1000 USD / mo / pp for the US is 12k/yr * 300m

ie., c. 4 Trillion USD / yr or c. 20% of GDP (20 T)

The total amount taxed in the US is already at that level (4T).

For the carbon tax to raise 20% of GDP, it would need to raise as much as all present taxes do (income, sales, etc.). Levying that much on consumption (ie., obtaining the present total amount of tax merely from products people buy) would raise prices catastrophically.

Only about 30-40 million people would likely net extra income with a UBI. i.e. If you increase my income taxes by $1000 but then give me a $1000 UBI check, its a wash. For some reason folks struggle to wrap their head around that part. Which is why I think a negative income tax is better mechanism.

Wouldn't negative tax mean that social programs would still be needed almost in the current scale to account for people with no income?

Wait, so my taxes would only double? Not being sarcastic at all: this makes UBI sound possible even without a carbon tax. The top bracket would still be lower than what it was in 1960.

Not quite. The tax take would double from a consumption tax.

Total retail sales (https://www.statista.com/statistics/443495/total-us-retail-s...) is c. 6T.

Assuming that most of the 4T comes from taxing the activity represented by retail sales (a very safe bet), you need to get most of 4T from 6T. Ie., you're basically doubling the prices of retail goods -- including food.

To extend on that, the US releases about 5.1 billion tons of CO2 in a year. Each gallon of gasoline release roughly 20 pounds of CO2. That means that 1 gallon of gas would be taxed at $7.84 if we pollute at our current rates.

Tbh, I would be very much in favor of this. I know it's not a popular opinion, but things that pollute this much should not be the easiest/cheapest solution.

Just to calibrate that with some prices elsewhere:

1 US gallon = 3.8 litres

$7.84 per gallon = $2.06/€1.75 per litre

Russia €0.55/$0.65 per litre

China €0.80/$0.94

Spain €1.66/$1.95

Germany €1.29/$1.51

UK €1.21/$1.42

Netherlands €1.67/$1.96

Don’t forget that $1T of that total $4T is just spent on social security — this could potentially replace social security, so that number could go towards UBI instead

I’m not sold on UBI but it does sound possible

It means more than doubling the federal budget, which already exceeds tax revenue considerably. UBI of $1000/mo might be doable in Zimbabwe as long as you don’t care what 1000 Zimbabwe dollars actually buys you....

The price increases would be offset by the UBI. It's zero sum at an aggregate level.

Back of the napkin calculation is not a source. Economy is a bit more complex.

edit: Imagine being downvoted for asking for a legitimate source on HN. Because rejecting UBI by making a simple multiplication is a sufficient explanation instead of researching all the secondary effects that a UBI would bring. Yeah, we've solved it there, I guess! Economists should go find some real jobs /s

> There's nothing about being poor that forces you to emit more carbon when compared to other people, as far as I know.

Being poor means having less or no choices. Low income, no or negative capital. You practically have to go with the cheapest at the moment, even if it is more expensive in the long run.

So, a low upfront cost gasoline car Vs a more expensive electric car with potential lower TCO.

And that doesn't account for the fact that they have no discretionary spending. If everything becomes more expensive, the rich person can simply buy less.

I still think it's a sensible idea, simply because the currently socialised costs (co2 emissions & poverty related ones) become explicit.

Cheapest option is to not buy a car and or go by public transport or a bike.

And the reason why gasoline cars are as affordable as they are now is that the carbon tax is not here and cars are heavily subsidized in general. Carbon tax isn't even really a tax, it's more akin to removing a subsidy (you cannot pollute for free anymore and make someone else pay the costs)