>There is a very simple way to make a carbon tax progressive - in
>effect that is. Steal the idea behind the sky trust. Take, revenues
>from the carbon tax and divide them equally among the population. The
>result is sort of flatly progressive. The very poor receive
>significantly more than they pay; most of the working and middle
>classes get back about what they pay (some castes a bit more, some
>castes a bit less). The rich pay a lot more than they get back,
>though not in proportion to their income. So very slightly
>progressive, but better than extremely regressive. And in terms of
>winning a popular support, a whole lot better than any other type of
>carbon tax. You might even refer to it as a "No Hair Shirt" carbon
>tax.
The problem with that is you are getting confused about the object of the exercise. The object remember is to discourage carbon dioxide production. You seem to be forgetting that and trying to make it an exercise in redistribution.
It would be better to keep it simple. Compensate people for the extra cost of electricity as a result through direct income support payments, but don't try to make some people richer and some people poorer as part of the carbon tax.
That way people are no worse off as a result of the carbon tax, but they have the option of spending their money differently. Electricity utilities included, who would find it more competitive to generate electricity by methods which don't produce CO2 and hence are not so heavily taxed.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas