4 ms·
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 jet
by 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 agoThe 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.