The collapse of government from carbon tax policies

[Pliny]

As we know, technological discoveries are being made continually. The government is promoting certain energy research in a mad dash to replace dirty, polluting sources of energy. It is also, in order to discourage consumption of dirty, polluting sources of energy creating taxes on what it terms carbon footprints. These revenues help third world countries by taxing developed, consumer and production polluting first world countries and buying carbon offsets from the third-world countries. Personally, I think it retards development in third worlds because they are encouraged not to develop and thus don't raise the standard of living for their citizens. But that's not the topic of this thread.

Governments administer this tax and of course that costs money so they pay themselves to do this. Also the carbon taxes are supposed to be revenue neutral so if government makes money from them they tell us they will reduce other forms of taxation.

I can see governments becoming dependent upon these revenues - especially third world countries who will be on the receiving end of this massive redistribution of wealth.

Now what if a technological discovery is made where a clean, cheap, non-polluting form of energy is discovered? Governments will necessarily collapse with the collapsing revenues from disappearing carbon pollution?

Carbon taxes, in my estimation, do not encourage governments to fund the proper research to reduce carbon footprints or eliminate the use of polluting energy sources. They are supposed to discourage our use of them and they do but politicians know there is nothing we can use to replace our level of energy consumption as yet, at least not in a really marked way. Carbon taxes are expected to be adjusted upward over time to get us used to them and to increasingly herd us to the use of products they currently endorse while encouraging a decrease in our level of energy consumption.

Will technology be allowed to progress to the point of determining carbon taxes are unnecessary?

[eyeball]

Will technology be allowed to progress to the point of determining carbon taxes are unnecessary?

The more relevent question is, why would we just stand by and let the government screw us in the fashion you've described?

Oh, right. Because that's what we usually do. Virtually everything now hinges on people's ability to get better control over their governments. I'm more concerned that technology will progress to the point that this might become even more impossible.

In the meantime I view the use of carbon emissions as being like a medium of exchange between our human economy and the natural environment. We need more things that account for our draw down of natural capital. This would allow us to allocate financial capital to either restore that natural capital or tide us over until it regenerates on its own. Carbon is a good place to start because its relatively easy to calculate and apply universally. We should have something similar in place that accounts for our use and natural recovery of water as a consumable and especially as a sink resource to absorb our wastes.

The issue you are raising, official transparency and accountability is a seperate albeit no less an important one. As I've pointed out I think our governance is actually THE single most important issue facing humanity. There is just too much, more so than at any time in history, riding on it to let it get out of our control. A simple cursory look around the world should be enough to conclude we're already perilously close to a tipping point.

We risk the collapse of civilization due to uncontrollable governments.

Edited September 2, 2009 by eyeball

[msj]

Now what if a technological discovery is made where a clean, cheap, non-polluting form of energy is discovered? Governments will necessarily collapse with the collapsing revenues from disappearing carbon pollution?

No, the government will simply raise income/consumption taxes.

Which is why they attempt to make carbon taxes "revenue neutral" in the first place.

It is to ensure that if carbon taxes are no longer needed then income/consumption taxes necessarily go up since the logic is: carbon taxes go up so income/consumption taxes go down therefore, if carbon tax collection goes down, income/consumption taxes go up.

It's brilliant, really.

[Pliny]

No, the government will simply raise income/consumption taxes.

Which is why they attempt to make carbon taxes "revenue neutral" in the first place.

It is to ensure that if carbon taxes are no longer needed then income/consumption taxes necessarily go up since the logic is: carbon taxes go up so income/consumption taxes go down therefore, if carbon tax collection goes down, income/consumption taxes go up.

It's brilliant, really.

How naive. How long before income/consumption taxes become entirely divorced from carbon taxes. The first crash of the economy is my bet.

[msj]

How naive. How long before income/consumption taxes become entirely divorced from carbon taxes. The first crash of the economy is my bet.

What is naive is thinking that governments will collapse if, by some miracle, carbon free energy were to spontaneously develop and lead to less carbon taxes being collected.

Governments always find a way to tax people because people demand government services.

Nothing is going to change. Well, other than people whining about carbon tax along with income, consumption, fees, levies, tariffs etc...

IOW, same old, same old. Just a "new" tax to whine about.

Edited September 3, 2009 by msj

[Pliny]

What is naive is thinking that governments will collapse if, by some miracle, carbon free energy were to spontaneously develop and lead to less carbon taxes being collected.

Governments always find a way to tax people because people demand government services.

Nothing is going to change. Well, other than people whining about carbon tax along with income, consumption, fees, levies, tariffs etc...

IOW, same old, same old. Just a "new" tax to whine about.

It sounds like "the same old same old" has been around since the beginning of civilization.

A society may last a lifetime, it may last a century. If it is a society where honest men can thrive it may last a couple of centuries. If it is a society engineered by government it is short-lived. Ours may last your lifetime. It has been around for over a century but is on the downward end of it's existence if it continues as the same old same old, because the same old, same old is a constant progressive march and once responsibility for society has been abrogated by it's citizens entirely for benefit from the State, then the State is all that's left to assume that responsibility, and it gladly does.

It is a rather shortsighted view to see a society in terms of the length of your existence. I am hoping I will be able to live through the same old same old without having to experience the inevitable result of revolt and subsequent reformation. For me, I am hoping it may be the same old same old for the rest of my days but if you are young it won't be the same old same for you unless you have realized that the same old, same old is continuous change.

The disappearance of a tax source will not in and of itself cause the collapse of a government but it is a good sign that government in engineering the disappearance of it's tax base is on a path toward it's downfall. Economic considerations are not taken into account when engineering society is the primary concern.

[msj]

It sounds to me like you fail to realize that governments have always found creative ways to raise money and survive.

Taxes go back much further than you appear to think. So does "abrogation" of responsibility.

The good old days weren't that good, and the bad days of now aren't that bad.

Get over it.

[Pliny]

It sounds to me like you fail to realize that governments have always found creative ways to raise money and survive.

Taxes go back much further than you appear to think. So does "abrogation" of responsibility.

The good old days weren't that good, and the bad days of now aren't that bad.

Get over it.

Social collapse, Government overthrows and revolutions are the norm as well.

What I am saying is that history proves government has no business trying to control the economy and engineer society - it always fails miserably.

If you think this is a natural process I understand why you have no problem with it. I don't think it is. I think it is a failure to understand the nature of government. There is no necessity for economic booms and busts, there is little need for their wars, and their charity is costly. The inevitable destruction of the economy and degradation of society is their fare. Until that is understood and government is excluded form social and economic engineering we will ride the same roller coaster. They are there for stability so social and economic progress can be made.

We have to say enough of starting out of the rubble of former civilizations.

You know, I never even heard of people like HL Mencken, or Rose Wilder Lane or Lysander Spooner, or Ludwig Von Mises, or Garet Garret, or Frederich Hyack, Bastiat or numerous other points of view that differed from Marx, lib-left secular progressivism and proponents of the necessity of State social engineering. They are not presented in our education but they are valid points of view and voices of dissent that need to be heard. They are about liberty and they are about freedom and they are about accountability and responsibility - none of which apply to the State today.

If you are satisfied with the status quo, our historical record as a species and the vision government has for our future, that of cows in the pasture that are milked twice daily, then be content. I will not "get over it".