3 ms·

The reason that people in cities won't pay the tax is that they have buses and trains available. That is not available to the people from the countryside. You

The reason that people in cities won't pay the tax is that they have buses and trains available. That is not available to the people from the countryside. You can't just say stop polluting but not give any alternative mode of transport for this people. What about the rest of the people of this the planet who don't live in a city? Should they just shut up and take it? Easy to say when you are not the one who has to pay. The NIMBY syndrome in all its splendor.

ip26 8y ago
You can't just say stop polluting but not give any alternative mode of transport for this people. Part of the reason they don't have alternative modes of transport is because driving is so (artificially) cheap that other modes have a hard time getting off the ground & staying operational. Yes, I know it's chicken & egg.
mywittyname 8y ago
People in cities pay higher costs for housing and sacrifice space, comfort and privacy for the amenities of city life. They also suffer the most from localized pollution. The entire point of the tax is to incentivize people to use less fuel. How they accomplish that is their own prerogative. They can move, travel less, buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, look to increase their earning, or any of a number of alternatives not listed here. This is precisely why usage taxes are so effective. Rather than prescribing a solution to a problem, you let people figure out the best way to minimize how much they are effected.
scarmig 8y ago
Consider a road. As use of it increases, repairs to it are costing more and more. In response to that, the government puts a use tax on it, to pay for the repairs. In response, all the people who need to drive on it to get to work get outraged. Why don't we charge the people who don't drive on it???!? It's unfair that we have to pay for it just because we use it! Hopefully you can see how that's ridiculous. And that directly parallels the carbon tax. The solution is to encourage behavior patterns that generate less carbon. That can mean moving to cities. It can also mean localities providing more public transit. Or labor negotiating more telecommuting options. A nice, non-distortionary way to deal with the problem is to take the tax, and either reduce other taxes equivalently (for every euro the carbon tax pulls in, reduce the VAT by one euro) or to just hand out the total proceeds of the carbon tax to everyone directly. The disincentive to pollute remains, so you still end up with a fairer economic system.
freeone3000 8y ago
It's not even a tax on cars. It's a tax on fuel for cars. They could: Drive less. Just go other places less. Increase fuel efficiency, such as with a smaller vehicle. Switch to a hybrid or electric car. These are all choices that otherwise, they would not make, because it's cheap enough and easy enough to run a diesel car that alternatives aren't important. The point of a carbon tax is to change that equation, such that people start looking for alternatives.

ip26 8y ago

You can't just say stop polluting but not give any alternative mode of transport for this people. Part of the reason they don't have alternative modes of transport is because driving is so (artificially) cheap that other modes have a hard time getting off the ground & staying operational. Yes, I know it's chicken & egg.

mywittyname 8y ago

People in cities pay higher costs for housing and sacrifice space, comfort and privacy for the amenities of city life. They also suffer the most from localized pollution. The entire point of the tax is to incentivize people to use less fuel. How they accomplish that is their own prerogative. They can move, travel less, buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, look to increase their earning, or any of a number of alternatives not listed here. This is precisely why usage taxes are so effective. Rather than prescribing a solution to a problem, you let people figure out the best way to minimize how much they are effected.

scarmig 8y ago

Consider a road. As use of it increases, repairs to it are costing more and more. In response to that, the government puts a use tax on it, to pay for the repairs. In response, all the people who need to drive on it to get to work get outraged. Why don't we charge the people who don't drive on it???!? It's unfair that we have to pay for it just because we use it! Hopefully you can see how that's ridiculous. And that directly parallels the carbon tax. The solution is to encourage behavior patterns that generate less carbon. That can mean moving to cities. It can also mean localities providing more public transit. Or labor negotiating more telecommuting options. A nice, non-distortionary way to deal with the problem is to take the tax, and either reduce other taxes equivalently (for every euro the carbon tax pulls in, reduce the VAT by one euro) or to just hand out the total proceeds of the carbon tax to everyone directly. The disincentive to pollute remains, so you still end up with a fairer economic system.

freeone3000 8y ago

It's not even a tax on cars. It's a tax on fuel for cars. They could: Drive less. Just go other places less. Increase fuel efficiency, such as with a smaller vehicle. Switch to a hybrid or electric car. These are all choices that otherwise, they would not make, because it's cheap enough and easy enough to run a diesel car that alternatives aren't important. The point of a carbon tax is to change that equation, such that people start looking for alternatives.