Who Needs a Carbon Tax When We Can Raise the Real Estate Excise Tax?

Governor Baker announced today that, as part of his FY 2020 budget, he would be proposing to increase the real estate excise tax in order to fund the Global Warming Solutions Trust Fund.  The Governor stated that, in the long run, the tax increase would provide $137 million annual to fund adaptation efforts.  

Though my friends in the real estate industry may not be happy, I think that this is a fine idea.  They do have a point, though.  Climate change is a little bit bigger than just the real estate industry, and adaption is not just about protecting property.  Governor Baker has been unreceptive to a variety of taxes during his time in office.  His unreceptivity includes both a gas tax increase some years ago and – at least so far – a carbon tax.

At the same time, he’s been saying all the right things about our obligation to address climate change (and, in fairness, his administration has been doing some good things on the climate front).  This famously cautious Governor has been sounding as though he’s really thinking about his legacy as his second term starts and he wants part of that legacy to be connected to the Commonwealth’s response to climate change.

If the Governor has erased the bright line that precludes tax increases, then it’s time to think big.  Time for a carbon tax.  Invest the money in building a renewable economy.  Or return the money to those who would really be adversely impacted by a carbon tax.  Either way, be bold, Governor.  It’s legacy time.

One thought on “Who Needs a Carbon Tax When We Can Raise the Real Estate Excise Tax?

  1. OK – Some clarification would be helpful from the author, as the prose is written with a hide and seek flavor. (1) Is the title tongue in cheek? (2) Would be interested in (honestly) learning more about how adaptation is more than real estate. Would that include agriculture impacts including lobstering? How about beetles eating up pine trees? How about green crab infestations on the coast? Loss of marsh land habitats? (3) Also, shouldn’t we implement tax policies that are aligned with improving our well being? Increasing real estate excise taxes presumably would, at the margin, reduce real estate investments. How about raising revenues through a carbon tax that would encourage shifting away from the fundamental drivers requiring investments in adaptation? (4) Final sentence – either way, be bold. Either which way? Again, we’re playing hide and seek…seems to assume that the governor will be implementing a carbon tax, and the either way is the selection of payouts for the tax revenues associated with the carbon tax. Huh? Seth, I encourage you to spend the time to write plainly, clearly and unambiguously.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *