3 ms·

I understand your viewpoint, but if you tax the common man such that they are unable to travel to work in the only car they can afford - the world will stop fun

by yunohn 5y ago

I understand your viewpoint, but if you tax the common man such that they are unable to travel to work in the only car they can afford - the world will stop functioning. I often wonder why the elites don’t understand what their mistreatment of the proletariat will lead to…

gefhfff 5y ago
Or they'll just move closer to work, or will implement Home Office, or will demand public transport (which can be combined with bicycles), or will drive electric (car, ebike, electric scooter/motor cycles) or will drive as groups instead of individuals, or a dividend will implemented making this scenario unlikely in the first place while still enabling carbon taxes.
- yunohn 5y ago
  > they'll just move closer to work This is often way more expensive than paying for heating. > will implement Home Office This only works for well paying IT jobs. Not the working class that actually physically work at factories, stores, restaurants, hospitals, etc etc that are underpaid and hit the most by taxes. > will demand public transport Demands are cool and everything, but you can’t sit around jobless for 1-2 decades waiting for laws to pass and municipalities to build out the transport infrastructure. > will drive electric Very few cities have the infrastructure for this. Once that’s fixed, carbon taxation would work better. > drive as groups instead of individuals This already happens in Europe, but people are still wage slaves. It changes nothing.
  - gefhfff 5y ago
    Another option: get work nearby. Some jobs will also get pay raises if there is demand for them, but people can't afford to take them. Working remote doesn't work just for IT, and I didn't claim everything works for everybody. And incrementally increased taxation will allow for planning. Poor people have a low enough foot print to profit with a dividend anyways. The real problem with carbon taxing is that it must be realized globally
    - yunohn 5y ago
      I’ve lived in the USA, EU, and Asia. Very very rarely can you get a job near your housing (suburbs) - residential vs commercial areas are intentionally zoned against this. Getting housing near your work (city center) is much easier, due to mixed zoning, but obviously way more expensive. > profit with a dividend anyways See, the thing is, there are no carbon dividends yet. We do have lots of carbon-like taxes (in the EU and elsewhere) though. So, there’s only loss, no gain.
      - gefhfff 5y ago
        So you have found things to be changed (back). Same goes for shops having centralized a lot especially in the US at it seems, while local shops are much more bicycle or even foot friendly. Generally, there is no silver bullet, but there are a lot of possible solutions as you can see. And I am sure I didn't include most of them > See, the thing is, there are no carbon dividends yet. We do have lots of carbon-like taxes (in the EU and elsewhere) though. So, there’s only loss, no gain. Well, what not is ...
        yunohn 5y ago
        > Generally, there is no silver bullet I’m not ascribing to a perfection mindset. Just pointing out the ridiculousness of the elites telling others how to live their lives, while simultaneously finding ways to further suppress them. “We could have an ideal world, if you just stopped doing everything that enables your survival. Me? I just make/support the rules - despite them not materially affecting me.”
ajuc 5y ago
If you don't stop global warming - it's not going to be pretty either. And taxing rich, while a good idea - won't solve the problem, because there's so few of them that it won't matter, nevermind how exuberant they CO2 emissions are. So basically choose your poison or hope for magic tech to appear soon.
- yunohn 5y ago
  > because there's so few of them that it won't matter What do you mean?? Literally, you could redistribute billionaire/millionaire wealth and it would be more useful than taxing the average person tens/hundreds of euros more, when they can barely afford to survive. In fact, ongoing taxation that reduces the loopholes that elites get away with, would be even more beneficial.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    Wealth is numbers on a page. Chop fossil fuel use in half (picking a random ratio) and there physically isn't a way for everyone to maintain their lifestyle. They have to travel less, receive less goods and spend less on heating and cooling. There may not be a way to make that burden fall on the rich. I'm not sure what percentage of a society's energy is spent on maintaining the lifestyles of the wealthy but it wouldn't be weird if it is low in absolute terms.
    - yunohn 5y ago
      > I'm not sure what percentage of a society's energy is spent on maintaining the lifestyles of the wealthy but it wouldn't be weird if it is low in absolute terms. I think this is patently false; but even more generally, wealthier people and “developed” countries are the biggest polluters. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-richest-1-cause-double-co2-emissions-of-poorest-50-says-oxfam https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-r...
      - roenxi 5y ago
        The global 1% are, by definition, around 80 million people (more than the population of most countries). As the article points out, earning more than around $100,000. They aren't billionaires. I suppose they might be millionaires since around 9% of the US are millionaires [0]. That isn't a very exclusive club these days. A tax that knocks the lifestyle of that many people down to something like what an individual with a <$100k income experiences is going to be look radical. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_millionaires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_numbe...
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
On the other hand if you can't get the common man out of their polluting activities then you aren't going to solve the problem.
- yunohn 5y ago
  > common man out of their polluting activities The common man is definitely less polluting than the average HNer - HN represents the upper % of the upper middle class. So really, the way you frame your reply makes me think you haven’t thought through the impact on your own polluting lifestyle.
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    >The common man is definitely less polluting than the average HNer - HN represents the upper % of the upper middle class. The common man in the developed world is still part of the problem. >So really, the way you frame your reply makes me think you haven’t thought through the impact on your own polluting lifestyle. You are jumping to an incorrect conclusion there. I've been thinking about it for decades which is why I don't fly nor own a car. My spending (hence consumption) is around the poverty line for my country.

by yunohn 5y ago

gefhfff 5y ago

Or they'll just move closer to work, or will implement Home Office, or will demand public transport (which can be combined with bicycles), or will drive electric (car, ebike, electric scooter/motor cycles) or will drive as groups instead of individuals, or a dividend will implemented making this scenario unlikely in the first place while still enabling carbon taxes.

yunohn 5y ago
> they'll just move closer to work This is often way more expensive than paying for heating. > will implement Home Office This only works for well paying IT jobs. Not the working class that actually physically work at factories, stores, restaurants, hospitals, etc etc that are underpaid and hit the most by taxes. > will demand public transport Demands are cool and everything, but you can’t sit around jobless for 1-2 decades waiting for laws to pass and municipalities to build out the transport infrastructure. > will drive electric Very few cities have the infrastructure for this. Once that’s fixed, carbon taxation would work better. > drive as groups instead of individuals This already happens in Europe, but people are still wage slaves. It changes nothing.
- gefhfff 5y ago
  Another option: get work nearby. Some jobs will also get pay raises if there is demand for them, but people can't afford to take them. Working remote doesn't work just for IT, and I didn't claim everything works for everybody. And incrementally increased taxation will allow for planning. Poor people have a low enough foot print to profit with a dividend anyways. The real problem with carbon taxing is that it must be realized globally
  - yunohn 5y ago
    I’ve lived in the USA, EU, and Asia. Very very rarely can you get a job near your housing (suburbs) - residential vs commercial areas are intentionally zoned against this. Getting housing near your work (city center) is much easier, due to mixed zoning, but obviously way more expensive. > profit with a dividend anyways See, the thing is, there are no carbon dividends yet. We do have lots of carbon-like taxes (in the EU and elsewhere) though. So, there’s only loss, no gain.
    - gefhfff 5y ago
      So you have found things to be changed (back). Same goes for shops having centralized a lot especially in the US at it seems, while local shops are much more bicycle or even foot friendly. Generally, there is no silver bullet, but there are a lot of possible solutions as you can see. And I am sure I didn't include most of them > See, the thing is, there are no carbon dividends yet. We do have lots of carbon-like taxes (in the EU and elsewhere) though. So, there’s only loss, no gain. Well, what not is ...
      - yunohn 5y ago
        > Generally, there is no silver bullet I’m not ascribing to a perfection mindset. Just pointing out the ridiculousness of the elites telling others how to live their lives, while simultaneously finding ways to further suppress them. “We could have an ideal world, if you just stopped doing everything that enables your survival. Me? I just make/support the rules - despite them not materially affecting me.”

ajuc 5y ago

If you don't stop global warming - it's not going to be pretty either. And taxing rich, while a good idea - won't solve the problem, because there's so few of them that it won't matter, nevermind how exuberant they CO2 emissions are. So basically choose your poison or hope for magic tech to appear soon.

yunohn 5y ago
> because there's so few of them that it won't matter What do you mean?? Literally, you could redistribute billionaire/millionaire wealth and it would be more useful than taxing the average person tens/hundreds of euros more, when they can barely afford to survive. In fact, ongoing taxation that reduces the loopholes that elites get away with, would be even more beneficial.
- roenxi 5y ago
  Wealth is numbers on a page. Chop fossil fuel use in half (picking a random ratio) and there physically isn't a way for everyone to maintain their lifestyle. They have to travel less, receive less goods and spend less on heating and cooling. There may not be a way to make that burden fall on the rich. I'm not sure what percentage of a society's energy is spent on maintaining the lifestyles of the wealthy but it wouldn't be weird if it is low in absolute terms.
  - yunohn 5y ago
    > I'm not sure what percentage of a society's energy is spent on maintaining the lifestyles of the wealthy but it wouldn't be weird if it is low in absolute terms. I think this is patently false; but even more generally, wealthier people and “developed” countries are the biggest polluters. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-richest-1-cause-double-co2-emissions-of-poorest-50-says-oxfam https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-r...
    - roenxi 5y ago
      The global 1% are, by definition, around 80 million people (more than the population of most countries). As the article points out, earning more than around $100,000. They aren't billionaires. I suppose they might be millionaires since around 9% of the US are millionaires [0]. That isn't a very exclusive club these days. A tax that knocks the lifestyle of that many people down to something like what an individual with a <$100k income experiences is going to be look radical. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_millionaires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_numbe...

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

On the other hand if you can't get the common man out of their polluting activities then you aren't going to solve the problem.

yunohn 5y ago
> common man out of their polluting activities The common man is definitely less polluting than the average HNer - HN represents the upper % of the upper middle class. So really, the way you frame your reply makes me think you haven’t thought through the impact on your own polluting lifestyle.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  >The common man is definitely less polluting than the average HNer - HN represents the upper % of the upper middle class. The common man in the developed world is still part of the problem. >So really, the way you frame your reply makes me think you haven’t thought through the impact on your own polluting lifestyle. You are jumping to an incorrect conclusion there. I've been thinking about it for decades which is why I don't fly nor own a car. My spending (hence consumption) is around the poverty line for my country.