4 ms·

Macron tried that in France, and got a huge upheal from poor people. It's also not fair to people who bought their car already, because they had to calculate w

Macron tried that in France, and got a huge upheal from poor people. It's also not fair to people who bought their car already, because they had to calculate with the price of gas to see if it's worth it for them.

karamanolev 6y ago
Would doing regular, small ramps on gas taxes over multiple years solve that problem?
- adrianN 6y ago
  The debate is so emotionalized that I don't think that the problem is the actual increase in price, but the very fact that you want to make driving more expensive.
  - ianai 6y ago
    Don’t neglect the propaganda problem catalyzing the outrage.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago
    It makes little sens to make driving more expensive if it's still a necessity to work, if we don't tax the most polluting activities that are mostly used for leisure (private jets flying just for a weekend trip). The emotions you're referring too come for a feeling of a lack of social justice. If we can manage to apply the same or stricter rule to the most privileged, then a carbon tax might be acceptable. Macron is perceived as the "president des riches" for good reasons.
    - adrianN 6y ago
      On the other hand, if we keep subsidizing driving, people keep moving farther away from work, more people drive, and more money needs to be allocated to car-centric infrastructure. It's not a simple problem.
ianai 6y ago
I think other options need to be explored in addition to any new taxes to ameliorate such people. Like massive buy back and replace programs and infrastructure.
rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago
Because there was no tax on kerosene (for planes mostly used by rich people, for leisure) while Macron wanted to tax the commute of poor people who had no chance but to go to work by car. Macron's policies keep ignoring how much the rich pollute and yet he significantly reduce tax on the top 1% (flat tax on capital is now well below their marginal tax rate).
driverdan 6y ago
> It's also not fair So? The world's not fair, deal with it.

karamanolev 6y ago

Would doing regular, small ramps on gas taxes over multiple years solve that problem?

adrianN 6y ago
The debate is so emotionalized that I don't think that the problem is the actual increase in price, but the very fact that you want to make driving more expensive.
- ianai 6y ago
  Don’t neglect the propaganda problem catalyzing the outrage.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago
  It makes little sens to make driving more expensive if it's still a necessity to work, if we don't tax the most polluting activities that are mostly used for leisure (private jets flying just for a weekend trip). The emotions you're referring too come for a feeling of a lack of social justice. If we can manage to apply the same or stricter rule to the most privileged, then a carbon tax might be acceptable. Macron is perceived as the "president des riches" for good reasons.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    On the other hand, if we keep subsidizing driving, people keep moving farther away from work, more people drive, and more money needs to be allocated to car-centric infrastructure. It's not a simple problem.

ianai 6y ago

I think other options need to be explored in addition to any new taxes to ameliorate such people. Like massive buy back and replace programs and infrastructure.

rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago

Because there was no tax on kerosene (for planes mostly used by rich people, for leisure) while Macron wanted to tax the commute of poor people who had no chance but to go to work by car. Macron's policies keep ignoring how much the rich pollute and yet he significantly reduce tax on the top 1% (flat tax on capital is now well below their marginal tax rate).

driverdan 6y ago

> It's also not fair So? The world's not fair, deal with it.