke!

 

[Wyurm]

The carbon tax is a tyrant's dream. Corrupt politicians would love to tax the air you breathe and the carbon tax would be exactly that. I even saw one suggestion that plant food be taxed as well. Worse yet, this money garnered from the tax would not go to the US, it would be an international UN tax. Once an entity gains the ability to tax you, does that not make it your government?

 

[SeanEdwards]

Why is a tax on pollution production so offensive to you people? Your acting like a bunch of anarchists who think necessary government functions will be funded by donations. Should the military pass the hat if they want to build an aircraft carrier?

There will be taxes, of one kind or another. If you can't deal with that, you're living in a fantasy.

 

[[email protected]]

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea proposed here. Ron Paul's unwillingness to mention green issues is the ONLY MAJOR obstacle to truly throwing myself behind this guy. I believe Ron Paul's innovative position regarding seeing pollution as a transgression on property rights would really help a lot of "on the fencers." The fact of the matter is that global climate change is real, it's here, and there's no need to dogmatically oppose setting things right with regards to our carbon emissions. But we need to INCENTIVIZE green initiatives for companies.. nnd this plan would come closest. Green taxes seem perfectly reasonable to me... my ethical/pragmatic opposition to taxes can EASILY be set aside for something so critical and potentially beneficial, especially if accompanied by the elimination or reduction of many other taxes, as Ron Paul would do.

Watch this 50 minute video and ask yourself why the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the major media outlets, the EPA, Congress, etc. don't pursue it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...299&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

 

[Mithridates]

Most pollution in the world is created by cities so Ron Paul could easily talk about focusing on giving power to states and cities to reduce pollution. Areas outside of cities are pretty much pollution free aside from mines and whatnot, whereas cities are huge islands that belch pollution upwards.

My opinion on the environment is that there's no use in debating global warming, since you can make an appeal for a sound environment outside of that argument. Everybody wants to live in a place with clean air, nobody likes smog, a bad environment costs a country in health care costs, and so on. So there should be a focus on companies themselves and the effects they have on residents nearby, because a company has no right to overly pollute the air or water citizens breathe and drink.

I don't know what Ron Paul's position is on deposits (not sure if he considers them to be a tax or not but since they're sales taxes I doubt he considers them to be as bad as the income tax for example) but I've heard about cities that have succeeded in cleaning up the streets by putting a one cent deposit on cigarette butts, resulting in perfectly clean streets just a few days later as homeless people gather them up and trade them in for money.

 

[DrNoZone]

Should Ron Paul support a Green Tax Shift as his enviro policy?

I don't know much about this idea, but it sounds reasonable just from this short article. What do you all think?

http://www.progress.org/2007/fold537.htm

 

[stormy556]

I don't see how Ron Paul could support a tax that is blatantly unconstitutional. If individual states wanted to........Pandering to certain individual groups to gain votes just isn't his style, nor should it be.

 

[AuH2O]

Definitely would not favor a pollution tax.

 

[DrNoZone]

I don't see how Ron Paul could support a tax that is blatantly unconstitutional. If individual states wanted to........Pandering to certain individual groups to gain votes just isn't his style, nor should it be.

Actually, it isn't un-Constitutional to levy taxes on commercial trade. Read your Constitution again.

 

[hypnagogue]

I'd be very open to the possibility of a pollution tax. Providing a consistent market incentive to produce and purchase goods which do not invade the rights of our fellow earth dwellers could very well be critical to snapping ourselves out of this, "not my problem" attitude.

 

[Catatonic]

I think we can find a better way to solve environmental problems than by taxing pollution. Its like pushing for cigarette taxes...when the government has all this money coming in from smoking, do you really think they want you to quit?

Whats to stop companies from raising prices to pay the tax while keeping pollution levels the same?

If I understand Dr. Paul's philosophy correctly, when we develop an actual free market and people make environmentalism a priority companies will either follow suit or go out of business.

 

[hypnagogue]

Whats to stop companies from raising prices to pay the tax while keeping pollution levels the same?

Nothing. That's exactly what I expect would happen. Resultingly, the demand for the goods or services would drop and ultimately hurt the polluter's business. In addition, it would give an edge to any competitors looking to displace the polluter's goods and services with alternatives.

when we develop an actual free market and people make environmentalism a priority companies will either follow suit or go out of business.

Unfortunately, my experience has been that the population as a whole will not care until it hits their pocket books. We can not rely upon the morality of the general population to extend any further than their personal lives. This is simply human nature.

 

[Catatonic]

True, but thats the problem with freedom, people have to take care of themselves. If people want to destroy the planet, they're free to do so. But thats still better than looking to beuracracy to solve the problem, which usually ends up making things worse anyway.

 

[hypnagogue]

If people want to destroy the planet, they're free to do so.

I disagree. We are not free to destroy the planet any more then we are free to destroy our neighbor's yard.

 

[Tom228]

I disagree. We are not free to destroy the planet any more then we are free to destroy our neighbor's yard.

People do it everyday by driving their ridiculous hummers, trucks, SUVs. I'm not saying they're right, I'm just saying, it doesn't seem like a lot of people care enough to do anything about it. Most, not all, people will only take action when their interests or property are at stake. The average person could careless about Giant Panda or the Blue Whale going near extinct.

 

[nexalacer]

You think there's not going to be any taxes at all? If you do, I've got some prime Florida real estate to sell you.

Government is not going to cease to exist if Ron Paul is elected.

I'm well aware that government will continue if Ron Paul is elected. In all probability, I think it'll likely increase, despite his best efforts.

What I find disgusting is this tacit approval of having violence afflicted against you. If more people would just start saying "I will not be a victim of theft at the barrel of a gun," you wouldn't have to argue about which whip the slave master should use.

 

[JDeVriese]

A pollution tax of any sort implies the tax collector is the party with legal rights to the environment. I don't think anyone in here would agree that the government owns the planet.

 

[Signzit]

If this thread is any indication of this forum, I have wasted my time joining and reading.

You have got to be kidding, a green tax, to get more people behind RP. Have you even listened to the man, or understand the grounds on which he stands?

Yeah, that's the ticket; we'll end the IRS & US Income Tax and just give a New Green Tax straight to the UN? For what 150 - 200,000 votes? Like a man, such as Dr. Paul is would ever compromise his principles for few dirty votes.

Come'on Captain Planet, wake up! Why don't you just take 1/2 breaths and save us all.

I'm all mad now, my 1st. post had to be in this thread.