7 ms·

> When a carbon tax/madate is inevitably enforced LOL, good luck with that. Hard to think of more unpopular legislation. You might as well say "When the United

by rsj_hn 5y ago

> When a carbon tax/madate is inevitably enforced LOL, good luck with that. Hard to think of more unpopular legislation. You might as well say "When the United Nations High command forces the U.S. to increase its gasoline taxes". I mean, come on, we are not some small nation that can be pushed around. BTW, this is how the progressive movements always marginalize themselves and get kicked out of any political power. Instead of advocating for R&D and cheaper alternatives that improve people's quality of life, they can't help themselves but bring out the club of eco-masochism paired with tax-sadism.

bryanlarsen 5y ago
The hatred is absurd. In Canada, approximately 80% of the population pays less than the average amount of carbon tax, so they receive more from the carbon dividend than they pay out for the carbon tax. I pay an extra 10 cents/litre for gasoline but get a cheque for most of $1000 every year. Pretty awesome deal for me and most Canadians. People really like to hate on getting cheques in the mail.
- refurb 5y ago
  Free money!! Right? Or maybe not.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    It's definitely free money if you are eco-conscious and would decide to reduce your carbon emissions anyway. Since I decided not to have a car and live in an apartment anyway, it's literally free money.
- hervature 5y ago
  Do you not understand that literally every product that travels to you gets more expensive? All taxes go to the consumer. Your simple calculus doesn't account for the true cost.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    The increased cost is still less than the cheque for a small majority of taxpayers.
    - hervature 5y ago
      If that's true, it's only because they altered their spending behavior. That is, you reduced their quality of life.
      - bryanlarsen 5y ago
        It's true because the median taxpayer pays less tax than the average taxpayer due to the long tail effect.
        hervature 5y ago
        You don't seem to understand that this has nothing to do with the actual payment of taxes. Businesses don't pay for the tax on cigarettes, it is passed directly to the consumer. The elasticity of demand can be such that the consumer just incurs $1,000 higher costs. So the $1,000 in payments don't provide you a benefit, it merely allows you to live the same life.
        bryanlarsen 5y ago
        The average consumer has $1000 higher costs and a $1000 cheque. You're right, it's a wash. But 80% of consumers are below average. The average is skewed by people with private jets, et cetera. Personally, I'm probably above median and below average.
      - WastingMyTime89 5y ago
        > If that's true, it's only because they altered their spending behavior. That’s part of the point of a carbon tax. You want people to alter their spending behaviour to consume things which pollutes less. It’s a potentially small impact on their quality of life now to protect them from a drastic impact to their quality of life later. Of course, the main point remains making local production more viable by actually putting a price on the externalities of offshore production and encouraging research into greener mean of production by shifting the cost/gain ratio.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  That is a political argument as to whether a policy is beneficial or not. Do you know how to win political arguments? Here is a life pro-tip: One way to lose political arguments is to insist that the public has no choice but to adopt a tax, and that this taxation will be enforced against their will. People literally go to war to stop taxation without representation. Now we can ask, why do the progressives constantly adopt this authoritarian messaging on issues, when they know it is a political loser? Or do they think it's a political winner? It's a good question, and one that will make a lot of people uncomfortable.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    It was a major issue in the 2019 election, and was a factor in the victory of the winning party, so it was very much a political winner in Canada.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      I forgot about the 2019 Canadian landslide. How did that work out for Australia's election? But in any case, the United States has its own politics.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - belltaco 5y ago
    > People literally go to war to stop taxation without representation. You mean like people in DC, which does not have a senator despite having more population, because of a certain political party? >Now we can ask, why do the progressives constantly adopt this authoritarian messaging on issues, when they know it is a political loser? Or do they think it's a political winner? The conservatives will deny reality for political purposes till its too late again, just like they did with covid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o >It's a good question, and one that will make a lot of people uncomfortable. What? Is this more empty posturing?
specialist 5y ago
In your thesis for political economy, do the opponents of carbon taxes have agency too?
belltaco 5y ago
>Instead of advocating for R&D and cheaper alternatives that improve people's quality of life... Source? Also, fighting climate needs a 'all of the above' strategy ASAP.
WastingMyTime89 5y ago
> Instead of advocating for R&D and cheaper alternatives that improve people's quality of life, they can't help themselves but bring out the club of eco-masochism paired with tax-sadism. Increasing R&D and cheaper mean of producing green is the main goal of carbon tax. That’s probably the most effective way to do it and is market neutral. I fail to see what any of it has to do with the progressive movements. With a carbon tax, researching greener way of producing goods has a direct impact on the final price of said goods. That’s make this research a competitive advantage. Without a carbon tax, the sole reason to do R&D focusing on emission is if you are going to get fined by crossing a line. That means that as soon as you are under the threshold doing research is a waste of money.

by rsj_hn 5y ago

bryanlarsen 5y ago

The hatred is absurd. In Canada, approximately 80% of the population pays less than the average amount of carbon tax, so they receive more from the carbon dividend than they pay out for the carbon tax. I pay an extra 10 cents/litre for gasoline but get a cheque for most of $1000 every year. Pretty awesome deal for me and most Canadians. People really like to hate on getting cheques in the mail.

refurb 5y ago
Free money!! Right? Or maybe not.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  It's definitely free money if you are eco-conscious and would decide to reduce your carbon emissions anyway. Since I decided not to have a car and live in an apartment anyway, it's literally free money.
hervature 5y ago
Do you not understand that literally every product that travels to you gets more expensive? All taxes go to the consumer. Your simple calculus doesn't account for the true cost.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  The increased cost is still less than the cheque for a small majority of taxpayers.
  - hervature 5y ago
    If that's true, it's only because they altered their spending behavior. That is, you reduced their quality of life.
    - bryanlarsen 5y ago
      It's true because the median taxpayer pays less tax than the average taxpayer due to the long tail effect.
      - hervature 5y ago
        You don't seem to understand that this has nothing to do with the actual payment of taxes. Businesses don't pay for the tax on cigarettes, it is passed directly to the consumer. The elasticity of demand can be such that the consumer just incurs $1,000 higher costs. So the $1,000 in payments don't provide you a benefit, it merely allows you to live the same life.
        bryanlarsen 5y ago
        The average consumer has $1000 higher costs and a $1000 cheque. You're right, it's a wash. But 80% of consumers are below average. The average is skewed by people with private jets, et cetera. Personally, I'm probably above median and below average.
    - WastingMyTime89 5y ago
      > If that's true, it's only because they altered their spending behavior. That’s part of the point of a carbon tax. You want people to alter their spending behaviour to consume things which pollutes less. It’s a potentially small impact on their quality of life now to protect them from a drastic impact to their quality of life later. Of course, the main point remains making local production more viable by actually putting a price on the externalities of offshore production and encouraging research into greener mean of production by shifting the cost/gain ratio.
rsj_hn 5y ago
That is a political argument as to whether a policy is beneficial or not. Do you know how to win political arguments? Here is a life pro-tip: One way to lose political arguments is to insist that the public has no choice but to adopt a tax, and that this taxation will be enforced against their will. People literally go to war to stop taxation without representation. Now we can ask, why do the progressives constantly adopt this authoritarian messaging on issues, when they know it is a political loser? Or do they think it's a political winner? It's a good question, and one that will make a lot of people uncomfortable.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  It was a major issue in the 2019 election, and was a factor in the victory of the winning party, so it was very much a political winner in Canada.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    I forgot about the 2019 Canadian landslide. How did that work out for Australia's election? But in any case, the United States has its own politics.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- belltaco 5y ago
  > People literally go to war to stop taxation without representation. You mean like people in DC, which does not have a senator despite having more population, because of a certain political party? >Now we can ask, why do the progressives constantly adopt this authoritarian messaging on issues, when they know it is a political loser? Or do they think it's a political winner? The conservatives will deny reality for political purposes till its too late again, just like they did with covid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o >It's a good question, and one that will make a lot of people uncomfortable. What? Is this more empty posturing?

specialist 5y ago

In your thesis for political economy, do the opponents of carbon taxes have agency too?

belltaco 5y ago

>Instead of advocating for R&D and cheaper alternatives that improve people's quality of life... Source? Also, fighting climate needs a 'all of the above' strategy ASAP.

WastingMyTime89 5y ago

> Instead of advocating for R&D and cheaper alternatives that improve people's quality of life, they can't help themselves but bring out the club of eco-masochism paired with tax-sadism. Increasing R&D and cheaper mean of producing green is the main goal of carbon tax. That’s probably the most effective way to do it and is market neutral. I fail to see what any of it has to do with the progressive movements. With a carbon tax, researching greener way of producing goods has a direct impact on the final price of said goods. That’s make this research a competitive advantage. Without a carbon tax, the sole reason to do R&D focusing on emission is if you are going to get fined by crossing a line. That means that as soon as you are under the threshold doing research is a waste of money.