7 ms·

I really want a carbon tax especially on investment, it's the only solution to the investment problem, isn't it? But imagine the riots in France as the price o

I really want a carbon tax especially on investment, it's the only solution to the investment problem, isn't it? But imagine the riots in France as the price of gas goes up. I can also imagine the News Corp/Sinclair spin on it in the USA. It has to be supplemented with other programs to take the load off of average people. A really disproportionate percentage of the burden needs to be taken on by investors. Doesn't it? What would that entire package look like?

whatshisface 7y ago
>A really disproportionate percentage of the burden needs to be taken on by investors. Fifty four percent of equities are held by households and mutual funds. Add in another 15% for pensions, and you arrive at roughly 70% of the stock market belonging to people saving for retirement. Investors are the "average people." Source: https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/54aff08969beddb2240a8ce2-750-592.png https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/54aff08969beddb2240a8...
- BlueTemplar 7y ago
  I'm afraid that people able to save for retirement are less and less average these days ?
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    This report says that 1 in 5 have saved less than $5000 for retirement, which means that 4 in 5 have a substantial retirement investment. Although there is a big problem brewing (1/5th of all Americans is a huge number of people), those who would stand a lot to lose if something went wrong in the financial world are still the majority. https://news.northwesternmutual.com/planning-and-progress-2019 https://news.northwesternmutual.com/planning-and-progress-20...
    - BlueTemplar 7y ago
      Hmm, right, I guess that partially paid mortgages still count as savings, as they should ?
    - danzig13 7y ago
      More than $5000 is not a substantial amount
      - whatshisface 7y ago
        Maybe not to someone who has a million dollars, but $10,000 to someone who has $10,000 is 100% of their net worth. "People are not saving enough for retirement" and "people would get significantly hurt if their retirement savings were damaged" are not contradictory statements.
        danzig13 7y ago
        Savings would not be significantly damaged if 1-1.5% in gains was missed on a $10,000 on a fossil fuel divested portfolio. That might be a significant overstatement of the differential. Disclaimer: 1-1.5% would make a big difference over time
- consumer451 7y ago
  > ... and you arrive at roughly 70% of the stock market belonging to people saving for retirement. Investors are the "average people." This only applies to the USA, which is a major outlier. Global stock ownership in 2009 was only around 500 million[0] people from the total world population which was 6.8 billion in 2009. That's 7.23%. [0] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1457482 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1457482
baud147258 7y ago
> But imagine the riots in France as the price of gas goes up. Most of the gas price in France is taxes, so a carbon tax on gas wouldn't change much. On the other, a carbon tax on imported Chinese crap and American junk food, why not...
BlueTemplar 7y ago
Indeed, one of the complaints of the rioters was that only 10% of the new tax was going to be reused in programs that help poor and average people to drive less. And at the same time, there was still no tax on kerosene for planes (that poor people cannot afford anyway).
stevehawk 7y ago
You want to tax me for betting on society not abandoning fossil fuels? I'm not the bad guy. The people refusing to abandon fossil fuels are.
- SifJar 7y ago
  As I understand it, there are two main ways to invest in fossil fuels - stocks & bonds. Buying stocks in fossil fuel companies doesn't finance their continued operation, so probably not much point taxing those. But buying bonds from a fossil fuel company is directly funding their operation, so I would assume this is where the theoretical tax would be applied?

whatshisface 7y ago

>A really disproportionate percentage of the burden needs to be taken on by investors. Fifty four percent of equities are held by households and mutual funds. Add in another 15% for pensions, and you arrive at roughly 70% of the stock market belonging to people saving for retirement. Investors are the "average people." Source: https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/54aff08969beddb2240a8ce2-750-592.png https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/54aff08969beddb2240a8...

BlueTemplar 7y ago
I'm afraid that people able to save for retirement are less and less average these days ?
- whatshisface 7y ago
  This report says that 1 in 5 have saved less than $5000 for retirement, which means that 4 in 5 have a substantial retirement investment. Although there is a big problem brewing (1/5th of all Americans is a huge number of people), those who would stand a lot to lose if something went wrong in the financial world are still the majority. https://news.northwesternmutual.com/planning-and-progress-2019 https://news.northwesternmutual.com/planning-and-progress-20...
  - BlueTemplar 7y ago
    Hmm, right, I guess that partially paid mortgages still count as savings, as they should ?
  - danzig13 7y ago
    More than $5000 is not a substantial amount
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      Maybe not to someone who has a million dollars, but $10,000 to someone who has $10,000 is 100% of their net worth. "People are not saving enough for retirement" and "people would get significantly hurt if their retirement savings were damaged" are not contradictory statements.
      - danzig13 7y ago
        Savings would not be significantly damaged if 1-1.5% in gains was missed on a $10,000 on a fossil fuel divested portfolio. That might be a significant overstatement of the differential. Disclaimer: 1-1.5% would make a big difference over time
consumer451 7y ago
> ... and you arrive at roughly 70% of the stock market belonging to people saving for retirement. Investors are the "average people." This only applies to the USA, which is a major outlier. Global stock ownership in 2009 was only around 500 million[0] people from the total world population which was 6.8 billion in 2009. That's 7.23%. [0] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1457482 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1457482

baud147258 7y ago

> But imagine the riots in France as the price of gas goes up. Most of the gas price in France is taxes, so a carbon tax on gas wouldn't change much. On the other, a carbon tax on imported Chinese crap and American junk food, why not...

BlueTemplar 7y ago

Indeed, one of the complaints of the rioters was that only 10% of the new tax was going to be reused in programs that help poor and average people to drive less. And at the same time, there was still no tax on kerosene for planes (that poor people cannot afford anyway).

stevehawk 7y ago

You want to tax me for betting on society not abandoning fossil fuels? I'm not the bad guy. The people refusing to abandon fossil fuels are.

SifJar 7y ago
As I understand it, there are two main ways to invest in fossil fuels - stocks & bonds. Buying stocks in fossil fuel companies doesn't finance their continued operation, so probably not much point taxing those. But buying bonds from a fossil fuel company is directly funding their operation, so I would assume this is where the theoretical tax would be applied?