4 ms·
> In February 2019, the center-right American Action Forum, estimated that the plan could cost between $51–$93 trillion over the next decade [0] Take the low e
by bko 5y ago
> In February 2019, the center-right American Action Forum, estimated that the plan could cost between $51–$93 trillion over the next decade [0]
Take the low estimate of $51 trillion over a decade so $5 trillion per year.
> The top 1% of Americans have a combined net worth of $34.2 trillion, according to Federal Reserve data last updated Oct. 19, 2020
So if you seize all the wealth of the top 1% you'll pay for ~7 years of something that no one claims will actually solve climate change.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal
[1] https://windfalldata.com/blog/what-it-takes-to-be-in-the-top-1-of-every-state/ https://windfalldata.com/blog/what-it-takes-to-be-in-the-top...
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago> Take the low estimate of $51 trillion over a decade so $500 billion per year. Over a decade, that would be $5 Trillion per year since a decade has 10 years.
- bko 5y agoThanks for pointing that out. edited
- falcolas 5y ago> seize all the wealth How do you propose doing that legally? Or how should the US government survive the wealthy citizen's legal assault if they were to find a loophole?
- bko 5y agoI'm not. I'm just pointing out that a massive effort requires a broad tax base. I understand everyone wants the wealthy to pay for everything, but there is quite literally not enough wealthy people in the world to begin to tackle a large problem. Everyone has to contribute
- falcolas 5y agoYou should clarify such; it's not even remotely clear from the original post.
- Lammy 5y agoPersonally I tend to be skeptical of anything that discusses nationality at all when it comes to climate change, unless we can somehow move all of the pollution outside the environment (into another environment)
- jdgoesmarching 5y agoThe American Action Forum is nowhere close to “center-right”, only they call themselves that. It is a conservative think tank that almost exclusively works for Republicans. Their figures aren’t even in “let’s debate” realm. They cite $36 trillion just for universal healthcare when even the CBO admits that Medicare for All would save $300-600 billion per year. This is nowhere close to good faith accounting, it’s intentionally misleading
- bko 5y agoThis was the google snippet for green new deal cost. Please provide a better source of the actual cost.
- handrous 5y agoI quick search yields that the best answer is "no-one knows because the proposal remains too vague and too much in-flux to provide an answer". The CBO has not yet weighed in. That's usually a good starting point for any legislation that's getting seriously close to consideration.
- LorenPechtel 5y agoThe $36T figure isn't unreasonable, just cherry-picked. It's counting up the costs without counting the money that is no longer spent elsewhere. It's like saying that if I decide to patronize the Chevron station it's going to cost $800/year to buy gas, without considering that I'm currently spending $800/year at the Shell station.
- Aperocky 5y ago> $51–$93 trillion over the next decade About right when you spend $1280 on a coffee cup: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-air-force-spent-1280-on-coffee-cup-2018-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/us-air-force-spent-1280-on-c...
- qqqwerty 5y agoThe GND included universal healthcare and jobs programs, both of which are the biggest line items in the AAF estimates. They estimated the cost of dealing with carbon emissions at around $7 trillion. And that money is largely for capital expenditures, which anyone who has half a brain would finance over 20-30 year period. And a large chunk of that $7 trillion can be passed off to utility rate payers over that time period with barely a noticeable increase in rates based on how cheap renewables are getting. Also, AAF can hardly be trusted to fairly evaluate the cost/benefits. A slight increase in utility bills pales in comparison to having to abandon your house due to increased flooding due to climate change. It is funny how when they are doing analysis of tax cuts, they turn over every stone looking to squeeze out questionable "economic productivity" increases to add to their models, and yet when it comes to climate change, they just throw out a bunch of big numbers and call it a day.
- jessaustin 5y agoSo if you seize all the wealth of the top 1% you'll pay for ~7 years of something that no one claims will actually solve climate change. Maybe we could buy some healthcare or bike paths or something. The important thing is seizing the wealth of the 1%.
- walkedaway 5y agoWhy do you think you're entitled to 100% of my wealth?
- jessaustin 5y agoI doubt I'll get it. I don't even get a discount on healthcare.gov. Mostly I'd like to see USA governed by its citizens rather than the rich. If they weren't rich anymore that might happen. Of course the point is that the rich won't allow this. The system will not fix the harms it was designed to create. If something like this went through it would probably take from the (5-1)% and give to the 0.1%.
- walkedaway 5y agoGot it. Make everyone poor and suffer. Great plan.
- jessaustin 5y agoThe cutoff I've seen for the 1% is $11M net worth. Is everyone poorer than that, "suffering"? What kind of world do you live in?
- walkedaway 5y agoBy definition there's a new 1% when you take the top 1% and make it 0. Then you take the new 1%. And so on. Simple math. Everyone ends up with zero.
- 5y ago