3 ms·

Still they ought to pay their fair share

ahepp 6y ago
They do pay their fair share. Anyone in the state of Michigan can stick a straw in the ground and start sucking out water. If they suck out a lot, they have to pay a couple hundred dollars for a permit. These rules are the same for farmers, industrial users (like car manufacturers), nestle, or you and me.
- dontbeevil1992 6y ago
  you and me are not a multinational billion dollar for-profit corporation. we have different capabilities, incentives, and externalities to our behavior. nestle is taking advantage of the commons for massive profit, they should contribute back
  - mr_woozy 6y ago
    >you and me are not a multinational billion dollar for-profit corporation. ahhhh my sweet summer child........
  - ahepp 6y ago
    To say they are "taking advantage of the commons" implies they're leaving the commons worse off. I haven't heard any good arguments that this is the case. Particularly because the amount of water they're pumping really isn't that significant compared to agricultural or industrial users. They do contribute back through taxes, including income tax their employees pay directly to the state of Michigan. If they aren't paying enough, I think reforming corporate taxation is a better solution than arbitrarily taxing extraction of a plentiful resource out of dislike for the extractors. Hopefully that doesn't make me some kind of anarcho-capitalist nut.
    - dontbeevil1992 6y ago
      > To say they are "taking advantage of the commons" implies they're leaving the commons worse off I don't agree. All it means is that they're benefiting privately from something that belongs to everyone. This is particularly glaring in this case because Nestle has a history of unethical behavior - for example, there is a plausible argument that one of the reasons why the Flint lead problem hasn't been fixed is because of profits on bottled water. Taxation is not a perfect solution because the government doesn't always use the funds ethically, particularly when it is in bed with corporations. But it's better than nothing. > The amount of water they're pumping really isn't that significant compared to agricultural or industrial users. Then why not have them pay a use fee that is proportionally small compared to agricultural and industrial users? If we don't charge them at all then logically why can't they just go ahead and privatize the entire water supply for the cost of $200? Natural resources shouldn't be made arbitrarily available for private profit.
- triangleman 6y ago
  Well then I'd say the rules ought to be changed and if you pump more than 100 gallons per month, you should pay a little more.
  - Cerium 6y ago
    Ten thousand gallons per month would be a more reasonable limit, enough to cover basic home usage.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      Why should they subsidize home usage. If they are paying to pump their own water, and doing so in a sustainable matter, why do they own anyone anything?
    - triangleman 6y ago
      Yeah my bad, I meant 100 gallons per day, or 3000 gallons per month.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    If they are paying to pump their own water and it is sustainable, why should they pay anyone?
s1artibartfast 6y ago
They are. this is on par for most agricultural and industrial water.

They do pay their fair share. Anyone in the state of Michigan can stick a straw in the ground and start sucking out water. If they suck out a lot, they have to pay a couple hundred dollars for a permit. These rules are the same for farmers, industrial users (like car manufacturers), nestle, or you and me.

dontbeevil1992 6y ago
you and me are not a multinational billion dollar for-profit corporation. we have different capabilities, incentives, and externalities to our behavior. nestle is taking advantage of the commons for massive profit, they should contribute back
- mr_woozy 6y ago
  >you and me are not a multinational billion dollar for-profit corporation. ahhhh my sweet summer child........
- ahepp 6y ago
  To say they are "taking advantage of the commons" implies they're leaving the commons worse off. I haven't heard any good arguments that this is the case. Particularly because the amount of water they're pumping really isn't that significant compared to agricultural or industrial users. They do contribute back through taxes, including income tax their employees pay directly to the state of Michigan. If they aren't paying enough, I think reforming corporate taxation is a better solution than arbitrarily taxing extraction of a plentiful resource out of dislike for the extractors. Hopefully that doesn't make me some kind of anarcho-capitalist nut.
  - dontbeevil1992 6y ago
    > To say they are "taking advantage of the commons" implies they're leaving the commons worse off I don't agree. All it means is that they're benefiting privately from something that belongs to everyone. This is particularly glaring in this case because Nestle has a history of unethical behavior - for example, there is a plausible argument that one of the reasons why the Flint lead problem hasn't been fixed is because of profits on bottled water. Taxation is not a perfect solution because the government doesn't always use the funds ethically, particularly when it is in bed with corporations. But it's better than nothing. > The amount of water they're pumping really isn't that significant compared to agricultural or industrial users. Then why not have them pay a use fee that is proportionally small compared to agricultural and industrial users? If we don't charge them at all then logically why can't they just go ahead and privatize the entire water supply for the cost of $200? Natural resources shouldn't be made arbitrarily available for private profit.
triangleman 6y ago
Well then I'd say the rules ought to be changed and if you pump more than 100 gallons per month, you should pay a little more.
- Cerium 6y ago
  Ten thousand gallons per month would be a more reasonable limit, enough to cover basic home usage.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    Why should they subsidize home usage. If they are paying to pump their own water, and doing so in a sustainable matter, why do they own anyone anything?
  - triangleman 6y ago
    Yeah my bad, I meant 100 gallons per day, or 3000 gallons per month.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  If they are paying to pump their own water and it is sustainable, why should they pay anyone?

s1artibartfast 6y ago

They are. this is on par for most agricultural and industrial water.