Newsom's new taxWhen I first saw this press release, I thought: Wow. Gavin Newsom realizes that there's a $250 million budget deficit, and he's actually trying to do something about it. We tax cigarettes because they're unhealthy, why not tax carbon emissions, which are killing the planet -- and raise a little money in the process?
Well, damn: There's a problem. The key word here is "revenue neutral." Newsom's going to give tax rebates to anyone who has to pay this new tax. So it brings in no money for the cash-strapped city.
I understand the argument (let's tax carbon, not jobs) but the payroll tax doesn't tax jobs; it's just a way to measure the size of a company. It's an imperfect measure, as is gross receipts, but it's one of the few possible measures you can use for a tax. Calling it a tax on jobs is completely misleading, and the mayor knows that.
So why not keep both? Why not simply add a levy on commercial carbon use (and maybe residential, over a certain basline, so it won't be a regressive tax on renters), and bring in some cash in a way that also discourages environmental waste?
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
