4 ms·
On the contrary, it's quite obvious that the rich emits far more than the poor. Even if the rich can accelerate their switch to renewable, they still couldn't f
by rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
On the contrary, it's quite obvious that the rich emits far more than the poor. Even if the rich can accelerate their switch to renewable, they still couldn't fly more. They can't buy too many cars / houses, etc. Also, any reduction in CO2 emission from the rich would help the rest of the population as the allowed average footprint would increase.
Can you explain your reasoning here?
- naoqj 5y agoMy reasoning is that these taxes increase the price of all goods, including food and energy. That hurts the poor much more than it hurts the rich because food and energy expenses are a much bigger % of their income for the poor.
- kaibee 5y ago> My reasoning is that these taxes increase the price of all goods, including food and energy. If you do a cash transfer to low-income individuals funded by the tax, it is entirely possible to make the tax progressive or neutral instead. (and it still does all of the important market-pricing action things its supposed to)
- michaelt 5y agoTo an extent. But it can be tricky - some poor people use more gas than others. And if we want to give an extra cash transfer to the cleaner who starts work before public transit starts running, that's going to get complex to administer.
- yywwbbn 5y agoGiving the same to him as anyone else at a similar income level would be just fine. Assuming he can get any other job requiring a similar skill level the market wage for ‘cleaners who have start work before public transport starts’ running would naturally have to increase.