3 ms·

As a reasonable starting point, the "top 1%" wouldn't be the companies that sell products that most people need (like cars and electricity), it would be the con

As a reasonable starting point, the "top 1%" wouldn't be the companies that sell products that most people need (like cars and electricity), it would be the consumers that use vastly more resources than the average consumer. So, for example, if the average person flies N miles per year, then add an extra tax to the people who fly 10xN miles. If the average person uses N joules of gas to heat their home, then add an extra tax to the people who use 10xN joules. However, there are going to be cases where it makes sense to tax cheap-but-polluting products to give a dividend to help people buy more-expensive but less-polluting products, even if that means that prices go up slightly. That's just capturing the externalities of the polluting products, though.

PeterisP 5y ago
Okay, I think I understand your idea - essentially to impose nonlinear costs to consumption of "carbon-heavy" goods and services, so that someone who flies 10xN miles pays much more than 10x of tax. It would be interesting and useful if it worked, however, I'm sceptical of this working - in essence, while "linear" taxes can be relatively easily (there still are difficulties, especially internationally) levied at any point e.g. manufacture, import, sale or use, anonymously, no matter who or how consumes the product. However, having such a "nonlinear" tax is quite hard to administer effectively since it requires taxing at the point of use, tracking all points of sale to the specific individuals, aggregating them (if the person flies N miles per year from many different companies), and preventing transfers of that thing between people and/or using proxies. I don't think that I have seen nonlinear consumption taxes implemented in practice anywhere; the largest nonlinearity I have seen is exemptions where some ways of circumventing the tax are explicitly permitted for small, limited quantities. For core aspects of carbon emissions - namely, emissions from burning fossil fuels either in cars or heating homes - that would essentially require individual registration of fuel purchases; IMHO that would be treated as quite invasive; for the airline example you mention, this would require shifting the airline pricing so that the price is dependent on which person will be flying (beyond mere name, since names are not unique), which would be a major change in all the process of how airline tickets are booked worldwide.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  I was going to say that the administration of this might be difficult, so I completely accept your points above. The reason I chose flights and home heating specifically was that they are some of the easiest to administer, since governments already track which unique individuals are buying which flights, and home heating is naturally tied to an address (although I suppose someone might own a second home, with the gas bill paid in their spouse's name). For something like car travel, we may (unfortunately) reach a point where everyone's journeys are tracked, or at least where odometer readings have to be regularly submitted to the government. It wouldn't be too hard for the government to aggregate those numbers by registered owner, but it does assume that there is a fixed conversion between miles travelled and CO2 emitted, which breaks down if synthetic fuel becomes an option.

PeterisP 5y ago

Okay, I think I understand your idea - essentially to impose nonlinear costs to consumption of "carbon-heavy" goods and services, so that someone who flies 10xN miles pays much more than 10x of tax. It would be interesting and useful if it worked, however, I'm sceptical of this working - in essence, while "linear" taxes can be relatively easily (there still are difficulties, especially internationally) levied at any point e.g. manufacture, import, sale or use, anonymously, no matter who or how consumes the product. However, having such a "nonlinear" tax is quite hard to administer effectively since it requires taxing at the point of use, tracking all points of sale to the specific individuals, aggregating them (if the person flies N miles per year from many different companies), and preventing transfers of that thing between people and/or using proxies. I don't think that I have seen nonlinear consumption taxes implemented in practice anywhere; the largest nonlinearity I have seen is exemptions where some ways of circumventing the tax are explicitly permitted for small, limited quantities. For core aspects of carbon emissions - namely, emissions from burning fossil fuels either in cars or heating homes - that would essentially require individual registration of fuel purchases; IMHO that would be treated as quite invasive; for the airline example you mention, this would require shifting the airline pricing so that the price is dependent on which person will be flying (beyond mere name, since names are not unique), which would be a major change in all the process of how airline tickets are booked worldwide.

dane-pgp 5y ago
I was going to say that the administration of this might be difficult, so I completely accept your points above. The reason I chose flights and home heating specifically was that they are some of the easiest to administer, since governments already track which unique individuals are buying which flights, and home heating is naturally tied to an address (although I suppose someone might own a second home, with the gas bill paid in their spouse's name). For something like car travel, we may (unfortunately) reach a point where everyone's journeys are tracked, or at least where odometer readings have to be regularly submitted to the government. It wouldn't be too hard for the government to aggregate those numbers by registered owner, but it does assume that there is a fixed conversion between miles travelled and CO2 emitted, which breaks down if synthetic fuel becomes an option.