4 ms·

They also can't just move out of cold climates and buy high-efficiency windows whenever they like. And many of them live in rural places where they do drive ine

by Retra 7y ago

They also can't just move out of cold climates and buy high-efficiency windows whenever they like. And many of them live in rural places where they do drive inefficient vehicles and have almost no public transportation.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> They also can't just move out of cold climates and buy high-efficiency windows whenever they like. And many of them live in rural places where they do drive inefficient vehicles and have almost no public transportation. Except that they get a big tax credit with which they can buy high-efficiency windows and a more efficient vehicle. Which then saves them even more in the long run because it remains more efficient indefinitely. Moreover, the argument you're making is that regions that use more carbon will be impacted more by measures to reduce carbon emissions. No kidding. That's true of any solution. But what does that have to do with income level? If anything it's the opposite -- there are more affluent people in cold places like the Northeast and suburbs with poor mass transit, and more poor people in the South and Southwest where it's warmer and commutes are shorter for the poor because real estate costs less so people can live closer to their jobs.
- Retra 7y ago
  >Except that they get a big tax credit with which they can buy high-efficiency windows and a more efficient vehicle. They will? It sounded like people with less efficient vehicles/heating would get smaller tax credits, not larger. So why would they get a big tax credit? It seems to me that the people getting a big tax credit would be those who have no children, live in warm climates, and have modern high-efficiency homes and vehicles. Not sure why anyone would think that includes poor people... >Moreover, the argument you're making is that regions that use more carbon will be impacted more by measures to reduce carbon emissions. The argument that I am making is that knowing a person is 'poor' is not sufficient to predict their emissions or amenities, and extrapolating the lifestyle of one poor straw person onto all of them is stupid. >If anything it's the opposite -- there are more affluent people in cold places like the Northeast and suburbs with poor mass transit, and more poor people in the South and Southwest where it's warmer and commutes are shorter for the poor because real estate costs less so people can live closer to their jobs. Lol. Maybe facts are actually important here.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > They will? It sounded like people with less efficient vehicles/heating would get smaller tax credits, not larger. Everyone gets the same tax credit. It's the people who burn more carbon that pay more taxes. But if you use your tax credit to reduce your carbon footprint to below average, or if it already was, then you're receiving more than you're paying. And buying those things save you money in general (nobody gains from losing heat to poor insulation), so you come out ahead twice, at the expense of Richie Rich now paying twice as much to fly around in a private jet without changing his behavior. > have no children You're assuming the children (or their parents) don't get the tax credit. There is no reason that would have to be the case. It should be a fixed amount per-person and children are people. > The argument that I am making is that knowing a person is 'poor' is not sufficient to predict their emissions or amenities, and extrapolating the lifestyle of one poor straw person onto all of them is stupid. Then the argument you're making has nothing to do with whether a carbon tax is regressive or not. Finding one poor person with a high carbon footprint doesn't tell you anything about the average. And poor people in general do not consume more resources in absolute terms than more affluent people -- that's nearly the definition of being poor. > Lol. Maybe facts are actually important here. Indeed. So who burns more carbon per capita in actual fact, people with more money or people with less money? It would be quite surprising to discover it was the latter. But it isn't: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/1/16718844/green-consumers-climate-change https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/1/1671884...
    - Retra 7y ago
      Poor people are poor. They don't have money to afford things. That's what it means to be poor, and that's who we're talking about when we're talking about poor people. So it is a matter of definition that poor people cannot afford to decrease their carbon footprint. I've said nothing to compare poor people to affluent, or made any argument dependent upon demographics whatsoever. (In fact, I've been arging that the only thing safe to assume about poor people is that they are poor.) And poor people cannot afford new cars and homes. Given this, they will not be getting new cars and homes unless someone else pays for them. If you give them a tax credit and then immediately charge them for having inefficient homes/cars, then you haven't changed anything. They still can't afford new cars or homes, because they are still poor. Certainly they will not spend their <$5000 on highly efficient cars and homes.. both because this is not enough money for such things, and because they have more pressing needs to spend that money on. The only way a tax policy will not be regressive is if you give more money to poor people than to rich people. Giving people discounts for taking specific actions does not achieve this in any way, because rich people always have more options, more easily taken, than poor people.

by Retra 7y ago

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> They also can't just move out of cold climates and buy high-efficiency windows whenever they like. And many of them live in rural places where they do drive inefficient vehicles and have almost no public transportation. Except that they get a big tax credit with which they can buy high-efficiency windows and a more efficient vehicle. Which then saves them even more in the long run because it remains more efficient indefinitely. Moreover, the argument you're making is that regions that use more carbon will be impacted more by measures to reduce carbon emissions. No kidding. That's true of any solution. But what does that have to do with income level? If anything it's the opposite -- there are more affluent people in cold places like the Northeast and suburbs with poor mass transit, and more poor people in the South and Southwest where it's warmer and commutes are shorter for the poor because real estate costs less so people can live closer to their jobs.

Retra 7y ago
>Except that they get a big tax credit with which they can buy high-efficiency windows and a more efficient vehicle. They will? It sounded like people with less efficient vehicles/heating would get smaller tax credits, not larger. So why would they get a big tax credit? It seems to me that the people getting a big tax credit would be those who have no children, live in warm climates, and have modern high-efficiency homes and vehicles. Not sure why anyone would think that includes poor people... >Moreover, the argument you're making is that regions that use more carbon will be impacted more by measures to reduce carbon emissions. The argument that I am making is that knowing a person is 'poor' is not sufficient to predict their emissions or amenities, and extrapolating the lifestyle of one poor straw person onto all of them is stupid. >If anything it's the opposite -- there are more affluent people in cold places like the Northeast and suburbs with poor mass transit, and more poor people in the South and Southwest where it's warmer and commutes are shorter for the poor because real estate costs less so people can live closer to their jobs. Lol. Maybe facts are actually important here.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > They will? It sounded like people with less efficient vehicles/heating would get smaller tax credits, not larger. Everyone gets the same tax credit. It's the people who burn more carbon that pay more taxes. But if you use your tax credit to reduce your carbon footprint to below average, or if it already was, then you're receiving more than you're paying. And buying those things save you money in general (nobody gains from losing heat to poor insulation), so you come out ahead twice, at the expense of Richie Rich now paying twice as much to fly around in a private jet without changing his behavior. > have no children You're assuming the children (or their parents) don't get the tax credit. There is no reason that would have to be the case. It should be a fixed amount per-person and children are people. > The argument that I am making is that knowing a person is 'poor' is not sufficient to predict their emissions or amenities, and extrapolating the lifestyle of one poor straw person onto all of them is stupid. Then the argument you're making has nothing to do with whether a carbon tax is regressive or not. Finding one poor person with a high carbon footprint doesn't tell you anything about the average. And poor people in general do not consume more resources in absolute terms than more affluent people -- that's nearly the definition of being poor. > Lol. Maybe facts are actually important here. Indeed. So who burns more carbon per capita in actual fact, people with more money or people with less money? It would be quite surprising to discover it was the latter. But it isn't: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/1/16718844/green-consumers-climate-change https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/1/1671884...
  - Retra 7y ago
    Poor people are poor. They don't have money to afford things. That's what it means to be poor, and that's who we're talking about when we're talking about poor people. So it is a matter of definition that poor people cannot afford to decrease their carbon footprint. I've said nothing to compare poor people to affluent, or made any argument dependent upon demographics whatsoever. (In fact, I've been arging that the only thing safe to assume about poor people is that they are poor.) And poor people cannot afford new cars and homes. Given this, they will not be getting new cars and homes unless someone else pays for them. If you give them a tax credit and then immediately charge them for having inefficient homes/cars, then you haven't changed anything. They still can't afford new cars or homes, because they are still poor. Certainly they will not spend their <$5000 on highly efficient cars and homes.. both because this is not enough money for such things, and because they have more pressing needs to spend that money on. The only way a tax policy will not be regressive is if you give more money to poor people than to rich people. Giving people discounts for taking specific actions does not achieve this in any way, because rich people always have more options, more easily taken, than poor people.