It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Democrats are desperate for a job-killing, cost-increasing carbon tax — they just won't tell you
But as we head into Election Day, Democrats have been united in their calls for new tax hikes. Not only do they hope to take more from your hard-earned paychecks, Democrats have long looked at energy taxes as a way to fund their big-government agenda. Not only would this raise the cost of energy for families across this country, it would place an incredible burden on small businesses and kill jobs in the energy sector.
Democrats know the energy tax is a political loser and behind closed doors will acknowledge as much. In 2015, a carbon tax memo prepared for then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton concluded that a carbon tax would be devastating to low-income households. “As with the increase in energy costs, the increase in the cost of non-energy goods and services would disproportionately impact low income households,” the memo states.
“The cost of other household goods and services would increase as well as companies pass forward the higher energy costs paid to produce those goods and services on to consumers.”
A $40 per ton carbon tax would immediately increase the price of gasoline by 38 cents per gallon. As the American Enterprise Institute recently pointed out, even a smaller $25 per ton carbon tax, at a low-ball estimate, would cost the average household hundreds of dollars per year, undoing a quarter of the average household tax cut in the GOP’s historic Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Such an oppressive tax would come at a time when the United States is not only leading the world in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but doing so at nearly twice the rate as the next closest country.
originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: and14263
That is a word game.
Can you PROVE it's real? and that taking my money will stop it?
originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: CriticalStinker
I would prefer the government not take anymore of my money under false pretenses.
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Aallanon
Even if you don't believe climate change is man induced, that doesn't mean that we can't speed it up.
Even if you don't believe we can't speed it up, that doesn't mean it doesn't degrade the air quality to burn fuel.
So we can all agree it hurts air quality, so I see no reason why trucking companies shouldn't help out in the localities they are burning such by paying a little extra at the pump.
That said, what degrades roads the fastest? Tractor Trailers.
I don't see whats so wrong with asking those who put more weight (literally) on our infrastructure (which is past due on repairs) to pay a little extra.
I'm not sure that's where the tax is going, but it should be.
What would you rather, everyone pay equal share to repair roads and help air quality? Or ask those that abuse those two the most to fork over a little extra?
originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: and14263
If you have a differing opinion on AGW, that's fine. I believe it has been proven a hoax.
My opinion is not up for debate. ( My public school teacher taught me your opinion is never wrong).
What is up for debate is how taking my money will fix this even theoretically and why they (the Dems) are hiding it.
I think you know this and are purposefully sliding/derailing my thread.
originally posted by: network dude
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Aallanon
Even if you don't believe climate change is man induced, that doesn't mean that we can't speed it up.
Even if you don't believe we can't speed it up, that doesn't mean it doesn't degrade the air quality to burn fuel.
So we can all agree it hurts air quality, so I see no reason why trucking companies shouldn't help out in the localities they are burning such by paying a little extra at the pump.
That said, what degrades roads the fastest? Tractor Trailers.
I don't see whats so wrong with asking those who put more weight (literally) on our infrastructure (which is past due on repairs) to pay a little extra.
I'm not sure that's where the tax is going, but it should be.
What would you rather, everyone pay equal share to repair roads and help air quality? Or ask those that abuse those two the most to fork over a little extra?
So it's better to squeeze a bit more money from the Truckers, so the cost of goods will increase and this somehow equates to less pollution? I'm not sure I follow your logic here.
originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: CriticalStinker
Everything is an OP ED