3 ms·
> 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 ter
by 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 agoThe 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%?