4 ms·

First: we both know how to use search engines, so your assumption that poor rural Americans use the most...etc could also stand to be backed up with research.

First: we both know how to use search engines, so your assumption that poor rural Americans use the most...etc could also stand to be backed up with research. But fair point, here's some proof for you: I don't have access to academic papers, but here's the one they're referencing: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0579-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0579-8 in this article: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/3/20/21184814/climate-change-energy-income-inequality https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/3/20/2118481... 1) The very rich use vastly more energy (much of it in travel, but also in the production of the stuff/properties/vehicles they buy) than the rest of us so that means they rely on the energy infrastructure more. Energy infrastructure uses all the logistics infrastructure (rails, roads, ocean, air, pipelines, etc). 2) Higher energy use means they have a much higher carbon footprint and are more responsible for detriments to poorer people because of climate change. Extremely rich people can afford to escape the effects of climate change and pollution, the poor cannot. So if they're responsible for more, they should be more responsible for cleaning up after themselves. This addresses your hurricane zones and sea level rise areas. 3) They travel more and a lot of public infrastructure goes into that (again: roads, air, FAA, airports...) 4) they buy more luxury goods which, again, get to them on public infrastructure (our ocean ports, roads, rail, planes, etc). 5) You'll notice in that paper mentioned in the vox article that healthcare is also used more by the top 10% than the bottom 10% (45% to 0.5%). 6) They rely more on the communications infrastructure (cell phone networks, the internet) I could keep going, but I'll just end up repeating the paper. I think you could argue the very wealthy don't rely much on public safety services because they can afford not to live in areas with higher crime rates and can hire their own private security. Possibly also schools.

PenguinCoder 5y ago
Thanks for the breakdown and sources.
ergocoder 5y ago
+500k doesn't fall on to the category you mentioned. They likely don't have many cars. Many can afford to live close to schools and offices, so they won't use road as much. They also pay for their own healthcare. We haven't factored in social cost of raising kids who cause problems to society I doubt it is that clear cut to compare upper middle class with poor people to see who costs more to the country's infrastructure. In any case, from everything you mentioned, it seems way way better to tax on luxurious goods. Buying Mercedes Benz? Tax is 2000%. Good luck. Buying a yatch? Here is 100000% tax. A private jet? Here is 10000000000% tax. A second/vacation home? It's 100000000% tax. An island? Here is a trillion % in tax. There problem solved. But for some reasons no politicians and thier supporters (Dems or republicans) never ever think of this solution.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
babesh 5y ago
If you want to tax consumption, tax consumption not income. Don't go about it by indirect means. The reality is that the ultra rich consume far less of a percentage of their wealth/income than the average person. The other reality is that many people just want a means to redistribute wealth and are just concocting arguments to achieve their ulterior motive. If you are for redistribution just say so. You could then argue about the most effective means of doing so from a greater position of trust.
- thatcat 5y ago
  It's the externalities of the consumption - the waste left for everyone else to deal with that should be taxed. That tax should occur where the decision to create the waste is made. The responsibility should be on the producer of the product, not at the point of sale. Additionally, the accumulation of capital should be taxed since it creates leverage that is used to easily make more capital passively (that is redistribution of wealth, which if you are for that then just say so instead of concocting arguments to achieve this ulterior motive). Capital gains tax is one way of approaching that. Even after this increase, the tax is still lower than most peoples working income tax.
  - babesh 5y ago
    I have no issue with a capital gains tax. Nor do most people. The bigger issue is with just taxing capital. Also, this focus on capital is too narrow. It hides other forms of power that have captured our system: military, legal, media, etc... These forms of power obscure their power by redirecting attention to just capital. Lastly, if you are concerned with external effects then tax the external effects directly instead of an indirect thing. So tax pollution rather than production in general.

PenguinCoder 5y ago

Thanks for the breakdown and sources.

ergocoder 5y ago

+500k doesn't fall on to the category you mentioned. They likely don't have many cars. Many can afford to live close to schools and offices, so they won't use road as much. They also pay for their own healthcare. We haven't factored in social cost of raising kids who cause problems to society I doubt it is that clear cut to compare upper middle class with poor people to see who costs more to the country's infrastructure. In any case, from everything you mentioned, it seems way way better to tax on luxurious goods. Buying Mercedes Benz? Tax is 2000%. Good luck. Buying a yatch? Here is 100000% tax. A private jet? Here is 10000000000% tax. A second/vacation home? It's 100000000% tax. An island? Here is a trillion % in tax. There problem solved. But for some reasons no politicians and thier supporters (Dems or republicans) never ever think of this solution.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

babesh 5y ago

If you want to tax consumption, tax consumption not income. Don't go about it by indirect means. The reality is that the ultra rich consume far less of a percentage of their wealth/income than the average person. The other reality is that many people just want a means to redistribute wealth and are just concocting arguments to achieve their ulterior motive. If you are for redistribution just say so. You could then argue about the most effective means of doing so from a greater position of trust.

thatcat 5y ago
It's the externalities of the consumption - the waste left for everyone else to deal with that should be taxed. That tax should occur where the decision to create the waste is made. The responsibility should be on the producer of the product, not at the point of sale. Additionally, the accumulation of capital should be taxed since it creates leverage that is used to easily make more capital passively (that is redistribution of wealth, which if you are for that then just say so instead of concocting arguments to achieve this ulterior motive). Capital gains tax is one way of approaching that. Even after this increase, the tax is still lower than most peoples working income tax.
- babesh 5y ago
  I have no issue with a capital gains tax. Nor do most people. The bigger issue is with just taxing capital. Also, this focus on capital is too narrow. It hides other forms of power that have captured our system: military, legal, media, etc... These forms of power obscure their power by redirecting attention to just capital. Lastly, if you are concerned with external effects then tax the external effects directly instead of an indirect thing. So tax pollution rather than production in general.