B441 - Carbon Tax Bill 2012 (Third Reading)
TSR's model parliament.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| Please change your TSR password | 23-05-2013 | |
| Enter our travel-writing competition for the chance to win a Nikon 1 J3 camera | 20-05-2013 | |
-
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Posts: 3,775
Re: B441 - Carbon Tax Bill 2012 (Third Reading)(Original post by Moleman1996)
Still a no from me i'm afraid. If we can't secure guaranteed international co-operation beforehand.
For all the reasons given previously, nay.(Original post by internetguru)
Disagree with higher taxes on this that will make the economy worst.(Original post by Rakas21)
Its looking like an abstain or no from me.
I disagree with the removal of the trading scheme.(Original post by Birchington)
Current economic conditions suggest that this is not the time to introduce further punitive taxes on businesses or individuals, so it's a No from me.Between the Welfare and Tax Reform Act 2012 and the Tax Act 2011, the following business-concerned taxes have either been drastically reduced or abolished:(Original post by RoryS)
It's a no from me. This is not the right time to introduce new taxes.
- National Insurance Contributions
- VAT
- Business Rates
The MHoC's economy is not in the same place as the RL economy. We probably have low unemployment alongside decent growth.
The essence of a carbon tax (the very essence!) is that it makes the economy better. It's not just another means to scrape revenue from businesses. I thought I'd explained this aspect in the Notes, but I may not have been clear enough.
In the current economy there is a simple problem with emissions. When a business uses a fossil fuel, the market cost of doing so (£xx) does not equate to the environmental costs of what happens as a result (£yy). In effect, this £yy represents the damage done by an amount of green house gas emitted. So, for each 1 metric ton of carbon dioxide (or equivalent) released into the atmosphere, £30 worth of damage is done to the environment - who should pay for this cost incurred? Three options: the government, the people harmed, or those reponsible for it. By taxing GHG emissions, the Government is making those that owe pay - it's really that simple, the social cost (£yy) is added to the market cost (£xx) to alleviate the problem of a negative externality in the current economy. I hope this explains the tax without getting too economicsy.
Birchington and RoryS, both of you are from parties that consider themselves to be environmentalist - I'd very much like for you to justify your positions specifically. What specific parts of the argument do you disagree with? I hope your objections are not a throwback to when I upset you both in April, I did apologise.
Prime Minister and SoS for Transport, can I assure each of you that this Bill would not increase energy costs from current RL prices. The recent VAT reductions apply to the energy market, and so a real terms drop in costs for consumers and businesses won't be negated by this common-sense, fiscally sound Bill. As for emissions trading schemes, I would have expected a Conservative PM to be opposed to them - not only are they ineffectual, they also add an extra layer of constraint to business - they are pure red-tape. A carbon tax is a market-based alternative, an option that actually does the job.
Spoiler:Show
Where do you guys stand? -
- Reputation:
- TSR Idol
- Location: Stoke-On-Trent
- Posts: 9,042
Re: B441 - Carbon Tax Bill 2012 (Third Reading)I look forward to you raising at EU Level aswell if this passes.(Original post by DebatingGreg)
I'll also add that a lot of effort has gone into this, so well done
If this passes, I look forward to the possibility of this being raised at an MUN level. -
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Posts: 3,775
Re: B441 - Carbon Tax Bill 2012 (Third Reading)Who should pay for the costs of climate-induced environmental problems?(Original post by tehFrance)
NO! Taxes = Bad!
A. The businesses responsible.
B. The people affected.
The tax is the only reasonable market-based approach, please reconsider. -
- Reputation:
- Benevolent Member
- Posts: 641
Re: B441 - Carbon Tax Bill 2012 (Third Reading)Why not:(Original post by tehFrance)
NO! Taxes = Bad!
'Pollution = bad?'
Some form of taxation is needed. If it helps deal with environmental damage and social costs of pollution at the same time, then so much the better. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
- Location: Londres
- Warning points: 10
Re: B441 - Carbon Tax Bill 2012 (Third Reading)For you? no.(Original post by JPKC)
Please reconsider. -
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Posts: 4,584
Re: B441 - Carbon Tax Bill 2012 (Third Reading)I hear your point about the economy, i've never really considered it but you're actually right! We do ahve to consider the effects of global recession though, which would probably have sent us into recession as well. However, with the little difference we make, this is a pointless tax if only Britain adopts it.(Original post by JPKC)
Between the Welfare and Tax Reform Act 2012 and the Tax Act 2011, the following business-concerned taxes have either been drastically reduced or abolished:
- National Insurance Contributions
- VAT
- Business Rates
The MHoC's economy is not in the same place as the RL economy. We probably have low unemployment alongside decent growth.
The essence of a carbon tax (the very essence!) is that it makes the economy better. It's not just another means to scrape revenue from businesses. I thought I'd explained this aspect in the Notes, but I may not have been clear enough.
In the current economy there is a simple problem with emissions. When a business uses a fossil fuel, the market cost of doing so (£xx) does not equate to the environmental costs of what happens as a result (£yy). In effect, this £yy represents the damage done by an amount of green house gas emitted. So, for each 1 metric ton of carbon dioxide (or equivalent) released into the atmosphere, £30 worth of damage is done to the environment - who should pay for this cost incurred? Three options: the government, the people harmed, or those reponsible for it. By taxing GHG emissions, the Government is making those that owe pay - it's really that simple, the social cost (£yy) is added to the market cost (£xx) to alleviate the problem of a negative externality in the current economy. I hope this explains the tax without getting too economicsy.
Birchington and RoryS, both of you are from parties that consider themselves to be environmentalist - I'd very much like for you to justify your positions specifically. What specific parts of the argument do you disagree with? I hope your objections are not a throwback to when I upset you both in April, I did apologise.
Prime Minister and SoS for Transport, can I assure each of you that this Bill would not increase energy costs from current RL prices. The recent VAT reductions apply to the energy market, and so a real terms drop in costs for consumers and businesses won't be negated by this common-sense, fiscally sound Bill. As for emissions trading schemes, I would have expected a Conservative PM to be opposed to them - not only are they ineffectual, they also add an extra layer of constraint to business - they are pure red-tape. A carbon tax is a market-based alternative, an option that actually does the job.
Spoiler:Show
Where do you guys stand? -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
- Location: West Yorkshire
- Posts: 11,823
Re: B441 - Carbon Tax Bill 2012 (Third Reading)My stance is that you have replaced a tax which i was opposed to and going to get rid of (climate change levy) with a tax on businesses, hence while it is superior in tackling the cause i am still undecided.(Original post by JPKC)
Between the Welfare and Tax Reform Act 2012 and the Tax Act 2011, the following business-concerned taxes have either been drastically reduced or abolished:
- National Insurance Contributions
- VAT
- Business Rates
The MHoC's economy is not in the same place as the RL economy. We probably have low unemployment alongside decent growth.
The essence of a carbon tax (the very essence!) is that it makes the economy better. It's not just another means to scrape revenue from businesses. I thought I'd explained this aspect in the Notes, but I may not have been clear enough.
In the current economy there is a simple problem with emissions. When a business uses a fossil fuel, the market cost of doing so (£xx) does not equate to the environmental costs of what happens as a result (£yy). In effect, this £yy represents the damage done by an amount of green house gas emitted. So, for each 1 metric ton of carbon dioxide (or equivalent) released into the atmosphere, £30 worth of damage is done to the environment - who should pay for this cost incurred? Three options: the government, the people harmed, or those reponsible for it. By taxing GHG emissions, the Government is making those that owe pay - it's really that simple, the social cost (£yy) is added to the market cost (£xx) to alleviate the problem of a negative externality in the current economy. I hope this explains the tax without getting too economicsy.
Birchington and RoryS, both of you are from parties that consider themselves to be environmentalist - I'd very much like for you to justify your positions specifically. What specific parts of the argument do you disagree with? I hope your objections are not a throwback to when I upset you both in April, I did apologise.
Prime Minister and SoS for Transport, can I assure each of you that this Bill would not increase energy costs from current RL prices. The recent VAT reductions apply to the energy market, and so a real terms drop in costs for consumers and businesses won't be negated by this common-sense, fiscally sound Bill. As for emissions trading schemes, I would have expected a Conservative PM to be opposed to them - not only are they ineffectual, they also add an extra layer of constraint to business - they are pure red-tape. A carbon tax is a market-based alternative, an option that actually does the job.
Spoiler:Show
Where do you guys stand?
As for the emission trading scheme, it was only ineffectual because it was not combined with other measures and limited to the EU, i am very much for renewable resources because i believe that the economic multiplier of a potential trade surplus (well down the line) would outweigh any cost because 70% of imports are fuel.
Because tackling carbon emmisions could lead to a reduction of fuel imports i am considering this bill, on most issues the notion of taxation would yield a simple no. -
- Reputation:
- Benevolent Member
- Posts: 641
Re: B441 - Carbon Tax Bill 2012 (Third Reading)Are you generally for or against pigovian taxation?(Original post by Rakas21)
My stance is that you have replaced a tax which i was opposed to and going to get rid of (climate change levy) with a tax on businesses, hence while it is superior in tackling the cause i am still undecided.
As for the emission trading scheme, it was only ineffectual because it was not combined with other measures and limited to the EU, i am very much for renewable resources because i believe that the economic multiplier of a potential trade surplus (well down the line) would outweigh any cost because 70% of imports are fuel.
Because tackling carbon emmisions could lead to a reduction of fuel imports i am considering this bill, on most issues the notion of taxation would yield a simple no. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
- Location: West Yorkshire
- Posts: 11,823
Re: B441 - Carbon Tax Bill 2012 (Third Reading)Just cought the disaster relief fund and i do not agree with it so take it out.
Floods occur when people decide on flood plains and the drought in this country has already been solved by the desalinisation motion. -
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Posts: 1,028
Re: B441 - Carbon Tax Bill 2012 (Third Reading)And even the Baltic Partnership(Original post by Morgsie)
I look forward to you raising at EU Level aswell if this passes.
Anything for activity, I suppose.
-
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
- Location: West Yorkshire
- Posts: 11,823
Re: B441 - Carbon Tax Bill 2012 (Third Reading)As per the Liber motion not so long ago i am broadly pro but not as much as some members of the House.(Original post by stanlas)
Are you generally for or against pigovian taxation? -
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Posts: 3,775
Re: B441 - Carbon Tax Bill 2012 (Third Reading)The CCL was essentially a tax on businesses, albeit a bureaucratic and misguided one. My position on emissions trading is that it just makes life harder for businesses by twisting the market - this tax is much simpler and a much more valid alternative (it's Pigovian and actually serves a clearly defined, non-arbitrary, point). I hope you see the merit.(Original post by Rakas21)
My stance is that you have replaced a tax which i was opposed to and going to get rid of (climate change levy) with a tax on businesses, hence while it is superior in tackling the cause i am still undecided.
As for the emission trading scheme, it was only ineffectual because it was not combined with other measures and limited to the EU, i am very much for renewable resources because i believe that the economic multiplier of a potential trade surplus (well down the line) would outweigh any cost because 70% of imports are fuel.
Because tackling carbon emmisions could lead to a reduction of fuel imports i am considering this bill, on most issues the notion of taxation would yield a simple no.
The tax wouldn't have any support among the Libers if they didn't see the reason to implement it!(Original post by Moleman1996)
I hear your point about the economy, i've never really considered it but you're actually right! We do ahve to consider the effects of global recession though, which would probably have sent us into recession as well. However, with the little difference we make, this is a pointless tax if only Britain adopts it.
We're not in global recession, and the Eurozone is still on neutral growth, so I think we can assume that we are in the midst of a boom. (Rhyme-time!)
Suit yourself, I can't say you're winning hearts and minds by ignoring the substance of the argument. Opposing for the sake of opposing, hmm?(Original post by tehFrance)
For you? no. -
- Reputation:
- Benevolent Member
- Posts: 641
Re: B441 - Carbon Tax Bill 2012 (Third Reading)With all due respect Mr Prime Minister, but this isn't your Bill and you can't just say 'I don't agree, therefore remove it.' Like every other member of this house, you should ask in a polite way, stating your arguments.(Original post by Rakas21)
Just cought the disaster relief fund and i do not agree with it so take it out.
Floods occur when people decide on flood plains and the drought in this country has already been solved by the desalinisation motion.
Besides, what do you have against getting ready for emergencies? Emergencies can happen even in the UK, and we should always be ready for them.
We're not in global recession, and the Eurozone is still on neutral growth, so I think we can assume that we are in the midst of a boom. (Rhyme-time!)
