Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LandCafe] Gas tax in USA - with CiDi now

Expand Messages
  • Fred Foldvary
    ... Georgists should oppose a tax on gasoline because we are single-taxers who only want to tax land, not goods. A gasoline tax is a sales tax, and
    Message 1 of 13 , Aug 11, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:

      > Why don't American georgists and BIGers enter this
      > debate to propose a
      > revenue neutral, high gasoline tax ?

      Georgists should oppose a tax on gasoline because we
      are single-taxers who only want to tax land, not
      goods. A gasoline tax is a sales tax, and
      anti-Georgist.

      Fred Foldvary
    • Paul Metz
      I have some doubts about these statements. It is not that simple, I believe. 1. You suggest that e.g. oil royalties are unnecessary as the value of the oil
      Message 2 of 13 , Aug 13, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        I have some doubts about these statements. It is not that simple, I believe.


        1. You suggest that e.g. oil royalties are unnecessary as the value of the
        oil will be included in the land value. No, when oil production starts,
        nobody knows how much will be ultimately extracted. It is better to keep
        these 2 separate.

        2. A carbon tax is intended to be a pollution tax, a.o. for the potentially
        emitted CO2. So it is indeed not a sales tax. When, however, it is
        administratively more efficient to tax the (fossil fuel) input instead of
        the (much more difficult to measure CO2) output, why not do that ?
        And how would you integrate the emission trade arrangements and the
        electromagnetic spectrum into a land value ?

        Paul Metz


        --- Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:

        > The value of extractable
        > resources and the quality
        > of the environment and atmosphere are not included
        > in the value of the landsurface.

        Correct.
        But land is not just the surface of the earth.
        Land in economics means all natural resources.
        There LVT also taxes the economic rent of all material
        land, including coal, oil, gas, and minerals.

        > A gasoline tax can be designed as a carbon tax, by
        > taxing the inputs of coal, oil and natural gas into
        national economies.<

        Gasoline is a product made from the natural resource
        of oil. LVT properly taxes only the economic rent of
        the natural resource, not the capital goods made from
        these resources, as the capital goods are also made
        with labor. If you tax gasoline, you are also taxing
        labor and capital.

        The pollution from vehicles, power plants, factories,
        etc., are dumps into land (the atmosphere, ocean,
        etc.) and therefore should be taxed. But this is a
        tax on emission outputs, not the inputs.

        Likewise, coal as an input should not be taxed.
        LVT should be on the extraction, taxing the economic
        rent of the coal, and also on the pollution from using
        coal. Taxing the input is not a tax on land, and it
        does not stimulate non-polluting methods of using
        coal.

        > It is not a sales tax

        A tax on the purchase of gasoline is clearly a sales
        tax.
        A pollution tax is not a sales tax.
        A tax on the economic rent of the extraction is not a
        sales tax, as the extraction as such is not yet a sale
        and the tax is not based on the selling price but only
        on the rent portion of the price.

        Fred Foldvary
      • Fred Foldvary
        ... I did not suggest anything about oil royalites. I said that gasoline taxes are not land-value taxes. ... If the purpose of taxing fuel is to reduce the
        Message 3 of 13 , Aug 14, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:
          > 1. You suggest that e.g. oil royalties are
          > unnecessary as the value of the
          > oil will be included in the land value.

          I did not suggest anything about oil royalites.
          I said that gasoline taxes are not land-value taxes.

          > 2. When,
          > however, it is
          > administratively more efficient to tax the (fossil
          > fuel) input instead of
          > the (much more difficult to measure CO2) output, why
          > not do that ?

          If the purpose of taxing fuel is to reduce the
          pollution, then if we do not know how much pollution
          there is from a source, it is pointless to tax the
          fuel.

          > And how would you integrate the emission trade
          > arrangements and the
          > electromagnetic spectrum into a land value ?

          What does the spectrum have to do with emissions?
          The spectrum is a separate resource and its economic
          rent should be taxed as having its own rent.
          The economic rent of the spectrum can be obtained from
          sales, or if there are few sales, from periodic
          bidding for rights to use.

          Fred Foldvary
        • Paul Metz
          Fred, Great, now we agree. But in your previous mail you wrote: But land is not just the surface of the earth. Land in economics means all natural resources.
          Message 4 of 13 , Aug 14, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Fred,

            Great, now we agree. But in your previous mail you wrote:

            "But land is not just the surface of the earth.
            Land in economics means all natural resources.
            There LVT also taxes the economic rent of all material
            land, including coal, oil, gas, and minerals."

            And the spectrum and atmosphere are also natural resources.

            Paul

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Fred Foldvary [mailto:ffoldvary@...]
            Sent: dinsdag 14 augustus 2007 15:21
            To: Paul Metz; fred@...; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
            Cc: 'Jeffery J. Smith ( Forum on Geonomics ) '; 'Alanna Hartzok ( Earth
            Rights Institute ) '
            Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Gas tax in USA - with CiDi now

            --- Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:
            > 1. You suggest that e.g. oil royalties are
            > unnecessary as the value of the
            > oil will be included in the land value.

            I did not suggest anything about oil royalites.
            I said that gasoline taxes are not land-value taxes.

            > 2. When,
            > however, it is
            > administratively more efficient to tax the (fossil
            > fuel) input instead of
            > the (much more difficult to measure CO2) output, why
            > not do that ?

            If the purpose of taxing fuel is to reduce the
            pollution, then if we do not know how much pollution
            there is from a source, it is pointless to tax the
            fuel.

            > And how would you integrate the emission trade
            > arrangements and the
            > electromagnetic spectrum into a land value ?

            What does the spectrum have to do with emissions?
            The spectrum is a separate resource and its economic
            rent should be taxed as having its own rent.
            The economic rent of the spectrum can be obtained from
            sales, or if there are few sales, from periodic
            bidding for rights to use.

            Fred Foldvary
          • BGreen
            ... similarly if the issue for a gas tax is to address global climate change then we should have periodic bidding for the use of our common asset as a carbon
            Message 5 of 13 , Aug 14, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Fred Foldvary <ffoldvary@...> wrote:

              > What does the spectrum have to do with emissions?
              > The spectrum is a separate resource and its economic
              > rent should be taxed as having its own rent.
              > The economic rent of the spectrum can be obtained from
              > sales, or if there are few sales, from periodic
              > bidding for rights to use.
              >


              similarly if the issue for a gas tax is to address global climate
              change then we should have periodic bidding for the use of our common
              asset as a carbon sink up to the sustainable yield (Locke's proviso).

              the net effect is that the costs born by those who are required to
              purchase the "pollution permits" will pass the costs down to the end
              user which will be a gasoline tax in kind but not in name.

              bg
            • Emer O'Siochru
              Dear all, Land covers all natural resources. The argument has moved on from a single tax, but the principle is the same. We at Feasta oppose a carbon tax
              Message 6 of 13 , Aug 14, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear all,

                'Land' covers all natural resources.  The argument has moved on from a single tax, but the principle is the same.  We at Feasta oppose a carbon tax because the government does not own the right to use the atmosphere, people do.  LVT is not a tax but strictly speaking a rent that belongs to the people and not to government - although government mediates the transaction.  Georgists should not support a carbon tax.  Instead, we research and campaign for a tradable Green House Gas Emissions quota for all emissions, starting with transport.  See http://www.feasta.org/energy.htm  for paper on using cap and share for transport in Europe and others on why it is a more efficient and equitable fiscal mechanism than the Cap and Trade or as it expresses here - the European Emissions Trading System (ETS) - or -  a carbon tax.  See capandshare.org for the campaign material. 

                Cap and Share evolved in part at least, from Georgist thinking and we are hoping its acceptance may open the way to LVT.

                Emer O'Siochru
                Feasta; Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability
                Dublin, Ireland


                On 8/11/07, Fred Foldvary <ffoldvary@... > wrote:

                --- Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:

                > Why don't American georgists and BIGers enter this
                > debate to propose a
                > revenue neutral, high gasoline tax ?

                Georgists should oppose a tax on gasoline because we
                are single-taxers who only want to tax land, not
                goods. A gasoline tax is a sales tax, and
                anti-Georgist.

                Fred Foldvary


              • Peter Maxwell
                Hello, long time LandCafe lurker here, delurking to talk chemistry. ... But we do know how much of the pollutant in question, carbon dioxide, will be produced
                Message 7 of 13 , Aug 14, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello, long time LandCafe lurker here, delurking to talk chemistry.

                  On 15/08/2007, at 1:20 AM, Fred Foldvary wrote:
                  > If the purpose of taxing fuel is to reduce the
                  > pollution, then if we do not know how much pollution
                  > there is from a source, it is pointless to tax the
                  > fuel.
                  But we do know how much of the pollutant in question, carbon dioxide,
                  will be produced from a given quantity of a given fossil fuel, as
                  burning the fuel will convert nearly every atom of carbon in the fuel
                  to carbon dioxide. A small proportion leaves the engine/furnace/kiln/
                  whatever as carbon monoxide, soot, and a number of uncombusted
                  hydrocarbons, but these are even worse pollutants, and for the most
                  part they then end up being converted into carbon dioxide by natural
                  processes anyway.

                  So taxing gasoline is equivalent to (but much, much cheaper than)
                  taxing carbon dioxide emissions from each car. Fred has a point
                  about the oil/gasoline distinction though. Imagine two refineries.
                  Refinery A turns only 80% of its oil into gasoline, the rest being
                  consumed on site to power the refining process. Refinery B uses more
                  capital or more electricity, and thereby uses less oil to make the
                  same amount of gasoline. A carbon tax should apply to the oil rather
                  than the gasoline, so that Refinery A pays for its larger emission of
                  carbon dioxide. In general it makes sense to tax the fossil carbon
                  at a point as far upstream in its production as possible, at least as
                  far as the point where it becomes for all practical purposes
                  committed to use as fuel.

                  Given a general carbon tax like this, does anyone pay that
                  shouldn't? The only possibilities are:
                  - Carbon dioxide geosequestration operations attached to power
                  stations etc. A theoretical possibility, but since any such
                  operations will be large, few, and stationary (compared to say cars)
                  a carbon tax law could efficiently cover them by paying them to
                  sequester the carbon dioxide, regardless of where it comes from.
                  Whether carbon dioxide can actually ever be as well sequestered as
                  coal, and who should pay if it escapes, is another question.
                  - Carbon not used as fuel: Plastics, carbon fibre, synthetic
                  diamonds. Even if these did end up accidentally paying a carbon tax
                  the economic distortions caused would be minor because by weight they
                  are so much more valuable than coal or oil. A carbon tax of $20/
                  tonne would push up the price of coal by about $20/tonne or 25%,
                  while it would at worst push up the cost of even the cheapest
                  plastics by the same $20/tonne, or about 2%. It could also be argued
                  that those plastics eventually end up burnt or otherwise causing
                  pollution too, and of course the tax does not have any impact on
                  recycled plastic.

                  -- Peter Maxwell
                • Dan Sullivan
                  This is wrong on several levels. First of all, land rent is what one pays for the privilege of *access* to natural resources, not what one pays for the social
                  Message 8 of 13 , Aug 15, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    This is wrong on several levels. First of all, land rent is what one pays
                    for the privilege of *access* to natural resources, not what one pays
                    for the social costs created by actually extracting non-renewables from
                    the earth. The economic effects are just the opposite. That is, a tax on
                    the rental value of coal lands will hasten extraction, while a royalty on
                    the value of the extracted coal will slow extraction.

                    More importantly, "cap and trade" creates a new property class in
                    pollution privileges. It is completely and totally un-Georgist.

                    An example of how wrong cap and trade would work in the United
                    States is Duke Energy. Duke has old, nasty, inefficient coal plants,
                    burning coal from their own reserves. However, their reserves are
                    running low, and they would soon have to shift their generating
                    capacity to their nuclear and hydroelectric plants anyhow.

                    "Cap and Trade" would mean that others would be paying them, in
                    perpetuity, for giving up the right to do what they would soon be
                    unable to do anyhow. And because their plants are among the worst
                    offenders, they would be rewarded with the most generous caps to
                    trade away. This is worse than creating a private right to collect rent
                    from land -- it is creating a private right to collect rent from pollution.

                    In contrast, a tax on pollution per se would hasten Duke's conversion
                    to cleaner systems without rewarding them for having been a big
                    offender in the past. The revenue from such a tax could be used to
                    reduce productivity taxes on people and businesses that produce
                    wealth *without* polluting, or to provide additional services or even
                    to give each citizen a dividend.

                    From a matter of justice, these options are far superior to cap and
                    trade. If someone is going to pay for the privilege of polluting, why
                    should he pay someone who used to pollute? Why should he not be
                    paying the people who breathe or drink the pollution? Similarly, if he
                    is going to suck coal or oil or copper out of the ground, why should he
                    be paying others who used to do such things but do them no longer?
                    Why not pay all citizens, who each have as much right to these gifts of
                    nature as he has, but have *never* enjoyed these rights due to
                    privilege?

                    Anyone who calls cap and trade Georgist needs to re-study the
                    fundamentals.

                    -ds


                    On 14 Aug 2007 at 18:56, Emer O'Siochru wrote:

                    > Dear all,
                    >
                    > 'Land' covers all natural resources. The argument has moved
                    > on from a single tax, but the principle is the same. We at
                    > Feasta oppose a carbon tax because the government does not own
                    > the right to use the atmosphere, people do. LVT is not a tax
                    > but strictly speaking a rent that belongs to the people and
                    > not to government - although government mediates the
                    > transaction. Georgists should not support a carbon tax.
                    > Instead, we research and campaign for a tradable Green House
                    > Gas Emissions quota for all emissions, starting with
                    > transport.

                    > See http://www.feasta.org/energy.htm

                    > for paper on using cap and share for transport in Europe and
                    > others on why it is a more efficient and equitable fiscal
                    > mechanism than the Cap and Trade or as it expresses here - the
                    > European Emissions Trading System (ETS) - or - a carbon tax.
                    > See capandshare.org for the campaign material.
                    >
                    > Cap and Share evolved in part at least, from Georgist
                    > thinking and we are hoping its acceptance may open the way to
                    > LVT.
                    >
                    > Emer O'Siochru
                    > Feasta; Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability
                    > Dublin, Ireland
                  • Paul Metz
                    It is surprising how the fundamentals are seen so differently. Perhaps my interpretation helps find common ground (in both meanings). 1. Emer describes the
                    Message 9 of 13 , Aug 15, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      It is surprising how the fundamentals are seen so differently.
                      Perhaps my interpretation helps find common ground (in both meanings).

                      1. Emer describes the project "cap and share", which is an effort to make
                      the (by Americans invented and pushed into Kyoto) European Emissions Trading
                      System ETS more effective and fair. I have studied and commented it during
                      its development and believe it is useful. One weakness just now becomes
                      visible: the name "cap and share" claims an improvement of the traditional
                      "cap and trade". It correctly adds "share", but unfortunately deletes
                      "trade". In fact the proposal wants to stop the free allocation of the
                      quota, start auctioning them and distribute the revenue among citizens. More
                      complete description would be "cap, auction, share revenues". It is clear
                      that "share" promotes the equal right of citizens to use nature and their
                      shareholdership.
                      I believe this is georgistic, responding to todays' needs beyond land as
                      locations and like it anyhow as an improvement of the existing very infant
                      ETS.

                      2. The common ground of land tax and physical resources and pollution taxes
                      is obvious: all are natural resources, have economic value and are
                      increasingly recognised to be the "new scarcities" or "externalities" that
                      are not sufficiently managed by the current primitive economic model and its
                      instruments. Ecological tax reform and georgism offer solutions.
                      This again answers the doubts of Fred, I assume.

                      Paul Metz


                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Dan Sullivan [mailto:pimann@...]
                      Sent: woensdag 15 augustus 2007 10:44
                      To: Emer O'Siochru
                      Cc: Paul Metz; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com; Jeffery J. Smith ( Forum on
                      Geonomics ); Alanna Hartzok ( Earth Rights Institute ); fred@...
                      Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Gas tax in USA - with CiDi now

                      This is wrong on several levels. First of all, land rent is what one pays
                      for the privilege of *access* to natural resources, not what one pays
                      for the social costs created by actually extracting non-renewables from
                      the earth. The economic effects are just the opposite. That is, a tax on
                      the rental value of coal lands will hasten extraction, while a royalty on
                      the value of the extracted coal will slow extraction.

                      More importantly, "cap and trade" creates a new property class in
                      pollution privileges. It is completely and totally un-Georgist.

                      An example of how wrong cap and trade would work in the United
                      States is Duke Energy. Duke has old, nasty, inefficient coal plants,
                      burning coal from their own reserves. However, their reserves are
                      running low, and they would soon have to shift their generating
                      capacity to their nuclear and hydroelectric plants anyhow.

                      "Cap and Trade" would mean that others would be paying them, in
                      perpetuity, for giving up the right to do what they would soon be
                      unable to do anyhow. And because their plants are among the worst
                      offenders, they would be rewarded with the most generous caps to
                      trade away. This is worse than creating a private right to collect rent
                      from land -- it is creating a private right to collect rent from pollution.

                      In contrast, a tax on pollution per se would hasten Duke's conversion
                      to cleaner systems without rewarding them for having been a big
                      offender in the past. The revenue from such a tax could be used to
                      reduce productivity taxes on people and businesses that produce
                      wealth *without* polluting, or to provide additional services or even
                      to give each citizen a dividend.

                      From a matter of justice, these options are far superior to cap and
                      trade. If someone is going to pay for the privilege of polluting, why
                      should he pay someone who used to pollute? Why should he not be
                      paying the people who breathe or drink the pollution? Similarly, if he
                      is going to suck coal or oil or copper out of the ground, why should he
                      be paying others who used to do such things but do them no longer?
                      Why not pay all citizens, who each have as much right to these gifts of
                      nature as he has, but have *never* enjoyed these rights due to
                      privilege?

                      Anyone who calls cap and trade Georgist needs to re-study the
                      fundamentals.

                      -ds


                      On 14 Aug 2007 at 18:56, Emer O'Siochru wrote:

                      > Dear all,
                      >
                      > 'Land' covers all natural resources. The argument has moved
                      > on from a single tax, but the principle is the same. We at
                      > Feasta oppose a carbon tax because the government does not own
                      > the right to use the atmosphere, people do. LVT is not a tax
                      > but strictly speaking a rent that belongs to the people and
                      > not to government - although government mediates the
                      > transaction. Georgists should not support a carbon tax.
                      > Instead, we research and campaign for a tradable Green House
                      > Gas Emissions quota for all emissions, starting with
                      > transport.

                      > See http://www.feasta.org/energy.htm

                      > for paper on using cap and share for transport in Europe and
                      > others on why it is a more efficient and equitable fiscal
                      > mechanism than the Cap and Trade or as it expresses here - the
                      > European Emissions Trading System (ETS) - or - a carbon tax.
                      > See capandshare.org for the campaign material.
                      >
                      > Cap and Share evolved in part at least, from Georgist
                      > thinking and we are hoping its acceptance may open the way to
                      > LVT.
                      >
                      > Emer O'Siochru
                      > Feasta; Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability
                      > Dublin, Ireland
                    • Dan Sullivan
                      I was indeed referring to cap and trade, not cap and share as described below. However, there is so much effort behind cap and trade that I doubt we will ever
                      Message 10 of 13 , Aug 15, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I was indeed referring to cap and trade, not cap and share as described
                        below. However, there is so much effort behind cap and trade that I
                        doubt we will ever get to the "share" part unless we oppose quota
                        systems outright.

                        Also, I still think it is better for each country to tax the polluting
                        resources it consumes, whether those resources are taken from the
                        ground or imported. Countries that are resource-rich should do this so
                        the benefits of the resources go to their people generally and not just
                        to the resource holders, and so the heritage of resources is not so
                        rapidly depleted. Countries that are resource-poor should tax resource
                        imports to avoid becoming indebted to foreign powers. In either case,
                        if they use the revenue to offset productivity taxes, their economies
                        will benefit.

                        International measures have the defect that they end up supporting
                        international government. Although I do not oppose international
                        government in theory, we must recognize that most governments
                        contain elements of tyranny, including those that claim to be
                        democratic. (I especially include the United States.) Therefore, an
                        international government is necessarily a federation of tyrannies.

                        Until we have genuine democracy within individual governments, we
                        cannot have trustworthy international government. Just as abusive
                        husbands are often exceptionally well behaved during the courtship
                        phase of the relationship, so are international organizations well
                        behaved when they are seeking power. It is nonetheless wise to be
                        wary, and to have each country endeavor to regain control of its own
                        resources.

                        Quite often, the poorest people live in the most resource-rich nations,
                        and virtually all people would be well off if they had control of their
                        own lands and their own monetary systems. There is no point in
                        distributing wealth to them while wealth continues to be stolen from
                        them.

                        -ds

                        On 15 Aug 2007 at 12:12, Paul Metz wrote:

                        >
                        > It is surprising how the fundamentals are seen so differently.
                        > Perhaps my interpretation helps find common ground (in both meanings).
                        >
                        > 1. Emer describes the project "cap and share", which is an effort to make
                        > the (by Americans invented and pushed into Kyoto) European Emissions Trading
                        > System ETS more effective and fair. I have studied and commented it during
                        > its development and believe it is useful. One weakness just now becomes
                        > visible: the name "cap and share" claims an improvement of the traditional
                        > "cap and trade". It correctly adds "share", but unfortunately deletes
                        > "trade". In fact the proposal wants to stop the free allocation of the
                        > quota, start auctioning them and distribute the revenue among citizens. More
                        > complete description would be "cap, auction, share revenues". It is clear
                        > that "share" promotes the equal right of citizens to use nature and their
                        > shareholdership.
                        > I believe this is georgistic, responding to todays' needs beyond land as
                        > locations and like it anyhow as an improvement of the existing very infant
                        > ETS.
                        >
                        > 2. The common ground of land tax and physical resources and pollution taxes
                        > is obvious: all are natural resources, have economic value and are
                        > increasingly recognised to be the "new scarcities" or "externalities" that
                        > are not sufficiently managed by the current primitive economic model and its
                        > instruments. Ecological tax reform and georgism offer solutions.
                        > This again answers the doubts of Fred, I assume.
                        >
                        > Paul Metz
                        >
                        >
                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From: Dan Sullivan [mailto:pimann@...]
                        > Sent: woensdag 15 augustus 2007 10:44
                        > To: Emer O'Siochru
                        > Cc: Paul Metz; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com; Jeffery J. Smith ( Forum on
                        > Geonomics ); Alanna Hartzok ( Earth Rights Institute ); fred@...
                        > Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Gas tax in USA - with CiDi now
                        >
                        > This is wrong on several levels. First of all, land rent is what one pays
                        > for the privilege of *access* to natural resources, not what one pays
                        > for the social costs created by actually extracting non-renewables from
                        > the earth. The economic effects are just the opposite. That is, a tax on
                        > the rental value of coal lands will hasten extraction, while a royalty on
                        > the value of the extracted coal will slow extraction.
                        >
                        > More importantly, "cap and trade" creates a new property class in
                        > pollution privileges. It is completely and totally un-Georgist.
                        >
                        > An example of how wrong cap and trade would work in the United
                        > States is Duke Energy. Duke has old, nasty, inefficient coal plants,
                        > burning coal from their own reserves. However, their reserves are
                        > running low, and they would soon have to shift their generating
                        > capacity to their nuclear and hydroelectric plants anyhow.
                        >
                        > "Cap and Trade" would mean that others would be paying them, in
                        > perpetuity, for giving up the right to do what they would soon be
                        > unable to do anyhow. And because their plants are among the worst
                        > offenders, they would be rewarded with the most generous caps to
                        > trade away. This is worse than creating a private right to collect rent
                        > from land -- it is creating a private right to collect rent from pollution.
                        >
                        > In contrast, a tax on pollution per se would hasten Duke's conversion
                        > to cleaner systems without rewarding them for having been a big
                        > offender in the past. The revenue from such a tax could be used to
                        > reduce productivity taxes on people and businesses that produce
                        > wealth *without* polluting, or to provide additional services or even
                        > to give each citizen a dividend.
                        >
                        > From a matter of justice, these options are far superior to cap and
                        > trade. If someone is going to pay for the privilege of polluting, why
                        > should he pay someone who used to pollute? Why should he not be
                        > paying the people who breathe or drink the pollution? Similarly, if he
                        > is going to suck coal or oil or copper out of the ground, why should he
                        > be paying others who used to do such things but do them no longer?
                        > Why not pay all citizens, who each have as much right to these gifts of
                        > nature as he has, but have *never* enjoyed these rights due to
                        > privilege?
                        >
                        > Anyone who calls cap and trade Georgist needs to re-study the
                        > fundamentals.
                        >
                        > -ds
                        >
                        >
                        > On 14 Aug 2007 at 18:56, Emer O'Siochru wrote:
                        >
                        > > Dear all,
                        > >
                        > > 'Land' covers all natural resources. The argument has moved
                        > > on from a single tax, but the principle is the same. We at
                        > > Feasta oppose a carbon tax because the government does not own
                        > > the right to use the atmosphere, people do. LVT is not a tax
                        > > but strictly speaking a rent that belongs to the people and
                        > > not to government - although government mediates the
                        > > transaction. Georgists should not support a carbon tax.
                        > > Instead, we research and campaign for a tradable Green House
                        > > Gas Emissions quota for all emissions, starting with
                        > > transport.
                        >
                        > > See http://www.feasta.org/energy.htm
                        >
                        > > for paper on using cap and share for transport in Europe and
                        > > others on why it is a more efficient and equitable fiscal
                        > > mechanism than the Cap and Trade or as it expresses here - the
                        > > European Emissions Trading System (ETS) - or - a carbon tax.
                        > > See capandshare.org for the campaign material.
                        > >
                        > > Cap and Share evolved in part at least, from Georgist
                        > > thinking and we are hoping its acceptance may open the way to
                        > > LVT.
                        > >
                        > > Emer O'Siochru
                        > > Feasta; Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability
                        > > Dublin, Ireland
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.