| It would change behaviour more, not less. If you set the carbon tax at about $1/gallon of gasoline, the corresponding carbon rebate would be about $1000 per family per year. That wouldn't affect rich people much; neither the $1/gallon nor the $1000 extra income is significant. But many rich people get rich by being penny-wise, so many would change behaviour, by buying an EV or similar. But for poor people both $1/gallon and $1000 per year is significant. If gas was $1/gallon more expensive, poor people definitely would drive less. |
| |
| ▲ | robocat 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The same thing happened with electric car purchase incentives in New Zealand. The poor cannot afford to buy a new car - so only the well off received the efficient car discount incentives. The trickle down as those cars depreciated in value was years away. | | |
| ▲ | TylerE 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | That doesn’t really sound like the worst thing? Someone has to buy them for full price before they show up on the used market 5-10 years later. | | |
| ▲ | robocat 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | That doesn't make sense because the second hand car is not cheaper by the amount of the subsidy. Say subsidy is $20k, second-hand car might eventually be $6k cheaper (and the discount time value of money means that the $6k is actually less than $4k). Giving the wealthy person $20k, and the poor person less than $4k is strange. New Zealand used car market is likely very different from the market where you are. The cheapest Model 3 I could find was a USD18000 for a 2020. Subsidies make sense if the environmental gains outweigh the costs of the subsidies. Subsidies: there was a purchase subsidy, charging stations were subsidised, and I think electric cars are not paying their fair share of road maintenance (much of our road costs are paid for by an excise tax on usage via petrol-tax or heavy-vehicle-milage). | | |
| ▲ | otterley 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | That math doesn’t add up. If I buy a $100,000 car for $80,000, and I sell it to someone for $60,000, the recipient still gets a $40,000 discount. And if you pretend that there is no subsidy, and the original owner paid $80,000 just because it cost that much unsubsidized, the second buyer still gets the same discount off the original purchase price. So the fact that the car was originally subsidized isn’t relevant. | | |
| ▲ | robocat 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The context is about when cars reach the poor - your example of someone spending $60k is irrelevant. A poorer person in NZ spends at most a few thousand on their car. The original retail price is nearly irrelevant by the time it gets to someone poorish (however maintenance/parts costs do matter for old cars). The financial benefit of a discount mostly goes to the people that own the car while it depreciates as it trickles down. Context: In New Zealand, the vast majority of people drive second hand cars (mostly imported second hand from Japan). A 20 year old car is regarded as newish in New Zealand. I am well off, so I have two second hand cars, my daily driver is 2006 I think, and I have a 1996 4WD for other stuff. New cars are only bought by the well off. | | |
| ▲ | otterley 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I hear you. The numbers I provided were manufactured to illustrate the math and support my argument, not to be representative of a typical price. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bryanlarsen 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The rebate can be paid out more frequently than annually. | | |
| ▲ | kjreact 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | Having a carbon tax seems to be the most fair way to combat climate change; unfortunately in practice it is political suicide. Australia had a carbon tax in 2011 and was quickly repealed in 2014. Likewise Canada also implemented such a tax in 2019 and was repealed this year prior to their election. People like to say that they want to help the environment, but when it comes time to vote they vote against such policies. | | |
| ▲ | xyzzy123 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The Australian implementation had a lot of problems. Instead of being (something reasonably loophole free like) a tax levied on fossil fuel consumption it was a scheme that applied to the 500 largest emitters. These emitters then (crucially) estimated their own emissions minus offsets and paid tax on that. The issue with this is that it creates a whole parallel (and largely fake) carbon accounting world. Fake estimates, fake offsets, a complex web of compensating subsidies - but real public money. The field of carbon taxes is tricky because we can imagine simple schemes which handle a few scenarios in a fair way (ok, fuel! we know how to tax that) but once you start thinking about agriculture or construction you quickly get into complex estimation. You then end up with armies of carbon accountants who spend all day looking for loopholes and rorts. | |
| ▲ | Teever 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Canada ultimately repealed the carbon tax because it was used as a political cudgel against the Liberal party that enacted it by the Conservative opposition in a sustained fashion for several years. Which is dismaying because carbon taxes are a conservative solution to this problem and IIRC the first political entities to suggest the implementation of them in Canada were Conservative. At the end of the day you have a nontrivial amount of the population, and many in positions of power who just outright deny environmental concerns and climate change as an existential threat. They aren't going to approach this problem in good faith and it isn't obvious what the solution to their nefarious influence on policy should be. | | |
| ▲ | bryanlarsen 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Canada's implementation had two problems: 1. The textbook implementation involves 3 parts: tax, rebate and tariff. Canada only did the first 2. They were in talks with Germany/EU to create a carbon tariff zone, but that never happens. Without the tariff the carbon tax is massively unfair to local producers. 2. The rebates were almost invisible. If they would have been cheques in the mail it would have had much more impact psychologically. But I agree, the main problem was denialism and its use as a political cudgel. It should be hard to argue that carbon tax is stealing money when all of it is given back, but they successfully did that. | | |
| ▲ | david-gpu 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Broadly agreed. IMO the Canadian carbon tax had a marketing problem. It should have been called a Carbon Dividend. First, it would have replaced the negative connotation of the word "tax" with the positive connotation of the word "dividend -- and it would have been more accurate to how the program actually worked. Second, and probably more important: the rebates showed up in your bank account with a description that didn't make the source obvious enough for laypeople. Had people seen monthly "CARBON DIVIDEND" credits in their bank accounts, they would have noticed. | | |
| ▲ | smnrchrds 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It was never called carbon tax, but carbon pricing. It being knows as carbon tax was the result of of opposition efforts. The same efforts and results would have happened had it been called dividend or anything else. | |
| ▲ | shawnz 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In official communications it was called the Canada Carbon Rebate or previously the Climate Action Incentive |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | cma 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can give the rebate based on prior year or estimated usage at the start of the year, and then repay at the end of the year if it was too much, like with healthcare subsidies. | | |
|
