4 ms·

I don't like it because it's a cop-out. It's no different from 'oh yeah, you think taxes should be higher? why don't you voluntarily pay more taxes then?'

jakelazaroff 10y ago
That's not quite the same — there's no relationship between you voluntarily paying more on your taxes and tax rates. If we agree that tax revenue is too low, then yeah, you're doing a bad thing by not paying more. Here's a better analogy still. Candidate X won a recent election, and you voted for them. If we agree that we knew that candidate was bad before the election, then you, individually, did a bad thing! No one person's vote decides an election, but the fact that millions of other people voted for the same candidate doesn't absolve you of your role in electing them.
- milesrout 10y ago
  > That's not quite the same — there's no relationship between you voluntarily paying more on your taxes and tax rates. If we agree that tax revenue is too low, then yeah, you're doing a bad thing by not paying more. Wanting to raise taxes and wanting higher tax revenue is the same thing. And that does not mean I should pay more in tax voluntarily. I want tax rates to be higher across the board in a way that is fair to everyone. Of course it's not reasonable to 'just pay more tax voluntarily'. That's ridiculous. That's just taxing the people that want tax rates on everyone to be higher. By that logic we should all just pay however much we want. That's stupid. >Here's a better analogy still. Candidate X won a recent election, and you voted for them. If we agree that we knew that candidate was bad before the election, then you, individually, did a bad thing! No one person's vote decides an election, but the fact that millions of other people voted for the same candidate doesn't absolve you of your role in electing them. No, that's a terrible analogy, that's not at all the same thing. I want fair government policy affecting all carbon producers to fight global warming. I don't want to never eat meat, I want meat to be priced taking into account the negative externalities of meat production. If a steak costs $20 because that's how much all the water costs and repairing the environmental damage costs, then that's fair. I don't want just the people that care about the environment to volunteer to do tiny, irrelevant amounts to help. I want the people that are actually causing significant environmental damage to be held responsible. I'm sick of hearing about how to fight climate change. Climate change isn't a person, the people we should be fighting are the people CAUSING climate change, and that isn't me or you.
  - laumars 10y ago
    Nobody is suggesting that climate change should be tackled by _only_ those who volunteer to help. We are saying climate change is _everyone's_ responsibility. There definitely needs to be legislation in place as an "incentive" for those who can't be bothered or simply don't care (businesses and individuals alike) but that doesn't absolve your own responsibility either.
  - jakelazaroff 10y ago
    > Climate change isn't a person, the people we should be fighting are the people CAUSING climate change, and that isn't me or you. Yes, it is. This isn't really controversial or even an arguable position; the tragedy of the commons is a well known and accepted economic theory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
    - milesrout 10y ago
      Rubbish. Big businesses cause almost all environmental damage, worldwide.

jakelazaroff 10y ago

That's not quite the same — there's no relationship between you voluntarily paying more on your taxes and tax rates. If we agree that tax revenue is too low, then yeah, you're doing a bad thing by not paying more. Here's a better analogy still. Candidate X won a recent election, and you voted for them. If we agree that we knew that candidate was bad before the election, then you, individually, did a bad thing! No one person's vote decides an election, but the fact that millions of other people voted for the same candidate doesn't absolve you of your role in electing them.

milesrout 10y ago
> That's not quite the same — there's no relationship between you voluntarily paying more on your taxes and tax rates. If we agree that tax revenue is too low, then yeah, you're doing a bad thing by not paying more. Wanting to raise taxes and wanting higher tax revenue is the same thing. And that does not mean I should pay more in tax voluntarily. I want tax rates to be higher across the board in a way that is fair to everyone. Of course it's not reasonable to 'just pay more tax voluntarily'. That's ridiculous. That's just taxing the people that want tax rates on everyone to be higher. By that logic we should all just pay however much we want. That's stupid. >Here's a better analogy still. Candidate X won a recent election, and you voted for them. If we agree that we knew that candidate was bad before the election, then you, individually, did a bad thing! No one person's vote decides an election, but the fact that millions of other people voted for the same candidate doesn't absolve you of your role in electing them. No, that's a terrible analogy, that's not at all the same thing. I want fair government policy affecting all carbon producers to fight global warming. I don't want to never eat meat, I want meat to be priced taking into account the negative externalities of meat production. If a steak costs $20 because that's how much all the water costs and repairing the environmental damage costs, then that's fair. I don't want just the people that care about the environment to volunteer to do tiny, irrelevant amounts to help. I want the people that are actually causing significant environmental damage to be held responsible. I'm sick of hearing about how to fight climate change. Climate change isn't a person, the people we should be fighting are the people CAUSING climate change, and that isn't me or you.
- laumars 10y ago
  Nobody is suggesting that climate change should be tackled by _only_ those who volunteer to help. We are saying climate change is _everyone's_ responsibility. There definitely needs to be legislation in place as an "incentive" for those who can't be bothered or simply don't care (businesses and individuals alike) but that doesn't absolve your own responsibility either.
- jakelazaroff 10y ago
  > Climate change isn't a person, the people we should be fighting are the people CAUSING climate change, and that isn't me or you. Yes, it is. This isn't really controversial or even an arguable position; the tragedy of the commons is a well known and accepted economic theory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
  - milesrout 10y ago
    Rubbish. Big businesses cause almost all environmental damage, worldwide.