“IMF calls on U.S. to institute $500 billion carbon tax”
Why ban when you can just price all but the very rich out of access to abundant energy?
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has called upon the U.S., its largest contributor, to levy a $500 billion a year carbon tax on consumers to offset what it calls “underpriced” oil, coal, and other energy products.
This “mispricing” is supposedly leading to “excessive energy consumption,” which is “accelerating the depletion of natural resources” and contributing to climate change.
“The IMF is lobbying on behalf of environmentalist radicals, arguing that not implementing a half-trillion dollar a year carbon tax is a de facto energy subsidy,” Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson wrote in a letter to members of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.
The IMF study, published on Jan. 28, states, “Consumer subsidies include two components: a pre-tax subsidy (if the price paid by firms and households is below supply and distribution costs) and a tax subsidy (if taxes are below their efficient level).”
In a statement, Wilson called the IMF’s view “warped.” He added, “not taxing being construed as a subsidy that economically crowds out anything is as Orwellian as it gets. There is no level of deception these people will not stoop to in order to hide their true ends.”
The study justifies these taxes as preventing climate change: “The efficient taxation of energy further requires corrective taxes to capture negative environmental and other externalities due to energy use (such as global warming and local pollution).”
In a March 27 interview, the IMF’s head of fiscal affairs, Carlo Cottarelli said, “Even where countries impose taxes on energy, they’re rarely high enough to account for all of the adverse effects of excessive energy consumption, including on the environment.”
Cottarelli claimed that not taxing carbon emissions in the U.S. by $500 billion a year “crowd[s] out public spending that can boost growth, including on infrastructure, education, and health care. Cheap energy can also lead to overconsumption of energy, which aggravates environmental problems, such as pollution and climate change.”
“Just think about what Cottarelli said. It’s a completely distorted view of reality. It is higher energy costs and increased taxes are what would actually dampen consumer spending in other areas,” Wilson explained.
Therefore, Wilson said, the IMF-proposed carbon tax is “just a means to an end by increasing governmental power over other these other areas of the economy, like health care and education, for one by raising $500 billion a year in additional revenue.”
“By strangling the economy for money and restricting energy consumption, people will naturally turn to governments for sustenance since producing value in the private sector will come at a much higher premium. What good is a job in the U.S. economy if a person cannot afford to drive there?” Wilson asked.
Remember when the left and the so-called crunchy cons sneered at those of us who saw in these climate change “fixes” a move to justify global wealth redistribution and attempts to truly re-create a two-part global class system of wealthy elite/ruling class and then the rest of us?
And yet here it is, practically unvarnished: a failure to drive up energy costs through excessive taxation means that the government doesn’t have enough money to turn around and help those who are hurt by high-energy costs, effectively keeping the government from controlling the private free citizen.
Which is presented as a bad thing.
The left wants to limit productivity and mobility, because in doing so it promotes dependence — which in turn grants them power — and it increase the amount of generated wealth the must first flow through them, to be used as they see fit.
This is confiscatory. It is theft presented as environmental protection that, as a result of the dislocation it causes, seeks to position itself on the back end as governmental compassion. Which is a bit like having someone cut off your legs to save wear on the carpet, then turn around and offer you occasion wheel cheer access — and expect you to thank them for it.
This is who they are. It’s what they do and will always do. Unless we say no. Because their power, as I’ve noted before, comes only from our willingness to accede to their tyrannical designs.
What will be the spark that convinces us the time to fight back aggressively is upon us?