3 ms·

> 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

by 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...
    - yunohn 5y ago
      > 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. Why shouldn’t it be radical? Why should the %-ers get to pollute and live lavish lifestyles, while enforcing frugality and poverty on the remaining 90-99%?
gefhfff 5y ago
That taxation is redistributing wealth (supporting climate change). Reducing loopholes won't reduce carbon emissions. Internalizing the cost will, so I can't even imagine how this would be more beneficial. So, just do both
ajuc 5y ago
> 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. Most of that wealth is stocks of companies that only exist because they serve needs of billions of people that are not rich. If you redistribute the wealth (so - who owns the stocks) - you don't change the emissions because the needs of billions of people are still there (in fact - you will probably increase net emissions because now more people have money to spend) and companies will continue to try to satisfy these needs to earn money. And emit CO2 while doing so. If you want to reduce the emissions you have to stop these needs from being satisfied (or invent magic tech). Redistribution of wealth (while reasonable for other reasons) - won't help with global warming. Side effect of cutting CO2 emissions is that these companies lose big percent of their value, so wealth of everybody drops, but that's the least of our problems. Another thing is - significant part of the world is just now achieving living standards considered bare minimum in the west. That's more than billion people that will double their CO2 emissions soon. If you cut the 15% of emissions caused by top 1% to 0 - it doesn't matter because at the same time 20% or 30% of world population is increasing their emissions by 100%. We have 2 issues - life is unfair (and to fix that we need to tax the rich), and global warming (and to fix that we need to tax CO2 emissions, no matter who cause them). The end result will be that everybody but the poor people in 3rd world countries will significantly lower their living standards. What will actually happen is probably that we just tax CO2, so everybody living standards will drop. Or we do nothing and we all suffer the climate crisis, mass imigrations, starvations, wars etc.

by yunohn 5y ago

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...
  - yunohn 5y ago
    > 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. Why shouldn’t it be radical? Why should the %-ers get to pollute and live lavish lifestyles, while enforcing frugality and poverty on the remaining 90-99%?

gefhfff 5y ago

That taxation is redistributing wealth (supporting climate change). Reducing loopholes won't reduce carbon emissions. Internalizing the cost will, so I can't even imagine how this would be more beneficial. So, just do both

ajuc 5y ago

> 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. Most of that wealth is stocks of companies that only exist because they serve needs of billions of people that are not rich. If you redistribute the wealth (so - who owns the stocks) - you don't change the emissions because the needs of billions of people are still there (in fact - you will probably increase net emissions because now more people have money to spend) and companies will continue to try to satisfy these needs to earn money. And emit CO2 while doing so. If you want to reduce the emissions you have to stop these needs from being satisfied (or invent magic tech). Redistribution of wealth (while reasonable for other reasons) - won't help with global warming. Side effect of cutting CO2 emissions is that these companies lose big percent of their value, so wealth of everybody drops, but that's the least of our problems. Another thing is - significant part of the world is just now achieving living standards considered bare minimum in the west. That's more than billion people that will double their CO2 emissions soon. If you cut the 15% of emissions caused by top 1% to 0 - it doesn't matter because at the same time 20% or 30% of world population is increasing their emissions by 100%. We have 2 issues - life is unfair (and to fix that we need to tax the rich), and global warming (and to fix that we need to tax CO2 emissions, no matter who cause them). The end result will be that everybody but the poor people in 3rd world countries will significantly lower their living standards. What will actually happen is probably that we just tax CO2, so everybody living standards will drop. Or we do nothing and we all suffer the climate crisis, mass imigrations, starvations, wars etc.