War die CO2-Steuer als Lenkungssteuer gedacht oder eine reine fiskalische Steuer um den “Haushalt zu sanieren” oder Doppelcharakter?
fiskalisch ggf. weil: hohe Staatsausgaben; z.B.
Infrastruktur bezahlen (Glasfaser, Brücken, Straßen, Schienennetz, usw.),
Pensionen der ganzen Staatsbediensteten des Beamten-/ Verwaltungsapparates
Soziale Ausgaben (Asyl) und Ökologische Projekte (Energiewende)
usw.
It was a means to hurt drivers.
Steering tax – simply means that the goods are just so expensive that you will buy and consume less of it because you can’t afford it anymore! e.g. fuels become so expensive by this tax for the “Otto Normal Consumer” that it will only make the most necessary ways with its vehicle! Thus his consumption is “steered”! With such word creations, the people are simply evaporated (still more evaporated than it is already!)! And what state will a tax go through the “Lappen” for which the mass of the – stupid – people also steals applause and advocates this abortion? In any case, the consequences of the flood disaster in Pakistan could be “combated” with this money. – it is questionable whether it has arrived at the right places at all! (I say only) Pakistan!) Or it is now also possible to illuminate further mosques with LED lamps! etc. etc.
Officially as a steering tax.
Should the statement be incomparable.
This has not been done, revenue flows into the budget, not intended.
As with all taxes with a thought-out steering effect, we also like to take the revenue and lead it to the budget.
It was designed as a steering tax, but of course the revenues are still very much taken and used. However, they are not used as intended.
see the as a steering tax or motivation as the government does not consider reasonable solutions why and how CO2 should be saved they want to achieve that every individual and, above all, corporations start with
Apparently to reduce the causes: overacidification as a result of the largest greenhouse gas CO2 and heating effects due to absorption and reflection on CO2 particles/woods
on the other hand, it is essential for photosynthesis, for higher basic conversion by algae, bacteria, phytones (trees), …
all this is right and beautiful but according to climate researchers, a drastic CO2 reduction would only be in approx. 100 years of positive impact on climate.
What if by then oceans give more CO2, why ever, volcanoes break out and massively pollute CO2 into the atmosphere.
As it currently seems to save only Western countries CO2 or have planned it.
Over the next 100 years, the emissions will multiply in India, Asian countries.
Then we or our grandchildren can watch as the Earth is tipping over and say that we have done everything to improve the climate.
Other countries and force majeure have prevented this.