4 ms·

Naturally this means nothing for the ruling class and is devastating to the middle and lower classes. Why does every single policy lately lead to further conso

by olah_1 5y ago

Naturally this means nothing for the ruling class and is devastating to the middle and lower classes. Why does every single policy lately lead to further consolidation…

paganel 5y ago
I feel we'll soon enough have a Brexit/Trump moment with these regressive taxes labeled as "environmental" taxes.
- AdrianB1 5y ago
  They are trying to reduce carbon emissions, not to be progressive or regressive. It looks like a measure for improving climate, not income redistribution.
- bserge 5y ago
  Yeah, if they manage it like Covid, people will riot. Everyone likes to talk about reducing their carbon footprint and shit, but push come to shove, no one wants to give up their lifestyle. Especially not the middle and upper classes. In the end, a bunch of people will just have to die, it's the only real solution.
- livueta 5y ago
  Not sure why this would be downed; it's a real issue, e.g. https://www.economist.com/britain/an-anti-green-backlash-could-reshape-british-politics/21804957 https://www.economist.com/britain/an-anti-green-backlash-cou... In a way, it really is a bit of a "no shit" observation: actually effective climate action is incompatible with democracy unless quality of life is broadly maintained or improved. And people shouldn't point at warm-and-fuzzy nonsense like polls claiming to show 80+% support for "saving the climate" and similarly vague statements. Imma just leave this here: https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1631,_Carbon_Emissions_Fee_Measure_(2018) https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1631,_Carbon_E... In fucking Washington. By those margins. Support for climate action disintegrates as soon as people see the personal downside, so we need to figure out how to develop and present lifestyle-positive climate interventions (like the revenue-neutrality of this Austrian thing!) if we want any serious motion in the West. I'm starting to look at the more self-flagellatory proposals as likely false flags from those opposed to serious change: as long as the burden of decarbonization falls on the little guy and his evil evil burgers, they can rest assured knowing that no serious action will ever pass anywhere important.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throw0101a 5y ago
> Naturally this means nothing for the ruling class and is devastating to the middle and lower classes. People are getting refunded: > Each resident in Austria will get an annual reimbursement, with the exact amount determined by where they live to ensure those in rural regions without good public transport don’t lose out. Children are entitled to half their parents’ amount — so a family of two adults and two children in Vienna could expect to get 300 euros ($358) for example. The price on carbon is simply a price signal to show how much damage the environment something is doing. Presumably people will switch to cheaper, i.e., less damaging, goods and services. Carbon pricing being regressive is by no means a foregone conclusion: > The literature on the distributional impacts of climate policies provides ambiguous results. Many studies find an overall tendency for regressive impacts (Araar et al. 2011; Gonzalez 2012). Others detect mostly regressive findings for developed countries while developing countries show an inconsistent picture with a tendency towards proportional or progressive impacts (Verde and Tol 2009; Wang et al. 2016). Nevertheless, progressive impacts have also been shown for developed countries like Australia (Sajeewani et al. 2015), Canada (Dissou and Siddiqui 2014) and Spain (Labandeira et al. 2009). * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-020-00521-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-020-00521-1 Implementation details matter, and there are ways for progressive results: * https://taxjustice.net/2020/06/30/carbon-taxes-can-be-progressive-myth-busting-and-mainstreaming-carbon-taxes/ https://taxjustice.net/2020/06/30/carbon-taxes-can-be-progre... * https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/550691-economists-a-us-carbon-tax-would-be-progressive https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/550691-econom... > So if you’re aiming for the most net-progressive tax, you use the revenue for rebates — helps the low-income, raises taxes on the high-income. If you’re aiming to appeal to the middle class, you use the revenue for payroll tax reductions — helps the middle, increases taxes on either end. * https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/20/17584376/carbon-tax-congress-republicans-cost-economy https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/20/1758437... * https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/report/distributional-implications-carbon-tax https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/report/distri...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- masswerk 5y ago
tomp 5y ago
No, a straightforward "carbon tax" would do that, but this is a revenue-neutral tax. So poor people who use less carbon (e.g. don't own Ferarris and private jets) will benefit (their carbon taxes will be below average, whereas their carbon bonuses will be average†) †caveat: looks like in Austria, rural residents will get more bonus than urban - to even out availability of public transport
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jeroenhd 5y ago
  > e.g. don't own Ferarris and private jets Sports cars and private jets are only for the one percent, but there's a problem with taxing carbon exhaust alone because the poor can't afford a new all-electric SUV or a plug-in hybrid, they're driving around in 20 or 30 year old cars every day if they have a car. I'm all for taxing those with unreasonable greenhouse emissions, but not being able to afford a cleaner car shouldn't be taxed. It's why I'm sceptical of proposed CO2 taxes because many (if not most) of them fail to consider this problem.
- olah_1 5y ago
  The problem is the scaling. $10k to a billionaire is tissue paper. It simply doesn't matter to them. $1k to the middle/lower class could mean everything. My point is that this will continue to unreasonably restrict the lifestyle of middle/lower class while the elites won't even notice a difference. They can happily pay more to continue doing what they've always done. It's just like every single other "climate" policy that gets proposed. It is as if climate change simply doesn't exist for rich people. Just like covid. Which leads me to reasonably deduce that this is about consolidation and control. We can judge these policies by their fruit.

by olah_1 5y ago

Naturally this means nothing for the ruling class and is devastating to the middle and lower classes. Why does every single policy lately lead to further consolidation…

paganel 5y ago

I feel we'll soon enough have a Brexit/Trump moment with these regressive taxes labeled as "environmental" taxes.

AdrianB1 5y ago
They are trying to reduce carbon emissions, not to be progressive or regressive. It looks like a measure for improving climate, not income redistribution.
bserge 5y ago
Yeah, if they manage it like Covid, people will riot. Everyone likes to talk about reducing their carbon footprint and shit, but push come to shove, no one wants to give up their lifestyle. Especially not the middle and upper classes. In the end, a bunch of people will just have to die, it's the only real solution.
livueta 5y ago
Not sure why this would be downed; it's a real issue, e.g. https://www.economist.com/britain/an-anti-green-backlash-could-reshape-british-politics/21804957 https://www.economist.com/britain/an-anti-green-backlash-cou... In a way, it really is a bit of a "no shit" observation: actually effective climate action is incompatible with democracy unless quality of life is broadly maintained or improved. And people shouldn't point at warm-and-fuzzy nonsense like polls claiming to show 80+% support for "saving the climate" and similarly vague statements. Imma just leave this here: https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1631,_Carbon_Emissions_Fee_Measure_(2018) https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1631,_Carbon_E... In fucking Washington. By those margins. Support for climate action disintegrates as soon as people see the personal downside, so we need to figure out how to develop and present lifestyle-positive climate interventions (like the revenue-neutrality of this Austrian thing!) if we want any serious motion in the West. I'm starting to look at the more self-flagellatory proposals as likely false flags from those opposed to serious change: as long as the burden of decarbonization falls on the little guy and his evil evil burgers, they can rest assured knowing that no serious action will ever pass anywhere important.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

throw0101a 5y ago

> Naturally this means nothing for the ruling class and is devastating to the middle and lower classes. People are getting refunded: > Each resident in Austria will get an annual reimbursement, with the exact amount determined by where they live to ensure those in rural regions without good public transport don’t lose out. Children are entitled to half their parents’ amount — so a family of two adults and two children in Vienna could expect to get 300 euros ($358) for example. The price on carbon is simply a price signal to show how much damage the environment something is doing. Presumably people will switch to cheaper, i.e., less damaging, goods and services. Carbon pricing being regressive is by no means a foregone conclusion: > The literature on the distributional impacts of climate policies provides ambiguous results. Many studies find an overall tendency for regressive impacts (Araar et al. 2011; Gonzalez 2012). Others detect mostly regressive findings for developed countries while developing countries show an inconsistent picture with a tendency towards proportional or progressive impacts (Verde and Tol 2009; Wang et al. 2016). Nevertheless, progressive impacts have also been shown for developed countries like Australia (Sajeewani et al. 2015), Canada (Dissou and Siddiqui 2014) and Spain (Labandeira et al. 2009). * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-020-00521-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-020-00521-1 Implementation details matter, and there are ways for progressive results: * https://taxjustice.net/2020/06/30/carbon-taxes-can-be-progressive-myth-busting-and-mainstreaming-carbon-taxes/ https://taxjustice.net/2020/06/30/carbon-taxes-can-be-progre... * https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/550691-economists-a-us-carbon-tax-would-be-progressive https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/550691-econom... > So if you’re aiming for the most net-progressive tax, you use the revenue for rebates — helps the low-income, raises taxes on the high-income. If you’re aiming to appeal to the middle class, you use the revenue for payroll tax reductions — helps the middle, increases taxes on either end. * https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/20/17584376/carbon-tax-congress-republicans-cost-economy https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/20/1758437... * https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/report/distributional-implications-carbon-tax https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/report/distri...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
masswerk 5y ago

tomp 5y ago

No, a straightforward "carbon tax" would do that, but this is a revenue-neutral tax. So poor people who use less carbon (e.g. don't own Ferarris and private jets) will benefit (their carbon taxes will be below average, whereas their carbon bonuses will be average†) †caveat: looks like in Austria, rural residents will get more bonus than urban - to even out availability of public transport

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jeroenhd 5y ago
> e.g. don't own Ferarris and private jets Sports cars and private jets are only for the one percent, but there's a problem with taxing carbon exhaust alone because the poor can't afford a new all-electric SUV or a plug-in hybrid, they're driving around in 20 or 30 year old cars every day if they have a car. I'm all for taxing those with unreasonable greenhouse emissions, but not being able to afford a cleaner car shouldn't be taxed. It's why I'm sceptical of proposed CO2 taxes because many (if not most) of them fail to consider this problem.
olah_1 5y ago
The problem is the scaling. $10k to a billionaire is tissue paper. It simply doesn't matter to them. $1k to the middle/lower class could mean everything. My point is that this will continue to unreasonably restrict the lifestyle of middle/lower class while the elites won't even notice a difference. They can happily pay more to continue doing what they've always done. It's just like every single other "climate" policy that gets proposed. It is as if climate change simply doesn't exist for rich people. Just like covid. Which leads me to reasonably deduce that this is about consolidation and control. We can judge these policies by their fruit.