4 ms·

> Why does the answer to everything have to be a tax that allows government to become even more bloated. Because assholes exist who will gladly burn the planet

by jude- 5y ago

> Why does the answer to everything have to be a tax that allows government to become even more bloated. Because assholes exist who will gladly burn the planet down to make a buck. > If using computing power like this is so bad just make it illegal to use excessive computing power, why allow it but let the government scoop up the cream. Because enforcing an effective regime on capping the amount of power each US resident can use for computing is considerably _more_ difficult (and results in _more_ bloat) than just taxing emissions.

whywhywhywhy 5y ago
Taxing emissions just allows some government a-hole to make a buck and you still get the emissions how is that better? If you think it would be structured in a way that would stop emissions you’re naive because tax makers would rather still make money than stop something. Think I’m wrong? Cigarettes and alcohol still kill people they’re just highly taxed. Taxes solve nothing and ONLY exist to keep poor people poor and middle class people middle class.
- erentz 5y ago
  > Think I’m wrong? Cigarettes and alcohol still kill people they’re just highly taxed. Most studies have found that increasing taxes on cigarettes does reduce smoking prevalence.
- jude- 5y ago
  > Taxing emissions just allows some government a-hole to make a buck and you still get the emissions how is that better? Easy: sanction their asses. We banned CFCs, remember? We didn't even need 100% compliance to be effective at repairing the ozone hole! > Think I’m wrong? Cigarettes and alcohol still kill people they’re just highly taxed. Taxing alcohol and tobacco reduce their use, thereby reducing the harm they bring. [1] [2] [1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204416 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... [2] https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-043816 https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publh...
- imtringued 5y ago
  >Taxing emissions just allows some government a-hole to make a buck and you still get the emissions how is that better? Those emissions only happen because of the local price advantage of the externality. Globally there is no price advantage because for every winner (the person emitting the CO2) there is a loser (everyone else being harmed from the CO2). This is a clear case of individual decision making requiring an extension of responsibility. The carbon tax makes the decision maker responsible for the financial damages caused by the CO2 and thus allows local decision making to reach a global optimum. Advocates of the free market should want local decision making to always result in a global optimum, because that is literally their position. If they want to argue that local decision making should not have to lead to a global optimum then they ruin their own position because what they really want is the right to harm others for private benefit.

by jude- 5y ago

whywhywhywhy 5y ago

Taxing emissions just allows some government a-hole to make a buck and you still get the emissions how is that better? If you think it would be structured in a way that would stop emissions you’re naive because tax makers would rather still make money than stop something. Think I’m wrong? Cigarettes and alcohol still kill people they’re just highly taxed. Taxes solve nothing and ONLY exist to keep poor people poor and middle class people middle class.

erentz 5y ago
> Think I’m wrong? Cigarettes and alcohol still kill people they’re just highly taxed. Most studies have found that increasing taxes on cigarettes does reduce smoking prevalence.
jude- 5y ago
> Taxing emissions just allows some government a-hole to make a buck and you still get the emissions how is that better? Easy: sanction their asses. We banned CFCs, remember? We didn't even need 100% compliance to be effective at repairing the ozone hole! > Think I’m wrong? Cigarettes and alcohol still kill people they’re just highly taxed. Taxing alcohol and tobacco reduce their use, thereby reducing the harm they bring. [1] [2] [1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204416 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... [2] https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-043816 https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publh...
imtringued 5y ago
>Taxing emissions just allows some government a-hole to make a buck and you still get the emissions how is that better? Those emissions only happen because of the local price advantage of the externality. Globally there is no price advantage because for every winner (the person emitting the CO2) there is a loser (everyone else being harmed from the CO2). This is a clear case of individual decision making requiring an extension of responsibility. The carbon tax makes the decision maker responsible for the financial damages caused by the CO2 and thus allows local decision making to reach a global optimum. Advocates of the free market should want local decision making to always result in a global optimum, because that is literally their position. If they want to argue that local decision making should not have to lead to a global optimum then they ruin their own position because what they really want is the right to harm others for private benefit.