Why isn't a directly redistributed tax on fossile fuels considered instead of the TEQs ?
- it is much simpler (and cheaper) to implement and operate
- it does not require tracking every citizens consumption and moves (major point here, orwell isn't far already)
- it can lead to exactly the same thing economically by not favouring the rich over the poors (poor ending up positive)
- it doesn't create all these trading jobs, markets, system tweaking, and associated WE ARE DODGY playing
- much less subject to fraud
- it is much closer to the product getting scarcer and more expensive
Redistributed part doesn't need to be 100%
Below trying to compare both schema, TEQ and redistributed taxes, in a very simplistic way :
let's suppose 1000 citizens, 100 rich 900 poors
current consumption :
rich citizen 30 eu (energy unit) per month
poor citizen 10 eu per month
so for the country 12000 eu per month
let's suppose the "international market price" of the eu is ep (energy price) and that the energy is sold at market price at the beginning
if the quota system starts at current consumption :
12000 eu delivered evenly so 12 teq per citizen/month
(the poor can sell 2 teq each month, the rich needs to buy 18 if he wants same consumption as before)
teq price determined by the market, when and where do you buy them ? a huge bureaucracy and sytem development to manage the thing, potential cheating stealing, hacking (EU cap and trade just has been stoped for carbon credit stolen by hacking)
redistributed tax system
same starting point
let's say the tax, wich has to be volume based (and not price percentage) is set up at 0.5 ep per eu at the starting point
energy bill for the poor : before 10ep , now 15ep
energy bill for the rich : before 30ep , now 45ep
tax revenu : 6000ep redistributed evenly per citizen so 6ep redistributed per citizen
actual energy bill for the poor : 9ep
actual energy bill for the rich : 39ep
Clearly considering the redistributed tax system (doesn't need to be 100%) much higher simplicity, and same effect with repect rich/poor, I think it should be highly prefered, maintaining a very clear price signal for the products. You could say it doesn't integrate the "cap" part, but how will this "cap" part be evaluated ? with "economists evaluation" ? Come on ..and the TEQ price crashing on recession (as happened with EU carbon credits) On the other hand the level of the gas pedal can be pushed regarding the tax level, residstibutive effect the same whatever the state of the economy.
Of course all this should most probably be simulated on a more real life case, but don't understand why Hansen's proposal doesn't get more traction
Do we really want to create more "financial trading jobs" in this transition ? where actual work is going to get more and more important as we go down the slope ? Isn't it time to favor simplicity over complexity ? And perhaps more importantly, having the less information possible required per citizen to run a system as a top choice criteria ?
Redistributed tax instead of TEQs
Moderator: Peak Moderation
- RenewableCandy
- Posts: 12780
- Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
- Location: York
That sounds like a good idea...but the "tax" would have to be called something else (and HMG to do a REALLY EMPHATIC JOB of explaining the "redistributive" bit), or there'd be Sun readers in obese cars blocking all the roads and beeping their horns.
<tries to think of a 4-letter, 1-syllable word for "redistributive"...>
<tries to think of a 4-letter, 1-syllable word for "redistributive"...>
- woodpecker
- Posts: 851
- Joined: 06 Jan 2009, 01:20
- Location: London
I'd be surprised if a tax had any impact at all on consumption by the rich. They just pay the tax. They don't notice and don't care.
If you have two-three-four-five million+ pound homes and pay several thousand a year for energy at each.... and another few tens of thousands of pounds travelling between them... If you have a collection of rare Ferraris (which apparently Chris Evans does) ... A thousand pounds or ten thousand pounds here or there is peanuts and won't change your behaviour.
With any tax you will just pay the tax when you pay the bill (or your staff do). With TEQs at least they have to get their staff to buy TEQs at whatever the price from people who want to sell (like you and me) in order to be able to use the additional energy.
If you have two-three-four-five million+ pound homes and pay several thousand a year for energy at each.... and another few tens of thousands of pounds travelling between them... If you have a collection of rare Ferraris (which apparently Chris Evans does) ... A thousand pounds or ten thousand pounds here or there is peanuts and won't change your behaviour.
With any tax you will just pay the tax when you pay the bill (or your staff do). With TEQs at least they have to get their staff to buy TEQs at whatever the price from people who want to sell (like you and me) in order to be able to use the additional energy.
- emordnilap
- Posts: 14823
- Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
- Location: here
...mainly because they can pay someone to find a way of not paying it...then claim the costs of doing so against tax.woodpecker wrote:I'd be surprised if a tax had any impact at all on consumption by the rich.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
We don't need another fake market and brokers, what you talk about has to be handled through the income tax.woodpecker wrote:
With any tax you will just pay the tax when you pay the bill (or your staff do). With TEQs at least they have to get their staff to buy TEQs at whatever the price from people who want to sell (like you and me) in order to be able to use the additional energy.
- woodpecker
- Posts: 851
- Joined: 06 Jan 2009, 01:20
- Location: London