In fact, the original proposal was more or
less revenue neutral.
Not exact matches
«Even though it's
revenue neutral reform, it sounds like they'll be collecting a lot
less revenue from small businesses.
A
revenue -
neutral carbon tax is also beloved by economists, since it involves raising taxes on something our society wants
less of — pollution — and using the money to lower taxes on the productive economic activities we want more of, such as paid work.
This would serve multiple purposes, of (a) weaning us from dependence on foreign oil and simultaneously depleting terror - exporting countries of their
revenue stream, (b) reducing other pollutants besides CO2, (c) encouraging a more gradual and
less economically disastrous transition from an economony based on a finite resource, (d) slow global warming, (e) move us in the direction of a VAT tax rather than an income tax (actually, personally I don't think e is such a great thing, but as many conversative groups favor it, I don't see why they would oppose a
revenue -
neutral tax on fossil fuels.
The first is that the tax can be
revenue neutral thus offset by reductions in other taxes (how you refund the money can go a long way in addressing the regressive nature of the tax), the other is that with a sufficiently large carbon tax we would end up emitting
less carbon (that is the point after all).
This would create a floor price for carbon pricing which would lead to more predictability (which is needed when you're investing billions in power plants), but the level of that price (not too low) and whether it will be
revenue -
neutral will make a lot of difference.Since taxing something is a good way to get
less of it (f.ex.
While digital legal education is unlikely to be
less expensive than in - person legal education, it may be structured and funded on a
revenue neutral model over a sustainable time horizon, particularly as more widely adopted and mature digital platforms drive cost down.