It’s been a tough legislative session for Vermont progressives, big ‘P’ and small.
Many of them would prefer to shift a greater portion of the tax burden to the wealthy while sparing budget cuts to state programs. They’d also like to see more focus on climate change.
But with federal budget cuts looming, they’ve been swallowing hard and going along with a more conservative approach to state spending.
On Monday, four Vermont House members made polite, tentative steps toward maybe eventually advancing progressive policies that would tackle both taxation and climate change. Perhaps next year — or just sometime.
“What they have in common is they are all things to start a conversation,” said Rep. Sarah Copeland Hanzas (D-Bradford), who proposed phasing out the state sales tax in favor of a carbon pollution tax. “It’s how can we change our tax structure to achieve more of what we want.”
The four lawmakers chose to go about announcing their ideas in an unusual — arguably awkward — way. They held four separate press conferences at four different locations around the state and invited certain media members to each without telling any of them about the other events.
The end result for any dutiful Vermont consumer of news will likely be confusion. One TV station will be talking about a carbon tax while the next will be airing footage on a sales tax proposal.
All these ideas, which backers concede are nowhere near ready for passage this year, will be competing with each other. They represent four different ways of shifting existing taxes toward a tax on fossil fuel usage.
Copeland Hanzas proposed reducing the state’s 6 percent sales tax by 1 percent each year while phasing in an equivalent tax on home heating oil, propane and gasoline. Such a move would help downtown Vermont businesses compete with sales tax-less stores in New Hampshire and online, she said, while giving Vermonters incentive to reduce their use of fossil fuels.
Reps. Martin LaLonde (D-South Burlington) and Johannah Donovan (D-Burlington) each issued different proposals focused on shifting property or income taxes.
Rep. Diana Gonzalez (P/D-Winooski), in her home district and flanked by organizers with the environmental group 350.org, touted a different approach to taxing fossil fuels.
She would have Vermonters pay a tax on fuels, with the state collecting the money and returning it in the form of quarterly dividends based on one’s income. Low-income Vermonters would get a higher return than wealthy residents. The exact details, she said, would be worked out through debate.
The idea, Gonzalez said, is based on “The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends” proposal released earlier this year by former aides to Republican presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George Bush.
Gonzalez said she wants to have a productive debate on the issue after a disastrous attempt in 2015. Back then, legislators pulled a carbon tax proposal almost as soon as it was launched after outcry that it would raise the cost of a gallon of gas. Long after the idea had been dropped, Republicans continued to use it as campaign fodder.
So far, the conversation doesn’t seem to have shifted much. Vermont Republican Party executive director Jeff Bartley blasted the idea of charging Vermonters more for fuel, particularly hitting Gonzalez’s plan.
“Vermonters will not support any proposal for an economically disastrous new carbon tax,” Bartley said Monday. “Especially a proposal like this that tries to hide a wolf in sheep’s clothing by pretending to take money from one of your pockets and put it into another.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Hannah
“A price on carbon pollution won’t kill the industry tomorrow”
You are correct. In fact I doubt it will effect them at all. It will only burden Vermonters with paying higher prices for fuel.
“a price on carbon will keep us from moving back decades”
Pure conjecture, with nothing to back it. The industry is highly regulated, and those regulations are working. In a word, we are already moving forward, not backwards.
“The more the fuel dealers welcome the energy transition, the more they choose life for their industry, and the more they will benefit too from carbon pollution tax revenues. This should make sense to you, since you alluded to it yourself.”
What is this energy transition you are alluding to? Transition to what? If its cleaner fossil fuels your arguing for, thats already happening, and has been happening for years. And we should continue to push toward even cleaner fossil fuels.
Let me ask you this; What is the alternative?
@ Grant Christiansen:
I call BS too. You say the fossil fuel industry in Vermont is already “regulated to death,” and then you say the regulations are working to drive the businesses to adopt cleaner fuels and energy efficiency. A price on carbon pollution won’t kill the industry tomorrow – in the face of our alternative universe federal administration, a price on carbon will keep us from moving back decades. The more the fuel dealers welcome the energy transition, the more they choose life for their industry, and the more they will benefit too from carbon pollution tax revenues. This should make sense to you, since you alluded to it yourself.
As a 23-year-old, climate action for me is not simply about “feeling good.” Young people, poor people, disabled people will pay the price of climate inaction, and already are.
Spencer Putnam:
“Much of the money we now send out of state to buy fossil fuels will instead circulate in our economy and encourage healthy economic development right here.”
I call bull shit. I don’t know about you but the fuel company I use is family run and operated in Vermont. This bill will hurt an industry that is already regulated to death. Let me tell you something you appear to not already know. Sit down. Are you ready? The regulations are already working. The fuel is cleaner, systems are more efficient, and are continuing to improve in efficiency.
Fuel dealers (local Vermont fuel dealers btw) are becoming more diversified in service because by the nature of the industry, they are selling less fuel today than they were 10 or even 5 years ago.
And where do the employees come from? Most are local Vermonters. We are not falling for this BS anymore. Just because it “feels good” to you does not make it fair to the rest of us.
Democrats are calling the proposals tax “reform” or tax “shifting,” because they would reduce or eliminate other taxes in exchange for carbon tax. My prediction is any tax cut would be temporary and soon enough the Legislature would try to restore all the taxes they cut. For example, if the Copeland Hanzas proposal passed, the reduction on sales tax would no doubt be increased right back up to 6% over time. While leaving all new fuels taxes in place. Speaking as someone who naively voted Democrat for 20 years and learned the hard way.
If you want to compete with NH, the solution is to adopt the NH tax regime, i.e., no income tax, no statewide sales tax, and local control of school funding via the property tax; instead of Vermont’s income tax, statewide sales tax, and statewide education tax. NH has been talking the opposite from carbon tax, considering repeal of their renewables mandate and withdrawing from RGGI.
Surprised to see Ms. Gonzales jumping on this bandwagon. Winooski facing some big issues. The opiate crisis. The F-35 basing and its corresponding destruction of hundreds of millions in Winooski property value. Is a desire to tax carbon really the top issue she is hearing about from constituents?
Same thing for Martin LaLonde in South Burlington. Mr. LaLonde is also on the South Burlington School Board and hopefully paying attention to voters. School budget proposal has just failed twice in a row now. Voters do not want increased taxes; and they do not want new taxes. Perhaps Mr. LaLonde could sponsor a bill for more tax transparency from the existing education tax scheme? Something Act 60/68/46 never provided for, perhaps intentionally. . .
What these proposals have in common is that they will help Vermonters reduce their use of fossil fuels. Much of the money we now send out of state to buy fossil fuels will instead circulate in our economy and encourage healthy economic development right here.
OMG, Zuckerbernie, it took you ONE HOUR to troll the Internet after I posted, find a comment that wasn’t about you but mentioned your name incidentally (a comment to article that never mentioned your name, BTW), and respond! How many times per hour do you Google your own name? How about you spend less time trolling the Internet for your name and less time saying the word Bernie?
This is just bizarre. In a year when it looks like we will finally bend the curve on out of control spending and taxation, along comes this foursome with 4 different versions of a tax that clearly cost Sue Minter the election. They just can’t help themselves! #outoftouch
Jeff Bartley and the VT GOP oppose cutting sales, income and property taxes and defend fossil fuel industry profits. Boo.
Cheers to Rep. Diana Gonzalez for reaching across the aisle to join in common cause with Republicans like James Baker and George Shultz who recognize the risks of climate change and have made the case for carbon dividends.
@knowyourassumptions Thank you for putting my name (Zuckerman) with Bernie. Helps with the name recognition : )
It appears that some ideologues in Vermont are absolutely OBSESSED with finding new things to tax, new people to tax, and new ways to tax both, as well as always increasing taxes. It’s really some form of bizarre mentality called taxitis. Why do they start from the normative presumption that everything that moves or doesn’t move should have the bejesus taxed out of it unless and until proved otherwise?
And why stop at carbon? Here’s a bunch of new tax ideas Vermont socialist wannabes can use. Please feel free to add to the below ideas.
1. A wake-up tax. You’re taxed for waking up in the morning.
2. A leave-the-house tax. You’re taxed when you leave the house in the am and every subsequent time during the day.
3. An idea tax. You’re taxed every time you think of something. At especially high rates if you think non-progressive thoughts (including opposing more taxation).
4. A talk tax. You’re taxed every time you talk. Shouting down disfavored speakers at Middlebury College would be exempted. As would pro tax speech.
5. A toke tax. You’re taxed for every bong hit. Oh, wait. Cancel that, Progs wouldn’t survive that tax.
6. A tax for every time Zuckerman says the word “Bernie.”
7. A hypocrisy tax. You’re taxed for every lick of your Ben and Jerry’s free cone day cone.