Do you agree on having the government tax us over pollution rather than our salaries?

Question

I was watching CNN a few hours ago and I saw good ol' Al Gore talk about Global Warming and some ideas on how to combat it. He also mentioned some ways on how to combat our energy crisis.

With regards to the environment, he said that one idea could be the imposition of tax over the pollution every individual makes instead of the imposition of tax over our salaries.

He further went on to say that if people want to have lower taxes, then we'd have no choice but to lower our pollution production. A little inspirational but, of course, there are problems attached to that idea.

One problem is the determination of the quantity of pollution every individual makes. Another is how to categorize pollution (in other words, what constitutes pollution? What if it's unintentional?).

What are your thoughts on the matter?

Answer 1

An impostition over the pollution every individual makes instead of the impostition of tax over our salaries?

What kind of forked tongue garbage is this? What's the difference? Either way, the individual gets screwed out of their hard earned money.

And where is this money supposed to go? To you Algore? To the UN? I'd rather send my money to Al Qaeda than the UN. The UN is so corrupt, they make the terrorist organization look almost legitimate.

Of course, the Kyoto treaty and Algore have something better in store for us. It's called socialism. If you'll notice, the assumption of Algore is that the rich individuals make more pollution than the poor individuals, thus, they will pay more. It also works on the national level (and displays Algore's true feelings of hatred toward America). The wealthier nations will end up paying more in "pollution taxes" than the poorer nations. This money, of course, will go to the poorer nations which are often in conflict and ruled by dictators, warlords, or no one at large. It's an imposition of socialism.

Finally, when Algore pays his pollution tax for all his travels and his two large houses, then we'll see what he considers fair.

It's not the energy crisis Algore's concerned about. He basically asked for high gas prices and low oil stocks in a book he wrote. He's concerned with the theory of global warming. That's just what it is. For every scientist that provides supposed evidence for global warming, there is another who has evidence against the theory. But the ones who provide facts to the contrary, are usually ignored, or are just written off as being paid by big corporations. How typical. If you can't dispute them, then discredit them. Same BS. Climate change is real. It's also natural. Any addition we as humans make to the change is so insignificant, we shouldn't even think about.

Arguments for global warming:
Higher temperatures
Lower temperatures
Extreme temperature changes
Little temperature change
Icecaps are melting but...
we're heading toward another ice age.
More hurricanes.
More devastating hurricanes.
Fewer hurricanes.
Snow storms in the NE.
Heatwave in the NE
Ice Storms in the MidWest.
Heatwave in the MidWest.
Forest fires in the west (fueled by dead undergrowth the enironmentalists won't let us clean out)

And several more. The contradictions make us dizzy...but I guess its necessary in order to con us out of our hard earned money.

Answer 2

Well I doubt he meant the replacement of salary tax with pollution tax. I've seen some of his suggestions ,so you'd get a tax break if you drive a low emission vehicle and you get a tax break if your home has solar panels. You are penalized for driving a 2.5L TDI SUV and properly so.
It is a program that works, recycling by weight is policy with alot of governments the technology already exists. Again the underlying fact is that these countries have developed these technologies and export them, the US does not and by ignoring these problems there is little investment in the new age and they will inevitably fall behind in product development.

Answer 3

Its time the politicians stopped with the 'song and dance' about taxes. How would I as a common person, do one thing about my carbon footprint? Does that mean one would be taxed by the determination of some local board? Who would decide? and then who will monitor those who will decide, to keep favoritism at bay? Here's the deal, there are many, many real problems in our country and we don't need solutions that the ordinary person can't understand.

Answer 4

It is an interesting concept, but infeasible.

It would mean the military and the chemical industry would be very heavily taxed.

As for the rest of us, well, salary is usually proportionatlly close to ecological effect of our actions, so taxes won't drastically change, except to give people an incentive to minimize pollution.

Answer 5

IT;S THE BIG CORPORATIONS WHO CAUSE THE POLLUTION PROBLEMS.TAX THEM BECAUSE OF THEIR CORPORATE GREED OUR AIR IS BEING POLLUTED AS WELL AS OUR WATER WAYS.IT;S NOT THE POOR OR MIDDLE CLASS CAUSING THE PROBLEMS.IT;S THE BIG CORPORATIONS THAT PRODUCE THE THINGS WE ALL USE THAT CAUSE THE PROBLEMS.A LOT OF THE TIME THE POWERFUL AND RICH KNOW WHAT THEIR DOING TO OUR ENVIRONMENT BUT DON;T CARE.IT;S ALL ABOUT HOW MUCH MORE MONEY CAN WE MAKE.AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR ENVIRONMENT.THEN WANT THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS WORKING MEN AND WOMEN TO PAY FOR THEIR MISTAKES.WHEN THINGS GO WRONG THEY BLAME THE POOR OR MIDDLE FOR ALL THE PROBLEMS THAT THEY MAKE.

Answer 6

Do not like the idea. Not ever one can have low pollution. They cant afford Battery cars and home efficiency. it cost allot to have these improvements made and we should not be taxed because we cannot afford it.

Answer 7

It is a nice thought, and should have been brought up for the sake of completeness of his presentation, but unrealistic in nature, because of the compexity of doing it.

Answer 8

My thoughts are " And this nut was almost President?" When Gore sells his mansion or starts taking commercial flights instead of his private plane I may start taking him seriously. Until then he is the height of hypocrisy to me.

Answer 9

Yes because it's our fault for the polution.

Answer 10

yes... poor people pollute an awful lot!!! they should pay up.

Is that what you're saying?