Economic modelling says that a revenue-neutral carbon tax in the US
would
create
jobs and economic growth, and increase the income of working
people, as well as accelerating the reduction in CO2
emissions.
The crucial point is that the tax increases every year, and investors
know that it will increase every year. This means that the pressure
on investors to avoid future fossil fuel use is very strong.
The model for this study was revenue-neutral, but I don't think that a
carbon tax has to be revenue-neutral. Perhaps the state should keep
some of the money to spend on useful things such as infrastructure;
that too puts the money back into circulation.