3 ms·

> Income tax hikes are dead on arrival while Republicans control the Senate and White House. Such a steep increase also isn’t likely to find much support among

> Income tax hikes are dead on arrival while Republicans control the Senate and White House. Such a steep increase also isn’t likely to find much support among many congressional Democrats. And rightfully so. When pretty much everyone benefited from lax climate controls and externalities that are not directly included in the price of a product or service, why should only on special group pay for it? If there were a global move towards pricing in climate change into the end price, however that may work, I would strongly suggest that everyone has to pay their share. Or am I missing something here?

johnny313 8y ago
> When pretty much everyone benefited from lax climate controls and externalities that are not directly included in the price of a product or service I think the argument would be that the ultra-wealthy benefited more from a carbon-based economy than the average worker, in the form of their accumulated fortune.
- cleansy 8y ago
  I think that argument is not valid. The "ultra rich" would benefit from any kind of capitalistic economy, they are "ultra rich" because they have more capital than 99.9% ( or whatever) of the population. And most of this fortune stems from having shares in businesses. However, IF we would have taxed the greenhouse gas emissions into every product, maybe not even the middle class would have been able to afford it. But since gas was cheap, a lot of people were able to afford having a car, building houses, getting to their jobs without moving their homes and were able to improve their lives. I do see the point in your argument, I just think it would be a fairer solution to tax everyone for the climate change linear to their consumption.
  - goalieca 8y ago
    Consumption is one way to see it. But if, as you were saying, society benefited a lot from greenhouse gases then perhaps tax those that benefited most from our society :)

johnny313 8y ago

> When pretty much everyone benefited from lax climate controls and externalities that are not directly included in the price of a product or service I think the argument would be that the ultra-wealthy benefited more from a carbon-based economy than the average worker, in the form of their accumulated fortune.

cleansy 8y ago
I think that argument is not valid. The "ultra rich" would benefit from any kind of capitalistic economy, they are "ultra rich" because they have more capital than 99.9% ( or whatever) of the population. And most of this fortune stems from having shares in businesses. However, IF we would have taxed the greenhouse gas emissions into every product, maybe not even the middle class would have been able to afford it. But since gas was cheap, a lot of people were able to afford having a car, building houses, getting to their jobs without moving their homes and were able to improve their lives. I do see the point in your argument, I just think it would be a fairer solution to tax everyone for the climate change linear to their consumption.
- goalieca 8y ago
  Consumption is one way to see it. But if, as you were saying, society benefited a lot from greenhouse gases then perhaps tax those that benefited most from our society :)