9 ms·

In the end, businesses will pass on the cost of the tax in the form of inflated prices, hurting the poor most. For their trouble, the poor get the promise of a

by unit91 9y ago

In the end, businesses will pass on the cost of the tax in the form of inflated prices, hurting the poor most. For their trouble, the poor get the promise of a government check later. What could go wrong?

vkou 9y ago
If you don't want people without money getting hurt, you may want to consider finding an alternative to capitalism.
- supremesaboteur 9y ago
  Because, historically capitalism has been the single most efficient machine to lift people out of poverty ?
  - vkou 9y ago
    It doesn't seem to be the best way to get the American poor out of poverty. If it were, there would be far more economic mobility in the US.
    - gwright 9y ago
      Unfortunately the word 'poverty' here just doesn't mean the same thing at all. Most American's tagged as 'poor' or 'living in poverty' are pretty darn rich compared to global measurements of 'poverty'. Same word, different metrics. Another confounding practice is that official US poverty statistics don't include many forms of government assistance. So a statement like '14% of American's live in poverty' is before this assistance. With this representation of data, you could give those 14% $10,000/month in government benefits and they would still be 'living in poverty'. Here is a nice calculator you can play 'what if' measurement games with to see how it affects the poverty rate: http://uspovertydata.com/povcal/index.php http://uspovertydata.com/povcal/index.php
  - johnchristopher 9y ago
    A quick google search shows there isn't a consensus on that argument.
  - kapauldo 9y ago
    And also the single biggest contributor to carbon emmissions. Lets decouple these and fix the bad one.
- bjelkeman-again 9y ago
  It works well in Northern Europe. The Nordic model is capitalism mixed with equality, transparency, a shared healthcare system, free education, proportional representation and a few more things. http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21570835-nordic-countries-are-probably-best-governed-world-secret-their http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21570835-nordic...
  - narrowrail 9y ago
    The Nordic countries are the size of a small US state(~6M), which is why many people in the US prefer to have these programs managed at a state level rather than apply to ~310M US citizens.
    - mtgx 9y ago
      I've never really understood this argument. Perhaps it would make sense if the U.S. was a poor country, but U.S. is a very rich country per capita. It can afford to pay everyone healthcare, especially if it was serious about increasing hospital and pharmaceutical competition as well as medical services transparency. It also requires changing some priorities like say not being involved in 7 wars at once. The current administration has just increased the military budget by another $60 billion. But in 2016 the media on both sides was all about how the U.S. "couldn't afford to pay $70 billion a year for free public college." It's bullshit. It's all about priorities. Saying it should be up to states makes no sense, because obviously a lot of states wouldn't be able to afford it this way. It would be like saying let's let the Nordic villages handle their own healthcare. That wouldn't work, would it? But it works at a more centralized level because the country is rich per capita. And so is the U.S.
      - nonplus 9y ago
        Thanks for sharing, I had not really considered that viewpoint. I have just looked at the complexity cost of a system distributed to 10s of millions that can't afford to fail at any point. From that biased, simple, and domain specific view a smaller system has made more sense to me personally.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
0xcde4c3db 9y ago
The poor are presumably also the least equipped to handle the negative externalities of unpriced carbon emissions, so how is a carbon tax worse for them?
mtgx 9y ago
The poor in the US, like those living in coal power plant areas, can't afford to pay for the cancers and other body damage they get from inhaling coal for a couple of decades. So I would argue using coal is affecting them much more.

by unit91 9y ago

vkou 9y ago

If you don't want people without money getting hurt, you may want to consider finding an alternative to capitalism.

supremesaboteur 9y ago
Because, historically capitalism has been the single most efficient machine to lift people out of poverty ?
- vkou 9y ago
  It doesn't seem to be the best way to get the American poor out of poverty. If it were, there would be far more economic mobility in the US.
  - gwright 9y ago
    Unfortunately the word 'poverty' here just doesn't mean the same thing at all. Most American's tagged as 'poor' or 'living in poverty' are pretty darn rich compared to global measurements of 'poverty'. Same word, different metrics. Another confounding practice is that official US poverty statistics don't include many forms of government assistance. So a statement like '14% of American's live in poverty' is before this assistance. With this representation of data, you could give those 14% $10,000/month in government benefits and they would still be 'living in poverty'. Here is a nice calculator you can play 'what if' measurement games with to see how it affects the poverty rate: http://uspovertydata.com/povcal/index.php http://uspovertydata.com/povcal/index.php
- johnchristopher 9y ago
  A quick google search shows there isn't a consensus on that argument.
- kapauldo 9y ago
  And also the single biggest contributor to carbon emmissions. Lets decouple these and fix the bad one.
bjelkeman-again 9y ago
It works well in Northern Europe. The Nordic model is capitalism mixed with equality, transparency, a shared healthcare system, free education, proportional representation and a few more things. http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21570835-nordic-countries-are-probably-best-governed-world-secret-their http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21570835-nordic...
- narrowrail 9y ago
  The Nordic countries are the size of a small US state(~6M), which is why many people in the US prefer to have these programs managed at a state level rather than apply to ~310M US citizens.
  - mtgx 9y ago
    I've never really understood this argument. Perhaps it would make sense if the U.S. was a poor country, but U.S. is a very rich country per capita. It can afford to pay everyone healthcare, especially if it was serious about increasing hospital and pharmaceutical competition as well as medical services transparency. It also requires changing some priorities like say not being involved in 7 wars at once. The current administration has just increased the military budget by another $60 billion. But in 2016 the media on both sides was all about how the U.S. "couldn't afford to pay $70 billion a year for free public college." It's bullshit. It's all about priorities. Saying it should be up to states makes no sense, because obviously a lot of states wouldn't be able to afford it this way. It would be like saying let's let the Nordic villages handle their own healthcare. That wouldn't work, would it? But it works at a more centralized level because the country is rich per capita. And so is the U.S.
    - nonplus 9y ago
      Thanks for sharing, I had not really considered that viewpoint. I have just looked at the complexity cost of a system distributed to 10s of millions that can't afford to fail at any point. From that biased, simple, and domain specific view a smaller system has made more sense to me personally.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

0xcde4c3db 9y ago

The poor are presumably also the least equipped to handle the negative externalities of unpriced carbon emissions, so how is a carbon tax worse for them?

mtgx 9y ago

The poor in the US, like those living in coal power plant areas, can't afford to pay for the cancers and other body damage they get from inhaling coal for a couple of decades. So I would argue using coal is affecting them much more.