기본소득형 탄소세의 과세논리와 타당성 검토

The purpose of the carbon tax is to significantly reduce carbon emissions, which have been the main cause of global warming. In addition to the carbon emission trading system(Emissions Trading System, ETS) and the carbon border tax system, the reason for introducing the carbon tax is that it directly imposes a burden on the individual people who ultimately consume fossil fuels and can reduce their use. However, as basic income researchers argue, the logic of the basic income carbon tax used to finance carbon dividends has some contradictions. First, the carbon tax is a tax that has a regulatory nature to reduce carbon emissions through a method that burdens the people. However, indiscriminate carbon dividends can be counterproductive to efforts to reduce carbon emissions. In addition, instead of paying carbon dividends to prevent tax resistance, government must let people expect that cheap alternative energy or reduction technology(CCUS) would be developed before 2050 which is able to let them sufficiently free from the burden of carbon tax. Therefore, carbon tax spending should be prioritized for expanding time-consuming and costly renewable energy support such as expanding hydrogen and electricity charging stations and developing technologies and building infrastructure to improve energy efficiency. Since the carbon tax inevitably imposes on the consumption of carbon-emitting products in order to maintain its regulatory character, the regressive problem of the consumption tax and the impact of rising prices on society as a whole should be thoroughly examined. However, basic income researchers have not provided reasonable evidence that the Switzerland carbon dividend, which is cited as a best practice by them can reduce carbon emissions. The Switzerland’case is not only able to be an objective comparison even within Europe but the effect on tax resistance was not also verified. When a new tax item is created, it is necessary to discuss the validity and efficiency of the collection procedure from the legislative debate stage. Currently, the basic income carbon tax bill not only has some parts to be reconsidered in tax law theory such as double taxation and delegation legislation issues, but also conflicts with the taxable provisions in the collection procedure at the time of taxation. There is no doubt that the groundbreaking methods presented by basic income researchers have helped to some extent to gain public attention to decrease carbon emission. However, they must convince people based on more rational and verified data that show the basic income-type carbon tax can reduce not only carbon emissions but also regressive problems including tax resistance.