5 ms·

That's why i like the idea of a "climate dividend". Everyone will pay a carbon tax, which then finances the climate dividend, which is evenly paid out to the po

by Aulig 5y ago

That's why i like the idea of a "climate dividend". Everyone will pay a carbon tax, which then finances the climate dividend, which is evenly paid out to the population. So if you emit below average amounts of carbon, you will actually be better off financially.

MonkeyClub 5y ago
I wonder whether this will be like income tax, theoretically proportional, but practically affecting the rich less than the poor, and companies even less?
- rovolo 5y ago
  Just to clarify this point, the income tax is progressive and affects the rich more than the poor on income. A software developer making $150k will pay 24% on additional income while someone making $30k will pay 12% on additional income. The distinction in the US is whether you make your money through labor (max 37% tax) or capital gains (max 20% tax). There is a lower tax rate for capitalists (who make money via ownership of capital) vs laborers (who make money through labor income). Furthermore, capital gains can be delayed until you realize your gains (sell your capital). This distinction is what practically gives the rich lower taxes than the poor.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    All this nonsense should be rolled into a single income tax and then the overall tax rate should be lowered. Yeah sure there might be good reasons for a low capital gains tax but if that is the case then there are good reasons for a low income tax as well. The only thing the income tax should be doing is discourage employers from piling up all the work on as few people as possible. Employers prefer keeping people full time and full time unemployed because it is more efficient per worker and the bargaining power of the unemployed doesn't exist. If everyone were to work according to their own demand for labor then this bargaining power cliff wouldn't exist and a whole lot of welfare programs could be abolished.
piokoch 5y ago
Someone who works as a delivery guy needs to drive a car a lot, such person would have to pay big climate dividend. Is that ok? Probably not. Taxation is a road to nowhere as rich people will always either find the way to avoid taxes or find the way to throw the costs of those taxes on the poor. This happens with every kind of tax. The only solution to decrease CO2 emission is to behave in a rational way and use the only practical, tested and available now clean energy source - nuclear power plants. No amount of eco-talk will change reality that neither solar nor wind energy plants will be able to power modern economy. Europe is learning this the hard way right now. Maybe Europe will do the suicidal jump with the ideas like "Fit for 55", and will kill its economy to lower global emission by 0.05% but the rest of the World, which emits much more CO2 and will emit even more when all production will be moved from Europe to Asia or USA cannot care less.
- davidw 5y ago
  > Someone who works as a delivery guy needs to drive a car a lot, such person would have to pay big climate dividend. Is that ok? Probably not. It gives the delivery company a big incentive to switch to electric vehicles or ebikes or something more efficient. This harnesses market power to push companies to be more efficient with their resources: the ones who are more innovative at avoiding CO2 usage will see financial benefits.
  - EricE 5y ago
    why are you assuming an electric car will be an overall reduction in CO2?
    - davidw 5y ago
      It's not an assumption. Of course, it depends on a lot of things, but broadly speaking, they use less CO2. And the great thing about a carbon tax is that this shakes out through the system: if they're not reducing CO2, you would see it in costs and could react accordingly. This price signal is a lot more convenient than having to, as an end user, try to figure out what the best and worst things to do in terms of CO2.
5560675260 5y ago
This would also greatly help with social coherence. First make living costs so high, that they are unaffordable for the underclasses, leaving them no other choice than complete reliance on the state payouts. Then make subsidies conditional, tiered, assigned on sufficiently complicated rules (as a side effect this would improve employment opportunities is public sector). And finally, whenever serfs would choose to misbehave, there wouldn't even be a need to intimidate - just dangle a possibility of freezing to death in winter.
- cool_dude85 5y ago
  >And finally, whenever serfs would choose to misbehave, there wouldn't even be a need to intimidate - just dangle a possibility of freezing to death in winter. This is reality today under capitalism. What happens to me if I don't choose to work?
  - dnautics 5y ago
    you have so many no-work options. You can be nice to people and live off their (informal) charity. You could probably work out an arrangement where you barter services for lodging. You could go live with relatives that work.
    - cool_dude85 5y ago
      Same argument applies to the quote I'm responding to. Jackbooted gubmint thugs cut your power in winter? Go live with relatives that have power, or get charity, or barter things for firewood.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  Hum... Have you looked on the situation of ex-criminals? I really fail to imagine an unconditional transfer (like the one you are replying to) turning into a monster of untraceable rules.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  You're right that making it conditional would be bad. But we can just not do that. Why wouldn't we make it unconditional? It's not like you lose your Social Security payments for having committed criminal acts.
rad_gruchalski 5y ago
I like the idea. However, I am afraid this would lead to people with no children being disadvantaged again. Increased prices would clearly make it more expensive to raise children. This would lead to more social care towards people with children. How would you recommend solving that?
- conductr 5y ago
  I would think the carbon tax part would be based on carbon usage which is a factor of consumption. The entire family’s consumption. So if the rebate is $1000 per person a family if 4 gets $4000. However the net gain/loss is only calculated after knowing what your family consumes. A family of 4 bicyclists may come out ahead while a family of 4 SUV drivers may have a net loss.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Developed countries aren't having enough children. We need to provide families with children more assistance, not less. Raising children deserves to be seen as a job because it provides value to society. I say that as a person without children who hopes to never have any.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    But not having children reduces fossil fuel consumption the most, and that is the goal of the tax, is it not? Reducing capitas will cause a much quicker and effective change than reducing per capita consumption.
    - colinmhayes 5y ago
      The goal of the tax is to force people the internalize the externalities caused by their consumption.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > This would lead to more social care towards people with children. How would you recommend solving that? I'm sorry, what's the issue? If we need children and need to incentivize it, it's what we'll do. And by definition, you're talking about advantages only to counterbalance new disadvantages. So we need to solve what?
raxxorrax 5y ago
This would need a huge apparatus to measure and distribute funds that will be ineffective. There is no effect on climate.

by Aulig 5y ago

MonkeyClub 5y ago

I wonder whether this will be like income tax, theoretically proportional, but practically affecting the rich less than the poor, and companies even less?

rovolo 5y ago
Just to clarify this point, the income tax is progressive and affects the rich more than the poor on income. A software developer making $150k will pay 24% on additional income while someone making $30k will pay 12% on additional income. The distinction in the US is whether you make your money through labor (max 37% tax) or capital gains (max 20% tax). There is a lower tax rate for capitalists (who make money via ownership of capital) vs laborers (who make money through labor income). Furthermore, capital gains can be delayed until you realize your gains (sell your capital). This distinction is what practically gives the rich lower taxes than the poor.
- imtringued 5y ago
  All this nonsense should be rolled into a single income tax and then the overall tax rate should be lowered. Yeah sure there might be good reasons for a low capital gains tax but if that is the case then there are good reasons for a low income tax as well. The only thing the income tax should be doing is discourage employers from piling up all the work on as few people as possible. Employers prefer keeping people full time and full time unemployed because it is more efficient per worker and the bargaining power of the unemployed doesn't exist. If everyone were to work according to their own demand for labor then this bargaining power cliff wouldn't exist and a whole lot of welfare programs could be abolished.

piokoch 5y ago

Someone who works as a delivery guy needs to drive a car a lot, such person would have to pay big climate dividend. Is that ok? Probably not. Taxation is a road to nowhere as rich people will always either find the way to avoid taxes or find the way to throw the costs of those taxes on the poor. This happens with every kind of tax. The only solution to decrease CO2 emission is to behave in a rational way and use the only practical, tested and available now clean energy source - nuclear power plants. No amount of eco-talk will change reality that neither solar nor wind energy plants will be able to power modern economy. Europe is learning this the hard way right now. Maybe Europe will do the suicidal jump with the ideas like "Fit for 55", and will kill its economy to lower global emission by 0.05% but the rest of the World, which emits much more CO2 and will emit even more when all production will be moved from Europe to Asia or USA cannot care less.

davidw 5y ago
> Someone who works as a delivery guy needs to drive a car a lot, such person would have to pay big climate dividend. Is that ok? Probably not. It gives the delivery company a big incentive to switch to electric vehicles or ebikes or something more efficient. This harnesses market power to push companies to be more efficient with their resources: the ones who are more innovative at avoiding CO2 usage will see financial benefits.
- EricE 5y ago
  why are you assuming an electric car will be an overall reduction in CO2?
  - davidw 5y ago
    It's not an assumption. Of course, it depends on a lot of things, but broadly speaking, they use less CO2. And the great thing about a carbon tax is that this shakes out through the system: if they're not reducing CO2, you would see it in costs and could react accordingly. This price signal is a lot more convenient than having to, as an end user, try to figure out what the best and worst things to do in terms of CO2.

5560675260 5y ago

This would also greatly help with social coherence. First make living costs so high, that they are unaffordable for the underclasses, leaving them no other choice than complete reliance on the state payouts. Then make subsidies conditional, tiered, assigned on sufficiently complicated rules (as a side effect this would improve employment opportunities is public sector). And finally, whenever serfs would choose to misbehave, there wouldn't even be a need to intimidate - just dangle a possibility of freezing to death in winter.

cool_dude85 5y ago
>And finally, whenever serfs would choose to misbehave, there wouldn't even be a need to intimidate - just dangle a possibility of freezing to death in winter. This is reality today under capitalism. What happens to me if I don't choose to work?
- dnautics 5y ago
  you have so many no-work options. You can be nice to people and live off their (informal) charity. You could probably work out an arrangement where you barter services for lodging. You could go live with relatives that work.
  - cool_dude85 5y ago
    Same argument applies to the quote I'm responding to. Jackbooted gubmint thugs cut your power in winter? Go live with relatives that have power, or get charity, or barter things for firewood.
marcosdumay 5y ago
Hum... Have you looked on the situation of ex-criminals? I really fail to imagine an unconditional transfer (like the one you are replying to) turning into a monster of untraceable rules.
HWR_14 5y ago
You're right that making it conditional would be bad. But we can just not do that. Why wouldn't we make it unconditional? It's not like you lose your Social Security payments for having committed criminal acts.

rad_gruchalski 5y ago

I like the idea. However, I am afraid this would lead to people with no children being disadvantaged again. Increased prices would clearly make it more expensive to raise children. This would lead to more social care towards people with children. How would you recommend solving that?

conductr 5y ago
I would think the carbon tax part would be based on carbon usage which is a factor of consumption. The entire family’s consumption. So if the rebate is $1000 per person a family if 4 gets $4000. However the net gain/loss is only calculated after knowing what your family consumes. A family of 4 bicyclists may come out ahead while a family of 4 SUV drivers may have a net loss.
colinmhayes 5y ago
Developed countries aren't having enough children. We need to provide families with children more assistance, not less. Raising children deserves to be seen as a job because it provides value to society. I say that as a person without children who hopes to never have any.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  But not having children reduces fossil fuel consumption the most, and that is the goal of the tax, is it not? Reducing capitas will cause a much quicker and effective change than reducing per capita consumption.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    The goal of the tax is to force people the internalize the externalities caused by their consumption.
HWR_14 5y ago
> This would lead to more social care towards people with children. How would you recommend solving that? I'm sorry, what's the issue? If we need children and need to incentivize it, it's what we'll do. And by definition, you're talking about advantages only to counterbalance new disadvantages. So we need to solve what?

raxxorrax 5y ago

This would need a huge apparatus to measure and distribute funds that will be ineffective. There is no effect on climate.