5 ms·

I'm not one of them but why rich people can't ever have nice things? Just tax the heck out of them to offset whatever damage they cause to the environment, the

I'm not one of them but why rich people can't ever have nice things? Just tax the heck out of them to offset whatever damage they cause to the environment, they're price insensitive anyway.

jon-wood 10y ago
The environment doesn't accept bribes. Taxing the rich doesn't offset damage to the environment.
- mongol 10y ago
  It certainly can if the tax can be put to use that benefits the environment in other ways.
onion2k 10y ago
For that to work you have to ensure there are no loopholes to avoid the taxation, that any offsetting actually works, and that no one tries to "disrupt" the industry by ignoring the rules. Not to mention the environmental impacts you can't offset such as the noise pollution suffered by everyone on the plane's flight path. It's far more effective to ban supersonic passenger flight. There are some "nice things" that money shouldn't be able to buy because they have too much downside for everyone else. Regardless of how much money you have, you still have to share Earth with everyone else.
- paganel 10y ago
  > Not to mention the environmental impacts you can't offset such as the noise pollution suffered by everyone on the plane's flight path. It's far more effective to ban supersonic passenger flight. When you first read a paragraph like this without experiencing what airplane noise pollution actually means you say to yourself: "How bad that can actually be? The airplanes fly at an altitude of 10,000m, I'm sure it can't be that bad. Right?" Wrong. Since the Ukrainian Civil War started lots of large airplanes have been diverted to fly above my parents' country house, somewhere in Eastern Europe. The closest airport is located at about 140 km, but it doesn't matter, because at least once every hour you can hear those damn big "birds" flying 10km above you. It's even more unsettling when you notice them at 5 in the morning, as you had quickly woken up ready to fall asleep again but you now can't because there's that nasty airplane noise making its way through the house's concrete walls. Supersonic flying over populated areas would increase that shitty noise exponentially.
  - LoSboccacc 10y ago
    true but there are routes that are mostly over water, say, London - NY and Tokio - Los Angeles.
    - onion2k 10y ago
      There are 'coastal' airports where noise isn't a huge problem, although even then it's debatable - the Concord project almost failed when New York cited noise pollution as a reason to ban the plane from landing there. The problem here though is that a private jet wouldn't be limited to a few Atlantic routes. The owner would presumably only buy one if it could be flown pretty much everywhere. That means the noise impact would be felt everywhere too.
  - goodcanadian 10y ago
    I'm going to have to disagree. I grew up on a farm, and yes, outdoors on a calm day, you can hear jets flying over at 30000'. But, it is very quiet: easily drowned out by wind rustling in the trees and such. I would be very surprised if you heard it indoors. Perhaps, with a window open, but even then it will be drowned out by things like the refrigerator running. Frankly, it may have woken you up because it was an unfamiliar sound, but certainly not because it was loud. Either that, or the airplane you are complaining about is at significantly lower altitude than you imagine.
    - paganel 10y ago
      It happened more than once, and by looking at that airplane radar app I saw that there are lots of A380s flying above my parents' house each day. It is an airplane-spotter's dream location, though, on a clear and sunny day I was able to count 6 (six) airplanes flying above my head at the same time.
chrismealy 10y ago
Because rich people control politics, and only things that effect them matter (see Gilens and Page). For example, airport security is terrible because rich people bypass it completely. Transit is shitty because rich people have limos and helicopters. And where the prosperous do use transit, like in Switzerland, it's fantastic. If you want nice things you have to take the rich down to the level where regular problems are their problems too.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  I am hardly rich, but I qualify for TSA Pre. I can buy a toll tag to use on toll roads. It is all moving downmarket. It is not the same as being rich enough for general aviation transportation, but if I wanted to get a pilot's license, I could do that too. As has now been demonstrated fully in the US, rich people hardly control politics. They do support one "team" or the other, but I would not mistake that for control.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
1) Taxes-as-transfer-payments rarely work like we intend. These are not lossless transforms, the rule-sets are complex and somebody has to run it. Actual efficiency estimates are very hard to come by. This being said, actual transfer programs in the US seem quite efficient. 2) Americans at least have been described as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires." The odd entertainment value of gawking at rich people as celebrities is really a thing. 3) There is an eternal struggle between the Coase Theorem and Pigou taxation. 4) The people who self-select for wealth may not consume as much as people who do not self-select for wealth. I heard the quote on the show "Vikings", but I imagine it is not original with them - "power is only given to those who will lower themselves to pick it up."

I'm not one of them but why rich people can't ever have nice things? Just tax the heck out of them to offset whatever damage they cause to the environment, they're price insensitive anyway.

jon-wood 10y ago

The environment doesn't accept bribes. Taxing the rich doesn't offset damage to the environment.

mongol 10y ago
It certainly can if the tax can be put to use that benefits the environment in other ways.

onion2k 10y ago

For that to work you have to ensure there are no loopholes to avoid the taxation, that any offsetting actually works, and that no one tries to "disrupt" the industry by ignoring the rules. Not to mention the environmental impacts you can't offset such as the noise pollution suffered by everyone on the plane's flight path. It's far more effective to ban supersonic passenger flight. There are some "nice things" that money shouldn't be able to buy because they have too much downside for everyone else. Regardless of how much money you have, you still have to share Earth with everyone else.

paganel 10y ago
> Not to mention the environmental impacts you can't offset such as the noise pollution suffered by everyone on the plane's flight path. It's far more effective to ban supersonic passenger flight. When you first read a paragraph like this without experiencing what airplane noise pollution actually means you say to yourself: "How bad that can actually be? The airplanes fly at an altitude of 10,000m, I'm sure it can't be that bad. Right?" Wrong. Since the Ukrainian Civil War started lots of large airplanes have been diverted to fly above my parents' country house, somewhere in Eastern Europe. The closest airport is located at about 140 km, but it doesn't matter, because at least once every hour you can hear those damn big "birds" flying 10km above you. It's even more unsettling when you notice them at 5 in the morning, as you had quickly woken up ready to fall asleep again but you now can't because there's that nasty airplane noise making its way through the house's concrete walls. Supersonic flying over populated areas would increase that shitty noise exponentially.
- LoSboccacc 10y ago
  true but there are routes that are mostly over water, say, London - NY and Tokio - Los Angeles.
  - onion2k 10y ago
    There are 'coastal' airports where noise isn't a huge problem, although even then it's debatable - the Concord project almost failed when New York cited noise pollution as a reason to ban the plane from landing there. The problem here though is that a private jet wouldn't be limited to a few Atlantic routes. The owner would presumably only buy one if it could be flown pretty much everywhere. That means the noise impact would be felt everywhere too.
- goodcanadian 10y ago
  I'm going to have to disagree. I grew up on a farm, and yes, outdoors on a calm day, you can hear jets flying over at 30000'. But, it is very quiet: easily drowned out by wind rustling in the trees and such. I would be very surprised if you heard it indoors. Perhaps, with a window open, but even then it will be drowned out by things like the refrigerator running. Frankly, it may have woken you up because it was an unfamiliar sound, but certainly not because it was loud. Either that, or the airplane you are complaining about is at significantly lower altitude than you imagine.
  - paganel 10y ago
    It happened more than once, and by looking at that airplane radar app I saw that there are lots of A380s flying above my parents' house each day. It is an airplane-spotter's dream location, though, on a clear and sunny day I was able to count 6 (six) airplanes flying above my head at the same time.

chrismealy 10y ago

Because rich people control politics, and only things that effect them matter (see Gilens and Page). For example, airport security is terrible because rich people bypass it completely. Transit is shitty because rich people have limos and helicopters. And where the prosperous do use transit, like in Switzerland, it's fantastic. If you want nice things you have to take the rich down to the level where regular problems are their problems too.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
I am hardly rich, but I qualify for TSA Pre. I can buy a toll tag to use on toll roads. It is all moving downmarket. It is not the same as being rich enough for general aviation transportation, but if I wanted to get a pilot's license, I could do that too. As has now been demonstrated fully in the US, rich people hardly control politics. They do support one "team" or the other, but I would not mistake that for control.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

1) Taxes-as-transfer-payments rarely work like we intend. These are not lossless transforms, the rule-sets are complex and somebody has to run it. Actual efficiency estimates are very hard to come by. This being said, actual transfer programs in the US seem quite efficient. 2) Americans at least have been described as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires." The odd entertainment value of gawking at rich people as celebrities is really a thing. 3) There is an eternal struggle between the Coase Theorem and Pigou taxation. 4) The people who self-select for wealth may not consume as much as people who do not self-select for wealth. I heard the quote on the show "Vikings", but I imagine it is not original with them - "power is only given to those who will lower themselves to pick it up."