digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Gore Calls For Immediate Freeze on C02 Emissions, End of Payroll Taxes

thinkprogress.org — Highlights from Al Gore's speech on global warming, delivered Monday at NYU Law.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • yugandhar, on 10/12/2007, -8/+53makes sense to me!! anyone thiks this doesnt make sense?
    • cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -50/+30What Al Gore wants to do is take ALL the CO2 the US of A emits, and place it into a lock box. Say it with me now, "lock box".


    • plarp, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22sounds like a plan to me.. no income tax in texas.. then no national income tax.. i'll sell my house, and no longer pay property tax.. and i won't buy anything ever..

      now i only have to get around the whole dying thing..
    • Drewboy64, on 10/12/2007, -17/+30At least Gore is doing something about it. Better than our president. Gore's movie about global warming, really depicts what is really going on, and how we really need to get our act straight before to much harm has been done (not to sound like a hippie lol).
    • peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+36Makes sense to me too, I think that's the problem with the proposition. It makes sense, American citizens benefit from it, not just a few companies or a small segment of the population....and it's probably going to be very popular amongst voters....which means it probably won't ever happen.

      Am I a cynic? Am I a pessimist? There's a Kazakh proverb I recently heard.

      A pessimist is a well informed optimist.
    • peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -34/+15@Drewboy

      To say that President Bush is doing nothing about Pollution or Global warming is just misleading... those are his goals and he's working hard to achieve them... think he's succeeding too.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -34/+21"We need to stop C02 emmisions!! Now I'm going to fly around in my personal jet that emits more C02 than most of population puts out in a year and tell all of the US."
    • seanmac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11---After reading comments furthur down I'm not so sure of this. Someone who is familiar with Gore's proposal should clarify, please -----

      As I understand it, the article seems to refer to payroll taxes (employers have to match what employees pay for social security, medicare, etc.) not income tax. So you'd pay the same amount of taxes.
    • andreatwork, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9peritonlogon:
      Yeah, he's working hard, alright. That's why he's not entering the Kyoto protocol! No... wait...
    • omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16"Now I'm going to fly around in my personal jet that emits more C02..."
      Apparently you've never heard of carbon offsets.
    • Obvioustroll, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@seanmac:

      Dude - either you aren't old enough to work, or you don't live in America.

      In America, there are many different kinds of taxes. Local taxes. Property taxes. "Work Privelege" taxes.

      Payroll taxes are assessed against both employees and employers. At the federal level, there are two. One tax is used to fund Social Security, and one is used to fund Medicare. Both are flat taxes, and both tax you at about 5% of your pay. No deductions, no withholding, no variable rate.

      To make it even better, the government then turns around and charges your *employer* the same amount.

      In other words, these two taxes take 20% off the top of what your pay would be, if your employer gave it to you instead of having to give it to the government.
    • ButtholeSurfer, on 10/12/2007, -20/+2"Manbearpig is real, I'm super cereal you guys... Why wont anyone listen to me..."
    • Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3LOL, you seriously believe the employers would pass the additional payroll taxes on to their employees.

      Not in the United Corporate States...
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4Trivia Question: what hurts the enviornment more?? CO2 emissions or Iranian nuclear warheads falling in Tel Aviv??
      Just curious.
    • Obvioustroll, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Do I believe they would pass the savings on to us? No. But they certainly might use it to hire more people.
    • aamer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@plarp:

      While I agree with Al Gore's plan, I don't think he's calling for an end to Federal Income Tax. I think he is just calling for an end to other payroll taxes. So you would probably still have to pay income tax. Then again, I may not understand what his plan is :-)
    • 0crabby0, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8I can't get my electrical utility to read my electric meter on my business correctly.

      And now someone's going to tax me on a sliding scale for invisible CO2?

      One legal challenge and this whole idea falls apart.
    • peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Apparently people's sense of irony isn't working... my last comment was a joke... I didn't say 'Bush is working hard to prevent global warming or pollution' I said he was working hard to achieve them. I think his policies achieve both, that is, they don't work to reduce or prevent them.
    • tsteele93, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Doesn't make sense to me. What happens when businesses react by drastically reducing CO2 emissions (you could start with your cars - you know, take the catalytic converters off and start emitting CO again - just a thought since the enviro-whackos are the ones who came up with the catalytic converter which produces extreme heat on hundreds of millions of automobiles each day and pump out CO2 all day.)

      Also, hey let's look at Al Gore's CO2 output! http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm reports that "as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

      Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

      But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths."
    • Bellorum, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Global warming is baloney. Flavor of the month. What Orwell would have called one of those "smelly little orthodoxies contending for your soul." I'm old enough to remember when the "experts" were saying we were headed for another ice age. By the way, Kyoto was voted down by the U.S. Senate 95-0. Dems and Republicans. Don't blame Bush.
  • petenicely, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23Al Gore is our Huey Long.

    The Dems are going to have to ride his ideas to win back Congress.
  • FIGJAM, on 10/12/2007, -13/+19Gore wants to eliminate payroll taxes in favor of a tax on CO2 emissions....Since we all emit CO2 as a by product of respiration, does that mean we all get taxed too????

    /Scarcasm off
    • e68895f, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11"Since we all emit........does that mean we all get taxed too??? "

      only if you sell that CO2 in plastic bags....
    • stan205, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think that's the point. Those that work get taxed through payroll anyways so it's a replacement.
    • isthisnametaken, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18How about just get rid of payroll taxes in general?

      Then he'd get my vote.
    • trejrco, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17Forget the CO2 talk, just think FairTax ... /TJ
    • longboarder543, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20So because I live in a big city and commute a long way to work, (80 miles round trip), now I get raped by big oil and the government. Sounds good to me.
    • YossarianDent, on 10/12/2007, -11/+11Yep, pretty much. Ever consider carpooling/mass transit?
    • inkyblue2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15@longboarder

      yep, that's precisely the point. a nation willing to endure 80 mile commutes is a nation that uses a ***** of gas and emits a lot of CO2. taxing that would be an incentive to go find a closer job. fortunately, that closer job will pay better under the new system than it would have under the old system because of the lack of payroll taxes. win/win situation!

      in theory, anyway. the amount of havoc this would wreak on the economy is beyond my meager ability to fathom. imagine-- companies see their business models go upside down overnight, $25 worth of books from amazon.com suddenly cost $200 to ship to your house, heating costs shoot off the charts, new englanders forget what california fruit even tastes like. even if these changes are phased in over 10 years, they'll still rock every boat in the water, and sink more than a few.

      i'm all for a pollution tax. i'm all for a *substantial* pollution tax. i think ramping up a pollution tax over the next, say, five years, seeing what effects it has, and *then* talking about how it fits into the nation's revenue picture is the way to go. complete replacement of the payroll tax is at least economically dangerous, and more likely insane. it's not like 100% of the nation's expenses scale with the amount of pollution we produce, so why structure taxation as if they did? the present system undervalues pollution as an externality, yes, but that is not an argument for going hog wild and substantially overvaluing it.
    • billyliberty, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Sarcasm off? After reading your contribution, when was sarcasm ever on?
    • Zensal, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I'm a UPS worker and my job would disappear. Not only that, but I couldn't get to work anymore. Some of you are lucky and live somewhere where there is a great public transportation system. Then there are people like me who have almost non-existent public transportation in a large city. I have no other means of getting to work.

      I don't think he realizes what this would do to the economy. Our nation was built on the principal that we are big, open and don't mind moving around. The cost of shipping/commuting/breathing would skyrocket.

      Instead of making my life worse, why don't we just put a smaller tax on pollution and then use that money to research alternate means of getting energy. No one else is going to fund it. Oh, wait. Big oil is buying the government. Never mind.
  • Obvioustroll, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27Great holy havoc! A democrat just proposed replacing Social Security taxes with a consumption tax?!?

    But I thought Social Security didn't need reform?
    • Sentrosi, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20LMAO haha....yeah...I thought Social Security was the "perfect system". Read the comments on that site, someone actually said that "payroll taxes are just another right-wing method of forcing tax burden on the poor". A stupider thing I have never heard.
    • irregardless, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1oop. dern. can't undo or delete. ignore.
    • omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"'payroll taxes are just another right-wing method of forcing tax burden on the poor.' A stupider thing I have never heard."

      But here's one way it's true: there's a cap on the payroll tax, so the burden of taxation is higher on the poor and middle class than it is on the wealthy. One solution to the Social Security "crisis" is to remove this cap, but Republicans would never hear of it (they wouldn't even raise the minimum wage without getting rid of the estate tax).
    • Obvioustroll, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That's very true. Unfortunately, any time any one - of either political party - attempts to change how these taxes are levyed, their political career abruptly ends.

      One of the biggest problems is that both programs were launched as "insurance policies" rather than government welfare. In other words, the expectation was that each person was paying for their own care. Now, that's not true, but after selling to the middle class that way, they get very upset when you talk about either cutting their benefits or raising their "premiums" just because they aren't poor.

    • CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@omaryak. There IS a cap on SSI but not on Income Tax. In fact, the Income tax is "progressive", which means that the more you make, the higher your rate is.

      http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=150856,00.html
    • 0crabby0, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Gore is courting the "Let someone else pay taxes", vote.

      Why not just tax someone on how he or she weighs? Or by their body fat?

    • Thuktun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Flatulence tax. Methane is a greenhouse gas, after all.
    • imtigger2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3ocrabby... PERFECT idea. It's the obese (those that choose to overeat, not those that have no choice, by genetics as one example) that clog up our health care systems, costing us all a ton of money, and allowing unhealthy food choices to be profitable in the U.S. Obesity is a disease that's killing millions of people. Tax the bad health choices and maybe that will help us ALL live healthier, happier lives.

      I know it sounds crazy, but it's reality here in the U.S.
    • hobbers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"But here's one way it's true: there's a cap on the payroll tax, so the burden of taxation is higher on the poor and middle class than it is on the wealthy. One solution to the Social Security "crisis" is to remove this cap, but Republicans would never hear of it (they wouldn't even raise the minimum wage without getting rid of the estate tax)."

      Well, if you are willing to raise the cap, then you better be willing to raise the benefits.

      Last I checked (2004), the cap stood at 12.4% (employee + employer) on $87.9k. If I'm making $150k and I have to pay SS tax on that, then I better be getting increased benefits. But this wouldn't fix the "crisis", so I'm guessing you meant "raise the cap, but keep the benefits the same". Sure, screw me over by forcible taking my money and redistributing it among the population. Then where's my motivation to work my ass off 80 hours a week and be productive when joe-blow-sits-on-his-arse down the street is just going to get my money in the end through SS?

      The people who make $1 million a year probably wouldn't change their lifestyle if the cap were raised (or eliminated) even if they fought the tax increase. But you know who really gets screwed? Your neighbor down the street that is innovative in his small business or works independently to make just a little more than everyone else ... the people who make $100k, $150k, $200k, $250k. Those are the people that would really get screwed. But most people don't think about them when they talk about taxes, they just think about the rich fat cats and how they have too much money (even if they worked for it honestly).

      Also, I don't understand what the problem is with minimum wage (on both sides - republican and democrat). If you want good, reliable help, I doubt you'd pay someone a pathetic $5.15 an hour. Even if the task is just emptying a garbage bin. Most no-skill low level jobs that I've seen in the past 5 years start off around $7 or more an hour. They should raise the minimum wage, but I don't think it would affect too many businesses ... maybe some filthy sweatshop or something.
    • TheTardis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0reforming the source is different the reforming the entier system of social security
    • Sentrosi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1In my opinion, Social Security is overrated anyway. My income goes to pay for some lazy ass to live in relative comfort who has never worked a day in his or her life even though they are perfectly able to. The amount you get is not greater than or equal to the amount you receive. Sounds like Communism to me.
  • NakedSnake, on 10/12/2007, -12/+13It might make sense, but it's not possible. "Let's just turn the country off for a couple days and get this in order. After we've found ways to reduce, then we can go back to life as we know it. And taxes. Sooo.... whaddya think?" *chorus of cheers from the crowd along with chants of "impeach Bush" and "no blood for oil"*
  • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4???? is he runnig for prez yet or not...???
    • gwalbridge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7He has openly said that he will not be running for president. I know that politicians lie out of their teeth every second of every day, but I'm sure he knows that he would lose a lot of votes for his aggressive views on emissions and "green" power. It simply wouldn't be worth it.
    • koko775, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Wrong. He in fact said that he had not ruled it out, but had no plans to run.
    • gwalbridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@koko775 -- Wrong. He was on the Daily Show, at or near the time An Inconvenient Truth was released, and said that he does not plan on running for President.
    • benhocking, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@gwalbridge: You just said the same thing as koko775. Having said that, I like Gore and would vote for him if he did run, but I sincerely hope he does not run.

      On a humorous note, he actually HAS said he will run in 2008:
      http://www.valleyofthegeeks.com/Features/Gore.html
  • Joeymarshmallow, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9No payroll taxes? There goes Social Security and Medicare.
    • irregardless, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8payroll taxes are separate and distinct from social security and medicare taxes. those programs would continue to be funded.
    • biffsputnik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@irregardless

      From TFA: "For the last fourteen years, I have advocated the elimination of all payroll taxes — including those for social security and unemployment compensation — and the replacement of that revenue in the form of pollution taxes — principally on CO2."
    • irregardless, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2biffsputnik

      thanks for the quote. i haven't had time to RTFA, just going by what's posted here. but the fact of the matter is that payroll taxes ARE different than the FICA taxes that support medicare and social security. The comments here don't make clear that mr. gore proposes eliminating those as well.
    • benhocking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As I understand it, there are two forms of employer taxes: FICA and FUTA/SUTA. Employer FICA is SS/Medicare and is 7.65% just like employee FICA. FUTA is the federal unemployment tax, and SUTA is the state unemployment tax. So, getting rid of employer taxes WOULD mean getting rid of half the income stream of FICA (the other half being employee taxes). However, his plan is to replace this income stream with the CO2 tax and not to get rid of FICA altogether - hence the reason they're mentioned in the same breath.
  • gabacho, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18Screw Gore. He's messing up my plan to buy cheap real-estate in Antarctica. It's a buyers market down there now, but in 50 years? Oooh boy
  • ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9What happens when we start using nuclear power and other renewable power more and eventually tax income goes down so low that we cant pay for all the entitlement programs like social security, medicare, wellfare......
    ...
    ...
    I AM ALL FOR THIS!
    • dave1021, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Depsite what Rush tells you, nuclear power is not "renewable"... though you're certainly welcome to move in next to a waste dump and watch the "renewing" take place.
    • newezra, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Best point yet. So Gore is proposing that we fund government services by relying on the release of CO2 into the atmosphere so that it can be taxed?

      What's wrong with this picture?

      **exhales a big breath and sends $0.01 to the government**
    • ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Who's Rush? Like the band?

      And while it's not techinically renewable, spent fuel can be reused, and it also produces less radioactive waste than coal and no CO2.
    • TheTardis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Again, we would tax the waste.

      But nukes are stupid solution . . . it's the waste . . . but if you want to make sure only you and your descendants live in the vast wasteland this would create . . . no never mind people would want to cross the boarder . . . and you'd hate that.
    • benhocking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@TheTardis: Not that I'm a fan of nuclear waste, but do you realize that our biggest current source of electricity - coal - releases more uranium into the atmosphere per joule than is actually consumed by a nuclear power plant to generate the same amount of energy? That's on top of SO2, CO2, etc.
    • ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As I said, fuel can be reused to decrease the amount of waste. There's also some promising technologies for reducing it too. I think you are overestimating the amount of waste nuclear would produce. A large nuclear reactor produces 3 cubic metres of spent fuel each year. In countries with nuclear power, radioactive wastes comprise less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes. Look at France, nuclear power accounts for 80% of their power. Do you see any 3 armed Jacques do you?

      http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.htm
      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5369610
  • Cylus, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Poor guy hasn't aged very well has he?

    Anyway, can someone explain to me how he can be so certain that our tax revenues wouldn't change at all? Wouldn't this shift the burden of taxation around considerably?
    • partyonaisle7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Gore was referring to the government's revenue--the burden is different but Washington can still pay for all its crazy fun programs. My guess is that he couldn't guarantee the exact same amount of revenue--just the same order of magnitude.
  • j3one, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4In other news, Al Gore has re-invented the Internet!! 3.0 is here!

    hmm, lets see how far the magic green carpet can take him...

    btw, that was a joke site right?

  • lumnar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Excellent idea. If we don't end up baking ourselves alive, the solution will be something like this. People who think this is unfair or would hurt the economy forget that environmental damage ends up costing someone eventually. It's just a matter of who. So really nothing is saved by not shifting the burden onto corporations. In fact, by encouraging corps to be more efficient, the overall economy benefits because of less waste (i.e. increased productivity per dollar).

    The only argument against this, is an an argument for the status quo. That the current economy and the current people who are made rich by it are best served by keeping things more or less the same.
  • boohoo, on 10/12/2007, -19/+5i tried to read the title, but fell asleep after the word "gore".

    hey, why does gore just invent a solution to this problem. solving global warming cant be much harder than inventing the interweb. what a dunce.
    • sibhod, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8But apparently you woke up fresh, and ready to troll.

      Freezing CO2 emissions is part of the solution.
    • ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5How is freezing CO2 emissions even possible? We all go back to living in the 1600s for a few days/weeks/months?
    • sibhod, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@ViperDiamao

      A freeze means no increases in CO2 emisisons, not a sudden stopping of anything producing CO2. The problem is pollution regulations are continually loosened, yet disguised as a 'Clean Air Act' or whatever. Gore just wants us to, at the very least, stop the increase of CO2. Then from there we can work on actual reductions.
    • Thuktun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I think he meant a freeze in the *rate* of emissions, not freezing emissions altogether. At first, that's what I thought it said, too, and immediately thought it was an Onion article.
    • blisk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2um dude.. he means we stop making any more new CO2 per year. Thats how we "freeze" co2 emissions. If you read the article Gore believes that all this talk about reducing emissions in the future is misleading the public to think that change is really occurring. So right now instead of increasing CO2 emissions, which we are doing, we at least keep levels where they are now, "FREEZING" them, and try to reduce them through his idea of taxing emissions.
  • awfulshot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10its CO2 not C02 (zero)
  • aschmack, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5Quick everyone, stop breathing!
    • molecule, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Silly Digg'er, no one listens to Gore!
  • JLSaborio, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4nice idea, but will never work. He will never get CO2 emissions to freeze while they plan shard reductions and the economic concequences would be drastic as well. this is just a politician talking out of his ass, but to his credit, it is te first time in 2 years a Democrat actually proposes a plan instead of just yelling what the problem is.
    • ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I have to agree. This is an actual plan that is outside the box, whether it's a good idea or not, at least it's finally something thats been put out there.
  • kgool, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Okay, isn't there something about taxing something you are trying to eliminate? If you are successful don't you kill your own revenue stream or at least reduce it? I am not smart enough to throw out nice catch phrases like "ad hominem" or Benjamin Franklin misquotes, but I can interject a "Catch-22."
    • Obvioustroll, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Yes. And a lot of people are going to worry about that. I especially like how people on the thinkprogress site claim right-wingers are going to freak because they use payroll taxes to oppress the poor.

      Uh. Right. Remind me which political party created those taxes.

    • TheTardis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2See you can make changes every few years about what you tax.

      So we can tax this and then after its no longer a problem
      (We don't remove the tax because it's a problem)

      Then we tax another "problem".

      A "problem" could be defined as "things that kill the planet" "harm people" we could tax away a lto of problems. Take a breath my republican friends -- this could help CAPITALISM.

      Before you hate me think about how maybe you might consider such an idea. It achieves many of your ends despite benefiting a "liberal" cause. You would sill get all superior by giving the liberals everything they wanted and still be "right."

      You can overlook that it was a liberal's idea . . . I don't care.
  • srodolff, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Ok, everybody.......

    DEEP BREATHE..........HOLD IT....................
    .
    .
    .
    .
    THUD!
  • badfrog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"For the last fourteen years, I have advocated the elimination of all payroll taxes"

    I don't remember that in 1999... I remember him saying the rich don't pay their fair share and tax cuts were a bad idea.
  • HoldenMyOwn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7How does the "lockbox" fit into this equation? ;)
    I'm a die-hard Republican, but if this means paying less taxes, I'm in.
    Dems cutting taxes is quite a reversal.
    • kingyubba, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9um, Republicans expanding the powers of the goverment is a reversal...

      what happened to smaller government?
  • HaeYu, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3"Payroll taxes are the state and federal taxes that you, as an employer, are required to withhold and/or to pay on behalf of your employees."
    That means Payroll Taxes are Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, and income taxes. Gore is referring to the employer contributed portions of Social Security, medicare, and unemployment. Employer portions make up HALF of your benefits.
    http://www.alllaw.com/articles/tax/article5.asp

    The headline is wrong. He's not eliminating payroll taxes, he's diverting the funds to other uses. He's creating a new tax. Let's spell it out for the 'tards since his speech sure doesn't.

    What will replace those funds? How will Social Security be funded? How will disability be funded? Unemployment? He's cutting them in half and eliminating unemployment. If we can just clip Social Security & Medicare, fine, but that won't happen. AARP and other organizations won't let Social Security go unfunded and Democrats politicians are too whipped to eliminate it.

    So what he does is replace the Payroll Taxes with a Pollution Tax and then create new taxes to fund Social Security, Disability, and unemployment. Then he'll claim the Pollution Tax wasn't a new tax. Brilliant. (yeah ok).
    Another scheme might be to eliminate those federal programs but force states to create and fund them. They will need to raise taxes to do so. He hasn't created new taxes, the states have. This isn't revenue neutral no matter how you cut it.

    A new program requires new funds, or other programs to be cut.
  • techweenie1, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8I still think the most important issue at hand is killing ManBearPig!
  • bizsumpark182, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Makes alot of sense. Too bad Bush would choke at the idea of something like this.
  • WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5I wonder if he'll cut down on his personal jet travel to give his speeches? Probably not. He's definitely a "Do as I say, and not as I do." type of guy.
  • LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Who is he calling? Since Gore currently is just selling books and movies while flying around the country, he would be better off calling for a pizza.
  • bolky21, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Uh, what happens to tax revenue once CO2 is halved???? Govt revenue will be halved. How will he balance the budget then? Oh yeah, if he was president when he enacted this, he would be long gone by the time CO2 was greatly reduced and wouldn't have to make up the revenue shortfall.

    Also, how would you measure the amount of CO2 every business in the USA creates??? Sounds like another Govt bureaucracy that replaces the IRS with FCDA (Federal Carbon Dioxide Agency).

    Lets be real here.
    • blisk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Um i would suppose once the tax was successful they would get their revenue back through other means.

      By the way monitoring CO2 emissions is possible, its ongoing, and currently the proposed system is using CO2 "credits" which are bid for in EPA auctions in case companies go past their current emission limits. The idea being that bidding for these emission credits it would cost companies more than to simply find new ways of reducing their emissions. Its semi-sucessful, but not nearly enough. The amount of credits out there hardly make it expensive enough for companies to consider changes in their emissions and simply write off bidding for the credits as a cost of doing business.
    • TheTardis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Uh, what happens to tax revenue once CO2 is halved????"

      We move to other types of pollution and energy waste? That would help us be more competitive on the world scale--right? I said HELP not FIX. We could also, my republican Friends, TAX corporations that used "guest workers." Thus creating an incentive to higher citizens first. See that moves labor into the class of goods we currently 'tax" on import.

      Maybe . . . we could come to try to find a way to agree on a new better model ... Oh sorry let the hating continue. That is SO much more productive.
      Call me a "liberal" or some other label that's so much better than thinking.
    • TheTardis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'll say this one more time . . ..

      See you can make changes every few years about what you tax.

      So we can tax this and then after its no longer a problem
      (We don't remove the tax because it's a problem)

      Then we tax another "problem".

      A "problem" could be defined as "things that kill the planet" "harm people" we could tax away a lot of problems. Take a breath my republican friends -- this could help CAPITALISM. It would force efficiency in the market.

      Before you hate me think about how maybe you might consider such an idea. It achieves many of your ends despite benefiting a "liberal" cause. You would sill get all superior by giving the liberals everything they wanted and still be "right."

      You can overlook that it was a liberal's idea . . . I don't care.
  • drag, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Thank god this guy didn't make it to president. This has to be one of the most ***** thing I've ever heard.

    Lower payroll taxes + raise taxes on doing business = no f-ng difference you and I will still get paid jack *****. Him just saying stuff like "But, instead of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees, it would discourage business from producing more pollution." shows that he has either has no clue what he is talking about or lost touch with reality long long ago. Keeping in mind that this guy was a favorite author of the Unabomber (Earth in the balance) I think that the second is most likely.

  • mikekeen, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Finally.. Al Gore impresses me.
  • nimbletimble, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1It's a shame politicians always seem far more caring once they're out of any position of authority. The main contender to Blair in UK is the conservative leader "Dave" Cameron is on a bit of a green tip, but nothing really adds up. When pushed he can't say how we'll save the world, but will nonetheless. That said, i like Gore, he invented the internet too right? ;-)
  • grazny, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7too bad he didn't won in 2000. He would be such a great president....
    • trickrick1985, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Another brilliant Digg liberal
    • WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5"too bad he didn't won in 2000."

      LOL! Now that's a testament!
  • antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5And how are we going to pay for everything? Believe it or not, our taxes are actually used. What we need is a reorganization, not an elimination.
    • lumnar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8RTFA. He's not arguing for a change in tax rate, but a shift in tax burden.
  • eth3l, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Dumbest. idea. ever. For a multitude of reasons not the least of which is simple economics. Does it not make sense that if the Federal Budget is driven by taxes raised in relation to C02 emissions, the feds would *want* high C02 emissions?

    I mean DUH.
    • garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Uhm... Since when did the Feds own all corporations? This isn't 1955 USSR.
  • loudnobnoxious, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Global warming is just a theory. Getting rid of payroll taxes and putting the tax on CO2 is just pointless. It isn't going to change anything. If someone needs CO2 they are still going to buy it. I'm confused as to what this is supposed to accomplish (I'm guessing Democratic votes).

    Now onto something useful like trejrco said:
    The FairTAX is supported by the Republican party. The Democrats oppose it (because a Republican Senator is backing it, John Linder). Now have the Democrats explain why they hate it, probably because statistically they are the ones who raise taxes. Also, Democrats are the group responsible for witholding *cringes and shudders*
  • bradley8424, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7This "idea" is only one of many perfect examples of why Al Gore is not currently the President of the USA.
  • j20jeep, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6May I suggest that he also initiate the CO2 reduction by holding his own breath.
  • fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Yes, cut the payroll tax. You want to boost the economy? Put more money directly in the hands of a large number of people on a weekly/biweekly/monthly basis. I been saying this since Bush first proposed tax cuts.
  • spz104, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5What happens if this leads to massive CO2 emission reductions? Then where does the revenue come from? Unless Al Gore will always claim there is an impending global catastrophe caused by big business. It's possible to do with something as abstract as "global warming" He needs a some crusade to prop himself up on.
    • garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3You just put back on the payroll tax.... or find another tax...

      If getting rid of CO2 emissions is the worst of your worries...
  • infra172, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5So you don't have to pay payroll tax but you no longer have a job. Brilliant! Algore has done it again.
    • washingtonydc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2economic success and growth of GDP is not mutally exclusive with environmentally sound policies. we're the greatest nation on the planet--we can use our innovation, creativity and ingenuity to advance the economy while reducing pollution. for example, simple things like building hybrids or carbon trading systems do not mean less jobs--just the opposite.
    • infra172, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This carbon trading business is *****. The US is the cleanest country on the face of the globe. The world would be cleaner if we banned all manufacturing outside the United States and made everything here.
  • Carteludo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2While I completely disagree with Gore's scare tactics in his recent movie (and absolutely don't buy into the junk science of it), I think he has a huge point here. We need to stop increasing our CO2 emission.

    However, taxing it seems... difficult... to say the least. How do you really monitor everybody's pollution levels? Cars certainly aren't our only source of CO2. If you're going into the realm of tax reform, look into the FairTax; it's a much better and much more comprehensive solution.

    Not that I'm a terrible Gore supporter, but I think he'd be a lot more successful in his environmental crusade if he didn't try to bring other huge issues along for the ride.
    • washingtonydc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5care to elaborate on junk science?
    • Carteludo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3What I essentially mean by "junk science" is that it is an absolute claim based on speculation, not on scientific observation. If you look at what Gore says in An Inconvenient Truth, he says "if" temperatures rise, these catastrophes will likely be the result.

      The problem is, we don't know that temperatures will rise. We can't know that. We have a hard enough time predicting tomorrow's weather, let alone what it will be in a decade or a century. Despite popular opinion, the scientific community is very divided on this.

      Check out this article about scientists publically speaking out against the movie; I think they make some very important points:
      http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

      (Note, though, that I'm not advocating going ahead and polluting like crazy because we aren't going to break the planet; we definitely need to learn to better clean up after ourselves, because we just *don't know* what the long-term consequences will be... I don't think scare tactics are the way to go about raising awareness. That discredits the argument.)
  • Aruna, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1I haven't seen it posted in the comments yet, but I'm a big fan of the Fairtax.. www.fairtax.org. I highly recommend the book. It's an eye opener to the reform of taxes in the states. I think it'll bring back jobs into America, and everyone will be happier. If Gore supports the FairTax, he's got my vote if he runs.
    • loudnobnoxious, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Haven't seen it in the comments? Are you kidding? It's in the comments twice before you!

      I've read the FairTAX book and love it.

      Remember the back cover or even the beginning of the book? It is supported by a Republican Senator. You have to know that Democrats aren't going to support something that a Republican does. It's partisan politics nowadays.
  • tandrews, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1
    We've frickin' got to force corporate America to take their share of the tax burden. The reason we're suffering is because the big-business snakes are busy writing off fake losses through KPMG and other shady accounting firms. Big biz pays MUCH less of the country's tax burden now than they did in the '40s.

    So I agree with Al on the intent... the change itself sounds like it could be dicey.
    • loudnobnoxious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Corporations pay "Corporate Tax" now but the problem is that they don't pay it. They pass it off to you already included in the price of the item. No one is suffering because big business has lobbyist to fiddle with the system. We are suffering because of this system that includes the IRS and any and every tax you can think of.
  • mikeazorin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2http://duggmirror.com
  • BrewmasterC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Interesting proposal.

    Effects:
    1.Make US taxpayers spend billions re-figuring their finances to cope with the new law, but there would be savings not having to compute payroll tax.
    2. Make employers shift their energy needs to "CO2 neutral" sources (bio/wind/nuclear).
    3a. Make human labor in some areas cheaper than machine labor, which might in turn lower unemployment, but also make the economy less efficient in the near term.
    3b. Supercharge the service sector and take a whack at the manufacturing sector. Now even more US goods will be produced abroad. This would probably raise the trade deficit even higher on all manufactured goods, but for some service areas (like call centers) these jobs might come back to the US.
    3c. Non-manufacturing stocks would shoot up like a rocket, manufacturing stocks would tank.

    IMHO tax policy should aim at being sector-neutral so we can reap market benefits and only skim enough to stave off inflation/deflation. Shifting some environmental costs from enforcement to taxation might be more efficient, but doing it at this scale could be harmful.

    Currently most US taxes fall into the areas of property, wages, capital gain, and transaction based. Property is very cheap to figure, but isn't dynamic. Wage taxes are assessed only to working class citizens. Capital gain taxes only hit larger transactions. Transaction based taxes are highly dynamic, but have the sometimes nasty effect of artificially "eliminating the middle man" because the tax compounds as goods travel through the manufacturing pipeline.

    Off the top of my head a small property tax at the local level to encourage efficient land use, a small sales tax to get dynamic tax revenue, a larger CO2 based sales tax to offset environmental costs, and a capital gains tax as the main valve for inflation/deflation seems like the right mix.

    Although, if the congress's spending was tied to GDP increases we wouldn't need taxation at all to curb inflation...
  • jkdrum, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5CO2 tax? Why not a CH3 Tax? Tell Gore not to hold his breath on this one. WHAT AN IDIOT!
    • TheBowerbird, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2CH3? You mean CH4, or methane? CO2 is far and away the largest source of greenhouse gases being emitted. Combustion sources don't produce methane, and thus the problem with both your post and focusing on CH4.
    • infra172, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yes. Lets tax CH4. Outlawing cows won't have a single negative effect on our economy.
    • jkdrum, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Kinda funny I called him an idiot while I wrote the methane formula wrong.
    • Carteludo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ Bowerbird

      You have to realize, however, that the VAST majority of CO2 emissions are naturally occuring. All the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels amounts to only three or four percent of all CO2 emissions. And then on top of that, the bulk of what causes the "greenhouse effect" is water vapor in the atmosphere, not carbon dioxide.
  • Antebios, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Gore is a Douche Bag, but I'm all for getting rid of taxes!
  • Veretax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4heh I knew Gore had gone nutball on us, but goodness. This kind of tax scheme gives no incentive toward actually conserving fuel, and it gives no incentive to discourage folks from commuting. Like it or not peopl ehave those 80 mile commutes because of where companies have built themselves. Its the corporations at fault not the people. Typical liberal, it isn't the government's fault its the people ha ha ha. I'm going to laugh about this for some time.
    • Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Actually the first thing it would do is make everyone conserve fuel and energy to lower co2 emmisions and avoid the taxes. It would also make commuters more likely to carpool and if the taxes were applied right it would make companies want people to work from home.

      How well it would work really depends on how and where you decide to tax pollutants.

      It's an interesting idea, the biggest flaws are in getting it executed. It would cause a massive ecenomic upheaval. Probably some short term misery, followed by a large lift to the economy as new industries figured out that making solar panels and windmills and the parts to make them is suddenly very profitable. Along with a host of other industries as well. The problem being they would all be new or newer companies making all the money. The existing power base would never let it happen.
  • lebaige, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is EXACTLY why Gore will never become president. Freeze CO2 emissions? How? Tax pollution emissions? How? He's unrealistic and unreasonably focused on environmental issues almost exclusively. That sort of narrow minded view of the world will never appeal to the masses.
    • boohoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2its possible, we simply need to STOP evolving/growing. We should just stop dead in our tracks and nothing should ever change, lest it hurt CO2 levels or indanger grubs in the ground, or any other reckless thing.

  • nokla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm getting tired of Gore's CO2 emissions.
  • tsteele93, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why does this (below) get negged, but with no discussion? It sure looks like digg is just a "how many liberals can we get to mod down stories and opinions we don't like - and hey, didja see the funny video about the cubicle?" kind of a place. Netscape is looking better day by day.

    Doesn't make sense to me. What happens when businesses react by drastically reducing CO2 emissions (you could start with your cars - you know, take the catalytic converters off and start emitting CO again - just a thought since the enviro-whackos are the ones who came up with the catalytic converter which produces extreme heat on hundreds of millions of automobiles each day and pump out CO2 all day.)

    Also, hey let's look at Al Gore's CO2 output! http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm reports that "as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

    Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

    But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths."
  • boohoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 i've seen the house in nashville. its huge and in the elite non-white area of belle meade. look up "belle meade" and you'll see a full history of "richest of the rich".
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.